CHARGES BY HON. G. N. GORDON MEMBERS TO COMPOSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION

Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved:: That Messrs. Geary, Gagnon, Bowman, Cantley, Duff, Howard, and Speakman be named as the committee in respect of the motion adopted on the 6th day of February, 1932, to investigate certain statements made by the Honourable George N. Gordon as more fully set out in the said motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 15, to amend the Admiralty Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Hugh Guthrie: This bill ns introduced to establish the rules in regard to the Admiralty Act in Canada. Since the passage of the act at Westminster last December by the Imperial parliament it has become possible to pass this measure. The rules are being framed by the judges of the exchequer court- and are to be subjected to the approval of the governor general in council and published in the Gazette.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
walker's cutting, que. mail contract Mr. GIROUARD:
1.	Were tenders called for mail contract rural route No. 1, Walker's Cutting, in the county of Arthabaska, Quebec?
2.	If so, was the contract granted?
3.	If granted, to whom?
4.	Who was the lowest tenderer?

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Was Mr. L. J. A. Tanguay, of Beauport, charged by Oscar L. Boulanger, M.P., of having taken an active part in politics in the county of Belleehasse at the last provincial election?
2.	Was the said Mr. Tanguay charged by Mr. Boulanger with dealing with political patronage 3,t Quebec ?
3.	Is said Mr. Tanguay still in the employment of the government?	_
4.	Will the government carry out an inquiry in connection with the charges made by Mr. Boulanger against Mr. Tanguay?


Hugh Guthrie: 1 and 2. No information in department of Justice.
3.	Yes.
4.	Answered by 1 and 2.


ASSOCIATION OF MAIL CLERKS
Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	Is there an association of mail clerks?
2.	If so, who is their president?
3.	Who is their secretary?
4.	Is Mr. Garfield MacKinnon the secretary?
5.	Is Mr. MacKinnon authorized to take up subscriptions?
6.	For how many years has Mr. MacKinnon been secretary?
Questions


Mr. SAUVE:: 1 to 6. It is presumed that this question refers to the Canadian Mail Contractors' Association. It is understood that Mr. Joseph P. Everett of Blenheim, Ontario, is president and Mr. Garfield MacKinnon of Guelph, Ontario, is secretary-treasurer but the government has no official information in regard to this association.


BELLA COOLA CENSUS ENUMERATOR
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	How much was Edward Albert Wheeler census enumerator at Bella Coola, British Columbia, in 1931, paid per day?
2.	How many days was he employed?
3.	Did he use a car and if so, how many days?
4.	How much per day was he paid for the use of the car?
5.	How many persons did the said Edward Albert Wheeler enumerate in Bella Coola?
6.	Is he a British subject and, if so, when was he naturalized?
7.	If not naturalized, where in Canada was he born?
8.	Were the parents British subjects, before he was 21 years of age?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Not paid on per diem basis.
2.	Answered by number 1.
3.	No information.
4.	Answered by number 3.
5.	The area enumerated by Edward Albert Wheeler was designated as "the watershed of North Bentinck Arm and Bella Coola river east to the juncture of the Bella Coola and Kahylskt rivers," in which the population was 658.
6.	Yes.
7.	Born in Essex county, Ontario.
8.	Yes.


NEW BRUNSWICK DEBT GUARANTEE
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Did the federal government, during the years 1931 or 1932, give any guarantee to any bank or committee of bankers of the debt due them by the province of New Brunswick?
2.	If so, what was the amount and what was the guarantee given?


Mr. RHODES:: 1 and 2. No.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	When were projects to aid unemployment in New Brunswick for the year 1931 submitted to the federal government for approval, and what projects were so approved?
2.	What amount was allocated to the province of New Brunswick for unemployment relief works up to March 31, 1931, and how much for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1932?
3.	What projects were approved for year ending March 31, 1932, and what were the dates of approval?


