PRIVILEGE-MR. COOTE

Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, arising out of an inaccurate report appearing in the Ottawa Citizen this morning under the heading "Glimpses of Parliament." The portion to which I refer is as follows:
The division saw the United Kingdom treaty ratified 84 to 42, with all the Conservatives voting for it and all the Liberals against it. The third group split up,

Kennedy, Speakman, Luchkovioh, Campbell, Lucas and Carmichael voting with the government, and Bourassa, Neill. Woodsworth and Miss Maephail against it. The rest didn't vote at all.
I was present in the house yesterday when all the votes were taken, and I announced the fact that I was paired with the hon. member for East Calgary. That statement is recorded in Hansard, I think, in connection with every vote. If it is accurate to say that all the Conservatives voted for the agreement and all the Liberals voted against it when we know that many of them were paired following the usual custom, it is not accurate to suggest that those in this corner
who were paired did not vote. I should like to say also that so far as I am aware all the members in this corner of the house who were not recorded as voting were paired, and those pairs were recorded in Hansard. I simply suggest to the Ottawa Citizen that this apparent inaccuracy in all fairness might be corrected.



PRIVILEGE-MR. GOTT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): Just a further word with regard to pairs, Mr. Speaker. I think there should be an understanding
Mr. SPEAKER:: Is the hon. member speaking on a question of privilege? He knows what is meant by a question of privilege.


Mr. GOTT:: On a question of privilege I should like to say that I was in the house for every vote yesterday, but there is a possibility that I was not recorded as having voted because I did not announce my pair.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. YOUNG:: 1.	How many employees are engaged in the centre block when parliament is not in session, and what is the total cost per annum to the government ?
2.	How many additional employees are engaged during the time parliament is in session, and what is the cost to the government per day of such additional employees?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: House of Commons-
1.	As at September 30, 1932: permanent, 88 -annual salary $237,618; temporary, 120- annual salary, $139,787.70.
2.	As at October 31, 1932: sessional, 292-salary rate per day, $956.37.
Department of Public Works-
1.	(a) 17; (b) $25,244.88 (after ten per cent deduction made).
2.	(a) 21; (b) $84.33 (after ten per cent deduction made).
Note.-The information applied for in so far as it applies to the Senate, should be asked in the Senate.


QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION-EMPLOYEES
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Was Mr. Barthelmy Pelletier in the employ of the Quebec Harbour Commission in the month of April, 1931?
2.	If so, what were his office hours?
3.	Did he devote his full time to the duties devolving upon him as an employee of the commission during the month of April, 1931?
Questions


Mr. BENNETT:: This question, together
with questions 5, 6 and 7, is a question that it is not within the ability of the government to answer. Clearly not one of these questions could be regarded under any circumstances as a question which the government would answer if it had the ability to do so, notably question No. 6. I remember this matter being discussed in the house some years ago. The government finds itself in rather a difficult position; this is an independent corporation created by statute, and it is impossible to ask whether or not a man was absent from his work for an hour or so, and who recommended that he be allowed to absent himself. Those are not questions Which can be answered by this government. The affairs of the Quebec Harbour Commission, of course, are under survey; the accounts are audited and a report is provided. The matter might be taken up, I conceive, in the public accounts committee, where payments to that corporation are examined. I think an agreement was made by the late Minister of Finance that the accounts of the harbour commissioners could be considered in the public accounts committee. Obviously these questions cannot be answered by the government, and I do not think some of them could be answered by the commission itself.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The information sought
by questions 4, 5, 6 and 7 not being available to the government, the questions will be dropped.
Questions dropped.


NICOL, LAZURE AND COUTURE
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	Upon whose recommendation did the Department of National Revenue retain the services of Messrs. Nicol, Lazure and Couture, solicitors of Sherbrooke?
2.	How long have they been in the employ of the Department of National Revenue?
3.	In connection with what cases were their services utilized?
4.	What sum was paid to the above named solicitors?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	When legal services are required the Department of Justice nominates the legal agents to be employed.
2.	Application is made to the Department of Justice in each case.
3.	R. and G. Manufacturing Company (in liquidation), Rock Island, Que.
4.	$1,373.50.


BEADLE, SASK.-POSTMASTER
Mr. CARMICHAEL:: 1.	What is the name of the present, postmaster at Beadle, Saskatchewan?
2.	On what date was he appointed?
3.	Who recommended him for the appointment ?
4.	Did other persons apply for the said position?
5.	Was the Canadian Legion British Empire Service League asked to recommend a great war veteran for this position?
6.	If so, did they recommend one as requested ?
7.	Was he appointed? If not, why?
8.	Did the department receive applications from veterans of the great war? If so, on whiat dates and what are their names?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	John A. Flower, OAS.
2.	November 15, 1932.
3.	R. L. Hanbidge, M.L.A.
4.	Yes.
5 and 6. The legion was not asked to make a recommendation but was notified of the vacancy in the usual way. The application of Mr. J. Bradley, OAS, was supported by the legion.
7.	No, Mr. Flower was the returned soldier selected.
8.	Yes. J. Bradley, 5th October, 1932; John A. Flower, 14th October, 1932.


LEAGUE OF NATIONS-YEARLY COST
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1. Since the inception of the League of Nations, what has been the yearly cost of Canada's membership in that body?
2.	During the same period, what are the several items that make up the annual cost of said membership?
[Stage Direction]
Angus Shops, Montreal
Richard Bedford Bennett: 1 and 2.		Expenses of			
	Contributions	office			
towards	Canadian	Cost of	Cost of	Totalsupport of	advisory	delegations	publications	costleague	officer	1919-20	. $ 64,043 15	-	-	-	$ 64,043 151920-21	. 200,000 00	-	$19,952 29	-	219,952 291921-22	. 186,237 31	-	10,289 38	-	196,526 691922-23	. 195,140 47	-	15,391 36	-	210,531 831923-24	. 183,668 03	-	10,044 16	-	193,712 191924-25	. 168,353 29	-	11,899 20	-	180,252 491925-26	. 163,656 38	S 9,577 37	12,540 91	-	185,774 661926-27	. 165,271 06	9,970 31	5,878 17	$ 430 25	181,549 791927-28	. 150,777 13	11,971 89	23,338 67	375 00	192,870 371928-29	. 155,568 18	16,970 78	23,987 80	3,000 00	199,526 761929-30	. 171,481 53	22,482 07	19,333 34	3,000 00	216,296 941930-31	184,169 73	24,637 27	19,887 46	3,000 00	231,694 461931-32	. *236,353 17	26,370 21	17,598 98	3,000 00	283,322 36
* Including disarmament conference.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Was the location of certain post offices in the province of Quebec changed since the month of August, 1930?
2.	If so, what are the post offices and in what county is each one located?
3.	What is the distance between the location of each new post office and that of the former post office?
4.	Did the postmasters lose their position as a result of the change in post office location ordered by the Post Office Department?
5.	If so, what are their names and address?
6.	Was each postmaster instructed to change the location of his post office before the change was made?


IMPORTS OF FARM IMPLEMENTS
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What were the total imports of farm implements into Canada each year, calendar or fiscal, 1917 to 1931 inclusive?
2.	What changes of tariff were made in the foregoing years on imports of farm implements?
3.	When were such changes made?



DOMINION PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: Referring to the statement made
last night by the Prime Minister with regard to a prospective Dominion-provincial conference, I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman, if he is able to give us the information, whether or not it is proposed to include in the agenda and have considered at the conference, the question of jurisdiction with regard to the operation of and rates charged by motor vehicles and motor buses which work in competition with the railways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That matter has been under consideration, but no conclusion has been arrived at.



ANGUS SHOPS, MONTREAL ADVANCES BY GOVERNMENT TO CANADL4N PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) :: Yesterday the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), and the hon. member for Laurier-Outrement (Mr. Mercier), submitted questions which had to do with the opening of the Angus shops in Montreal. The position is that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company sought the assistance of this government, since otherwise their shops not only at Angus but throughout the whole system probably would not have been opened until some time in the new year. The government agreed to assist, but the terms and conditions under which that assistance will be given have not been completed as yet. As speedily as they are completed they will be embodied in an order in council which will be brought down in the house immediately.
There was one other question submitted by my hon. friend from North Waterloo, as to whether any advances or loans have been made to any other industry or industries. The answer is that there have been none other than those which already have been disclosed to the house.
Business of the House



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Would the
Prime Minister allow me to anticipate a possible question which may arise later this week, in the event of our desiring to go into committee of supply. As my right hon. friend knows, unless some departments already have been in committee of supply it would not be possible to take up on Thursday and Friday without the unanimous consent of the house any of the items which may be in the supplementary estimates. We on this side have no desire to delay matters, but inasmuch as we have not been in committee of supply at all, if the government wish to proceed with supplementary estimates on Thursday or Friday we would like it understood that the order of procedure on either of those days would be the same as on Monday or Tuesday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that if
we got into committee of ways and means today we would be able to take an appropriate moment formally to move the house into committee of supply so as to comply with the provisions of the rule, and in order that the house might be in committee of supply on Thursday and Friday for the purpose of considering the items included in the supplementary estimates. I tried to explain to the house that the only reason we are dealing with the supplementary estimates now is that since the house is in session a warrant could not be issued for the payment to the returned soldier pensioners of the relief provided for them. It has not been the custom of any administration to vote the entire sum; as the right hon. gentleman knows, the matter usually has been disposed of by means of governor general's warrants. Technically, however, the house is in session, so a governor general's warrant cannot issue to meet the requirements. I offer that reason as an apology for asking the house to consider supply at this time; for that reason we are asking that these items be considered. Whatever suits the convenience of the house and of hon. gentlemen opposite certainly we will endeavour to do in connection with supply. I was going to suggest, if it is the desire of the house, to expedite the business, that with unanimous consent I should be willing that the house should meet at eleven o'clock in the morning. That, however, is entirely as the house may think.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: No; I object to sitting after eleven o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that we should sit after eleven o'clock; I said I should be willing that the house should meet at eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not object to that. I could not hear-I hear so little of what goes on.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: You are lucky.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a possibility that we may not advance far enough today to have the house consider a motion to go into supply. Except it were understood that we were not to deprive ourselves of the right of discussing any question we might wish to take up on the motion to go into supply, I do not see that any useful purpose would be served by a formal motion. I hope the Prime Minister will not expect us to give consent to any arrangement which will deprive us of the right of taking up any matter we may wish to discuss on going into supply. I think that ought to be understood.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is perfectly clear that in going into supply the right of this chamber to make known its grievances is so well understood that not even this government will endeavour to limit it in any way.


Mr. BOURASSA:: Don't put that on the shoulders of your colleagues.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If, therefore, it suits the convenience of the house and we do not reach supply today, we will make a formal motion to go into supply, as though we had not been in supply.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser), under the guise of a question, made a statement as follows, that:
About oneThird of a cargo of canned fruit loaded at St. Catharines on a Norwegian tramp was shipped from Medina, New York, and labelled with Canadian Canners labels, to be conveyed by that steamer to the British market.
In the first place, I wish to say that a statement of that kind, unchallenged and unrefuted, would certainly do serious damage to Canadian trade. I therefore made immediate and very

Customs Act Amendment
careful inquiries and am able to inform the house that there is not a word of truth in the statement. The goods so canned were the product of Canadian farms, fruit and vegetables, and canned in the factories of Canadian canneries under the inspection and supervision of the inspectors of the Department of Agriculture in accordance with the Canned Foods and Meats Act. In every sense this was a Canadian shipment, and I add this, that far from permitting the impression to go abroad that in any way Canada was not playing the game in its trade with the United Kingdom, the fact is that Canada has every reason to be proud both of the magnitude of the shipment and of its contents.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: On Monday last the hon. member for
South Perth (Mr. Sanderson), asked a question in regard to the uniform and equipment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on Remembrance or Armistice day, in this city.
I have now the information. "A" division paraded with Sam Browne equipment with no revolvers or ammunition, and no rifles. "N" division paraded with Sam Browne equipment similar to "A" division, but their revolver holsters were attached to the belt. They carried no ammunition, revolvers or rifles.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: Now that the government is in such a receptive mood I should like to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to an item which appeared in a Montreal paper last night, a newspaper not unfriendly to the government, declaring that it is the general belief in Ottawa that between adjournment and the reconvening of the house on January 30, Canada intends to go off the gold standard. Will the Prime Minister allay the feelings of the.people in this regard?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am very grateful to the hon. gentleman for affording me the, opportunity to answer that inquiry. Canada has not been on the gold standard, as that term is used, since 1929, when there was shipped to New York $40,000,000 of gold or thereabouts and gold was no longer a commodity that could be freely bought and sold, as it must be in order to enable the country affected to be on the gold standard. Secondly, there could be
no action taken by the government between now and January 30 that would repeal or amend the act that provides for the metal coverage of money-


Samuel William Jacobs: Under peace, order and
good government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is no longer in
force, the hon. gentleman having voted against it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Therefore the hon. gentleman need have no fear that the provisions of the law as they now stand, providing for the metal coverage with gold of our paper currency to the extent of 25 per cent thereof up to $50,000,000, and thereafter dollar for dollar, will be amended, varied, altered, changed or repealed between now and the 30th day of January.


Samuel William Jacobs: The answer is therefore
no?


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue) moved the third reading of Bill No. 6, to amend the Customs Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not contemplate the third reading of this measure at the moment. May I say to the minister that I understand that the section which is being repealed is being repealed in order to assist in meeting one of the undertakings in the trade agreement with Great Britain. There are, however, two sections in the Customs Act, one, section 43, and another, section 36 (2), which bear immediately on what is said to be the aim of this bill. I gather from correspondence which has come to my attention that unless section 36 (2) is also repealed or amended in a manner similar to that proposed with respect to section 43, what the minister is doing now in amending section 43 will really amount to very little or nothing in the way of affording the kind of relief which it is intended it should give. Apparently the practice of the Department of National Revenue has been this. Where an appeal is made taking exception to what is being done under section 43 and the minister has found it difficult to support the position taken thereunder, he and his officials claim they were acting under section 36 (2). But if the appeal is made in the first instance against what is being done under section 36 (2), the minister then says he is acting
Unemployment-Mr. Gordon

not under that section but under section 43. Section 36 (2) leaves the right of final decision with the minister. As I have said correspondence which I have received since the matter was discussed on the second reading, has been to the effect that unless section 36 (2) is modified in the same way as the other section, the purpose which the minister purports to be serving will not actually be served. I may be wrongly informed as to what the effect will be, and if I am I hope the minister will show wherein this is the case. If not, I hope he will see his way clear to carry out along the lines I have indicated what is believed to be necessary to accomplish what is said to be the object of the amendment.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Mr. Speaker, I understand that I have not the right to speak at this stage.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, you have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no reply on the third reading.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: With the consent of the house, I would be glad to reply to the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). By agreement with the United Kingdom representatives we are doing in this bill now before the house for third reading exactly what they asked should be done in that respect. As my right hon. friend must know, this bill deals with the section which provides for action by the minister after the governor in council has decided, upon report of the minister, the course to be taken. Section 36-2, to which my right hon. friend refers, covers action to be taken by the Department of National Revenue within itself. It was not introduced by this government, it is departmental routine action and in respect to that it is not proposed to make any change.


Mr. YOUNG:: May I ask the hon. minister a question? Do I understand him to say that the British government objected to action of this kind being taken by the minister but had no objection to the same action being taken by departmental officials?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would call the attention of the house to the fact that the house is not now in committee. These objections to the provisions of this bill should have been made when the house was in committee. The motion for third reading is debatable but it does not permit of a series of questions to and answers by the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, November 22, consideration of the motion of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Prime Minister) for committee of ways and means.
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that my time is not quite up and I think perhaps I can usefully employ the balance.
Last evening I was discussing the effort which the government had made along the lines of returning people to the land in order to afford some outlet, in so far as it could be afforded, to those who were upon direct relief in the cities. During the time this policy of colonization within Canada has been in force and. up to September 30, 1932, 66,407 individuals have been absorbed upon the land. This has been brought about by the voluntary return of people to the land or by the return of those upon direct relief and who took advantage of the several agreements which were entered into with the provinces. It is hoped that many of these people will remain upon tihe land and become permanent settlers.
It might be of interest to the house to know what the feelings of the railroads are in this respect. The railroads acted in conjunction with the department, and I should like to read a short letter from the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, dated October 15, 1932. It reads:
I have today studied a comprehensive report submitted by the chief commissioner of colonization of this company which indicates that during the past two and one-half years, 4,143 families have been settled along the company's lines.
Those are families who were within Canada, not new immigrants. The letter continues:
You will appreciate, I am sure, that I have received the information contained in this report with more than ordinary interest and satisfaction. In addition to the benefits which logically may be expected through the settlement of lands tributary to the company's lines, such activities also represent a definite contribution to the improvement of the- dominion's agricultural and industrial situation.
It is, perhaps, trite to say that in the well directed settlement of our agricultural lands is to be found a very substantial contribution to the solution of Canada's railway difficulties. Yet, in that axiom rests also, in large degree, the answer to other Canadian economic problems.
The report to which I have referred recalls the meeting at Ottawa in the fall of 1930 which set in motion the coordinated land movement of your own department, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific colonization departments, with a view to the settlement of people with some resources and a background

Unemployment-Mr. Gordon
of practical experience. The results to date confirm the views that were expressed at our first joint meeting as to the possibilities of settlement of this character during the period in question. They indicate that the proposals were, indeed, well founded.
Yours very truly,
E. W. Beatty.
We have received from time to time many requests and proposals from the provinces and the municipalities with a view to providing direct relief in as economical a way as possible. Proposals have been made with regard to the carrying on of works in conformity with the expressed views of the provinces. As I indicated last night, the projection of certain works has not met with their approval and, for obvious reasons, we cannot project these works without that approval. However, various works were undertaken in order to see that people should be given such food and shelter as might be necessary during these trying times.
In Prince Edward Island at the instance of the provincial government, this government has contributed fifty per cent of the labour costs in the reconstruction of the Fal-conwood hospital. The dominion's proportion amounts to S5,328.24 out of a total of $10,656.49.
The provincial government of Nova Scotia pointed out the desirability of returning to their homes in continental Europe some 140 families from the mining section of New Waterford.^. The federal government contributed forty per cent, or $8,000 of a total cost of $20,000. These miners had come from central Europe at the instance of the coal company.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am bound to call the
lion, minister's attention to the fact that he has spoken for forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the house consents.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Mr. POULIOT:: Not only that, but the
minister has the right to defend his department.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am just praising it.
These miners were thrown out of work, I am told, as a result of the last report of Sir Andrew Duncan which recommended the closing down of certain collieries in that locality.
The dominion is also contributing forty per cent of the cost of certain provincial highway construction. Our share will be $32,000 out of a total expenditure of $80,000.
The dominion is also contributing fifty per cent of the cost of certain construction on the trans-Canada highway. Our share will amount to $66,823.96 out of a total expenditure of S133,647.90. On this work the following tabulation show's the number of men engaged, the number of days worked and the wages paid from May to September:
	Number	Number	
of men	of days	WagesMonth	working	worked	paidMay. . . .	. 900	17,961	$57,075Tune. . . .	. 1,090	22,796	61,695July. . . .	. 765	12,603	36,869August. . .	. 724	14,208	42,233September. .	. . 855	11,208	31,729
As regards Ontario, the dominion, under an arrangement with that province, is contributing one-third to the cost of the projection of the road through the locality in the neighbourhood of Dysart, the province and the municipality putting up $50,000 as against $25,000 by the dominion. In Swazey township in New Ontario, not in my riding, the dominion is assuming one-half of the cost of a road into a new mining locality. The dominion is also assisting in Ontario to the extent of 50 per cent of the board camps to which reference has been made from time to time in the house. In these camps 2,279 men were given employment in May, working 29,254 man-days. In June 3,355 were given employment for 57,066 days and in July 3,794 were employed for 66,536 days. In August 3,604 men worked 61,764 days and during September 3,499 men were employed 68,430 days. The cash allowance paid to the workers and the wages paid to the key men for May, June, July, August and September amounted to $329,758.78.
In the four western provinces the provincial governments were confronted with a situation with respect to that class called transients. Dealing with transients is a difficult problem. The very word "transient" would indicate some of the difficulties. Time after time news would come by telegraph to Ottawa that so many men had congregated in some of the western villages. Although immediate steps were taken to see that the men got food, lack of which was complained of, oftentimes within twenty-four hours arrangements were made to see that they were given food, but when it arrived, those men had drifted on another hundred miles. Time after time the provinces and the Dominion government were in a position where they could not move as fast as the transients. The situation became
Unemployment-Mr. Gordon

ridiculous. These men of course have been . described as hungry, lonesome men, but the facility with which they would move about the country was a puzzling problem to both the provinces and ourselves.