Mr. GORDON:: 
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What were the names and addresses of the lawyers in the various provinces of Canada who were employed professionally by the Canadian Farm Loan Board during June, 1930?
2.	Have any changes been made since that date, if so, in what way?
3.	If so, what was the reason for the change in each case?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With respect to question
No. 9 on the order paper I find that under the terms and regulations of the act the Farm Loan Board has full control of the appointment and dismissal of its employees. They take the ground which has been sustained I believe since the commencement of the act. that the answer to the question of my hon. friend is not one which ought property to be submitted to parliament. I am advised, however, by the director of the board that there is no objection to furnishing information to any hon. member who may desire it. I would suggest therefore that the question be dropped and that the hon. member who has asked it would communicate with the Farm Loan Board and I am sure in that case he will receive the information he seeks.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Question dropped.
'purchase of labrador


Mr. BENNETT:: Before we proceed with
the next order of business may I say that the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier) allowed his question to stand the other day upon my giving a verbal answer and promising I would produce copies of letters which passed between the government of Newfoundland and the government of Canada with respect to Labrador. I now produce those letters.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HANSON (Slceena):: 1.	What was the revenue of the post office at Bella Coola, British Columbia, for the years 1929-30-31?
2.	How much rental is paid per month for this office?
3.	How much rental is paid per month for the telegraph booth at Bella Coola?
4.	To whom is the rent paid in each instance?


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF ACT EXPENDITURES- SHELBURNE-YARMOUTH
Mr. RALSTON:: 1. What federal public works in Shelburne-Yarmouth were constructed or undertaken by the government to be paid for out of the money voted last session under the moneys authorized to be expended under the Unemployment Relief Act of the last session?
2.	What amounts were authorized in respect of each work?
3.	What are the names of the foremen employed in respect of each work?
4.	On whose recommendation was the selection made of men to be given employment in connection with each of these respective works?
5.	What was the approximate expenditure actually incurred in respect of each of such works ?
6.	Are any such works as yet unfinished, if so, which of such works?
7.	On whose recommendation did the government decide on the authorization of each of the works referred to?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. RALSTON:: For a copy of the correspondence, documents, accounts and vouchers respecting the expenditure authorized in the province of Nova Scotia for federal public works to be paid for under the authority of the Unemployment Relief Act of last session, showing: (a) the amount authorized; (b) the amount expended.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act provides that within fifteen days after the first of March a return must be tabled containing the information for which my hon. friend asks. I suggest he allow the matter to remain.


James Layton Ralston: While the Unemployment Relief Act provides for a return I do not think it provides for the details asked for in my motion. I suggest to my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works that matters would be expedited if the information asked could be furnished. I do not think what I have requested would be very voluminous.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it is voluminous,
and it would take a long time to prepare it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If my hon.
friend would allow me to amplify my statement I might say that in undertaking the work in the province of Nova Scotia as in other provinces, an effort was made to adopt a program which would relieve unemployment to the greatest possible extent. In that province we have before us 150 undertakings. To comply with my hon. friend's request would involve the copying of practically 150 files. I speak with regard to this and succeeding motions. Those motions would involve copying probably 500 pay lists. If there is any particular work my hon. friend has in mind or upon which he desires information I suggest he limit his motion to those works. The work involved in his motions would materially increase the staff of the department and involve a great deal of work.


James Layton Ralston: I suggest to my hon.
friend that if the house will permit me to

Hours of Labour-Mr. Heenan
refer to the matter at a later time and if my hon. friend will bring down now the details of two items mentioned in each of the resolutions, namely the amount authorized and the amount expended, and will permit the resolutions to stand on the order paper I will consider further whether I have to ask the house to proceed with the resolutions themselves.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is quite
satisfactory and I adopt my hon. friend's suggestion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does that apply to the
next two resolutions?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, so far as I am concerned the same understanding applies to the next two.	.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Motions Nos. 1, 2 and
3 for papers moved by Mr. Ralston will stand on terms agreed upon.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. DUFF (for Mr. Veniot):: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents relating to the awarding of a contract for mail route R.R. No. 1, Clifton, Gloucester county, New Brunswick.



LOURDES POSTMASTER, DISMISSAL

Mr. ROBERGE:: For a copy of all documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Joseph Mailhot as postmaster of Lourdes, county of Megantic, and the appointment of his successor; also a copy of the evidence in connection with the inquiry which was held.



HOURS OF LABOUR


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River) moved:: Whereas, the Dominion of Canada is a signatory to the articles of peace of the treaties of Versailles, thereby subscribing to the principle of a maximum working day of eight hours. Therefore be it resolved that this house is of opinion that the government of Canada should take appropriate steps to ensure, throughout Canada, the fulfilment of our treaty obligations and conventions arising out of the Peace treaty, relating to hours of work.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of introducing this motion at the last session of parliament, and if hon. members will refer to Hansard they will not find any remarks of mine in relation thereto which are of a partisan character. I did not try to excuse the

government of which I was a member, neither did I try to blame my hon. friends on the opposite side for any delay. I simply asked that the government should take appropriate steps to try to get the eight-hour day observed all over Canada. After considerable discussion the government, through the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), accepted the resolution in these words:
As I view this motion in the form in which it is moved, I see no objection whatever to its adoption.
That is, the government very cordially accepted the resolution. Unfortunately, however, some hon. members wished to discuss the matter further, the motion was talked out, and thus the parliament of Canada was deprived of the opportunity of putting its stamp of approval thereon.
Now, in view of the attitude of the government last session, I am assuming that they have not changed their minds, and therefore I do not see any necessity to present any extended argument on this occasion. The motion reads:
Whereas, the Dominion of Canada is a signatory to the articles of peace of the treaties of Versailles, thereby subscribing to the principle of a maximum working day of eight hours; therefore be it resolved that this house is of the opinion that the government of Canada should take appropriate steps to ensure, throughout Canada, the fulfilment of our treaty obligations and conventions arising out of the Peace treaty, relating to hours of work.
Briefly, this is a statement of the situation. In 1919 the treaty of Versailles was signed by the then Prime Minister of Canada, Sir Robert Borden, on behalf of the government of Canada. That treaty contained article 13, known as the labour section. Arising out of the treaty an international conference was held -in Washington in October, 1919, when the principle of the eight-hour day was reaffirmed and recommended to the countries which were signatories to the Peace treaty. When the adoption of the principle of the eight-hour day came before this house the question of jurisdiction arose, some contending that as Sir Robert Borden had signed the Peace treaty on behalf of the government of Canada, the federal government should take the necessary steps to bring about the observance of the eight-hour day throughout the dominion by appropriate legislation; while others took the view that under the British North America Act this would be usurping the jurisdiction of the provinces. In 1925 the government of (Canada submitted the question to the Supreme Court of Canada and the court decided in effect that the parliament

Hours.of Labour-Mr. McIntosh
of Canada had jurisdiction over its own employees, but that the provinces had jurisdiction with respect to hours of work.
In 1930, in order to carry out our treaty obligations, an order in council was passed, P.C. 670, putting all federal government employees who were working in excess of eight hours on an eight-hour day basis. On May 30 of the same year legislation was enacted, now known as chapter 20-21 of George V, placing all employees on government contracts or working at day labour on government work on the eight-hour day basis.
My position in the matter is simply this, Mr. Speaker. I submit that the federal parliament having taken the mote out of its own eye, the federal government is now in a better position to approach the provincial governments with a view to having them enact legislation to carry out our treaty obligations. It will be seen, therefore, that this resolution simply calls upon the government of Canada to take appropriate steps to ensure throughout Canada the fulfilment of our treaty obligations with respect to hours of work. And I have no fear but that this house will unanimously adopt the resolution.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, this resolution may be divided into two parts. The first part recites that the Dominion of Canada is a signatory to the articles of peace of the treaties of Versailles, thereby subscribing to the principle of a maximum working day of eight hours; the second part asks this house to express the opinion that the government of Canada should take appropriate steps to ensure the fulfilment of our treaty obligations and conventions arising out of the peace treaty relating to hours of work.
Although I represent an agricultural riding, yet I think this resolution is of sufficient importance to claim my attention. Naturally the larger part of the population of the riding of North Battleford are engaged in agriculture, but all the varied activities of our national life are also engaged in, for besides lumbering, dairying, stock raising, and fishing, we have a certain amount of industrial development.
I think the historical background of this resolution is important. Prior to 1900 there was international action to a certain extent in connection with the protection of labour standards throughout the world. That action was taken on more than one occasion, and finally a certain number of nations came together in connection with the regulation and legalization of labour problems and labour conditions. Subsequently, Switzerland took the lead in dealing with this question, and as a result the International Association for Labour Legislation was organized, in 1900, w'ith headquarters at Basle, Switzerland. Later, another international convention was arranged in Switzerland and action was taken in connection with the use of white phosphorus in the manufacture of matches, and still later another international convention was held in Italy, when further action was taken. So from 1900 to 1919, when the Peace treaty was signed, we may say that international action was gradually being taken throughout the world in connection with the problems of labour.
When the Peace treaty was being negotiated in 1919 it was only natural that international action should receive a great stimulus. As a result a commission on labour legislation was appointed to which was committed the important w ork of drawing up legislation which would affect labour throughout the world in connection with this Peace treaty. The recommendations of that commission dealt with such important labour questions as the establishment of a maximum working day and working week; the regulation of labour supplies throughout the world; the prevention of unemployment ; the provision of an adequate living wage; the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out of employment; the protection of children, and the protection of the interests of workers when living in a country other than their own.
These questions, together with the organization of vocational and technical education, constituted certain landmarks in respect of the consideration of labour problems generally. That commission drew up Article XIII of the Peace treaty, which is the foundation for the resolution before the house to-day, with regard to which the ex-Ministar of Labour (Mr. Heenan) has just spoken.
Article XIII recommends the adoption of an eight-hour day or a forty-eight-hour week as the standard to be aimed at where it has not been already attained. So far as this resolution is concerned, I understand that it deals with government undertakings or public works sponsored by the Dominion government, and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) has dealt with the question of the right of the Dominion government to take action.
In conclusion, all I would say is that I think the time has arrived when the industrial workers of Canada ought to have the support not only of the Prime Minister but of every member of this government, and that support can be best shown by the government of the
2S6