Samuel William Jacobs: Perhaps they were not
satisfied with the food provided.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: We were not fast enough to catch up with some of them to give them the food. At any rate, this resulted in the provinces and any other agencies available taking steps to see that riding illegally on trains should cease and that these men should be identified and placed under some sort of discipline, or control, or whatever you like to call it, in order that we might at least identify the problem with which we had to deal. The Dominion government, recognizing that the western provinces had been the magnet to attract single men from other provinces and also the depository for immigrants from Europe, realized that there was something more than an ordinary responsibility to this type and class. The provincial governments in the west found their finances strained and the federal government took appropriate action to standardize the relief given to those men. In each of the western provinces independent committees have been set up in order to deal with this situation and possibly to deal with relief generally. Those committees are now functioning; the transients are being registered; they are being cared for in camps and being given some useful work to do. There are certain places, but not many, where those people object to going to camps and some of them, going to the camps, say that they will not stand for this sort of treatment. Fortunately, however, that kind of objection does not obtain in the great majority of places. So far as our information goes, generally speaking, the matter of taking care of those men and providing them with work where work is available is proceeding satisfactorily. That applies to transient, single, homeless men.
In Manitoba, the dominion is contributing 50 per cent to the cost of road grading on the provincial roads to Clear lake the federal contribution being $3,500. The dominion is also contributing $7,200 towards the cost of construction of dykes on the Assiniboine river. Also, the Department of the Interior of the federal government has taken and is taking steps to absorb many men in useful work in the national parks. This information, while not in great detail, will be amplified in the report which will subsequently be filed pursuant to the provisions of the statute.

In Saskatchewan, as in Manitoba subsistence camps and the farm placement scheme, which was in operation last year, have been continued this year, the dominion contributing to the cost.
In Alberta, the same provision, with slight variations, is made, the dominion contributing to the cost in each instance.
In British Columbia, the same policy is being pursued with respect to single, homeless men and also the contributions are being made, as in the other provinces, towards general relief of those in need.
As regards the number who are receiving direct relief, I think I should refer to this matter now because some days ago I made a short reference to it when, in answer to a question, I said that in the month of August there were some 840,000 men, women and children in Canada being given relief, not continuously, but for varying periods. This statement was unfortunately misconstrued by some hon. members and by a section of the press. Therefore, in order that it may be made clear to the house, more detailed information should be given. In the month of August, 1932, the number of men, women and children receiving relief was 841,931. Of that number 162,135 heads of families were receiving direct relief. It will be seen therefore that those who sought to interpret or fell unconsciously into the error of construing that statement to mean that there were 841,000 heads of families on. relief were quite wrong. In the month of September last the number of those on relief had fallen to 802,592. That is, the figure dropped in the month of September, 40,000 below the August figure. The number of heads of families receiving direct relief during the month of September, also fell to 158,171. Those figures if compared with the returns as to employment will in the main agree, the employment figures having steadily improved during the past three months. We expected that the unemployment situation would become more severe on the opening of winter, but it does not seem to have so developed. There may be and likely are places in Canada where it has so developed, but generally speaking that is not the case so far as the records disclose.
I shall not take up more of the time of the house except to say this: When we speak of our country and of its illimitable resources, and I think I have heard that phrase often before, we must bear in mind that we have a small population, but that we have immense resources, immense territories owned by the crown and, fortunately, all not alienated to those who might improperly exploit them. If

Unemployment-Mr. Heenan
the citizens of Canada would realize the opportunities that there are in their own country, and instead of hiving in the industrial centres would get a comprehension of the empire that they have in trust, then even though there is a dislocation of industry and trade in the world today I think there would be very little suffering or deprivation amongst the people of this country.
I would offer this observation in closing my remarks. The individual has a responsibility. The individual cannot continue to lean upon his fellow-man forever, and forever turn to the state to correct every misadventure which may befall him. The individual should develop a little more courage. I know that I shall be criticized for saying this, but I shall continue to repeat that this country and the world have passed through periods of stress probably not as general as now prevails throughout the world, but just as distressing, and perhaps this depression, if we can call it such, will at least bring out in bold relief to the individual the absolute necessity for his developing a little courage, and with the development of courage and initiative on the part of the individual to take advantage of this great empire that Canada presents it will not be so hard for each individual to get the share of the resources to which he is entitled.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I was very glad indeed to hear the Prime Minister yesterday make the statement that he intended to call a Dominion-provincial conference for the purpose of considering an unemployment insurance scheme. I am certain that if a determined effort is made at that conference a working plan can be developed in this country in time to present it to parliament when we reassemble after the New Year.
I am also very glad the work that was accomplished in this regard by the late government has not been in vain. It is well known that during the life of the late government we referred this question to the committee on industrial relations headed by my hon. friend from North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh). That committee after a great deal of work brought in recommendations to the house which were accepted by the government and parliament and as Minister of Labour I had the honour to canvass the provinces with regard to an unemployment insurance scheme, and the files of the department will disclose that several of the provinces are on record as being willing to put into operation an unemployment insurance scheme.
I desire also to thank the members of the Labour group for bringing this question of
unemployment before the house. At this time I consider it is one of the most, if not the most important problem that faces this country today, and indeed will face in the future, and therefore I do not think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) last night should have gone out of his way in an effort to belittle the leader of the group that brought this question before the house. The hon. Minister of Labour last night, -referring to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr Woodsworth) said:
A review of the pages of Hansard, however, from the first year the hon. gentleman graced this chamber, will show that in every pronouncement he has made, the phraseology is nearly always the same, he voices almost the same fears, the same suspicions, the same lack of confidence in any other human being in the world but himself, and always with patient regularity he sets up something that never resolves itself into fact.
I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has voiced the fear of unemployment ever since he came into this chamber, as well as before that, and surely unemployment itself has developed into a fact. I do not think the Minister of Labour should have gone out of his way to use that language to the hon. member.
The Minister of Labour in his remarks did not hold out very much hope for improvement in the system under which we are now working. He did not hold out any such hope as the Conservative party did in- 1930, of a job for every man willing and able to work, because he said-:
It is quite true that I should like to see, as every member in this chamber would like to see, men in all walks of life guaranteed happy, productive employment. That never has been the case if I read history correctly, and I doubt if it will ever come to pass; there is always a percentage that cannot realize that sort of thing.
Those were the words of the Minister of Labour last night. Where in that statement is the hope of getting every man a job who is willing to work? I can well understand that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) would not understand the phraseology of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Had he understood it he would realize that, with a proper system of distribution, the poor we would not always have with us, to adopt the expression of the Prime Minister. It may be that the Minister of Labour did not understand the words of the member for Winnipeg North Centre, but in 1930, the Conservative party as a whole understood his phraseology. I recall, as emanating from that
Unemployment-Mr. Heenan

group, a certain motion, and I recall further that every Conservative who spoke congratulated the Labour group upon bringing the matter before the house and, when the time came, voted in favour of the motion because it embarrassed the government of the day.
For the information of hon. members I should like to state that during the election campaign of 1930, a circular was distributed showing that members of the Labour group had introduced a motion concerning unemployment, and that while on the one hand every Conservative member had voted for it, every Liberal member had voted against it. On that occasion the government of the day did not appeal to the Speaker to have the motion ruled out of order, although they might have done so on the same grounds taken the other day. It may be that on this occasion the Minister of Labour does not understand the psychology of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Instead of trying to belittle the efforts of the western member the minister ought to try to keep in touch with the Labour group so that he might understand their points of view. Notwithstanding anything the Minister of Labour said last night with respect to the Labour group, I am convinced that they are a great acquisition to this House of Commons and that they do very useful work. When acting as Minister of Labour I was very glad on all occasions to welcome any suggestions they had to make.
Probably the minister did not understand the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but I wonder if he would understand this expression of opinion from the Alberta conference of the United Church of Canada:
The present system has now been under trial for a sufficient period to lend itself to fair criticism, and the present unhappy condition of over production, under consumption, is its condemnation.
That is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been saying for many years but the Minister of Labour cannot understand it. So I say the thanks of the house are due to the hon. members who have brought this discussion to the front. Last night the Minister of Labour, or the Minister of Immigration

I do not know for which office he was speaking- sought to blame the condition of unemployment upon the immigration policy of the late government. I wonder if he realizes that for years past practically all Conservatives urged upon the Liberal government the necessity for a greater influx of immigrants to Canada.

The Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, the late Premier of Ontario, went to Europe in 1928- I met him there myself-on which occasion he was seeking to bring immigrants to that province. In that year the province spent $171,129 in their efforts to bring in more immigrants. Speaking before the Toronto Transportation Club on his return to Canada Mr. Ferguson had this to say:
We cannot hope to populate this country with British people alone; there are large areas in the continent from which we could draw the most desirable people.
Then, we remember the efforts of General McRae, the former representative of Vancouver North, who with the applause of all Conservatives urged upon the government of the day the adoption of a plan to bring in
300,000	people per year at a yearly cost of $30,000,000. What would have happened to this country had the Liberals adopted the Conservative proposals of that day?
I could point to the words of many hon. members now sitting on the government benches, but at this time I shall quote the words of only one of them. The following are the words of the present Prime Minister, as they appear in Hansard of February 11, 1929: '
It will be found that the increase in population in this country, brought about through bringing additional people in, will not only lessen unemployment for those who are now in it, but will increase employment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the Tory policy.


Peter Heenan: Now the Minister of Labour and Immigration takes the opposite view. I suppose we must call that cabinet solidarity. Then we have the statement of the present Mayor of Winnipeg, that unemployment was brought about by immigration in 1930. The Winnipeg Free Press carries the following report of his words:
The best thing for this country would be the arrival of 1,000,000 Britishers, declared Mayor Webb.
He was asking for 1,000,000 Britishers at a time when there was an unemployment problem. Yet he was out in the country speaking against Liberal candidates because they had allowed in too many immigrants. The propaganda of Conservatives in Canada added to the propaganda of the Conservative press has been responsible more than any other agency of which I know, for bringing in immigrants.
Concluding his remarks the Minister of Labour threw aside altogether the old slogan

Unemployment-Mr. Heenan
that the present government would get every man a job who was able and willing to work. Now he announces the gospel of every man for himself. In his view every man should step out with a proper spirit and outlook on life. If there are any men who have not such spirit but are actuated by a feeling directly the opposite, I contend it is because of the actions of the present Prime Minister of Canada and his colleagues when, in 1930, they went through Canada deploring the conditions and telling the people with crocodile tears in their eyes, that when they were put into office they would see that every man able to work would have it. The people took them at their word. For once in their lives the Canadian people believed the Conservative party and the present Prime Minister. Today, quite properly, they are looking to the man who promised a cure for unemployment. We are told by the Minister of Labour that unemployment is on the wane, that he would instil into the minds of Canadian people a spirit of "every man for himself", a better Canadian spirit, and so on, and so on. When the policies of the present government have failed, when those policies have accentuated unemployment difficulties, it is only natural that the people of Canada should look for assistance to that right hon. gentleman and his government. They look to the right hon. gentleman who promised to deal with unemployment from a national standpoint. He said, " It is too great for the municipalities and the provinces; if we are elected to power we will take over unemployment relief on a national basis." There was no constitution standing in the way on that occasion; it was swept aside in connection with old age pensions, unemployment relief and so on. There was no question about the municipalities; it had become far too great for any municipality or province to contend with. "Elect us," he said, "and we will take it over as a national obligation, constitution or not." I am afraid, however, that the Prime Minister has not the same constitution now that he had in 1930, when he was making these promises. Not only did he promise these things during the campaign; he repeated those promises in this house. After the leader of the opposition had catalogued some of the promises that had been made and stated that the people would expect their fulfilment, the Prime Minister stood in his place and uttered these words, which will be found at page 39 of Hansard of the special session of 1930:
I do not propose for a single moment to traverse in this house the matters which were
gone into on the hustings. I shall content myself with saying to the right hon. leader of the oppostion and his friends that we will keep the promises we made.
There was great applause then from the government side of the house. Having made those promises to the electors and repeated them on the floor of the house, what has been the government's program for the cure of unemployment? We have waited patiently for two and a half years, but everyone knows that unemployment has steadily increased. There is no excuse for unemployment in this country at the present time. Let me quote the words of the present Prime Minister at Victoria on June 16, 1930, when he said:
Is there any excuse for Canada to have bard times if the government is discharging its duties as it should?
If those words were true then, Mr. Speaker, is there any excuse for times having become worse after the Conservative party took office? There were 170,000 people unemployed at that time, taking the figures of the Conservatives, while there are about 750,000 people unemployed today. So I ask if this government is discharging its duties as it should. What has been done with regard to the coal mining districts of Nova Scotia, for example? The Prime Minister and some of his colleagues made speeches in that area; at Halifax, as reported in the Halifax Herald of July 4, he said:
I will not sacrifice the coal industry of this province or the steel industry of this province to any other country in the world. We will not tolerate this importation of Soviet coal when we take office.
He went on to say at St. Thomas, on July 21:
It was unfair to have Russian coal enter the Dominion to replace a Canadian product produced at such a low living standard under Soviet rule.
Commenting on that speech, the Sydney Post had this to say:
The importation of Soviet coal, mined under cheap wages and living conditions, works an injury to Canadian miners. It causes unemployment, it leaves the children hungry, mothers exhausted and the father willing and anxious to get work hut unable to obtain it.
Those last few words are in box car letters. What has become of those promises to the miners of Cape Breton? I know what has happened. At the time those words were uttered the mines of Nova Scotia were producing seven million tons of coal, while in the first full year of the Conservative regime their production dropped to four million tons, and the wages of the miners were reduced.
Unemployment-Mr. Heenav

Now what have we? We have the conditions pictured by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) last night, and T have before me a copy of a resolution which was sent to the Prime Minister also. It states in effect that there is nothing but hunger, despair and suffering in the coal mining areas of Nova Scotia. It mentions the relief of thirteen cents per head per day, and points out rightly that it takes from 40 cents to 90 cents a head to keep murderers and convicted criminals in our penitentiaries. Yet these decent men, who were deceived in 1930, are expected to live on 13 cents per day. I wonder what the miners of Nova Scotia will think when they read the confession of deception made by the Minister of Labour the other night. I have read what was said during the campaign. At page 1084 of Hansard for this session the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) made the following statement:
This Russian coal was meeting competition only from American anthracite, a coal which we do not produce.
Later on in the debate the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) said:
The minister knows the Russian coal was anthracite and the Nova Scotia coal is bituminous, and that the Russian coal would not come into competition with the Nova Scotia coal.
To which the Minister of Labour replied:
Everybody knows that.
Did you ever hear such a confession of betrayal and deception on the part of any member of a government? Then we have the Kenora Miner and News, which reprinted a report from the Regina Herald in which it was pointed out that another carload of English soft coal was landed in the Annapolis valley at a time when employment was so badly needed in the province of Nova Scotia. What do the trade returns show? They indicate that last year, while the miners of Nova Scotia were suffering, there were 12,999,942 tons of bituminous coal imported into Canada. That is how this government is carrying out its promise to the miners of Nova Scotia.
What benefit has been derived by the lumbering business or the pulp and paper industry under this government? The Prime Minister complained, during the election campaign, with regard to the exportation of pulp-wood from this country; he said it was working a detriment to Canada. The provincial Minister of Lands and Forests made the same complaint, as did also my good friend from East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson). The Toronto Globe of May 29, 1930, has this to say:
After his nomination Mr. Nicholson spoke briefly and declared there would have been no 
occasion for the mill to close down if the Canadian government had prohibited the export of pulpwood from deeded lands, as United States consumers would then be compelled to increase their purchases of newsprint from Canada in place of using Canadian pulpwood in their own mills.
The report goes on to say that this view was supported by Hon. William Finlayson, Minister of Lands and Forests of Ontario. At that time, Mr. Speaker, the mill of which they were speaking at Espanola was closed down, and they sought to establish the fact that the mill was closed because the Liberal government was not doing its duty in connection with that industry. What are the conditions today in northern Ontario? This government has had an opportunity of doing something for that industry, 'but what do we find? Pulp and paper mills are closed down practically all through the north, or are working part time, and that with a general reduction in the rate of wages of those men who are employed. The pulpwood cutters are unable to sell their wood either at home or abroad, and in the lumbering business in northern Ontario, I told the other day just what the conditions of those employed are. I do not think it would be amiss to repeat the facts now. I had a statement with regard to four young men who were induced to go from Winnipeg to work in the lumber industry at the head of the lakes. They worked twenty-three days, including Sundays, working eighteen hours a day, and at the end of that time their wages, on the basis of $26 a month, amounted to $18.55. After deducting railway fare of $9.55, doctors' fees, and a few other little supplies, they had $1 handed to them for their twenty-three days' work. The result was that they were $8.55 short of their train fare back to Winnipeg, and then this government put out an order to have men arrested if they attempted to steal a ride on railway trains.
What about the railway problem? Our railways are a good barometer of conditions in the country. W'e find that the railwaymen were promised better times and full dinner pails, but what are the facts? According to a return tabled the other day by the government there were employed on the Canadian railways in 1928, 187,710 employees; in 1929, 187,846; in 1930, 174,486; and in 1931, 154,569. In other words, there was a reduction as between the last full year of the Liberal regime and the first full year of the Conservative administration of 33,277, and a general reduction in the basic rate of wages paid. How do wages compare under the Liberal regime and under my hon. friends opposite? In 1929

Unemployment-Mr. Heenan
there was paid for railway operations and small construction work $391,790,157, and in 1931, $229,499,505, or a reduction between 1929 and 1931 of $162,300,652. That is the full dinner pail which the railwayman has received from this government. What encouragement is there for the railwaymen of Canada? We have had a royal commission and apparently it dealt with the question of wages and with railwaymen's affairs, but not one single Canadian railwayman was on that body. Instead there was a Mr. Loree, president of a railway in the United States with the worst working conditions in that country. In the view of the government he was good enough to be on the board. We have the report of that commission, and legislation has been introduced in the other house based upon that report. What does it recommend? The abandonment of branch lines, the abandonment of portions of main lines, merging of services, cooperation instead of competition. Where, oh where now is that slogan, Amalgamation never; competition ever? What has become of it? If this is put into operation as outlined by the report, it will throw thousands upon thousands of railroad men upon the streets, unemployed. The Conservative party in 1930 received a good many railwaymen's votes, I am sorry to say, on the strength of promises to do certain things, amongst those promises being the promise not only to aid existing traffic channels but to build extensions. That was the promise that was held out to the railwaymen of the country-to build extensions to the railways-and many good railway-men voted for the Conservative party because they believed that the promises which the party made to them were sacred. But now for the rude awakening. .The men have awakened to find that there is less work and lower wages and in many instances loss of homes with all their life savings gone. I repeat, where, oh where is that slogan, Amalgamation never; competition ever? Now that the Prime Minister's policies have failed, now that he 'has fallen down on his promises, he wants to be absolved of them all. He says, in effect, "Who could foresee at the time we were making these promises that there would be a world depression?" Well, the Liberal leader and all the Liberal candidates said that there was a world depression-


Mr. CHAPLIN:: You said there was no
depression at all.


Peter Heenan: -but the present Prime
Minister could not foresee it. I read the other day an article giving an account of a meeting 53719-94
which 'he addressed at Kitchener. He asked, "Why have we unemployment in this country?" A man in the audience rose and said, "We have it all over the world," and people in the audience cried, "Put the calf outside." There was a calf who wanted to tell the Prime Minister what the economic conditions in the world were, but they would not listen to that calf. I wonder if the right hon. gentleman would heed the words of the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson), uttered in this house last night:
So far as we are concerned, we recognized in 1930 and we recognize today that the conditions with which we were confronted were largely world conditions.
There is one of his own followers able to tell him. But we had Mr. Ferguson too. That gentleman went through northern Ontario declaring that the condition was worldwide, and he asked, "Why does the government sit around helpless and not bring about better conditions in Canada? Never mind conditions in the rest of the world. Canada is our job, and Canada should be Mr. King's job." He said that the then Prime Minister ought to bring about better conditions in this country, and he promised something else-because he was not going to take second place to the right hon. gentleman opposite. Let me read what he said:
"Is there any one who will say there is not a general depression that is retarding the growth and advancement of Canada," he said. . . . "I am looking forward to a remarkable change in the next few months," continued the Ontario premier. "I am looking forward to the speeding up of the wheels of industry, to increased payrolls and greater prosperity for the people of Canada. I expect these things because I feel sure, just as sure as I am standing on this platform tonight, that on July 28 the people of Canada will rise in their might and say to Mr. King: "You have had 10 years in office and conditions are getting steadily worse. We are going to try another fellow in your place!"
We have the other fellow in my right hon. leader's place now. He has been tried and found guilty of deception, and trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the electors of this country; and his Minister of Labour now stands up in his place and says "every man for himself." We need a greater outlook on life, a greater individuality. The Prime Minister has said; Come unto me, all ye that are weary and are heavy hearted, and I will give you rest.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Work.


Peter Heenan: Yes-I will give you work.
What did the Prime Minister's lieutenant the Premier of Ontario say? He is reported in the Kenora Miner and News as having

Unemployment-Mr. Heenan

received tremendous applause at Kenora when he stated that he believed in high wages. Those who applauded him have seen the day when they had to accept a reduction in their pay cheques; they have seen the day when the province has carried on work in northern Ontario and paid the slave wages of only $5 per month and board. That statement by Premier Ferguson was another effort to deceive the people. He is reported in the Toronto Telegram of July 21, 1930, as having said at Kenora.
With the election of a Bennett government we will have legislation to improve conditions and start turning the wheels of factories. Industry will resume and the farmers will get some profit for their labour. Jobs will increase. The home will be happy, the housewife will smile every day.
Was it any wonder that the housewives who listened to him laughed outright? But they have shed many bitter tears since that time. Although they paid no heed to Mr. Ferguson, there were too many people in this country who believed the Conservative candidates and were satisfied to elect a Conservative government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Never
again.