Hours of Labour-Mr. Guthrie
day taking action to call an interprovincial conference, at which will be represented the government of Canada, the governments of the provinces, all labour interests and the interests of employers, at which the question of jurisdiction could be discussed and probably overcome, so that throughout Canada, from one ocean to another, from one industrial area to another, from one province to another, the request contained in this resolution will be complied with.


Hugh Guthrie: Last session, Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) brought forward a motion in terms similar to the motion he has just moved in this house, and in the few remarks I made at that time I said that in my opinion there was no objection to the house accepting the motion as drawn. I am still of the same opinion. The motion merely asks that it be resolved that this house is of the opinion that the government of Canada should take appropriate steps to ensure throughout Canada the fulfilment of our treaty obligations and conventions arising out of the peace treaty relating to hours of work.
The gist of the motion is that the government should take appropriate steps. As the motion was not carried during the last session of the house there were no steps to be taken, as a result of it. In fact the only steps that suggest themselves to my mind at the moment are those which were taken by the preceding government on four or five occasions, when the question was brought to the attention of the various provincial governments with the idea of enlisting their sympathies and having them pass the necessary provincial legislation to bring into force the provisions of the treaty of Versailles with respect to labour.
In my judgment this parliament has done about all it can do in respect of that treaty. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has given a brief resume of some of the steps which have been taken by this parliament to bring our national labour service into conformity with the requirements of that treaty, but fortunately or unfortunately the dominion powers are limited by our constitutional act; there are some matters which do not lie within our legislative jurisdiction and in connection with which we have no right whatever to legislate. One of these matters is the question of hours of labour, which is largely a provincial matter, and the most this government can do in regard to the general subject is to bring that question directly to the attention
 .
of the various provincial governments and request them to cooperate.
This has been done time and time again. It was not done directly after last session because the motion was not adopted by the house last session, but if this present motion is adopted the government will take steps without delay definitely to draw this matter to the attention of the various provincial governments. I remember that last session, in discussing either this or another kindred subject, I expressed the opinion that the time had come when a provincial conference should be summoned to meet at Ottawa. The House of Commons sat until after August first of last year, and immediately thereafter I was summoned to attend an important meeting at Geneva, from which I did not return until about November first.
Following my return I had an opportunity of discussing the question of a provincial conference with members of the governments of several of the provinces. I remember discussing it with the members of the governments of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and, I think also, British Columbia. There was a general idea among them all that a conference should be held, but there was also a feeling which was very general that last autumn or this winter would not be the best time to hold such a conference. Conditions throughout Canada and throughout the world had become acute and it was felt that until they had become more settled the conference should not be called. Therefore I did not pursue the matter further. But I still am of the opinion that a conference between the dominion and the provinces should be called as soon as conditions warrant such a conference being satisfactorily held. It is not only in regard to this question of the hours of labour that we desire to consult the provinces; there are many questions which more or less involve a dispute as to jurisdiction. These questions are not in a satisfactory condition now, and much good might be accomplished if a conference were held, and I trust that in the not-distant future a more satisfactory basis may be arrived at.
There is this further to be said in regard to Canada and the treaty of Versailles, and particularly with respect to the question of labour. While in Geneva last fall I had occasion to discuss the question with some of those who are better informed in regard to these matters than I am myself, and I was glad to learn that Canada was not lagging behind in regard to the provisions of that

Hours oj Labour-Mr. Marcil
treaty. We were well in the forefront. I do not think any nation in the world has carried out all the provisions of that treaty. Some have done so to a much greater extent than others, but Canada's position is a very happy one in that respect. We have gone a much greater distance than many other nations perhaps more important in one aspect than Canada, and I felt very proud of the -work that this dominion had accomplished.
As I said at the opening of my remarks,
I think the house might well adopt this resolution. If there is anything more that this government can do to bring the matter directly to the attention of the various provincial governments I should like to hear suggestions along that line. The government is entirely sympathetic and would like to aid the cause as much as possible.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: The same conditions of labour do not exist in the country as in the cities. In my part of the country it has been the custom from time immemorial for workmen to put in ten hours a day. In the government works now the working day is only eight hours, and pay is given for that number of hours. In the unemployment relief works carried on by the provinces and the dominion, men are working eight hours a day and are paid for eight hours only. This represents a decrease in their wages. On the work in my constituency in which men are repairing the highway they are paid 25 cents an hour for eight hours a day and these men consider it a hardship. They have asked me as their representative to request that they be allowed to work ten hours a day, which would give them S2.50 a day. This is only a reasonable living wage. So that before we go much further this question should be looked into. If the men can be paid for ten hours a day while working only eight hours, so much the better; but if their wages are to be reduced in accordance with the number of hours they work, then I do not see much advantage in the change. That is the view of the people whom I have the honour to represent.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I could not catch distinctly
what the last speaker (Mr. Marcil) said, but I believe it was to the effect that there was a danger, if the hours of labour were cut down to eight instead of ten, that it might mean a reduction in wages with consequent hardship. Arguments of that kind are always put forward in opposition to any reform being made. In normal circumstances, if the universal day were eight hours employers would
sooner or later come through with the wages and give a living wage for an eight-hour day.
I can quite understand that with the depression which exists at the present time there are in our midst certain employers who would take advantage of the large number of unemployed and force down wages if at all possible. It seems to me, however, that it would be comparatively easy for a government really sincere in the matter not only to put into force an eight-hour day but, more than that, to put into force a minimum wage act which would guarantee the workers a sufficient return for an eight-hour day to enable them to keep themselves and their families in decency.
I hope the house will adopt the suggestion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and accept the resolution, though on his own statement the passing of the resolution will really mean very little. All that he suggests it could possibly mean would be an incentive to the government to refer the matter once more to the provinces. I regret that it should be necessary to have the matter brought up in this way in order that it might be referred to the provinces. It seems to me that if we had a Labour department worth its salt that department would see to. it that such matters were kept continuously before the provinces.


Hugh Guthrie: There have been communications with the provinces in regard to this matter for five or six years.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know; but our
department might have been a great deal more active. I suggest that if we continue to cut down the estimates of the Labour department we might as well abolish it altogether. There is a possibility of a Labour department taking itself seriously, but I do not think our Labour department has been given sufficient backing in the last few years to make its activities worth very much. The Minister of Justice said he thought that the provinces were of the opinion that a conference should not be called until conditions were more settled. I submit that it is because of the unsettled conditions that now prevail that the conference ought to be called at once. With unemployment as it is in almost every province in this dominion, it is highly desirable that the provinces should get together on a united program, and one thing that might be done is the reduction of hours. If there are hundreds of thousands of men absolutely unemployed and others working ten or, more hours a day, I submit that it is only reason-