Peter Heenan: The present Minister of
Labour of the Ontario government, a great campaigner who in 1930 had the cure-all for unemployment had the following to say at the directors' luncheon of the Canadian National exhibition on Labour Day, 1931:
We always have had periods of retrenchment and expansion, and we always will have them.
He is practically saying what the Prime Minister said the other day-the poor we will always have with us. He continues:
These things move in cycles. I do not know any cure for the depression and I don't think anybody else does.
Doctor Monteith did not see any way out of the depression except to depend upon the old law of supply and demand. I do not think he ever heard of the Versailles treaty, signed by Sir Robert Borden.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Peter Heenan: May I have just a few
more minutes?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am not the master of the rules. The hon. member may continue if the house consents.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give him an hour.


Peter Heenan: An hour would not be
sufficient for me to tell my hon. friends what I think of them.
Article 13 of the treaty provides that henceforth labour shall not be considered as a commodity.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Peter Heenan: I understand the hon.
member is a good physician in private life and I suggest that he prescribe something for the government. They need to be cleaned out instead of being fed on soothing syrups. Sir Robert Borden signed this treaty, but the government's position is that in view of the great number of unemployed in Canada, the wages of workmen should be reduced and living conditions should be lowered. It is quite evident that Doctor Monteith does not speak the same language today as he did in 1930. Is it any wonder that the reports state that the labourmen present disagreed with his remarks?
We have been through very stringent times during these last few years. I know what the government is up against; I am sorry for them, but they took the job into their own hands. The Prime Minister of this country stated at Toronto in effect that if anyone advocates radical measures, the iron heel of ruthlessness will be used. When the Prime Minister of Canada uses language such as that, surely there is an excuse for the miners in Cape Breton sending him a resolution ending with these words*: If you do not do something for us hurriedly, we will take the law into ou<- own hands. It should not be expected that men who are endowed with the spirit of freedom will sit idly by and listen to the Prime Minister or anyone else in authority make statements advocating the use of the iron heel of ruthlessness.


James Dew Chaplin: Did not the hon. member's government send soldiers down to Nova Scotia under similar circumstances?


Peter Heenan: My hon. friend knows that at the time to which he refers the provincial government requested that the soldiers be sent.


James Dew Chaplin: The hon. member is trying to get behind something.


Peter Heenan: If we are going to discuss such matters I might mention that it was not a Liberal government which ordered the soldiers out to Winnipeg in 1919, to shoot down the strikers, nor was it a Liberal government which ordered the soldiers last year to shoot down the strikers in Estevan who had a legitimate grievance.

Unemployment-Mr. Murphy


Jean-François Pouliot: The soldiers did not shoot anyone because they had a good chaplain.


Peter Heenan: The present Prime Minister has brought this thing upon himself. In 1930, even before the elections, what did he say? He went to Regina and, put into the minds of the labouring people of this country the thought of revolt. He is reported as follows:
While Mr. Heenan was denying the existence of a serious unemployment problem-
That is not true. The report continues:
-a soup kitchen had been opened in Montreal. He was reminded of the revolution of 1845 in France on the right to work.
What right has any man aspiring to be the Prime Minister of this country, to utter words such as that and now to advocate the iron heel of ruthlessness to be used upon any man who clamours for the right to work?
I should have liked to go on, but I am afraid of myself. However, I will conclude by saying that the government which is now advocating the iron heel will get the whole foot when they go to the country. I know that instead of the iron heel they will get the leather toe.


Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, speaking yesterday to this question the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) quoted a a letter, the authorship of which was not divulged. This letter purported to give a description of the conditions which prevail in the relief camp in Riding Mountain park in Manitoba. I do not intend to repeat the whole letter, but I should like to quote two sentences. The first is:
I have been asked by a committee of men, who are working at Riding Mountain park to bring to your attention the utterly disgraceful situation which exists there.
The second sentence reads as follows:
I asked several old-timers their opinion of it and they state in fact that it is without any question the worst camp they have ever seen on the American continent. The toilet is thoroughly filthy, unsanitary, and far too small.
Then, taking as the gospel truth this letter, the authorship of which is not given, the hon. member makes a definite statement so to speak. He says:
The question may be asked: Why do men suffer such indignities, and four reasons are given in the letter, as follows:
1.	Fourteen miles from the nearest railway.
2.	Stool pigeons who report the least attempt at organization.
3.	Intermittent surveillance by mounted police.
4.	General breaking down of morale.
53719-94J
The camps which are in existence in Riding Mountain national park this year are similar to those which were in existence during the season of 1931-32. While those camps were in operation, three daily newspapers in the province, namely the Winnipeg Free Press, the Winnipeg Tribune and the Brandon Sun, sent their correspondents to Riding Mountain park and made their own investigations and reports. No doubt those reports were and are known to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In case he does not know them, may I respectfully draw them to his attention, namely, the issue of the Tribune of January 5, 1932, the issue of the Free Press of February 6, 1932, and may I read one paragraph from the latter issue:
As regards actual living conditions, they have been fairly accurately put before the public. The work is healthy and not too arduous. The attitude of the foremen to the men has been decent and sympathetic to a degree. The food is plentiful, and is becoming much better as the cooks adjust themselves to new and sometimes trying conditions. Sanitary conditions, though not all that could be desired, are gradually being improved upon.
That is a description when the camps were being formed, and conditions have improved. May I alio read from the Brandon Sun under date of January 5, 1932? The paragraph is headed:
Superintendent's Fine Work
But so able has been the supervision given by Mr. Smart, who incidentally is an old Brandon boy, and a son of James A. Smart, twice mayor of this city in the early days, that the huge camp has functioned almost without a single hitch anywhere. Lumber was readily available, and the huts were soon up. The stores followed, and the provisions were soon on their way. Almost as soon as the city of Winnipeg was ready to send its first batch of men to this big camp, everything was in readiness.
I read that for the purpose of paying a deserved tribute to the superintendent of that park and those who were associated with him in its administration. During the course of last year's operations one man who sent a letter to the press, signing his name K. McDonald, complaining of conditions there, was answered by one of the men in the camp. This will be found in the columns of the Winnipeg Free Press under date of January 2, 1932. Let me read1 this paragraph from his letter:
As regards Mr. K. McDonald's complaints, I would like to refer to the recreation hall he so slightingly refers to in his letter, and leave it to your readers to judge for themselves. This hall is a splendid idea, which has now developed almost every kind of amusement and entertainment necessary for the boys to pass the long winter evenings, and it is certainly


Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to discuss this important national problem and cast my eyes across the chamber I am amazed at the lack of interest taken in this question by that great national party whose leader said in 1930 that he would either cure unemployment or perish in the attempt.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: What about the cooperative movement?


Humphrey Mitchell: Keep the baby quiet. If you cannot make an intelligent interruption, don't interrupt at all.
In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, this is the most important problem that has come before this house since its opening on October 6. All the legislation that we have hitherto discussed and the many agreements which have been ratified pale into insignificance in comparison with this all-important problem, and I am amazed, Mr. Speaker, to see so many representatives of industrial ridings absent from this House of Commons during this debate.


Mr. COTNAM:: How about your own
group?


Humphrey Mitchell: Seventy-five per cent of them are here.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: That makes three.


Humphrey Mitchell: What about your own group? I would say to the hon. gentleman that there is one thing which the working people of this country have to be thankful for, and that is that this question might never have been raised except for that small group to which he refers.
I was much interested in the attitude taken [DOT]by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) on this question, but the discussion in my judgment drifted entirely away from the purport of the resolution introduced by my hon. friend from North Winnipeg. We had a discussion of the responsibilities of the provinces and their relationship to the dominion under the British North America Act. We also had an announcement that there would be a conference of the dominion with the provincial governments for the purpose of exploring the possibility of introducing a system of unemployment insurance. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this country has reached such a stage in its development, and there has been such a change in the complexion of its national life, viewed from the
standpoint of agriculture and industry, that the British North America Act, is in need of immediate revision. The Prime Minister yesterday quoted a decision from the privy council that unemployment was not a national question, and contended that the present emergency did not come within federal jurisdiction. All I have to say to the Prime Minister is that I should like him to tell the eight hundred thousand people in this country who are drawing relief that the problem of unemloyment is not a national question. I know of no authority better able to give direction in the solution of this very important question.
As the question of unemployment insurance has been broached, I should like to say a few words about it. We have long held the opinion that unemployment insurance is a national responsibility. The house will recall the many difficulties that were raised as to divided responsibility in connection with old age pensions. Those difficulties did not prevent old age pension legislation being enacted by this parliament, and unless unemployment insurance legislation is enacted under the jurisdiction of the federal government in my opinion it would be unworkable. Think of the difficulties otherwise, with men and women passing from one province to another in search of employment. If we are to have a sound system of unemployment insurance it must be under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
I should like to make a few observations on the present slump or depression, as it is often called. I think we are all agreed that it is not like past depressions. Many seem to think that we shall simply glide out of this ' depression, but I would point out that it has not only brought many concerns and industries into bankruptcy, but also threatens many nations throughout the world. That is where, in my judgment, it differs fundamentally from depressions that we have had in the past, and that is why I think there is more of a political complexion in our attitude in meeting the problem. I have heard many peculiar remarks made across the floor of this house in connection with the problems of agriculture and industry. Not so long ago I remember one hon. member taking credit to the government for the fact that eggs had gone up in price. If he had laid the eggs there might have been some ground for his claim, but I think that we will all agree that the government was not responsible for that; it was the chickens.

Unemployment-Mr. Mitchell
Last night, we heard another peculiar observation in the course of this debate. The Prime Minister of this country quoted a saying nineteen hundred years old, that the poor are always with us. I do not recollect that observation being made during the election campaign of 1930. I state frankly that I am not one who takes the position that under the present industrial conditions it is necessary for the poor always to be with us. I believe that when the leader of the government, in an effort to justify his position, made that assertion he showed a lack of intelligence and appreciation of the possibilities of the age. I am not unmindful of the efforts made by parliament since the beginning of the depression. I am not unmindful of the further fact that if we are successfully to cope with the depression we must take an entirely different viewpoint concerning our powers and possibilities of action. We must change our views if we are to alleviate conditions which have arisen out of the depression. Direct relief has been tried; the dole has been tried. I should like to say to those people who Sbelieve we will glide out of the depression the same way we glided into it, that a depression of equal intensity has existed in Great Britain for the last ten years. There is no reason why, unless we take some conscious action to meet present difficulties, the depression from which we are now suffering, should not last for an equal length of time in Canada. England enjoys the advantage of some very necessary social machinery capable of alleviating the difficulties from which our unemployed men and women are suffering. I believe we must agree that the leaders in business and finance in Canada have turned out to be fair weather sailors. The statement is made in the navy that any man can steer a ship in calm water, but it takes a good sailor to steer one When it is rough. In view of that I believe the leadership in connection with this problem must be taken over by the government. In the past it has been the practice of governments to take credit for good times; in my view they should also take credit for bad. This is not the first government which has slipped into power through promises to solve unemployment problems, but probably they were more definite than others in their declarations. It cannot be said that they have been left 'holding the bag; they grabbed the bag and apparently are willing to retain it.
In connection with our economic difficulties there are two schools of thought. First, there are those who hold that the problem should be approached from an international stand-
JMr. Mitchell.]
point, and there are others who hold that it should be approached from a national standpoint. Today I am not going to discuss the international aspect of the problem. I believe we are in for a prolonged period of intense nationalism. I believe that condition through which we are passing, from the viewpoint of the relationship of one country with another, is going to be of long duration. That condition is the very essence of mass production and the present system under which we live.
With that viewpoint in mind we realize that we haw at least some responsibility in approaching economic problems within our own borders. A few evenings ago -the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) expressed the view that we would all be glad if, in the near future, general price levels were doubled. That is admitted by people of all shades of opinion. In some cases the wish is father to the thought, and in others definite suggestions have been made to meet the difficulty. I am frankly disappointed at the position taken by many hon. members concerning currency and what is termed reflation by some and inflation by others. Judging from the experiences in Australia, Great Britain, Sweden and many other countries, I have come to the conclusion that a process of inflation is -the most practical way of meeting the problem. I am wondering if those opposed could offer an alternative method which would produce the results achieved in countries which have experimented in this connection. Originally I believed the natural consequence of currency inflation was a lowering of the standards of living. That however, for some unexplained reason, has not proved to be the fact. In Australia there has been an inflation of currency and, at the same time, a reduction in living costs. In Great Britain there is an inflation of practically 25 per cent, and a reduction in the cost of living. I could go on and on and tell similar results in other countries. For the present however I shall say nothing further concerning this matter.
Now I shall direct my remarks to the position in which industrial workers find themselves. Industrial workers of Canada are in a position similar to that of the workers in nearly every other country. There is this exception however, nafhely that the influence of mass production has made itself felt more on the North American continent than in any other part of the world. I believe it is absolutely necessary to get a clear view of any problem in which you are interested and for which you are endeavouring to find a solution. We have what is known as techno-

Unemployment-Mr. Mitchell
logical unemployment, which means the displacement of men and women by the machine. Then we have the unemployment brought about by the depression and the stock market crash, which has placed thousands of clerical workers on the labour market. Then we have unemployment brought about by the operation of the stop watch, or what is known as the time study method. Then we have another important factor in connection with unemployment, brought about by the enormous development of the chain store, which has well nigh eliminated the small storekeepers in our larger centres and cut down opportunities for employment to thousands of men engaged in that industry of distribution.
In placing these four facts before the house, Mr. Speaker, I come to the amendment offered by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). Since I have been a member [DOT]of this House of Commons a number of commissions and committees have been appointed to consider different subjects. We had the radio commission; last year we had the civil service committee, and at present we have a Senate committee considering t'he question of our railways, which arose out of the appointment of a commission. I see no reason why a royal commission should not be brought into being to deal with what is in my judgment the most important problem in this country today. The amendment of the hon. member for North Winnipeg went right to the heart of the problem. It dealt with the means of eliminating unemployment; the question of jurisdiction as between federal and provincial governments; t'he increase of real wages and the annual productive capacity and consumption in relation thereto; the reduction of hours of labour; the spread between wages and productive capacity, and technological unemployment. Whatever else may be said of this amendment at least it is an attempt to analyse the cause of the enormous amount of unemployment we have in this country today. I should have liked the government to take the responsibility of carrying out a similar policy, but apparently they do not intend to do so. In this regard it often has been said in this house that this is an international question, and that nothing can be done unless all the nations in the world take similar steps. I refuse to take the position that no move should be made in this matter until India or China reaches the degree of civilization we have in Canada today. Are we to wait until the last nation becomes civilized before attacking the problem in Canada? I think in view of the intense nationalism which exists in the world today, and in view of the magnitude of t'he problem that
confronts us, it is absolutely necessary to take national action, and if business and financial concerns will not do it the government of the country should do it. Business has had ample opportunity; it has received a great deal of assistance from this parliament, and failing action on the part of these institutions I think the government should step in and see that everyone is provided with work. This is what they promised to do in 1930.
Other countries in the world1 are attempting to meet this problem. At the last meeting of the International Labour Office in Madrid it was pointed out that unemployment is the cause of the depression, not the result. Some European nations are using the facilities of government in an endeavour to at least alleviate the unemployment from which they suffer. We find that in connection with the reduction of hours of labour, no matter what may be said to the contrary, some concrete action has been taken. I have heard it said many times in this house that the problem is one of distribution. I think if we stop talking about the problem and tackle it we might make some progress.
I should like to quote a few examples of the action taken in some European as well as American countries, in connection with this very important problem of mass production. In Austria the minister of social administration has undertaken an inquiry into the question of the reduction of hours. In Belgium a commission of inquiry has been appointed for the same purpose. In Colombia a bill was submitted to the chamber of representatives providing for the seven hour day, and more recently the government stated that it considered it imperative to arrive at a better arrangement of hours of work by means of international agreement, either of a general nature or for particular industries. In Czechoslovakia a bill providing for the forty-four hour week has been drafted by the ministry of social affairs and submitted to the other ministries concerned. The forty-four hour week has been introduced in the offices of the sickness fund under the auspices of the national social service institute. In Danzig the forty-four hour week has been applied to government departments and public services. In Denmark a committee was set up to examine the matter and to report in time for the possible introduction of legislation when parliament met in October. In France a bill has been introduced in the chamber of deputies in favour of the forty hour week. The Minister of Labour, Mr. Dalimier, has stated that he will urge that the question of the forty hour week be placed on the agenda of the next international labour conference. In Germany

Unemployment-Mr. Mitchell
a decree of June 30, 1931, authorized the federal government to reduce hours of work to forty in the week in those industries where such a reduction was technically possible. Recently, by circular of June 17, 1932, the Minister of Labour caused committees to be set up in each state to study the question, and the regulation of hours of work by arbitral award is contemplated as a possibility in certain cases. In Italy, as Mr. de Michelis states in his letter,-and I may observe by the way that Mr. de Michelis is the official representative of the Italian government at the International Labour Office-the National Council of Corporations on June 15, 1932, adopted a resolution proposing that the possibility of a compulsory reduction of hours of work to forty per week in all administrations and undertakings should be considered as rapidly as possible with a view to the conclusion of definite agreements of an international character. In Poland a bill enabling the government in times of economic depression to reduce hours of work so as to distribute employment over a larger number of workers was adopted by the Diet and the Senate. Further, a bill has been submitted with a view to limiting hours of work to forty in the week, and the Minister of Labour has drafted a bill to reduce hours of work to forty in the week in the case of certain classes of salaried employees, including bank and insurance clerks. This bill has been submitted to the National Association of Industry, Mining and Commerce. And in the United States there is a very definite move on the part of the Americans, in their practical way, to bring about a further reduction in the hours of labour in the industries of that country. Recently I read that this move had received the endorsation of the United States Chamber of Commerce.
I think it can be conclusively proved that unemployment is no longer an effect of the depression but is a cause of its intensification. We have tried the old ways of meeting the problem. We have cut wages, and right here I would observe that if low wages were the basis of success of any country, then India and China would be the most successful nations in the world today. We have cut down services. At present before the Canadian Senate a committee is sitting on the same subject which has been inquired into by the Duff commission, and should the policies suggested by that commission be carried out it would simply mean the throwing of 20,000 men on the labour market.
Frankly, I thirds we should attack this problem on the two main fronts. We should

attack it, on one front, from the point of view of currency, and on the industrial front from the point of view of mass production. We should be realists in this regard. In my judgment we should take the responsibility that rightfully belongs to us in an effort to carry out not only the declarations made by members of the present government in the last election but the wish, I am sure, of all parties in this house.


Mr. J. H. STITT (Selkirk):: It was not my desire, nor is it now, to make any extensive remarks with regard to this problem, but the problem is of such magnitude, there are so many industrial workers in my constituency, there are so many farmers who are really suffering in this depression, that I consider it imperative to make some contribution to this debate.
I wish first, as a Conservative representing a riding which has a large labour complexion, to congratulate the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), my neighbour, upon the speech he delivered in this house with reference to this matter. It was a reasonable speech; it was a humane speech and as a Conservative and supporter of the government I think it is only just and proper to say that on many occasions the hon. member for North Winnipeg espouses the same cause and speaks in the same way as I desire to speak, especially when he has humanity for his client, as we have all here this afternoon in this matter.


Mr. NEILL:: Hear, hear.


James Herbert Stitt: There has been a
good deal of talk in this house about the promises of the Prime Minister. I believe that this country is absolutely sick and tired of this parade of promises-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Herbert Stitt: 
Edward James Young: Or the Minister of Labour, last night.


James Herbert Stitt: The hon. member will pardon me, but I am speaking of the former Minister of Labour. He made merely a political effort. I feel sure the labouring people of this country will find more in the speech of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) than they will in the speech of the former Minister of Labour.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Or in the speech of the Minister of Labour of the present government.


James Herbert Stitt: There is one idea which I should like to put forth. The Prime Minister of this country exercises perhaps more power than has any other prime minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Herbert Stitt: There is no doubt in your mind, Mr. Speaker, or in mine, that he absolutely dominates this parliament-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Herbert Stitt: Hon. members say "hear, hear." He dominates this parliament not only by his energy but by his capacity, genius and devotion to the interests of this country.


Frederick George Sanderson: He is the whole government.


James Herbert Stitt: No hon. member on the other side can stand up and say that the member for Selkirk has been bought and paid for. I took it upon myself last session to stand up in this house and vote against the Prime Minister and the government. I had the satisfaction of speaking to the Prime Minister afterwards and having him say: I believe you did the right thing as far as you were concerned.


Frederick George Sanderson: He was only fooling.


James Herbert Stitt: I want to give the lie right here and now 'to the idea that this is a muzzled party, that we are not free. As far as I am concerned, if I should come to the conclusion that it would be in the interests of this country and in the interests of the workers or the unemployed to vote against this government, I would do it tomorrow.


Eccles James Gott: That is more than the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) would do.


James Herbert Stitt: I should like to refer to another effort made by this government, the measure which parliament was called to discuss this session-I refer to the imperial trade agreements. If the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) were in his place I should like to say to him quietly, humbly and kindly that I am proud to be a Conservative, I am proud to be here in this house and to have registered my vote in favour of imperial consolidation and reconstruction. There are many hon. members on both sides of the house who believe in and who love and reverence the British Empire not because we have, shall I say, prejudices of blood, but because we believe that the word "British" stands for freedom, because we believe that it stands for progress and because we believe that the world can get out of the impasse in which it now finds itself only under the leadership of the British Empire which is presided over by such progressive statesmen as Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. Baldwin.
I believe that these agreements offer the only remaining way in which we may solve our economic difficulties, but I say, fearlessly and unafraid, that the benefits of these treaties will not accrue to the workers and farmers of
1490	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)
this country until the exchange situation has been remedied. I should like to tell the eastern representatives and the people of eastern Canada a little about the situation which exists in the agricultural west. Considerable debate occurred last year with regard to the ten per cent cut in salaries and indemnities, but how would hon. members like to get a seventy-five or eighty per cent cut? The government statistics reveal beyond dispute that the income of the western wheat farmer 'has been reduced by seventy-five to eighty per cent. 'If you have an income of $1,200 per year and have that income cut down by seventy-five per cent, you are left with $300. Hon. members can see the problem which is facing western agriculture. They would have some conception of the conditions which exists if they went through the wheat growing areas, if they saw the people working almost without hope of reward, going bankrupt and wearing second hand clothing. This is the time when there should not be a mustering of the forces of party but rather a mustering of the forces of humanity. Whatever portion of this house best serves humanity, serves it honestly, fearlessly and in a humane way, that portion is living up to its duty and ought to be returned.
The suggestion has come from the other side that if we went to the country we would not be returned. It is my belief that the leader of this government and many of its members are more concerned with doing their duty to the people than they are thinking of being returned at the next elections.
Another question which should be grappled with is that concerning currency. We have seen the results of the action taken by the American government in raising its tariff. Hon. members know and must admit in their reasonable and non-political moments that the only avenue by which we could hope to reestablish our trade was through imperial channels. We have sought to open up those channels but money is the blood of trade and with our money being at a premium of twenty-five per cent in terms of British currency, we have a tariff, or a wall if you like, which offers almost an impassable obstruction. I want to say publicly in this house that if this wall is not demolished, we are going to remain as we are now, in the straitjaeket of international finance and chained helplessly to the gold standard.
There is one matter which might have been discussed at the imperial conference, the matter of the shortening of the hours of labour. We hope to increase our trade

through our imperial connections but we ought to realize that the forces of production have been increasing and were increasing before the war to such an extent that even the international trade of England was being decreased. If we realize the power of the human race at the present time to manufacture goods and to grow crops we must realize that this problem of the lessening of the hours of labour must be faced. I believe that we should face it and a beginning can be made by the British Empire.
My main reason in speaking this afternoon was to deal with what might be called the adequacy of relief. I do not believe that any reasonable Canadian expects this government during this depression to provide work for all Canadians. There are some who believe socialism would help. I believe the only persons who can make that statement are individuals who really believe men and women are not primarily interested in themselves, but have become impelled more by social mass interest than by self-interest. I believe they fail to recognize that the great force which has brought the world up to its present standard is that of individual initiative, the force of free men working out their salvation industrially, morally and spiritually, by relying upon their own energy and by working in compliance with the eternal laws of God, for we all subscribe to the doctrine that man was made free. There is no use in our flying in the face of those principles. By talking about new money, by talking about cooperation, we may gain votes in our constituencies; we may return here during this terrific depression while the mass of the nation is restive and dissatisfied, but we are not going to cure the problem in that way. Every man who faces this situation ought to recognize that the system which we have, this competitive, capitalistic system, is the truest, most undisguised and least hypocritical expression of humanity as it is. How did it come into existence? It was not devised; it was not foreordained; it was not planned; it was human beings working upon the forces of nature and expressing themselves. It may be that by preaching doctrines and nostrums which are at variance with humanity as it is, you may reap a political reward, but that is not going to solve our problems or enable us to grapple with the situation.
Now, as to the inadequacy of relief, I brought this question up last year in the house when I received word from West Kildonan, which is a suburb of Winnipeg in which for the last two years between 650

Unemployment-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)
and 700 people have been living on direct relief, that the sustenance provided for the unemployed was not sufficient to maintain health and that it was likely to leave the unemployed in a permanently unemployable condition. I want to say this-and perhaps if I say it more quietly hon. members will listen to me; if I lower my voice, they will have some regard for the statement-no matter what we do by way of law in this country; no matter what treaties are originated here; not matter what agreements are made, if a policy of humanity is not pursued sufficient to maintain the health, strength and vigour of our Canadian unemployed and their children, this government and this commons will be forgotten. I do not expect to change the world. Years ago I did have that idea; when I came to this house I had some conception of the superposition that I would hold, of the extraordinary power I would have, but I have come to this conclusion that just as I was merely number 667 among half a million men in the expeditionary force, I am only one-two-hundred-and-forty-fifth, and hardly that, of this assemblage.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: We all sympathize with the hon. member.


James Herbert Stitt: I do not need the
hon. gentleman's sympathy.


William Richard Motherwell: I needed some
when I was a young member.


James Herbert Stitt: When I was interrupted, I was speaking about the inadequacy of relief. Before I left home I went to the municipal secretary and I said: "Will you give me the names of twenty-four families who have been living on direct relief for a year or more?" I knew none of the people that I visited. I took twelve of the names and I went with the medical officer to their homes. Let me say this, that the bravest battle that was ever fought and that is being fought in this country today is that being waged by the fathers and the mothers who are unemployed and are trying to bring up their families and to get through this depression. Those people are the unsung, unknown heroes of Canada today. Just to give an example, in one home to which I went a new baby had arrived. There had been a caesarian birth. Does the house know what that woman was doing? She was giving up part of the meagre rations that were allowed to her to sustain her life, so that oranges might be purchased for that little child. I went to another home where a man
and his wife were living in very small quarters. This was a man who had been a valued workman, one who had been in charge of a construction camp, who had not been able to obtain employment for eighteen months. He said to me: "Mr. Stitt, how long is this going to last? I have tried to get work, and I've walked the streets. I walked them day after day. I asked for employment. But I cannot walk just as far as I could a year and a half ago." I said: "How is that?" "Well," he said, "I have to give some of the relief that I get to that boy who is not up to the ordinary physical standard."
There is no use in multiplying these cases; there is no use in exposing them in the house unless something is done. As a lawyer I know we have our constitutional limitations; but one of the peculiarities of the whole situation is this, that everything or almost everything is being left to Mr. Bennett and the Bennett government. I believe that the Prime Minister and his government should be given credit for utilizing the constitution in such a way as to make even those organs of government which are not responsive to the situation play their part and do their bit.


Frederick George Sanderson: I should like to ask the hon. member for Selkirk if he is prepared to run in the next general election as a Bennett candidate?


James Herbert Stitt: I have not the gift of prophecy. Like every politician, like every man who is honest, I may change my mind. I may run as a Bennett candidate; I may not run as any candidate; I may not want to run, but after the spectacle which I saw yesterday, I do not think there is any possibility of my running as a Liberal candidate.


Alan Webster Neill: May I ask the same question with the word "independent" inserted?


James Herbert Stitt: Yes, I might run as an independent. One cannot tell. I am an independent right now, supporting the Conservative government, supporting the Prime Minister, because if there had not been at the head of this country a man of affairs who knew something about banking and industry, who had the fearless courage to stand up and save an insurance company when certain people on the Liberal side were trying to demolish it, what would have happened to Canada if the organs of finance and government had broken down? I say I do not care about coming back to this house either as an independent or anything else. The only thing I care about is that Canadians who need help and who ought to be preserved, receive it.

Unemployment-Mr. Bradette
Just think of it, 850,000 Canadians putting up this battle today I We spent millions and billions on 500,000 Canadians engaged in a war of destruction-a necessary war, I admit -but surely we can so work through our constitution that we can loan or grant money in order that these people may receive balanced rations and be adequately cared for.
My words, Mr. Speaker, have not been uttered as they ought to have been, nor have my thoughts been clothed in the language by which I should wish to express them. I went to the fields of Flanders in 1914, a lover of humanity. I came to this house largely because I wished to serve the working people of my constituency, and I came here still a lover of humanity. I am not a destructionist; I hope I am not an opportunist; but I say that the great thing we need today is cooperation and kindliness and humanity. In the great fight which our fellow-Canadians are making with such splendid courage I think that every Christian man and woman will honour this government and any man who will try to ameliorate their conditions and raise them if possible out of the low estate into which they have fallen, through no fault of their own. If we would but apply the golden rule preached to a distraught world by the Master 1932 years ago, could we not achieve the hope of His heart and the dream of all just men which He uttered when He said, "I came that men might have life and that they might have it more abundantly."


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiskam-ing):: I listened very attentively last night to the highly documented and well delivered address of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). It is needless for me to say that I am absolutely in favour of anything that may be done by the government or the Department of Labour to alleviate the dire distress of the Canadian people. I also find myself in hearty agreement with the announcement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), yesterday that he was going to call an interprovincial conference to discuss certain social questions. At the same time I hope that the government will not fail to give leadership to such a conference in many of these important problems. I have in mind more particularly unemployment insurance. No doubt some of the provinces are not in a financial position today to start a system of unemployment insurance. I repeat that I hope that the federal government will take the leadership in this important matter.	.
There are two questions with which I wish to deal particularly, direct relief, and the back to the land movement. The Minister of La-

bour said last night that the present system of direct relief is only a palliative, that it is not to be a permanent feature of our national life. Every citizen of this country will agree and hope that that is the case. I am speaking more particularly for the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this house, and I must say that direct relief is not giving satisfaction because it does not go to the root of the present depression. Direct relief is not curing unemployment. It is not making people happy, and that applies not only in my own section but throughout Canada, for the very good reason that many deserving people, although the government is willing to help them, when they cannot find work and are actually in need of relief, will not apply for it. I wish to say on behalf of the government that in northern Ontario the distribution of direct relief is handled entirely apart from the political machinery. But at the same time quite a number of people who are willing and ready to work and cannot find it are too proud to ask for bread and butter.
I have great sympathy with the last speaker. He spoke of the wonderful character of the people of his constituency and of the courage they were showing in these trying times. I believe the same can be said of the people throughout northern Ontario, and indeed in all parts of Canada. But under the system of direct relief the morale of our people is suffering. There are more people today who do not work than there were two years ago.
Let me ask why it was that this government decided last session that direct relief should be provided instead of work. I do not think an adequate explanation has ever been given. In northern Ontario there are important undertakings to be carried out by manual labour which should be financed jointly by the province and the federal government. We had the spectacle of parliament passing resolutions and statutes last session providing for direct relief, but actually the principle of direct relief is not being applied in northern Ontario. What is done there is this:	People are given an order to get goods,
whether it is provisions or clothing, at the stores. They are given scrip for which they have to work. For instance, if a man receives an order for ten dollars' worth of goods at the store he is compelled to work five days at two dollars a day, and then at the end of that time he is not given any money, but simply the scrip. I do not think that was the intention of the law that we put on the statute books last session. I think it was at all events implied in that legislation that the money

Unemployment-Mr. Bradette
would be given direct with no strings attached. I wish to repeat that there is no politics in the distribution of direct relief in northern Ontario. My point is that direct relief in the shape of money is not given. A man requires more than food in order to live. He must have clothing, boots and shoes, and medicine, and I maintain that when a man is made to work he should be given good Canadian currency instead of scrip, so that he can buy the necessaries of life he likes.
As the previous speaker said, I do not want to make any political capital out of the present situation, but I think it is the duty of every hon. member to bring to the attention of the government any anomalies that have come to his attention. I would also point out that the scrip which is given to those seeking relief is not negotiable. Naturally the storekeepers are always glad to receive orders from the government because they consider the government is safe to deal with, and so it is, but several storekeepers in my part of the country have had to wait for three solid months for their money from the government, and some of them are good Conservatives at that. It is working to the injury of the retail trade in our section. I shall not criticize the government for distributing these orders through the channels of retail trade. I believe it is right in some sections to give the majority of these orders to retailers. But let me point out that in 1919 the federal government appointed a commission to make an inquiry throughout Canada. Speaking before that commission as a retail merchant, I said that no men were suffering at that time for the very good reason that the retailers were extending special credits to their needy customers. The same principle applies today. We speak of the working men suffering, but we must remember that along with them retail traders are suffering. Go into retail store offices today and you will find ten of millions of dollars on their books which they never expect to collect. I will go further: A single retailer will not allow a man to go without having something to eat for the following day.
I have no doubt the Minister of Finance will try to remedy the condition, because he has some power over it. I have no doubt he will take steps to see that those scrips given to retailers and wholesalers by people receiving aid, are made negotiable, and that arrangements are made to have them payable at least once a month. If those orders were negotiable retailers and traders could cash them with their bankers, thereby establishing
better credit under special circumstances. At least in my section of the country direct relief has not struck at the root of the difficulty. However, as a loyal Canadian citizen I told my people to accept direct relief, and to try to apply it.
No doubt the human element enters into it; no doubt in the application of the principle adopted by the government some people will suffer. I believe the governments either provincial or federal, are bound to do their utmost to relieve the present situation. There is one other point to which I should like to direct the attention of hon. members. I have no doubt the high officials in Ontario want to be fair, so far as the distribution of direct relief is concerned. The fact is, however, that some men are placed in charge who do not fully realize the settlers' problems. The moment they step into their little offices the farmer or settler finds it impossible to have access to them. Those men, who are supposed to have full knowledge of conditions, are not familiar with them. In the new section of the country from which I come it is impossible for any one to know the exact situation unless he goes over the ground himself. In northern Ontario there are farmers who need relief, but through pride, and as true Canadians, they will not go and ask for it. Government provisions should make it possible to have travelling inspectors who would make it their business to go into every section of the country and make personal inquiries.
I speak feelingly in connection with this subject because, unhappily, most of the districts are unorganized. Many municipalities such as that of Moonbeam, Machin, Shackle-ton, and so forth, and some municipalities in the constituency of the Minister of Labour, have not the money to extend to the settlers the direct relief to which they are entitled.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: When the house took recess, Mr. Speaker, I was speaking sincerely and from personal knowledge of some of the defects of the application of direct relief in my own section of the country. I also attempted to show some ways in which the situation could be remedied. From the beginning of my remarks I have kept in mind that, as the Minister of Labour said, the government really is trying to alleviate the situation so far as is humanly possible. One statement

Unemployment-Mr. Bradette
made by the minister last evening pleased me a very great deal; it appears on page 1465 of Hansard:
... there is no reason today why any person in the dominion should go without food, without fuel and without shelter, because the municipalities are bearing their share of the burden and bearing it manfully.
Of course the suggestion is made that the provinces and the dominion also are bearing their share of the burden manfully. I said before six o'clock, however, that in my section of the country there will be suffering, not so much from lack of shelter as from lack of food and clothing during the coming winter.


Mr. SMITH (Victoria):: Where?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I do not like to have such a reflection made by any hon. member of the house. It is no pleasure for me to mention certain dire conditions which exist in my own constituency, but I believe it to be my duty, as well as the duty of every hon. member of the house, to bring matters of this kind to the attention of the government. I am doing it the more readily because I realize that the government want to remedy such situations, and we want the government to realize the conditions as we find them. Before six o'clock I said that the people of Canada do not want to become mendicants. They want to stand on their own feet; they want to work out their own salvation as far as that is possible, so I hope this relief is only an emergency measure and that before next summer some way will be found to provide work for the people in every section of the country.
Now I wish to come back for a few moments to the election of 1930. I am not going to open up the old wound by mentioning the promises that were made; I think they are well before the people at the present time. One of the promises made in my own constituency, as well as in the constituency represented by my friend the Minister of Labour, was the promise to build a trans-Canada highway. So far as I know only a few minor repairs to the Ferguson highway from North Bay to Cochrane and west to Hearst have been carried on, and no real work has been done on the important connecting links. I have no quarrel with other sections of Canada;
I am not envious because thousands of men have been working in the camps in the Ottawa valley, but the fact remains that the implicit promise was made by the Minister of Labour during his campaign. I know he has done his best to fulfil that promise, but nothing very much has resulted. This is work that could

have been carried on last summer, last fall and this winter.
There is another highway which should be constructed. I believe this is under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, but I think with the help of the federal government a highway should be constructed from Sudbury to Timmins, to provide communication between those two mining centres. The population of the Porcupine district is in the neighbourhood of twenty thousand people, who have been trying for the last ten years to have that highway constructed. I think that rather than put people on the dole or give them direct relief they should be put to work to provide some communication between southern and northern Ontario.
There is still another highway which I 'believe should be given consideration; that is a highway from Cochrane to La Reine in Quebec. For many years an anomalous condition existed in northern Ontario; direct communication with the province of Quebec was absolutely lacking until the Ferguson highway was built. In Cochrane, in Kapus-kasing, in Iroquois Falls and in Timmins we have been agitating for years to have the provincial government build that road, which will be only forty-two miles in length, to provide communication with La Reine on the Quebec side. I believe this is the time to go ahead with that work.


Mr. MALONEY:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, coming from an Ontario constituency myself, I wish my hon. friend would indicate the route the transJCanada should follow.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member knows very well that an interjection of this kind is not a matter of privilege.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I agree with the Minister of Labour, who promised that the trans-Canada highway would go through the northern section of Ontario.


Martin James Maloney: Mr. Speaker-[DOT]


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Unless the hon. member addressing the house gives his permission, an interruption may not be made.
Mr. M'AlLONEY: I am seeking information; I shall be so glad to get the ideas of my hon. friend. We are very anxious to have that trans-Canada highway, and if the hon. member can suggest the proper route let us have it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I certainly have no quarrel with the hon. member because the

Unemployment-Mr. Bradette
transdllanada highway passes through his constituency; I hope in the future he will have no quarrel with me if it passes through my constituency as well. There are many fire hazards in northern Ontario in connection with which many men could be given work. This would prevent a recurrence of the fires that from time to time have visited Cochrane, Timmins and Haileybury, the home of the Minister of Labour. All those who live in northern Ontario know of several of these hazards; everyone knows of the dread of the people of Rouyn, Porcupine and even the Timmins district from fire during last summer. I believe useful work could be done in this connection.
I believe that in the matter of the relief of single men northern Ontario has been slighted. I have seen many instances of poor settlers who, because they were single men, could not obtain relief, and I do not think that is right. I have no time to explain why there are so many single men in that part of the country, but I do not believe any difference should be made between different classes of people following the same occupation. I believe hundreds of young men could be given employment this winter and next spring in removing the fire hazards of which I spoke, which are well known to the Minister of Labour and to everyone else who has visited the northern part of Ontario.
I want to compliment the government on the work they intend to carry on in connection with airports, which will result in the employment of many single men. I do think the wages to be paid are too small, but these men will be given some work, and that is one of the proper things to do. This work is extended to northern Ontario as well; we have not such a large population, but we have many men who could be employed in this work, and I think this request should be given due consideration. I know the Minister of Labour well enough to be sure that he has already brought up that point in the cabinet.
There is one other matter with which I should like to deal at some length, because I have it very much at heart. I refer to the policy of the government with regard to the back to the land movement. I mention this matter because I am heartily in favour of anything that will help the agricultural classes and reduce unemployment in the urban centres. Last evening the Minister of Labour, dealing with the matter, found it possible to take a roundabout way in mentioning the amount of money to be spent in connection with this scheme. He said that $1,385,675 had
been spent, and said he did not believe any member of this house could criticize that expenditure. Then, however, he went on to deal with the immigration policies of the former government. At page 1466 of Hansard I find the following statement by the minister :
Let me point out to the house something which I think is often overlooked. During the period from 1919 to March 31, 1932, this government spent in its immigration department the sum of $36,718,454.97.
That paragraph can be interpreted as a reflection upon the late government, but I submit that no hon. gentleman on t'he other side of the house can criticize that administration so far as immigration is concerned. I may say that I for one have protested time and time again against the bringing in of too many immigrants and placing them on the land, people whom it was humanly impossible to mantain there. That is why I resent that paragraph. I cannot make anything out of it but a reflection on the Liberal party and on the late government. But the 'hon. gentleman went a little further:
Hon. gentlemen opposite may say: Oh, well, we are not all to blame because others on this side of the house, when the positions were reversed, advocated the same thing. I have searched the records and I find that when hon. members on this side were in opposition they advocated the encouraging of people to come and settle upon our lands to consolidate those lands which were served by the railways of Canada.
Well, I have been in the house for some time and I do not need to go very far to find utterances of hon. gentlemen now sitting on the government benches who, when they were in opposition, advocated a more extensive immigration policy for Canada, criticizing the former government not only for days but for weeks, because they were not bringing more people into the country to settle on our vast lands. Take for instance a statement made by one of the leaders of the Conservative party, a former member for Vancouver North, General McRae. On March 9, 1928, the organizer for the Conservative party made a speech in the house in which he proposed the expenditure of $300,000,000 for the purpose of increasing immigration. He proposed to take 50,000 acres of government owned lands in the west, scrub land, clear 80 acres on every quarter section at an estimated cost of $12.50 per acre, and on these lands he was going to put 300,000 settlers, a settler to each quarter section. The government was to build a house, a stable and outbuildings at a cost of $500 each. This scheme was actually discussed seriously in the house by the Conservative