Hours oj Labour-Mr. Woodsworth
able to cut down the hours of those who are employed in order that a iarger number of men might be given work. I should think, therefore, that the very fact that conditions are unsettled makes it all the more necessary to have a conference in the very near future.
The Minister of Justice referred to the fact that last year a motion passed this house calling for a dominion-provincial conference. I hope that conference will not be very much longer delayed. It is just a question how long the dominion can hold together if we permit an antiquated constitution to hamper us in carrying on our everyday affairs. We ought to have sufficient common sense to recognize the vast changes that have taken place in the last sixty years since confederation and make proper adjustments.
There is one other thing I have to say, and I have advanced this argument before in this house. I cannot for a moment concede the position taken by the Minister of Justice that the dominion has no responsibilities in matters of this kind because of our constitution. There is another way of looking at it and it is this. If the Dominion government has the right to sign a treaty it has the duty to see that the terms of the treaty are observed. Under certain powers granted to the dominion, including our relationship with foreign nations, we have certain very definite responsibilities and rights. After the great war Canada along with other nations signed the treaty of Versailles, and merely because we are a federal body, merely because our constitution makes it a bit difficult to effect the necessary arrangements, I do not believe we should do nothing. In other matters the difficulties have been overcome. For instance, in connection with the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, it was found possible to have the enabling legislation passed by the provinces. On many occasions the Dominion government has passed legislation and found the provinces quite willing to cooperate.
Certain provinces have expressed their willingness to put this eight-hour day on the statute book providing they are assured that the other provinces will do likewise. In other matters dominion legislation has been passed contingent on certain action being taken by the provinces, but nothing of that kind has been attempted in this instance. A few years ago it was urged that the granting of tariff favours to certain enterprises and industries should be contingent upon those industries adopting the eight-hour day; such action was within the competence of this government, but no action was taken. To my mind the real difficulty is not that of the constitution;

this government along with other governments has not taken the matter seriously enough. As soon as that is done I am quite confident that ways and means can be found to give effect to the solemn dbligation undertaken by the signing of the treaty of Versailles.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) in bis frank and I think sincere statement, has said that he intends to call a conference of the provinces to discuss this matter. Can 'he give the house the approximate date of this conference?


Hugh Guthrie: At the present moment, I cannot.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member speaks now it will close the debate.


Mr. STITT (Selkirk):: I hope the hon.
member will not blame me this time for talking out the resolution.


Peter Heenan: I am closing the debate and the hon. member will not be given an opportunity to talk it out this time. It seems to me the hon. member is smarting under some grievance. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), speaking on behalf of the government, has shown quite clearly that this resolution was not carried at the last session because of certain things which had occurred. The hon. member for Selkirk may have the consolation that he prevented the .government from accepting this resolution, and yet he pretends to be a friend of labour.


James Herbert Stitt: I object to the statement of my hon. friend.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the hon. member speaking on a question of privilege?


James Herbert Stitt: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has stated that last year I obstructed this debate. This is the very statement in respect to which you called the hon. member to order yesterday, and he took it back. He now repeats it; he claims that I obstructed this resolution. Last year I spoke for ten minutes while my hon. friend read and spoke for hours at a time when the house was ready to adopt the resolution.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The incident referred to was satisfactorily adjusted a few days ago. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) withdrew the inference he had made that the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stitt) had wilfully obstructed the passage of the resolution. This is all a matter of record.

Farm Relief-Mr. McKenzie


James Herbert Stitt: The hon. member has just repeated his statement that I obstructed the resolution.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy-River took the right course, and I do not think the point raised by the hon. member for Selkirk is well taken.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the hon. member for Selkirk should appear to be smarting under such a terrible grievance. The result of his tactics last year was to block the passage of the resolution.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter Heenan: After the hon. member for Selkirk had spoken for some considerable time, I rose in my place and made the following statement, as appears on page 1730 of Hansard of 1931:
I was wondering if the hon. member heard the acting leader of the government say that he was willing the motion should carry. I would remind the hon. member that it is now just one minute to eleven o'clock.
The hon. member continued to speak, and at eleven o'clock Mr. Speaker made the following statement:
It being eleven o'clock the house will stand adjourned until to-morrow at three o'clock.
We need not discuss the matter further, until we are on the platform of my hon. friend during the next election.


James Herbert Stitt: The hon. member
did not worry me much last year.


Peter Heenan: I appreciate the remarks
of the Minister of Justice and I realize that it is an honour to have a resolution of this description passed in my name. I do not regard the remarks of the minister in the same light as does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). I understood the hon. minister to state that he would call a conference of the provinces and that he would ask them in the name of Canada to pass this legislation.


Hugh Guthrie: This would be only one
of many questions to be brought before the conference.