Unemployment-Mr. Bradette
party and on March 22, 1929, General McRae repeated and emphasized his remarks. Surely the Minister of Labour will realize that even today there is no railway accommodation in the Peace River district, where the then member for Vancouver North, wanted to put these immigrants. That gentleman made the following remarks on the date I have just given:
Last year, in response to the Minister's request, I made bold to submit to this house a definite colonization program, but owing to an accident, I was unable to appear before the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
He said that he would stick to his original proposal, which he believed would be a good idea for the country, although the plan apparently did not meet with the approval of the government. He went on to say:
1 proposed last year that the government issue land bonds against their expenditure on such a development. I gave as the maximum required $300,000,000 for a ten year program, as an average of $30,090,000 per year.
Later on he made this statement:
I presume the hon. member agrees that we must increase our population. My idea of the only place it can be increased is on the land.
I come now to the views expressed by the present Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). As reported at page 2892 of Hansard of May 28, 1929, the hon. gentleman said:
But I do not see how you can possibly handle immigration without an adequate organization, and certainly I cannot endorse any such idea as that this magnificent country should put up its shutters and close its doors completely, taking the stand: "We have great resources; let us hung on to them and keep other people out." Surely, we have a more encouraging conception of Canada's future greatness. I personally do not understand the attitude taken by the hon. member for Battle River and by the minister himself.
Finally, we have the views expressed by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), who stated his very definite attitude to this matter in a speech which he delivered in the house on June 7, 1928, as reported at page 3923 of Hansard:
And I want to place myself upon record that it is a fallacy to believe that the bringing of more people into Canada means the cheapening of labour and the lowering of the high standard of living of those who are here. History teaches us that if you get people settled in a country you are making work. Every time you bring a new- productive person into the country, whether he be productive by his hands or his brains, if you are unifying your efforts, you are already opening up new avenues of work. That has been the history of other countries, and I am sure it will be the history of this country.
Time and again hon. gentlemen opposite, when they were on this side of the house

criticized the late government with regard to the rigour of medical examinations of immigrants. I remember the junior member for Halifax taking the government to task for deporting a single person from Canada. That will give the house an idea of the position taken by hon. gentlemen at that time on the question of immigration.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this subject affords no room for criticism on the part of any party in this house. The Minister of Railways, speaking in northern Ontario on one occasion, made the statement that Canada should be the meeca for all the surplus population of the globe. I believe the Minister of Labour wishes to be fair, and I suggest that if he had taken the trouble to study the situation closely he would not have found it possible in his speech last evening to leave the false impression which he created. Coming to his own figures, I will quote what the hon. gentleman said at page 1467 of Hansard:
But in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1932, immigration to Canada dropped to 25,752.
I have in my hand a clipping from one of the Montreal newspapers today, in which it is said that in the port of Quebec alone last summer 30,000 people came in; so that if
30.000	immigrants entered that port alone during the past summer it is safe to assume that we shall have 100,000 new immigrants at the end of the present fiscal year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what it said.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I will read the article:
30,000	immigrants entered by Quebec.
Quebec. 22. (P.C.).-The number of immigrants who arrived in Canada by the port of Quebec in the course of the present navigation season was a little less than that of the preceding season, according to an estimate of Abbe Philippe Casgrain, chaplain of the port. Abbe Casgrain, who is preparing for a tour in the Canadian west, believes that there will be
30.000	new immigrants this year.
Taking that figure as the basis for other ports in Canada, we can assume that at the end of the fiscal year 1932-33 the number of immigrants who will have come into the country will be about 100,000. I would suggest to hon. gentlemen opposite, therefdre, that those who live in glass houses Should refrain from throwing stones. There is another statement made by the minister on this matter. Speaking of immigrants, who, he said, in most instances found their way to the urban centres, he said:
In passing let me say that very large numbers of the immigrants to whom I have referred are good workmen. The first criticism I have to make is that they are not on our lands, they are in our industrial centres; my next criticism is that their coming here was not so regulated

Unemployment-Mr. Bradette
that we could at least exclude the major portion of those who are today the instrument contributing largely to the sentiment growing up in Canada condemning their compatriots who are trying to make good.
I believe that statement could be interpreted in several different ways, but to some extent it can be regarded as a reflection on people who are now good Canadians. Only last fall about 500 foreigners took out naturalization papers in my section of the country alone, and those people will be first class Canadians. The ex-Minister of Labour saw for himself in the section of Iroquois Falls, on the occasion of a Labour Day celebration, several young athletes, boys and girls, who although they bore the so-called foreign names, were born and bred Canadians and proud of their nationality.
I think the Minister of Labour has a better knowledge of this situation than anyone in the province of Ontario. In our section of the country we have a wonderful rural settlement of Poles, Lithuanians, Czechoslovakians and Russians. These people have been placed on the land and will remain there. We also have settlements of people who have come from England, similar to the community near Hunta. Hundreds of English families have settled and will remain on the land. It may be true that eventually there is a sifting back to the city but the Minister of Labour should not allow the impression to go forth that all the immigrants brought to Canada during the past thirteen years have found their way to the urban centres. The argument which I am putting forth will apply still more forcibly to the western provinces, where hundreds of families have remained on the land and become good Canadian citizens.
As the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stitt) has said, we should try to keep away from a political viewpoint in the discussion of such a serious matter. However, statements have been made which cast reflection upon certain sections of this house and I think it is the duty of hon. members to put the matter in the proper light.
I do not think a single member of this house or a single citizen of this country will criticize this government for what it has spent on the land settlement scheme. The total expenditure is not quite a million and a half dollars. However, I do not believe that any governmental scheme for land settlement will prove to be beneficial to any section of the country unless assistance is provided by the federal or provincial government. But it must be admitted that this scheme as it is being worked out under the present regulations is a step in the right direction.
Certain citizens from Ottawa were sent to the districts of Englehart and New Liskeard, and found it impossible to remain on the land. But we cannot single out only failures because there are quite a number that succeed. However, I believe that this back to the land scheme under the present administration may prove to be workable. In Ontario we are trying out a scheme which I believe will prove to be beneficial to all concerned. A small party has been settled on the land a few miles south of the town of Hearst in the district of Cochrane, and also at Riviere Solitaire in Quebec. They have been placed on the same concessions where they have good road accommodation, stores, schools, post offices and churches. This principle is being carried out also in the province of Quebec.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: May I ask the
hon. member a question?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member has asked several questions. I do not mind hon. members asking me proper questions-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for
Victoria (Mr. Smith) may not insist upon his question unless the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Bradette) permits it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Go ahead.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Is the hon. member opposed to the attitude taken by the government in connection with relief for the unemployed?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member must have been absent when I was speaking, otherwise he would have known that I am in favour of the actions taken by the government although I believe that they did not go far enough.
I maintain that the action taken by the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario should be carried out in other sections of the country. These people should be placed as closely together as possible; they should be settled in the same townships in order that they could erect schools and have the benefit of other necessary facilities. A few years ago strenuous objections were raised to the work of our missionaries, but I believe in this back to the land scheme the missionary, whether Protestant or Catholic, is needed. The hon. member for Selkirk mentioned the wonderful fortitude with which our people are facing their difficulties, but I believe that that is primarily because they are of the Christian faith and have listened to the teachings of their missionaries, their priests and their ministers.

Unemployment-Mr. Bradette

An effort is being made to populate our rural sections with assistance being given by the federal and provincial governments. The people already on the land cannot find a living, yet others are being placed on the land and no assistance is being provided. The Minister of Labour stated yesterday that the people from the rural districts were going into the urban settlements. No doubt many who are now on the land at the present time will return to the urban centres, when conditions improve, but the best way to keep people upon the land is to make prosperous the primary holders of that land. I know if the settlers -in my own section could make a profitable living, others would come in from the larger centres of population. At the present time these larger centres attract the people because the distribution of charity is better organized.
I believe the government is sincere in its effort to help the rural population in. the newer centres, but it should carry out the land clearing bonusing scheme for which we have been agitating in northern Ontario for the last fifteen years, and with which I think the Minister of Labour is in sympathy. I would suggest that a bonus of $25 per acre be given for each acre put into cultivation. Such a bonus would prove to be of great assistance to these people. The government of Ontario is ready to grant a bonus to the settlers of that province provided assistance is given by the federal government. Should such a system be put into effect I venture to prophesy that every new settler in northern Ontario would be satisfied with his lot. This would bring about a movement from the urban to the rural sections. It is the duty of this government to see that our rural population is prosperous.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Isn't that a provincial matter?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I said it was a provincial matter but I said also that in a case of national distress, the national government should help.
It is not my intention to repeat the points raised during the last election, but there is one matter to which I should like to refer. I have brought this matter up several times since the election, but as it affects northern Ontario most particularly, I think it should be brought up again. I refer to the lack of market which we have for our pulpwood. If the settlers in my section of the country could

find a ready and reasonable market for their products they would need no help from any government. I appeal again to this house to ask if it is not possible to get the United States to enlarge its market for this product of northern Ontario. During the last election the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson), and a minister of the Ontario government said that they would do everything to stop the exportation of pulpwood into the United States. As I have said before, so far as the settlers are concerned, their finished product is pulpwood; they can go no further in the manufacturing process.
Before I conclude, may I say that I hope the government will do its utmost to study and understand the problems of the people of my section of the country. We have been told that the government is going to call an interprovincial conference. We have come to the time when guidance should be given by the government, when direction should be given by leaders of finance, economics, commerce, and labour and I venture to say that the Canadian people, realizing that efforts are being made to solve their problems, will bear in fortitude the present conditions in the belief that eventually their problems will be solved, and that in the meantime they are receiving the consideration that they fully deserve.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I was particularly pleased the other evening when the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) moved the resolution in connection with unemployment, and I was also glad to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) state that the government did not wish to curtail or would not curtail discussion on this subject. I listened also with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the Prime Minister today when he spoke of projects on which the government were working and which would probably be laid before parliament when we meet again in January. One of them, in connection with unemployment insurance, should meet with the approval of every hon. member. Unemployment insurance is good not only for the country as a whole but for the industrial workers and the industrialists as well. I am sorry such a measure was not introduced many years ago when the country was in much better position to carry out unemployment insurance than it is at the present time. When one considers that those with money invested in industry can in ordinary times make profits on inflated book values, pay interest and lay by surpluses, including money for depreciation

Unemployment-Mr. Reid,
and all other purposes, surely some thought should be given to the poor worker who at times receives in wages merely a pittance, a bare subsistence, who in time of sickness does not draw wages or salary, and who, when he gets old and becomes of no more use or service to his master, is discarded; he is not treated even as well as an old horse, because oftentimes an old horse is looked after until it dies. Surely in this day and generation we can give a little thought to the human element that helps in large measure to produce the wealth of our country.
I know many hon. members are anxious to return home; I know also we were summoned here for a special purpose in connection with the Ottawa conference trade agreements, but I sincerely believe, with destitution and unemployment such as they are today in Canada, we can very well afford to spend a good deal of time discussing this question which affects not only this country but the whole world. I am sorry some hon. members take, with regard to this depression, the view that was portrayed in a picture show to which I happended to go last Saturday evening, when a man speaking over the microphone was supposed to be talking about the depression. He said:	"What is depression?
Depression is a dent. What is a dent? A dent is a hole in the ground. What is a hole in the ground? Nothing." And he said: "What do I want to speak about nothing for?" It seems to me that at least some hon. members take that view, and say: what is the use of discussing this depression? I know the trade agreements are now practically through, but even if they accomplish all that the Prime Minister and the government expect them to do, it will take a good deal of time before even the benefits which they claim will accrue from them and will reach the masses of the people.
It is the immediate present and the coming winter in which I am particularly interested, and when one hears the figures as to the number of unemployed throughout the country, he must realize that those who are without work are more vitally interested in the present than in what may happen to Canada a year or two or three years hence. I was very much pleased this afternoon to hear the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stitt) as well as some hon. members on this side, say in regard to the trade agreements that until our exchange situation is finally adjusted, no great good can accrue from them so long as Canada keeps in line with the United States in monetary matters.
53719-95*
I do not propose to rehash old political speeches. I am one of those who feel that many such speeches do not serve any useful purpose. They may at times contribute some heat, but I believe no useful end is served by delving into the realm of the past and throwing political epithets across the floor. In passing, however, I am going to make one remark, and it is in regard to a statement which the Prime Minister made in no uncertain terms the other day. He said that unemployment was primarily a municipal, secondarily a provincial, and after that a national problem. I think the country as a whole would have been better pleased had he and those who sit behind him adopted that strong, emphatic attitude in the early part of 1930, when that principle was enunciated to the house 'by the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). I know many hon. members then took the opposite view. I am not going to discuss the election cries that were raised, and the statements made that anything can be done in a national emergency. There is no use, however, in saying that this is not a national emergency, but something else, because the country as a whole looks upon it as a national emergency. It is a national emergency and it is up to the Dominion parliament to take a stronger stand and do more than it has so far done. I am sorry the Prime Minister would now make that emphatic opinion after being two and a half years in office. It would have been better had that stand been taken in the early part of 1930, because I well remember, as reeve of a municipality, the problem had been besetting us for nearly a year, and I think I can say safely there was hardly a reeve in British Columbia who did not consider that the situation was away beyond him at that time. We at least who were holding municipal office at that time were firmly convinced that it had then got beyond a municipal and provincial problem. We did not agree with those who took the attitude that it was not a national emergency.
I have listened to many tales of the early pioneers. I would just remind the house that, while all credit is due to the early pioneers, there is a difference between them and the pioneers of today, because today we have in almost every province pioneers equal to those of long ago. In the early days the mode of living was different from what it is today. If a man who went into the woods could find a deer and grow a few potatoes, and have flour, and so forth, he was well content. The wealth of people was, at least,

Unemployment-Mr. Reid
not so prominently displayed as it is today. At the present time, however, conditions differ greatly. It is true the early pioneers toiled and moiled, but the earth, with the primitive tools they had, did not produce to the same degree or extent that it does today. Under present modern conditions the earth yields bountifully, in fact too much so. Some countries, and especially the one to the south of us, have been known to bum some of their crops in the hope of finding a better market for what remained. We have granaries full of food; in British Columbia we have farmers with their barns choked full of produce none of which they are able to sell or even barter. In the old days people were more self-sustaining. They went in then for trade and barter. A farmer obtaining clothing, sugar and so on for his produce. We have, however, got beyond that stage. In British Columbia, at least, the merchants will not or cannot take the goods which the farmer has to sell. There is absolutely no market. So he is really suffering just as much as the early pioneer, if not more, and his sufferings are more acute in that he sees great hoards of produce heaped up which he is unable to buy. We have everything in abundance. It is a famine in the midst of plenty. It is a condition for which we cannot blame God for it has been brought about by the ingenuity of man and by his inherent greed. Cheap as the goods are the buyer has not the means to purchase them just for want of a little bit of metal or a piece of paper, for want of what someone has called the bloodstream of our economic life. This country has an abundance of goods of all kinds, and what we are suffering from at the moment is a lack of distribution.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stitt) speak before six o'clock in the strain he did. I would like to see more of our discussions carried on in the same dispassionate manner. My remarks on unemployment will I hope be along the same lines and be constructive rather than destructive.
I want to make some suggestions regarding relief as it is carried on in the province of British Columbia. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) yesterday and again today touched on some phases of the relief scheme. I have before me The Province, and in connection with some statements that it makes I want to offer a criticism which I think should be made in this house.
First of all I find that military camps are being established, into which single unemployed men are being taken, where they will do some work and are going to be drilled.

This government cannot take the stand that all this is being entirely done by the province, that it is purely a provincial matter because in the case of a military camp I am sure the Minister of National Defence must have been consulted. I -think it is a dangerous thing to do. The government is anticipating something that may never occur. To take unemployed men and train them as soldiers and then take them out against other unemployed is not very good business. I deprecate the idea, and I think I am not too severe when I say that that should not be done, particularly at the present time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is my hon. friend's authority for saying that the government is putting unemployed in military camps and training them as soldiers?


Thomas Reid: My authority, first of all, is that anything pertaining to a military or militia camp would come under the Dominion government. Then I read this:
Mr. Lougheed announces the camp for unemployed militiamen will be at the end of Seventh and Eighth avenues, and the men will work at extending Chancellor boulevard to provide bus service to the university, via Seventh avenue.
Some work is going to be given them. Here is another paragraph which says:
Entirely apart from its own merits the concentration of 300 trained militiamen in the Vancouver area is expected to have a salutary effect this winter, counteracting any tendency towards sabotage, such as made necessary last year the extra policing and patrol of the whole of the greater Vancouver area at considerable added cost to the city and the government.
I am reading from a paper that is published in my riding. The government must know that unemployed militia men are being put into the camp at Point Grey. The information I have is that they will work part time and devote the rest of the time to drill.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: If my hon. friend
will permit me, he has an entirely erroneous idea of the matter.


Thomas Reid: I sincerely hope that I am
wrong and that the minister will be able to contradict that statement. But that was the information that reached me from the coast, and until it was corrected I thought that this was the proper place to bring it forward and criticize it. If such a thing is going on it should be known. I am personally against any such move, and I should be glad if when I am through the minister would explain just what the situation is.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If my hon. friend will
permit me to make an observation, the newspaper report which he is reading is absolutely
NOVEMBER 23, 1932	r ^
Unemployment-Mr. Reid
and entirely wrong from beginning to end. It is another illustration of how much anxiety can be raised in the public mind by the reading of articles such as have been read by the hon. member. A casual inquiry from either the Department of Labour or the Department of National Defence by the hon. member would have entirely disabused even his mind of any such idea as is contained in that newspaper article. There is no thought of drilling the unemployed as soldiers in any way, shape or form, and I hope that the hon. member in future will try to get accurate information before making any such statements.	.


Thomas Reid: I think it ill becomes the minister to make the remarks he has made, because I am quoting from The Province of Vancouver which bases its article on the statements of Mayor Taylor of Vancouver, and of the Hon. N. S. Lougheed, provincial Minister of Lands in British Columbia. If this article is not correct they are the men who should contradict it. The statements I have quoted appeared in one of our most prominent newspapers on the coast, and no contradiction of them has appeared as yet.
With reference to the back to the land movement, I realize that probably any scheme is better than no scheme at all, and I have no fault to find with part of the scheme whereby men may be established on the land. But I cannot altogether agree with the back to the land movement as it applies to the lower Fraser valley and the Pacific coast of British Columbia. I have in my hand the Langley Advance, a paper published in the midst of a farming area, in which the municipal council has called a mass meeting of all the citizens to discuss ways and means of taking care of the destitute-mark you, not the destitute unemployed-but destitute ranchers who have been settled there on what we call stump ranches of five- and ten-acre lots. I might say there are two classes of farming in British Columbia. One is carried on in the dry belt, and the other on the coast. On the coast, farming is done mostly on small acreage farms. If the scheme is to take people who are already poverty-stricken out into those districts, I think it should be looked into very carefully before any settlement is done, especially in a farming district where public meetings are being called for .the purpose of relieving destitute ranchers and where I might say the reeve is going to retire because he cannot give any assistance to old friends of his who have been in the district for forty years and who now require assistance. I am not sure where they are
going to be placed; the Pacific coast is a very general designation. There is no intimation just where these people will be located. It takes considerable money to establish them, and when we find that ranchers already in the district are destitute I think the scheme should be inquired into very carefully before the men are taken away from the cities and put on the land. No doubt the cities will be glad to let their unemployed go anywhere so long as they get out of the cities. It is said that the cities will take them back if they are unsuccessful as settlers. I doubt very much if they will, because, in the province of British Columbia, once a man gets into a municipality he becomes the responsibility of that municipality. Many of the municipalities are not backing up this scheme, and I want to assure the minister that many of those who are proposing this scheme in British Columbia have never attempted to do any of what is called in British Columbia stump ranching. I speak from experience. It is hard enough to go on a place that is cleared and keep it going without taking up land that is not cleared, even if you are given $600 to carry you over for the first two years. I notice that single men are being cared for, and in connection with their care the subject of camps has come under consideration. I believe the camps in British Columbia have been well constructed, but I do not like the idea of giving single men food and clothing, but with nothing to do. No farmer or business man would take an able-bodied man, give him his board and then let him sit around his home doing nothing. If an able-bodied man has any spirit, he wants to work. The fact is that many of the unemployed if only given a chance are willing to work. In my view to leave them idle will breed discontent. True, they may organize football teams and social clubs, but I do not like to think of our men being herded into camps with nothing to do but read books and play. I am opposed to handing out charity without having work done in return. In my view plenty of useful work could be done, and many of the unemployed are willing to do work in return for their board and lodging. It has been intimated to me, however, that no w'ork has been expected from them, except the few chores around the tent.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but I must say the statement he has just made is entirely incorrect. These men are placed in camps, comfortably housed and expected to do useful work. In order to relieve the hon member's mind I
Unemployment-Mr. Reid

say to him that even in the province of British Columbia, about which he feels so fearful, there has been a general desire to work on the part of the men, and work is being done by them.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to mention a little incident which came to my attention, but owing to the minister's remarks I am bound to do so. Today I received a letter from a gentleman in charge of a camp in British Columbia. He tells me that on one occasion a doctor was called to attend a sick man in one of the camps. Upon his arrival he found that hot water was necessary, and asked one of the unemployed men to get some, while he attended to the patient. The unemployed man replied, "We are not going to do work; we are not expected to do work. Go and get it yourself." I had not intended to relate that incident, but the minister has drawn it from me. I should be very happy to furnish him with further particulars, if he desires to have them.
Last evening the Minister of Labour discussed at great length the question of immigration. I want to make some comments in this connection, and to state that I am not as alarmed as the minister regarding this particular problem. I know from experience that about ninety per cent of the ranchers in the lower Fraser valley were in their earlier years industrial workers. They came to this country as bakers, electricians, and so on. They had a desire to get out into the country for themselves, and have become some of our most successful ranchers and farmers. No one can tell who will make a good settler or a successful immigrant. I know, however, that the Minister of Labour discussed at length the problem of the unemployed who come to the city. Probably I misinterpreted his remarks, but I noticed particularly that he gave figures for only those years in which the Liberals held power. While I know many evils did exist through the immigration policy of the late Liberal administration, yet I must say that most of the immigrants coming to this country were at least white settlers and could be assimilated into Canadian life, their children becoming good citizens later on. I would like to mention the damage done not only to British Columbia but to the whole of Canada when, during an earlier Conservative administration, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company were allowed to bring in about
25,000	Chinamen to work on our railways. Then, from the years 1911 to 1921 about 31,000 Chinamen were allowed to come to Canada. When the Minister of Labour rises to speak I
'Air. Gordon.]
should like to have his views regarding that type of settler, and his opinion as to whether or not they will make good in Canada. I have always claimed the Chinese are an unassimilable race, and with the Japs, should have been kept out of Canada. They were first brought in during the construction period of the Canadian Pacific railway, and gained a foothold at that time. Word went back to the orient that this was a land of opportunity for the Chinaman, a man whose standard of living is as low as that of a galley slave. They came in by the hundreds. Today we find them not only on the land but practically controlling the business centre of the city of Vancouver.
I hold in my hand a report issued in 1927 by the legislative assembly of the province of British Columbia in which there are set out figures concerning orientals in British Columbia. These figures reveal that they are in practical control of almost all business in the city of Vancouver. The following table will serve to show the percentage of business held by Orientals in that city:
Per cent
Laundries and laundry offices.. ..	82J
Greengrocers	 91
Hawkers and peddlers	 72
Poulterers	 62
Fish dealers	 45
Restaurants	 33
Bath parlours	 53
Cleaners and dyers	 39
Barbers	 32
And so on, all along the line. Probably hon. members will not believe that Chinese control fifty-three per cent of the bath parlours in the city of Vancouver, The fact is that in the early days of the Canadian Pacific railway, and then again between the years 1911 and 1921 they came in by the thousands. In my view the Asiatic type of settlers should be kept out of Canada; they will never become assimilated; they will never be Canadians in the true sense of the term. If they were not an Canada at the moment there would be much more work for our own kith and kin.
I shall devote part of my time now to the matter of loans. Although I do not claim to be a financier, in my own way of doing things I should like to give a few interesting figures and make a few suggestions based thereon. Many of us have been speaking about inflation and also advocating it, and some hon. members have characterized our talk as foolishness. As I have stated previously, I should have liked to have our dollar at a point equal to the English pound sterling; such a condition in my view would have reacted greatly to the benefit of Canada.

Unemployment-Mr. Howden
My figures, however, are in regard to our debt and interest. I have before me the total debt of the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion. I find that the bonded indebtedness of all municipalities is $1,209,645,181; the bonded indebtedness of the provinces is $1,016,617,165, and the total indebtedness of the dominion, according to a statement recently issued by the Department of Finance, is $2,501,854,198. This makes a total of about $5,000,000,000 for a country with a population of a little over 10,000,000. It is a very heavy debt for such a small population, and one which is crushing the very lifeblood from our people. Debts with high interest charges cannot be maintained if our people are to prosper as they should. I know that if steps could be taken to lower by even one per cent the interest charges on our recent debts we would be saved about $52,000,000, yet when those of us on this side spoke about inflation and suggested that the government issue its own currency, we were met with the argument from the other side that our indebtedness in the United States was so great and our interest charges there so large that we would lose money by doing so. It was a surprise to me to find that of our public dominion debt totalling $2,501,000,000, only some $240,000,000 was payable in the United States. I say that was a surprise to me, because the argument had been advanced that if we inflated our currency and our dollar went down, our interest charges in New York could not be met.
Then I looked at the debt payable in the old country, and I found a very remarkable fact. Some debts were incurred back as far as 1888, and on four of those old debts payable in London amounting to $42,159,415 we have paid interest totalling $49,214,142, while the original sum is still owing. It makes one think just what interest charges amount to; in this one case we have paid more than the principal sum in interest alone. I believe that if it could be done by some means or other we should now pay off the $311,000,000 we owe in London. If that were paid in sterling we would make a saving of over $47,000,000, since we would pay with the pound at around $3.73 instead of $4.86, and on the interest payable in London we save about $2,000,000 at the present time by paying in sterling. Of course if sterling reaches the level of gold or if we go down to the level of sterling we will lose that $2,000,000, but an ordinary business man with debts maturing in London would gladly borrow the money somehow if he could make a saving of that kind. I think this is something which
should be given consideration by the government. Foolishly or otherwise I believe the government should have issued its own currency with which to pay some of its debts, but if we cannot do that why not try silver coinage? South Africa has silver as legal tender, and many other countries with which we trade also use silver. The United States, though not officially on the silver basis, has a dollar bill payable in silver. At this time I think we might very well consider the idea of silver coinage if we are afraid to follow the policy of inflation or of issuing paper.
My time is getting short, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to make just one other suggestion. I have made these few observations realizing that in these days the task confronting any government is not easy. But I believe that if the nations of the world, including Canada, had tackled this problem with the same spirit and enthusiasm that they tackled the late war, the question of unemployment and destitution would have been solved long ago.


Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word during this debate. The constituency of St. Boniface flanks the city of Winnipeg and embraces within its confines the city of St. Boniface, the Winnipeg suburb of Elmwood and the town of Transcona. These are essentially working centres; you may travel the length and breadth of that constituency and you will find few mansions and no millionaires. I have heard it said in this house that about ten per cent of the working population of Canada is unemployed. Speaking for the working constituency of St. Boniface, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that easily fifty per cent of the working people are unemployed.
The world at large seems to be in rather a crazy frame of mind, and Canada is not the least crazy place in the world1. For several years past this country has been abundantly productive, but still we find poverty and distress on every hand. Throughout the length and breadth of this land there should be no unhappy soul, but from north to south and from east to west unemployment is everywhere present, together with misery, deprivation and almost starvation.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Well, well.


John Power Howden: They are to be found on every hand.


George Spotton: What did you do about
it?
Unemployment-Mr. Howden


John Power Howden: That is just what we want to know. It is up to this government to do something.


George Spotton: What do you propose?


John Power Howden: If the hon. gentleman will keep his shirt on perhaps he will find out what I propose.


George Spotton: What do you prescribe?
You are a physician.


John Power Howden: This is a strange state of affairs; with granaries bursting with wheat, markets glutted with merchandise of all kinds, idle factories and packed warehouses, we have twenty-five per cent of the inhabitants of this country poorly clad, poorly fed and poorly sheltered. It is found by those who are feeding men just now that good, wholesome meals can be provided for nine cents, but I will venture the opinion, sir, that a great many men in the part of the country from which I come do not very often see meat on the table, scarcely ever have milk, and are glad enough to have bread. With wheat at 25 cents a nushel, beef at 2 cents a pound, pork at 3 cents a pound, eggs at 10 cents a dozen, poultry at 5 cents a pound, milk and butter and everything else at correspondingly low figures, what a utopia this country ought to be; but if you have no money what matters the price? These men have no work; no pay; poor food; poor clothing and not much shelter. What a shame to this civilization!
No man could listen to the debates in this house and remain in doubt as to the causes of this condition. They are too many and too complex to discuss here and now. May I pause for a moment to say that wealth was originally produced by men and labour; it is now produced by machinery and men, and just a few men. The wealth of the world, as much as there is any possible demand for at the present time, has been produced. It is now in the hands of the few, and until it is absorbed or to some extent consumed there is no need for any more labour. The vast army of unemployed men have no purchasing power, no means of obtaining a share of this wealth, and the few show no voluntary disposition to share their portion with the others. And so the impasse; and so unemployment and discontent and demoralization. If there were famine in this land we might half expect those directly affected by unemployment to accept their lot with a certain degree of resignation and finality. Some time ago I saw an article in which the statement was made that in 1931 Canada produced $700,000,000 worth of products of which the Canadian people consumed less than half. The figures

may be incorrect but the facts are there. Canada produces at least twice as much wealth yearly as is required to support the needs of her population in abundance. In the ranks of the unemployed today are many men who a short time ago were living in comfort, and many who were well to do. They are reasonably intelligent men and they are aware of the facts. They are disposed to wonder and to ask where the other $350,000,000 went to. They are Canadians, born and brought up in this land, the children of Canadians, whose forebears were Canadians. Canada for Canadians, but for all the Canadians, not for a few.
Is it any wonder that there is intense dissatisfaction? The right hon. the Prime Minister said last night that the poor we have always with us. He might have said as much of thieves and profiteers. Dissatisfaction does not describe it; it is much worse than that. In every city in Canada there have been serious riots; there has been bloodshed. In many locations in the western part of this country the air is at present surcharged with bitter resentment. At present only the fear of law maintains some degree of order. But, Mr. Speaker, should the time come when the governments and municipalities of Canada find that they are unable to cope with this unemployment situation, unable to feed the idle people in this country, no law, no force either military or whatever you like, will restrain this mass of discontented, resentful human beings.
I would pause here to observe that to some extent the liquid resources of this country are running down. The provinces are in many instances in a rather bad way, and while I do not know just what the proportion is, I can assure you that there is a very large proportion of municipalities in Canada that are insolvent. I want to read a letter that has come to me from St. Boniface-and I may remark here that there are only about one thousand families all told in the city:
Dear Mr. Howden,-
At a largely attended meeting of La Ligne Civique des Citoyens de Saint Boniface composed of all French speaking citizens, I was instructed to draw your attention to the serious situation which has developed in our city through continued unemployment.
It may be interesting for you to know that in September we had in St. Boniface, six hundred and forty-eight families on relief which made a total of thirty-one hundred and eight persons. A total sum of $24,240 was spent of which our city is forced to pay one-third. Refunds for federal and provincial government shares are always two and three months in arrears and we are greatly concerned as to whether our bankers will continue to carry us.

Unemployment-Mr. Howden
The situation is so acute that our city council has decided to default on its interest payments and there will be no more debenture coupons paid until an adjustment is arrived at between the bond holders and the city giving us a reduced rate for further payments of interest. This however is not sufficient and unless the federal government will accept to increase their share of direct relief to at least 50 per cent as they were urged tb do by the conventions of premiers and mayors of western Canada we will find ourselves unable to continue granting relief to our unemployed and even then it may be possible that our city will be in such a financial position as to make it impossible to continue granting relief to its needy citizens.
This letter is signed by George Chavanne, president. I have another letter of precisely the same tenor from the southern end of the constituency of St. Boniface, the end from which I hail, namely Norwood. It reads:
At a recent meeting of this organization I was instructed to write to you (and to the Minister of Labour) drawing your attention to the increasing seriousness of the unemployment and relief situation in the city of St. Boniface, and to the increasing difficulty of the city authorities to deal with the situation. In the month of September there were 648 families, with a total of 3,108 persons receiving relief in the city. There has already been a cut in the relief allowance with a prospect of further reductions. I am instructed to urge you to bring this matter before the federal government and impress upon them the necessity of absorbing a greater proportion of the cost of relief. The city is contributing one-third towards this cost, but if a greater share is not assumed by the government in the near future, we are given to understand that the city will be unable to continue to give relief to the unemployed. We trust that you will realize the seriousness of the situation and urge the government to take immediate steps towards relief.
The government was elected to office on the understanding that it would avoid these very conditions and put an end to the state of affairs that then existed. Their proposed plan was simple and it was widely advocated: increase the tariff, shut out the foreigner and keep Canadian markets for Canadians. After more than two years of trial it has failed utterly and unemployment has increased from
100,000	to 700,000 in that length of time, with a corresponding aggravation of all the attendant evils. Last night the Minister of Labour seemed disposed to take the former Liberal government to task for its policy in connection with the bringing of immigrants to this country. I sat on the other side of the house for five years when hon. gentlemen opposite were in opposition and I remember hearing the Liberal government of that day being taken to task week after week and month after month. The opposition of that day never wearied or tired of informing the government that they had no immigration policy,
that what the country needed was immigrants and that the government had fallen down completely. That was what they had to say.
I do not need to mention the various hon. members who spoke at that time upon the matter, nor need I refer to the suggestion made by the then member for Vancouver North, now Senator McRae, or to the criticisms of the present Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). Not only did the opposition of that day advocate immigration to this country, but seemingly every representative and intelligent business man was calling for the same thing. This country was experiencing a wave and surge of prosperity; railroad lines were being built, great edifices were being erected, rock cuts were being put through, basements were being dug out-there were all sorts of dangerous work to do, and the ordinary Canadian, the ordinary Britisher would not do it, nor would the Irish or the Scotch. We had to have bohunks, so nicknamed, and dagoes and Chinamen and men of that type to do the work. They were the only ones who would do that class of work and the big business men of this country demanded that they be brought in.


Mr. MULLINS:: What does the hon. member mean by "bohunks"? Is that an insult to the intelligent new Canadian?


John Power Howden: I do not need to tell
the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) the type of labourer to which the term "bohunl?' is applied. I do not apply that term in any sense of disrespect, but that is what they were commonly called by Canadians-bohunks.


Martin James Maloney: Who are they?


John Power Howden: The hon. member to my left tells me that they are Tories.


Henry Alfred Mullins: That shows their intelligence.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No personal reflections intended.


John Power Howden: One cannot say that the
government has been idle or has made no effort to relieve conditions. From time to time they have expended large sums of money, unfortunately not always to the best avail, but undoubtedly affording a certain measure of relief. But the evil itself is as far from being cured as ever. The country has gone behind over $200,000,000 in two years. Unemployment never can be cured in this way, neither can it be cured by unemployment insurance.
150G
Unemployment-Mr. Howden

The right hon. the Prime Minister spent some time last night discussing unemployment insurance. That is decidedly a factor, but he has stated many times that the only form of unemployment insurance which he would consider would be contributory. It is beyond me how contributory unemployment insurance is going to help the idle men we have in Canada-almost a million-who have not a cent to their names. The only way to cure unemployment is to provide work. Give a man a job, keep his mind and his body occupied and he will be reasonably contented. The worst feature of the present condition of unemployment in this country is not the poverty, the distress and deprivations to which these men are being exposed; it is the fact that they are idle. No decent, honest man can be idle and happy. These men are dissatisfied and discontented at home; they meet in groups upon the street corners and, believe me, the topic of their conversation is not the least bit complimentary to the government of the land. Unfortunately science has advanced to the point where but few men are needed to cultivate the wealth of the country, and the burning question before us today is: What will we do with the balance?


George Spotton: Weigh it.


John Power Howden: I might inform my hon. friend on the other side that I am a little deaf and cannot hear what he said; probably it is just as well.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member is lucky.


John Power Howden: 
Mr. SPENCE:: Will the hon. member tell
us how to remedy the situation?


Mr. MALCOLM:: A change of seatsthat is the answer.


John Power Howden: Our immediate need in
this country is money to fill in the breach; our ultimate need is work to offset unemployment. Many hon. members have advocated inflation. I am quite free to admit that I have no knowledge of these matters. At home I am merely a rural doctor and I do not know very much about money. But if there be any virtue in inflation; if there be any possible chance that inflation will help this country out of its difficulty, it ought to be seriously considered by the government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
have started it to some extent.


John Power Howden: I believe they have.
During the crisis of the great war this country needed men and the government conscripted manhood. In the present crisis we have need of money, and the country's wealth should be at the disposal of the government. But that would not be enough; we must have work if we wish to avoid chaos. Why not let us trade freely with the world? We can supply at small cost the things that they need, and they can supply at small cost the things that we need. Fair exchange is equitable and what this country needs, and it would put a vast army of men to work.


An hon. MEMBER:: How are you going
to get over their tariffs?


John Power Howden: That is the trouble. We are going to get over their tariffs some day, before very long, but while' hon. gentlemen opposite still remain in their seats, we shall have some difficulty in doing it.
We have millions of acres of fertile land in this country, and we have hundreds of thousands of idle men. Why not bring them together? Since coming into this house I have consistently advocated that this be done. I should like to read an article; it will not

Unemployment-Mr. Neill
take very long. Last year in the city of Winnipeg a scheme was developed to put a number of men on farms and small plots of land in Manitoba. A Mr. J. P. Seimens was the instigator of this movement, and he writes in connection with it as follows:
With reference to the general back to the land movement, Mr. J. P. Seimens, former Manitoba farmer and business man, who started the present local movement early in 1931, writes as follows: "This back to the land movement is no fanciful scheme, but the only really constructive, economic, sane and stable thing that can be advanced. Governments elsewhere are beginning to see it is the only way under present conditions. We can do without new federal buildings, canals, better highways, etc., but the food that all require must come from the ground. It seems absurd, for instance, to spend by labour $1,100,000 for a ditch that can be made by steam shovel for $150,000. This saving of $950,000 would place 1,000 families, representing 5,000 people at least, on land. This is what our governments must do and quit borrowing money and spending it to feed the people on a system which we could not afford in prosperous times. The sooner we realize world conditions, the sooner we will come to a system of small mixed farming without debts and big overhead. There are not too many farmers. Half our city folks should go on a piece of land and earn a decent living. This is what our fathers did and they were content.
I do not suggest that men be placed on large holdings requiring extensive apparatus and with heavy operating costs. What thousands of men need today is a piece of land and some food and work. Let them begin on small holdings, settled in communities, of forty or eighty acres at most, with a shelter, some poultry and seed for a season. Thousands of seriously minded people are today anxious and longing for just such a start. Since the beginning of time men have taken their living from the soil. Today they do the same thing and they must continue to do so for all time.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) on the anouncement he made last night that it is his intention in the latter part of this session to introduce a bill embodying the principle of unemployment insurance. I receive the intimation with hope and gratitude, tempered with the assumption that the bill will be a workable and equitable one. I also agree with him that it would not be practicable unless it were on the basis of a contributory system. But of course we must recognize that unemployment insurance, however desirable it may be to initiate it, has no bearing upon the present unemployment relief situation.
Dealing with the latter, I was very sorry the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) did not
yesterday make such a statement of policy, especially as regards British Columbia, that would not have required or compelled me to enter into this debate, because I do so under compulsion. Last night, speaking about a certain situation, he used the expression: "No time was lost." That may have been true as regards the situation of which he was then speaking, but it is a horrible travesty on the situation as we know it in British Columbia. Instead of saying that no time was lost, I would submit that almost all time was lost in that regard.
I am on record in Hansard last spring as saying very frankly that I believed the Dominion government had made a very genuine attempt to meet the unemployment situation, and I ascribed to the British Columbia government the blame for mismanagement of the relief, whereby great inequalities took place, money was spent on political heelers and material, graft prevailed, and in the end many people suffered owing to lack of money and maladministration of the funds.
I did not blame the Dominion government for that. This last summer, however, the situation, as I saw it-and I had some opportunity to see somewhat behind the scenes-has very considerably changed. The British Columbia government, influenced by I know not what, perhaps by the fear of God or by some motive less praiseworthy, perhaps by the fear of an imminent provincial general election, certainly changed its attitude, and, not simply on one occasion but on quite a few occasions, showed that it was making a genuine attempt to deal with the situation; the trouble certainly seemed to be that the Dominion government was stalling from time to time.
I would like to compare the promises that were made with the results. As we all remember, last spring when we were passing the relief bill, if we sought to delay the proceedings by inquiring as to the meaning of the different sections, asking that the substance be put into the act instead of into the regulations, so that we would know exactly what was being done, we were threatened and reproached again and again with holding up the relief for the poor, and the picture was held up before our eyes of hungry men, destitute women and starving children whom we were preventing from getting relief. We were told in regard to all these matters that we were inquiring about at the time: "Pass the bill and all these things will be added to you in the shape of regulations." AVe were promised that the regulations would be published in the Gazette. They were not. There
Unemployment-Mr. Neill

was a very brief summary published from time to time which did not tell you anything.
I quote from the remarks of the Minister of Labour on April 28 last. Speaking of the relief measure he said:
When the legislation is approved, agreements will be entered into with the provinces whereby I trust a contribution will be made-the basis has not yet been determined because the agreements have not yet been entered into-by means of which loans or advances will be made by this government to the provinces for the purpose of taking care of the destitute people for whom the provinces have primary responsibility.
A little further down on the same page he said:
It has not yet been definitely determined-
He was speaking of the Dominion government's share:
-but I hope it will be immediately on this legislation receiving the approval of the house.
On another date, May 9, I had been making some inquiries to find out just what the Dominion government's share was going to be, and had pointed out that it would not be fair if it was confined to one-third because the previous year the Dominion government had contributed one-half of the expenditure on works, and I had pointed out that the municipalities could not afford to pay one-third this year. Then the Minister of Labour said:
With respect to direct relief generally-and this covers all the instances to which the hon. member has referred-the present discussions have been on the basis of contributing fifty per cent. I do not know that any better arrangement can be made. That again, of course, may be subject to some review when the agreement with the provinces is concluded. At the moment, however, and I do not think it is likely to be changed, direct relief generally will likely be on the basis of a fifty per cent contribution.
That is plain enough, is it not? So we established three principles at that time. First, immediate action was going to be taken on I lie passing of that legislation. Second, the Dominion government would grant sufficient sums to the province so that the province would lend sums to the municipalities which could not finance themselves. Third, the Dominion government had it fully in contemplation-they did not think this would be changed-that the Dominion government's contribution would be fifty per cent. Something was also said about the back to the land movement, but I need not go into that just now. I certainly went home, as I believe other hon. members did, with the idea that these were promises made in the house and that we could rely upon them. The muni-

cipalities were naturally anxious to know what the situation was, and I told them that if they could not finance themselves they would be able to apply to the province, which would be compelled to grant them such assistance as they required by lending them the municipality's share. The situation was acute because several of these municipalities w'ere, in plain and simple English, broke; they had no money. The province took care of the single men, but the married men were down to the point of starvation. * Some municipalities said that they would give them a relief order, but the stores would not cash the order. I will give an instance without mentioning the name of the city. Its population is 2,340, relying upon lumbering and fishing for their livelihood. Last June the large saw mill at this place was closed down, throwing 600 employees out of work. The fishing has not proved a remunerative business this year, as all the fishermen can get is one cent a pound for white salmon and three cents for red salmon, not enough to pay expenses, and in consequence many of the fishermen are destitute. The municipality could handle two hundred more people per month, affording them relief, if they had the money to put them to work, but they say: "There is not sufficient tools and equipment to keep them at work, as we only have two dump trucks, which are at present not being operated because we cannot afford to buy fuel." Fancy a town of that size which could get neither cash nor credit to buy gas for two trucks- What was being given at that time for relief was being taken from moneys appropriated for the schools' expenses to the end of the year. They were diverting part of the money that should go to the school teachers to provide relief funds from time to time. They go on to say that they cannot get. any further loan or overdraft at the bank and that "the city request the government to loan us our proportion." Out of a population of 2,340 only 25 were industrially employed at that time. Here is a letter from the Minister of Finance of British Columbia saying:
Respecting your information that the federal government had offered to loan to the province an advance if necessary