Peter Heenan: I quite understand that,
but I consider that this is one of the most important, as it is now before this house. I did not go into the details as to how the object sought could be accomplished, but there are many ways in which it could be done. If the provinces are not united it may be necessary for the government of Canada to take drastic measures to discipline some of the provinces. I recall moving a similar reso-41761-19
lution in the Ontario legislature in 1924, and the premier asked that the resolution be carried with a slight amendment to the effect that it would come into force when the other provinces had enacted similar legislation. This was an easy way of disposing of the subject.
I believe the province of Nova Scotia had been ready for some time to adopt this measure. When I was acting as Minister of Labour I discussed this matter with the representatives of many of the provinces and I found they were coming more and more to our way of thinking. I think the time is ripe to call a conference with the object of having this legislation adopted through the various provinces during the coming year.
As regards the statement of the hon. member for Bona venture (Mr. Marcil) that some of the men in his constituency would like to work longer than eight hours a day in order to make more money, such a condition would be unnecessary if the provinces and the capitalists of this country would follow the lead given by the federal parliament when it put into operation the eight hour day for government employees; and we did not reduce their salaries one cent. Consequently there is no need for alarm so far as that is concerned.
In conclusion I would say I appreciate the honour of having the government accept this resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia) moved:: Whereas the policy of extending federal assistance to western farmers on a bushel basis rather than on an acreage basis has worked out most unfairly and unjustly to the residents of those districts suffering from failure or near failure of crop,
And whereas a largely signed petition and memorandum has been presented to the government by the secretary of Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, praying for additional legislation to partially remedy the situation that exists,
Therefore be it resolved: that, in the opinion of this house the government should give immediate consideration to a more equitable and less discriminatory solution of this problem.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving the resolution which stands in my name on the order paper, 1 can say that to those of us who are conversant with the measure that was passed during the last days of the last session, an Act respecting Wheat, this resolution will be practically self-explanatory and will not re-


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the principle of taking money out of the public treasury and giving it either to individuals or to corporations. I am opposed because such action is unsound in principle, and because when once that practice is started it is almost impossible to treat everybody alike. When the government has chosen to take that course however I suggest to them that the only thing to do is as nearly as possible to treat everybody alike.
Last year when the proposal to grant a bonus of 5 cents a bushel on all wheat grown in the western provinces was before the house, I attempted to point out to the government that the scheme was bound to work out inequitably, that those who had a large crop would receive a large bonus while those
Farm Relief-Mr. Young

who had no crop would receive no bonus but would have to help to pay the bonus to their more fortunate neighbours. The request for a bonus of one dollar per acre seeded last year has arisen as a direct result of the policy of paying 5 cents per bushel on all wheat grown in the western provinces. Those farmers in the dried-out districts are saying, "We are helping to pay the 5 cent per bushel bonus to all those in the north who have had good crops, whereas we are deriving nothing, and have had no crops." The farmers of the dried-out districts in southern Saskatchewan are to-day suffering more from the depression than any other class of people in Canada. Not only do they suffer, but they are in the unfortunate position of having reaped no harvests for one, two or in some cases three years. For the work they have done during that time they have received no wages. They are practically all on relief. In spite of the fact however that they are the chief sufferers and those who stand in greatest need of relief, they constitute the only class in the Dominion of Canada on relief to-day who are required to sign a note for everything they receive. Every other class receives relief as a gift, but the farmers in the dried-out areas, the chief sufferers, get nothing as a gift but must sign a note in blank and in advance for everything they have received or expect to receive. I have the note here; I will read it:
I,	 the above named applicant
hereby faithfully promise and agree to pay to The Saskatchewan Relief Commission on behalf of His Majesty the King in the right of the Dominion of Canada, on or before the first day of November, A.D. 1933, the full value of all relief now or subsequently obtained by me from The Saskatchewan Relief Commission at the values or prices stated by the said commission.
This form has to 'be signed and witnessed by every man when he makes application for relief. All the relief that he receives will be charged against that note at prices to be fixed by the commission.


An hon. MEMBER:: Will any interest be charged?