They got that from me:
*-my information is that the federal government will not loan to the province any funds in advance but only when actual vouchers for expenditures already made have been received at Ottawa.
That was a lovely idea to pass on to a city that had not any cash or could not raise

Unemployment

Mr. Neill
enough credit to buy gas for its trucks and was taking the school teachers' money in order to pay relief.
Later on under date of September 12, the Minister of Finance of the province, an able man, wrote:
At the present time I am not very optimistic about securing the required loan from the federal government.
That was on September 12, five months after we had passed the legislation. He continues:
The federal Prime Minister reserved decision until matters could be discussed with members of his cabinet in Ottawa. Decision on various other matters was held up also so it is somewhat difficult for me to state the exact position.
That was five months after we had voted the money in a hurry because it was urgently needed. Then we have the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, a large and important non-political body passing several resolutions in the last week in June. One asked that the provincial government apply for help under the so-called federal blank cheque, and demanded a clear cut statement from the government of its policy. We have been asking for a clear cut statement for two years. Resolutions were also passed that the provincial treasury should finance the municipalities, etc., and those resolutions were based on twelve facts, of which I shall mention a few: Unemployment steadily increasing; clothing, boots and shoes are becoming necessary; owners of property now housing the unemployed, owing to continued non-payment of rent, are being forced to take eviction pro-cedings; electric light is being cut off; many municipalities have been carrying on direct relief through credit given them by local storekeepers, but storekeepers now find it impossible to continue giving this credit; banks will no longer extend the usual credits to some municipalities; the inevitable result of reducing to any considerable extent the amount of relief now being granted the unemployed will result in great hardship and consequent unrest leading to riot and possible loss of life and destruction of property.
That was not from some demagogue speaking in the house for political effect but from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities expressing the situation as it existed as of that date.
Let me show also what efforts I made in that regard. On June 15 I wrote to the Minister of Labour setting forth the situation
and saying that I had seen in the paper that they were going to contribute only one-third.
I pointed out the situation very much as I have outlined it here tonight. I did not get any answer to that letter. The minister told the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) tonight that if he had m^de a casual inquiry at his department he would very easily have got the information he desired, but let me tell the house that when you write the Minister of Labour you are by no means certain that you will ever get an answer, and in my experience the chances are 99J per cent against your ever getting one. I think I have six letters unanswered now. In the absence of a reply from the minister I wired him on June 23, pointing out the really desperate situation in the small cities and begging for action and the appointment of a commissioner. Getting no answer I wired the minister again on July 19. I got an acknowledgment from one of his officials, but no answer except the statement that the federal government was going to contribute only one-third. I wired, as I say, on July 19, pressing the situation, and later I wrote the minister again. I might as well say while I am on the subject that I have three letters which I wrote to the minister on a very serious situation with respect to the old age pensions which also remain unanswered. I pause for a minute, Mr. Speaker, to wonder what kind of mental reservation the hon. gentleman made when he took the oath of office which allows him to repudiate and ignore reasonable representations made by members of parliament in matters of public concern. Representations are made to him by members elected by the people, the same as he was, and in some cases elected by even greater majorities. I say that, however, in passing.
I desire at this moment to quote a few articles from the press. These are not criticisms or editorials but plain items of news, just as would be the account of a fire. They contain no criticism of anything that has been done, but are, as I say, simply news items and are taken almost entirely-I would not say entirely-from the Conservative press of the province of British Columbia. Here is an article dated Vancouver, July 12:
The executive of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, meeting here tonight, decided to apply direct to Ottawa for a federal representative to study the unemployment relief problems of the province.
Another item states that the Victoria city council made the same representations and, further than that, the British Columbia gov-
Unemployment-Mr. Neill

ernment, not insulted or annoyed, backed them up, because the article goes on to quote the attorney general of the province as follows:
This request already had been sent to Ottawa without result.
Premier Tolmie had been in Ottawa trying to push the case of the province, and had been in consultation with Mr. Gordon. The articles goes on to state:
Hon. W. A. Gordon, Dominion Minister of Labour, this morning assured Mayor Leeming over the long distance telephone from Ottawa that he would immediately call together the unemployment committee of the federal government to consider appointment of a direct federal representative to investigate unemployment conditions in British Columbia.
Then we come to September 2, and find a dispatch from Victoria as follows:
The British Columbia government will ask the federal authorities to loan municipalities money for relief purposes. . . . No arrangements for federal assistance have been made for the coming fall and winter and the municipalities of this province will be quite unable to cope with the situation, according to the government's view.
In any case British Columbia wants above all to get a definite answer from Mr. Bennett as to his government's unemployment policy for the coming year.
There is a request for a statement as to the unemployment policy for the coming year, and I call attention of hon. members to the fact that the dispatch is dated September 2, when two-thirds of the year had gone. Certainly they were not unreasonable in their demands, were they? After two-thirds of the year had elapsed they were beginning to push and agitate for an announcement of Dominion government policy. Certainly they were not being what would be called exigent in the matter.
I have before me what purports to be a stenographic report of an interview with the Prime Minister when he visited Calgary on September 6, 1932. He is reported as having said:
I cannot say to you that the dominion will accept fifty per cent of the burden from May 1.
Then he goes on to give reasons, but does not say definitely that he will not or will do anything. The matter is left up in the air. In a dispatch of October 8, I find the following:
Hon. _ J. W. Jones stated yesterday the provincial authorities have not yet received word of the new federal policy on relief for western Canada. . . . During the day the government asked the federal authorities for early advices on its relief policy for the west.
That is on October 8, and I ask hon. members to recall that we left Ottawa around May 24 or 26. A dispatch of October 12

states that the Dominion government wired for information, and that the British Columbia government immediately wired the information-
In the hope that it would facilitate announcement of a federal relief policy . . . but all these plans are in abeyance pending an announcement of federal policy. Meanwhile the dominion owes the province nearly a million dollars on account.
I am not prepared to stand behind that last statement, and I would not contradict the minister if he says it is not so. I have had some experience in that regard. Then, on October 22, I find the following big headlines:
Ottawa assumes complete cost of big relief group.
Then in smaller type:
Dominion to take over British Columbia camps, moving single homeless men from cities.
That is the way it is put. Then the article goes on to state:
The commission has been selected by the federal government under Doctor W. J. Black, with the approval of the provincial government.
Then the article goes on to say that the Dominion government are going to take over provincial camps. Following that we find this interesting statement:
Nothing in this arrangement-
And this appears in the Daily Colonist.
-touches on the question of married men and other men with dependents, which, it is assumed, will be settled later.
They are hopefully looking forward to an announcement later than October 22. Then we have an item in a western paper received from Ottawa under date of October 26:
The government is not in a position to make any exact pronouncement of policy respecting unemployment relief but if any responsible provincial government officials report their inability to care for the needy within their jurisdiction the government will take adequate action, Hon. W. A. Gordon, Minister of Labour told the House of Commons this afternoon.
That is on October 26; and again I call the attention of the house to the fact that we left Ottawa about May 26. This article appears in the paper about five months later. The article to which I have just referred contains the expression: "responsible provincial government officials." "What does he term a responsible official? They had been making representations right along; the Hon. Mr. Tolmie was sent to Ottawa. They had been wiring continuously, and making long distance telephone calls. On that date, however, that is all the minister had to say. I note also a statement that there are 20,000 single men,

Unemployment-Mr. Neill
and a total of 83,000 people, on relief, including dependents, in the province of British Columbia.	[DOT]
We will go back four days to October 22, and turn to an article from Victoria under that date:
British Columbia prepared today to open up unemployment camps on main roads throughout the province. . . . The Public Works Department is arranging to open camps which have been closed all summer and which will form the base for road work during the coming winter.
From this article we would conclude that something is to be done-at least it so states. We find however that nothing was done until nearly a month later. After begging, imploring, wiring and long distancing the government, we find that five months later they are going to do something; they are going to begin work just when the pitiless fall rains are coming on. People in the east talk about the harsh climate, but apart from a few days of extreme blizzards the eastern climate is far better for outside work in winter than that of British Columbia. That pitiless, penetrating, cold rain takes more out of a man, does more injury to his health, than a temperature of twenty or thirty degrees below zero.
These camps have been idle. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) was criticized for stating that no work was being done in the camps; I bear him out, and say that they were doing nothing. In the early summer they did work for some time, but when they found they could not get relief or assistance from Ottawa the work was cut down. The men were told they could stay in the camps and would receive two meals a day but no money for tobacco, and if they did not like it they could leave. That was the condition existing when I left home.
Time, that ever rolling stream, kept going on, and we find on October 31 the following article:
Plans for opening unemployment camps in many parts of British Columbia to house homeless single men from urban centres were shaped at a conference here today between members of the cabinet and Major J. G. Fordhams Unemployment Commission.
Then the article goes on to state that the commission will ask the federal government for $250,000 so that "an actual start may be made." Note that expression, "an actual start." A start had not been made on October 31. On October 27, a decision was arrived at to have a conference between the government and the commission on unemployment, and they were to decide what
camps would be opened. An article under date of October 27 contains the following paragraph:
But apart from these matters the government is concerned with the delay on the part of the federal government in deciding who is to take care of single men in rural districts

Note that.
-as they are specifically excluded from the control of the Fordham commission. It has no knowledge yet either what is to be done about maintaining married men in cities and in rural districts.
Premier Tolmie said today he was hopeful *
Mind you, he was hopeful on October 27; he must have been filled with optimism.
-the federal government would outline its policy on these important matters without delay so as to permit the province to make the necessary arrangements. Meanwhile municipalities are clamouring for some definite understanding on the whole situation.
Were they wrong to clamour? If they had taken more definite action I would not have blamed them. Then on November 4 we are informed that the British Columbia municipalities are to receive a share of the loan of $150,000 which the federal government is putting up. The further statement is made that out of seventy-eight municipalities twenty-five will have to have assistance. With this question so far settled, though as yet they had not gone to camp, the provincial government turned their attention to the problem of the married men remaining in the municipalities. Definite arrangements under which municipalities would care for these men, with federal and provincial assistance, would be made immediately, according to the announcement. The government proposed to budget the municipalities and tell each how much money it might expect for relief purposes during the coming winter. The problem of the care of married men in municipalities and married and single men in unorganized districts was "still under negotiation."
I may say that the idea of budgeting is a nice expression, but it means this: We are going to say to a city whose requirements are $5,000: "We will give you $3,000 and you can do as you like." They may say: "But we cannot get along with that much; we must have $5,000." Then we will say: "We will give you $3,000, and you can do as you will."' So they must cut down still lower the amount per head or raise the money in some other way. And now we come to the culminating feature with regard to these single, homeless men going into camps. Something really has been done in this regard.
Unemployment-Mr. Neill


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I wonder if I might interrupt my hon. friend to ask if he has a copy of my telegram to Hon. R. W. Bruhn, dated May 6, 1932, or of my letter to Hon. S. F. Tolmie, dated May 7, 1932.


Alan Webster Neill: If the Minister of Labour puts me in the position of having to stand in this house and say that letters and telegrams from myself went unanswered he can hardly expect me to produce letters or wires sent by him to someone else.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am merely asking if the hon. member has those copies. They would be very illuminating.


Alan Webster Neill: I have not; neither have I any reply to the letters and wires I sent the minister. In any event, it is recorded in the Vancouver Province that on November 17 three hundred single unemployed men out of the twenty thousand in the province went to various camps; they really did go. Now I should like to deal with a point which is not directly the fault of the minister, but I want to ask him to use his influence because certainly he has a responsibility in connection with matters of this kind. The province announced that on November 3 they intended to have another conference with the union of municipalities; at that conference they were to announce that a fixed scale of relief for food would be enforced, not suggested or left optional. That is to say, the city would not be able to spend so much and have that amount augmented by the province; the province would say, "You will spend so much and no more." Here is the municipal food unit allowance as first announced: S9.50 per month for a married man, $3 per month for his wife and S2.50 per month for his child, and since that time it has been changed to only $9 for the mian; S3.50 for the woman and $2.50 for the child. The unemployed are not oertain to get even that sum, however; each municipality is to be told just how much it can have by way of budget, and that amount will not be sufficient to pay these allowances.
I should like to direct attention to that state of affairs. Surely matrimony must be at a premium, and those members who are single ought to become married, since in the opinion of the government of British Columbia a wife can be maintained for $3.50 a month. That is considered an appropriate sum in that province. From Greenland's icy mountains to India's coral strand let us spread the news abroad to a waiting world that in British Columbia in this year of grace, or I may say disgrace, the government of that province, encouraged or at least sanctioned

by the federal government, proposes to allow a married man $3.50 a month for his wife and 82.50 far each child. That amounts to 11 cents a day for the woman and 8 cents a day for a growing child. I wonder how much that is a minute! We are told that this is going to be enforced, and they have announced that all the municipalities must accept that rate.
These are the conditions. I have been trying to show the trouble that has been caused by delay, and in these matters there is nothing more dangerous than delay. There is a Latin proverb of which the English translation is "He gives twice who gives quickly." If you tell a man you cannot do something or that you will do it on a certain day, that is something definite, but when you say it is up to the province and the province says it is up to the dominion and so on, it puts the men, and especially the married men, in a very desperate situation. That is the position today, which is to be relieved so far as the dominion is concerned by this $150,000, with which I will deal in a moment.
Now I should like to quote from the order in council which deals with these single men. It states that it has to do with single, homeless unemployed. lit does not say single, destitute unemployed; they must be homeless. So far as I can make out, and I am not trying to quibble or attack the government unfairly-


James Houston Spence: Did you ever do anything but quibble?


Alan Webster Neill: That is a matter of opinion.


James Houston Spence: That is my opinion, anyway.


Alan Webster Neill: Then I am really sorry for my hon. friend, but perhaps I might be allowed to go on, Mr. Speaker. Apparently this will only apply to those known as car riders, those men who are floating around the various provinces riding on box cars. That will not apply to Vancouver island, because you can only reach Vancouver island by boat, and they have a guard on the gangplank. So we have none of this class on Vancouver island, which includes three-fourteenths of the province of British Columbia; at least it returns three members of parliament. What does that mean? I have a friend who owns a cabin, in which he lets two unemployed men stay. Must he throw them out on the street before they can qualify as single, homeless unemployed? They are not homeless. The word should have been "destitute". From the quotations I have read with regard to the government of British Columbia, apparently they accept the

Unemployment-Mr. Bothwell
interpretation, that this only applies to those called car riders, that is, the floating population. But a man may be hungry even if he is single and has a ten by six shack. What is to be done about those people? We find the government of British Columbia saying they do not know, that they are hoping, and so on.
I must hurry on. Now the government have given $150,000 to the province to provide for those municipalities which have no money. That is a good idea, but that provision is only for November and December; it will end in five weeks. If it took six months to get this thing started how long will it take to get it extended?-because the unemployment will not end in December.
That is the situation; we are still getting only one-third, though we were promised one-half. There has been a delay of six months, and now this relief is given to the single men who will not qualify unless they are homeless. This is a burning question with us, because we have a number of single, idle men.
What is the policy of the government? That is what I am trying to get at; for goodness' sake give us a definite policy. What is the policy about the loans; what is the policy with regard to the single men throughout the country, and the married men? Above all, is the minister going to allow himself to become a party to this allowance of 11 cents a day for women and 8 cents a day for children? He may say, and very probably will say, that this is a provincial matter, but the responsibility cannot be dodged in that way. The other day the Prime Minister said he could not appoint a commissioner because this was wholly a provincial concern, but this government has given the province $4,000,000 or $5,000,000. Do you mean to say that they cannot exercise any jurisdiction over their own money, that they cannot say: "We are going to give you so much money, $4,000,000 or $2,000,000 or whatever it may be, but we have some right to see that it is spent in a reasonable way. We do not want to see destitute women being fed at the rate of 11 cents a day, or children at the rate of 8 cents a day." Do you mean to say that if the province were confronted with two alternatives, either to accept such reasonable conditions or to do without the money, they would not take it? The Prime Minister says the primary responsibility is on the province. If the province is not prepared to shoulder that responsibility then the province must be prepared to accept any reasonable conditions which may be imposed by the government granting the money.
Then will the minister not use his influence to stop this budgeting? That is a smooth phrase, but it simply means that the municipalities will be imposed upon. They have proved beyond question that they cannot carry on. Now when they want $5,000 they will be given $3,000 and told to stretch it out as far as they like. They cannot stretch it to that extent.
The other day the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) asked a question on the orders of the day, which was answered very gracefully and very pleasantly by the minister, who said:
I am confident that no one in this country need worry about being adequately supplied with food, fuel, clothing and shelter.
Food at 11 cents a day? This is no time for honeyed words and well-turned phrases; it is a question of dealing with the situation. On another occasion the hon. gentleman said:
The policy this government will adopt will be made manifest from time to time.
That is not a policy; that is opportunism- "from time to time." It is a matter of hand to mouth. A policy is a definite, prearranged, decided plan of which everyone is appraised and by which people can govern themselves. If the government do not formulate a definite policy for the coming winter and do so immediately, they will work a grave injustice to the government of British Columbia, their own political friends, and to the municipalities which are really in a desperate condition, as well as to the taxpaper who does not know where he is going to get off at. Lastly, it will work a grave injustice to the destitute people in the country who do not know from day to day just what they may expect. Whenever a man says to me, "I have had only so many days' relief," I have to tell him that the government changes its methods from week to week and I am therefore unable to say what their policy is. Let the government of British Columbia stick to one policy. There is a good man there in the person of Doctor Black. Give him adequate powers to dominate the situation and to do whatever is necessary; otherwise the situation will become quite desperate.


Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):: I rise to speak on the unemployment question because I believe that unemployment and farm relief is the most important and urgent matter before this parliament in the present session. There was a time not so long ago when most people in this country believed that the unemployment situation was merely temporary, but anyone who has given any study to the matter must long ere this have

Unemployment-Mr. Bothwell

come to the conclusion that the situation will exist in Canada for some years to come.
During this session figures have been given in the house to show that an analysis of industry in the United States, and the improvement that has been brought about in the use of machinery, and other economies effected, indicate that if they wish to produce in that country the same quantity of goods today as they produced in 1929 it would require only fifty-five per cent of the employees that were engaged at that time. That means that at the peak of production in the United States fifty-five per cent of the employees engaged in 1929 could now produce the same quantity of goods. I presume that will hold good so far as Canada also is concerned, and if that is so it means that we are facing a problem of some years' duration.
I am under the impression that the government thought when they came into power that the policies they were putting into force would have the effect of ending unemployment. After two and a half years of these policies, however, they must have come to the conclusion that they will not meet the situation. The Prime Minister and all those associated with him must realize, I think, that these policies of high tariffs, of Canada for the Canadians, will not improve matters. I hope that during this debate someone will be able to offer to the government some ideas that will help to alleviate the condition in which thousands of our people now find themselves. There is at present a great deal of dissatisfaction not only among the unemployed but also among the agricultural classes. Unemployment as I see it is linked up with the problem of farm relief. We are not going to be able to employ all the people in this country who are now idle, industrially; we shall not be able to do so for many years to come. It seems to me therefore that the more closely we can get back to the production of the necessaries of life the easier and cheaper it will be for us to support these people.
Now, the back to the land movement is all right so far as it can be worked out, but I believe there is another means of getting people back to the land which is a little different from what the Minister of Labour has so far carried into effect. I have visited different farms in Ontario and have inquired of farmers why such and such a piece of work has not been done, why improvements have not been made here and there, and they tell me that the reason is that they are not able to hire men to do the work. One fellow said to me, "There are thousands of things to be done around this place but I
tMr. Bothwell.]
am not able to employ men to do that work." He told me that in the adjoining town there were now many persons on relief and thousands on relief last winter. In years gone by, he said, there would be dozens of men calling at that particular farm to get jobs in the spring of the year. This year not a soul has called looking for work. I talked with another fellow a few miles from that place and he told me that there had not been a man on his farm in the last two years looking for work. They are not looking for work on the farms because they are getting relief in the towns and, as I understand it, in many towns once they get off relief they have difficulty getting back. This particular farmer said, "We have any amount to eat, any amount of room, and we need to have the work done; but we are not able to pay wages." I asked him whether it was not possible to get men to come and live on the farm even without wages instead of living on relief. He replied that he supposed it would if an arrangement could be made to get the men to come out. He told me that he had gone to the employment office this fall and asked the man in charge whether he had any spare men. The man in charge replied in the affirmative; he told him that there were any number of men available, and he gave him the names of some of them. The employment officer knew this man was a farmer. The farmer went to one man., of three whose names had been given to him, and at eleven o'clock in the morning this man was still in bed. He came down however to interview the farmer. He asked what work he would have to do. He was told that around the farm there were numerous things that needed to be done but, said the farmer, just now a man was needed to pick apples. This man replied, "I don't know anything about picking apples; I know nothing about farming." He was an electrician who had been out of work a year and a half and had been on relief. He said he might get a job at his trade and therefore he did not want to go on a farm. The fact was he did not wish to go off the relief that he was getting in that particular town, and the result was that the farmer went no further to look for unemployed men but hired neighbour farm boys on whom he felt he could depend.
I believe that any number of men could be placed on the farms if we had a commission or committee or some organization that would be able to get the facts and to put them in proper form. I would suggest that in these townships throughout Ontario, throughout the rural municipalities and in

Unemployment-Mr. Irvine
the agricultural districts, assessors or somebody connected with the council should be required to make inquiries and find out what farmers can take on men and have them housed and fed. We could possibly make arrangements later on to give them a few dollars for clothing. It is quite possible that many farmers can pay a few dollars, but not to the extent of standard wages.
In connection with relief there has been considerable dissatisfaction and annoyance caused to the different municipalities because of their being required to take care of people belonging to other municipalities. I think it would be advisable to have every man registered. He should be obliged to give the particulars of his life and w-here he has been working for the last two or three years. He could then be allocated to the province where he has lived, say for the last full year. As far as the municipalities are concerned, the man could be allocated to the particular municipality in which he had lived for, say the last six months. Our municipal acts provide that the cost of taking care of destitute sick shall be charged to the municipality to which they belong, but so far as taking care of other destitute persons, no provision is made, at least in our province. I quite realize that a constitutional question is involved as between the dominion and the provinces, but the Prime Minister has told us that he intends to call a dominion-provincial conference, and it should be possible to have this matter discussed at that time. The provinces could pass the necessary legislation so that these people could be allocated to their proper municipalities and the cost of any relief charged to those municipalities.
Linked up with the question of unemployment, which I look upon as being national in scope, we have another situation which pertains particularly to western Canada. The farmers there are in very distressed circumstances. I have lived in the west for most of the past thirty years, but it is only during the last year that I realized how hopeless the situation is for many of the settlers on the prairies. They have debts which were incurred when wheat was selling at one dollar or better per bushel; at the time they borrowed their money they got one dollar's worth of value, but now, with the prices of commodities what they are, they have to pay the equal of four dollars for every one they borrowed. I am not figuring in the interest in this computation. So far as the man who loaned the money a few years ago is concerned, when he loaned a dollar he loaned only a dollar's value, but today every dollar 53719-96J
he gets back is worth two dollars in commodities-I do not say four dollars because there is the middleman's profits and overhead to be considered. Is it fair that the agricultural class should be asked to bear this burden and that the man who loans the money should get back twice what he loaned in addition to the interest? I believe an adjustment should be made, and it is the duty of this government to take the lead in making that adjustment. This matter might very Well be discussed at the proposed dominion-provincial conference in order that some solution could be worked out. I can state quite frankly that those debts are not going to be paid; the man on the land cannot pay them and he is left in an absolutely hopeless position. We might as Well start something which will permit him to see the end of the road because he has now reached the stage where he has given up all hope. I realize that the federal government cannot undertake this matter by itself, but I believe that the provinces and the dominion could work together in solving this problem. This situation is linked up with the serious one of unemployment.
I rose only to pass on these suggestions to the government. We on this side of the house believe that the policies of this government have aggravated a system which was already all too serious. Hon. members opposite believe in that policy, but notwithstanding their belief in it I know that they want to work out a solution of this national problem. Surely after two years and a half of these expedients-dilly-dallying, as some hon. members have described it, a committee of this house, a commission or some body should be organized to take hold of this situation of unemployment and farm relief and endeavour to work out a solution. I am sure that every hon. member in this house speaking on this particular question does not do so from the standpoint of politics; I believe he is making a sincere effort to help his fellow men and I am sure that if a committee or other body was set up, all members from all parts of the house would give every assistance in their power in the solving of this difficulty.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, entirely too much time of this session has been taken up in discussing a matter of comparative unimportance. No doubt trade treaties and imperial agreements are of importance-let us hope that they will lead to something worth while to the future of Canada-but important as these things are, I do not regard them as being sufficiently so
Unemployment-Mr. Irvine

to occupy six weeks of the time of this house when practically no consideration has been given to such vital and emergent issues as unemployment and the condition of agriculture generally throughout Canada. No doubt the debate in connection with the imperial conference was interesting to those who think that the tariff is the key to the door of prosperity and that unemployment, international trade, the prices of agricultural and other commodities and the problem of debts are all problems which can be solved by the raising or lowering of the tariff by a certain per cent. I have no desire, of course, to speak slightingly of that which other hon. gentlemen regard as being of very high importance; it is perhaps true that the problems which I have enumerated are affected to a greater or lesser degree by the tariff, but I press the conviction that however important the tariff policy may be, it will not remove the economic causes of unemployment; it cannot be a substitute for a sound monetary policy, nor can it take the place of planned economy. Above all, it cannot in any sense meet the present emergent situation in respect to either unemployment or agriculture. I think it is safe to say that the people are not, or at least of late have not been, much interested in the imperial conference; not that they do not desire imperial trade, but because other matters more urgently claim their undivided attention. No possible agreement with Great Britain can lead to the absorption by that country of Canada's yearly output of goods. So that if the people in general have not slhown such enthusiasm about those agreements as have some hon. members, it is not to be wondered at.
The discussion on unemployment, which has just taken place, has, I think, helped to impress upon the house the need for action. The motion of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) was timely, affording the government, as it did, an opportunity to state its policy on unemployment. If the discussion had brought out nothing other than the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) it would have been well worth while. I do not regard the policy of the government in respect to unemployment as adequate, but I am glad that it has announced some policy and that we may hope, as conditions become more and more acute, the government which has taken at least one intellectual step may in the near future be led to take a definite and practical step. The Prime Minister, as is customary with ministers who deal with unemployment questions, was very careful to point out the constitutional

difficulties that stand in the way of a practical policy of unemployment insurance, and once more to emphasize that the Dominion government, has not control of the unemployment situation, but that constitutionally such matters belong to the various provinces. He has promised, however, that during the recess and prior to our reassembling in January, he will call a conference of the provinces and they will be asked to come to some decision on the matter of unemployment insurance.
The principle of unemployment insurance which the Prime Minister endorses is one which is commonly called a contributory system. I suppose most people will agree that it is, at least for the time being, perhaps the best policy to adopt, but may I point out to my right hon. friend that the 750,000 or more in Canada who today are living very largely either on charitable doles from institutions or on direct relief from the government, are not in a position to avail themselves of a contributory insurance scheme, even if that were introduced tomorrow. So that while the government's policy of unemployment insurance may be all right for those who are employed, it is useless for those who are not. Surely it is clear that men who are on the dole, men who are begging on the streets, cannot undertake to pay insurance premiums against unemployment. It may be all very well to have such a policy, but my point is that it does not meet the situation of the moment, neither does it meet the situation of the future in its entirety; for taken at its best, unemployment insurance is merely a palliative which, by the way, has been tried in Great Britain for a considerable time and, it would appear, has almost outlived its usefulness in that countiy and will ultimately be discarded for a policy much more fundamental and far-reaching. At the present time in Canada it might be well to have as a transition palliative a policy of insurance, but to ask men who have been unemployed for two years or more and who, so far as we can see will have no opportunity of being employed in the future, to make a contribution to insurance, is merely to utter an absurdity, for it cannot be done.
Let us now turn to another phase of the question, and that is the one which I think should concern the government and parliament much more than even unemployment insurance. I refer to some way of meeting the unemployment problem at its source and taking constructive steps which may ultimately lead to eliminating what is known today as unemployment. In the meantime the government of the day, having to face su-'h prac-

Unemployment-Mr. Irvine
tical difficulties in respect of unemployment, should be looking around for some means by which those who are unemployed, instead of being given small doles that are not sufficient to keep them alive, Should be employed in a really wealth producing enterprise. From this section of the house we have before now urged that policies, say of house building, road building, and other useful projects, might be undertaken by the state, which, whatever else they did, would leave the country wealthier than before. This would at least give the unemployed some place in which to live and a greater assurance of security, rather than have them disgruntled as they are, mere beggars for the state's scanty recognition. Instead of being indigents they would have the opportunity of producing such goods as would add to the national wealth; and their manhood would be sustained by the feeling that they were rendering to the country service for anything they would get in return. I suggest that not as a conclusive and all-embracing policy, but as an example of the measures that could be undertaken. I submit that is a much sounder policy than that of making loans of public moneys to private institutions in order to coax them to employ men. If such a policy is followed, we shall always find private institutions which will be very glad to take advantage of it. But I do not wish to say anything more on the unemployment situation.
I want now to ask the house to give some consideration to the agricultural phase of our national problem. I should like to ask that the government state frankly to the house during this debate what its policy is to be in respect to the pressing problems of the farmers of this country. In that regard we must take into consideration the question that is troubling them more than anything else at the moment, and that is the prices which they are obtaining for their produce. Arising out of that very much reduced income, there comes the problem of how they are to meet their financial obligations from day to day; the interest on the borrowings which they had made prior to the slump in farm prices; taxes; the maintenance of their standards of living -in short, all the problems that confront an agriculturist in Canada under present circumstances. I do not need to inform either the government or this house of the conditions of agriculture in detail. I feel sure that the hon. gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches are just as well acquainted with the faots as I am. I could therefore not hope to enlighten them at all. But I do wish to make another plea with them for a more practical consideration of the question than they have hitherto given it.
The prices of farm products are, as will be admitted by all, the measure not only of the farmer's income but, as things are in Canada now, of the economic security of the nation. It has long been recognized that the agricultural industry is without exception the most important to Canada, and when we find that that industry is completely prostrate it is no wonder that conditions of unemployment and of business stagnation prevail throughout the country. It is safe to say that for the last two years the income for agricultural products has not been sufficient to meet operating expenses, and I think that that is a very conservative statement. It must not be forgotten, either, that many farmers -were heavily in debt at the time farm prices slumped. Those who were heavily in debt then are now hopelessly in debt; for during those years not only have they been unable to reduce their indebtedness by paying off anything on the principal, but interest and compound interest has been added to the principal. Many of them have also been unable to pay their taxes. There were many perhaps who, when prices slumped, were not in debt, and it may be that a few of them have been able to remain out of debt, but if they have done so it has been at the expense of their standard of living, which must have been very much reduced, and by selling their stock. In these ways some have struggled nobly to keep themselves out of debt.
As I say, this house is in possession of all the facts in respect to agricultural conditions The situation has become so critical, however, that in some parts the farmers threaten to go on strike by refusing to produce next year's crop unless something is done to relieve their burdens. In that connection I may be permitted to read a telegram which came to the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), a few days ago from Rumsey, Alberta. It says:
A mass meeting of the farmers of Rumsey district demands an immediate bonus on wheat either bushel or acreage plan; the immediate abandonment of the gold standard and the appointment of a national board to control production and marketing of all agricultural products. Plans for complete strike of industry to be pushed unless demands met.
I do not argue, Mr. Speaker, that a threatened strike of farmers has become general throughout Alberta or throughout western Canada, but that wire shows what some of them are thinking, and it indicates that the situation is surely of such significance as to warrant this house and the government giving a great deal more attention to the situation than has been paid to it so far this session.
Unemployment -Mr. Irvine

I have here a number of resolutions which I received, some of them only today, dealing with urgent conditions in western Canada. Here is one I received from Mr. H. G. Laycoek, of Ponoka, Alberta, who happened to be secretary of a mass meeting that was held in that town:
AVhereas, several months have elapsed since Mr. H. H. Stevens promised sympathetic consideration to Mr. Speakman's resolution re the formation of a council of Social and Economic Research, and whereas the need for such council is daily becoming more imperative;
Therefore be it resolved that the federal parliament implement that promise by establishing this council and setting it to work.
Here is another resolution passed by the same body:
Whereas the price of agricultural products is far below the cost of production;
And whereas most of the producers of primary products are heavily involved in debts;
And whereas at present prices we are in a hopeless position to carry on;
And whereas the extremely low prices of primary products is to a very great extent due to our present monetary system;
Therefore we request at once-
Will the government kindly take note of the time element in this resolution:
Therefore we request at once dominion control of currency and credit, and that the issue of this currency and credit should be based upon the natural wealth and productive capacity of this country, not, as at the present time, upon one single commodity, gold, and that its volume should be determined by the goods and services to be dealt with and the legitimate requirements of the people.
Those resolutions, Mr. Speaker, are symptomatic of the general opinion that prevails throughout western Canada. The house has taken no action on those conditions so far during this session. My object now is to urge the house and the government to action. The Prime Minister during the last election campaign wisely said, in effect, that it was unthinkable that in Canada, where there is such an abundance of real wealth and only ten millions of people, anybody should go hungry or idle and without reasonable economic security. I am as convinced now as I was then that the Prime Minister was right in that view; nevertheless there are hungry and idle people by the hundreds of thousands in Canada, and not only are there idle people whom we call the unemployed, but there are debt-burdened people who are being threatened with eviction right across this country because they are unable to meet their financial obligations. So the situation today is many degrees worse than it was when that observation was made by the leader of the government.
I frankly admit, Mr. Speaker, that the government has worked strenuously and the Prime Minister heroically to try to meet the

situation along the old lines. His efforts have all been directed along the old channels, which do not lead directly to the root of the problem. Neither the Prime Minister nor the government has explored new ways, and yet new ways will have to be found; for the old ways are inadequate. Surely I do not need to argue to this government that the old ways will not do; for have they not tried them well? Did any government ever try them with more sincerity or show more ability in their application than this government? Did any government ever try the old ways with a greater amount of faith than this government has had, and meet with greater failure?
What are the facts? The measures which have been employed to meet the economic situation in Canada have been measures which were to a certain extent successful in past generations, but faced as we are with a new problem arising out of an entirely different situation those methods are not longer applicable. What I say to the government and to the house is that we must either make capitalism yield life and security to our people, or we must abandon it and begin to build a new system on the foundation fact of abundance. So far as I am concerned I would not spend one hour of my time trying to patch capitalism. I know, however, that the government still holds the view that that system may be resuscitated and made to function. Holding that view, as they do, I must hold the government responsible for making the system work, and if they cannot make it work I suggest that they frankly say so, abandon it, and build another system on the foundation of that abundance which is the most startling and important fact of the economic life of the modern world.
I now come to another phase of the agricultural situation. A very large percentage of our farming population have obligated themselves to pay the loans advanced to them in the ordinary course of their business, namely in the purchasing of land or to meet the cost of goods obtained on credit. These obligations were undertaken prior to the great slump in prices of farm produce. Not only has that obligation been made larger by the interest compounded during the last several years-that in itself would be serious enough- but in the terms of prices of commodities in which a loan payment is possible, the debt is two or three times larger than when contracted.
That condition came about for two reasons. The first is obvious to everybody, namely, that the overproduction of farm products reduced their value in relation to other commodities and in relation to debt values. That

Business of the Home
is the first. I am not going to charge the government with the responsibility for overproduction of wheat, but I do charge them with failing to act in connection with the other factor which enters into the matter, namely, that of deflation. When the present government came into office Canada was proceeding steadily along a policy of deflation. Until last week we continued to follow that policy. What has been the effect of it upon parliaments-yes, and upon people-who find themselves in debt? Our dollar may have been sound, but it was not honest, and in my view an honest dollar is of much greater importance to the life of the nation than is a sound dollar. A dollar which equalled one bushel of wheat a few years ago when farmers accepted financial obligations has been stretched to equal three or four bushels of wheat. That is not an honest dollar. The dollar has been very accommodating, so far as stretching is concerned, but outside of that it is nothing to be proud of. I believe the question concerning the honesty of our dollar is of such importance that this parliament cannot afford to ignore it. When we have a situation such as I have just mentioned ; when through the manipulation of credit by those in charge of it-which, by the way, is not the government-the value of the dollar can be altered so as to increase two or three fold the debts of already overburdened farmers, we are confronted with a problem the importance of which cannot be over-emphasized. Unless the values of commodities, with which alone these debts can be paid, are brought to a parity with commodity values equal to those obtaining when the debt was contracted, it is simply impossible for those debts to be paid. The farmers did not enter into a contractual obligation to give three bushels of wheat for one. I agree with hon. members who state that contractual obligations are sacred, but I argue that the contractual obligations which farmers entered into when they obtained loans a few years ago cannot now be interpreted to mean that they must pay those loans in three times the value which pertained when they received them. I maintain a system which demands that that be done is dishonest and cannot be defended by anyone. Values have departed, in very large degree, from farm investments, just as they did from investments on the stock market. The unpaid interest compounded and added to the principal, plus the increase of debts through deflation, plus the unpaid taxes which have resulted from the unfavourable economic conditions of the past two years, have brought the farmers of western Canada to a very serious position.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is now eleven o'clock. Does the hon. member wish to move the adjournment of the debate?


William Irvine: Yes, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the house adjourns I was going to ask the right hon. leader of the opposition whether he would think it desirable to adjourn until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning; if so I should be pleased to move accordingly. If there is any likelihood of concluding the business of the house this week we might sit at eleven o'clock tomorrow morning; if not we might as well wait until three o'clock. I shall be guided by whatever the right hon. gentleman has to say.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish I could give the right hon. the Prime Minister some assurance as to the length of time hon. members may require, but I am afraid I cannot do so. Personally I had hoped we might conclude this week, but I am afraid I cannot give my right hon. friend any undertaking in that regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not expect the right hon. gentleman would be able to do that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say,
however, that hon. members on this side will be agreeable to whatever the right hon. the Prime Minister may decide or wish to do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That being the case I move, seconded by Mr. Rhodes:
That when this house adjourns it stand adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning (Thursday).
That, of course, is with the consent of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What will be the first business?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the right hon.
gentleman realizes the first business is now the last business. We will continue with what we are doing, and when that is concluded and the Speaker leaves the chair the Minister of Finance will continue with the resolutions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Today we proceeded first with a bill; I was wondering if tomorrow we would go on with the redistribution measure.
Questions


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was prepared to take only second reading of the bill on Tuesday of last week, but, as I stated to the house on that day, the hon. member for Shelbume-Yar-mouth asked that it be not then proceeded with. Subsequently the hon. member sent me a note to the effect that it would be satisfactory to proceed on Wednesday, but I did not receive the note until the Wednesday had passed. I think it would be better to dispose first of what may develop into a protracted discussion than to take the representation bill, which can probably be dealt with in a very short time, because in that connection I shall make the ordinary motion to refer it to a committee, which has heretofore been done. The bill is exactly in the form of the bills presented on the two previous redistributions, and it is proposed to follow the same course. The bill will go to a committee of the house, to be named either when the bill is referred or later, as was done on the last occasion. It is proposed to proceed with ways and means immediately the Speaker leaves the chair.
At 11.02 p.m. the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, November 24, 1932