Edward James Young: I do not know. I asked the Prime Minister the other day if he intended to charge interest, but he could not answer me at the time. Probably he will let the house know later on.
Before coming to Ottawa I was summoned to a gathering of farmers, and the first question they asked me was "Where do you stand on this proposal of $1 an acre bonus?" I said, "Tell me exactly what you want: do you want SI an acre in addition to the relief that you are now receiving, or do you want $1

an acre in lieu of the relief you are now receiving? If you want the $1 an acre cash in addition to all the relief you are receiving, do you think you will get it?" They said, no, they did not think they would. Then I said: "Do you want $1 an acre in lieu of the relief? If so, let us try and figure it out." We took the case of a farmer working a halfsection of land last year; he would have probably 200 acres in crop; at $1 an acre the bonus he would receive would be $200. At present, if he is on full relief, he will be receiving from the relief commission food, fuel, feed for his stock, and he expects to receive seed for his land. Would that amount to more than $200 in the year? Yes, it would. They did not feel that they could accept $1 an acre in lieu of the relief; and they did not feel that they would be able to get that in addition to the relief. The matter was thoroughly discussed and finally they thought that this would be a fair proposal: Give us against our notes that you are holding and which we will have to pay, a credit equal to $1 an acre on all the acreage seeded last year, and we will be satisfied. I think hon. members will all agree that that is a very fair proposal on the part of the farmers. It was not submitted to the farmers all over the country. I am speaking of the farmers in one community who discussed the matter thoroughly in my presence, and that is what they agreed on. That, of course, would leave out some odd farmers throughout that dried-up district who had saved a surplus and were not on relief, although they have resiped no crop for the' last two or three years. Perhaps in their particular case a grant would have to be made in cash; but for those farmers who are obtaining relief I think it is not unreasonable to ask the government to grant them credit equal to $1 an acre on their seeded acreage against the notes held by the relief commission.


Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution now before the house says that the act passed last year has worked out most unfairly and unjustly. I rather agree with that statement. In fact I heard the opinion expressed in different parts of my own constituency that the act was a very good fulfilment of the Scripture: "Whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have." It did seem to work most unfairly in the case of those farmers who had very little crop. So far as my own immediate district goes, we did have a fair crop of wheat and the five cents per bushel bonus worked fairly satisfactorily; but when I got into the southern part of my

Farm Relief-Mr. Carmichael
constituency, not over fifty or sixty miles away, the farmers there and within a distance of one hundred and fifty or one hundred and sixty miles had practically nothing; in one large area down towards the Empress district they had an average of about two bushels an acre. Well, at five cents per bushel it will be seen that the bonus would amount to about ten cents an acre relief, which did not help them to any great extent.
As a result there has been a strong demand among the farmers for some different form of relief. That is expressed in the last part of this resolution, which asks for a more equitable and less discriminatory solution of this problem. I agree with that principle also. I have received a number of resolutions from farmers' organizations, and this one is typical of the many:
Whereas the farmers in the dried out areas are not receiving any of the five cent bonus, and	_
Whereas the seed wheat provided by the government will cost the said farmers five cents above market price,
Be it resolved that we petition the government to grant one dollar per acre on all acreage seeded in 1931, less the bonus already paid.
The secretary adds:
There was a large attendance at this meeting and the resolution was carried unanimously.
Now, this is not the first time that the proposal of $1 per acre bonus has been mooted in my own section of the province. I do not know whether my particular district can take credit for originating this thought or not, but I do know that back in December, 1930, a large representative meeting in the town of Ivindersley, attended by between four and five hundred farmers and business men, discussed a resolution put forward by a farmers' local from north of Kindersley, asking for this very thing, namely, a bonus on the seeded acreage of crop, not only on wheat, but on flax, oats and barley as well. This meeting endorsed the idea as being fairer and more equitable than the five cent per bushel bonus. At the request of this same farmers' local I journeyed to Regina and interviewed our premier when he was there on December 30, 1930, in the hope that the government would see fit to adopt it. Well, the proposal was not adopted, and, as we know, the legislation that is now in effect was brought down and finally passed this house on August 3, 1931.
There are many advantages in that legislation. It placed between nine and ten million dollars in the hands of the farmers of the three prairie provinces. That is quite a help to the people of the west. The principle of giving a bonus may not be sound,
but as the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) has stated, if special considerations are to be given to other industries, if they are to be kept from getting into the valley of humiliation because of government legislation, well, why should not the farming industry be similarly treated? So going on that basis, I would not raise any objection to the five cents per bushel being paid as it was paid. Many individual farmers were helped considerably through the payment of that five cent bonus. 1 know farmers in my own immediate district who on the average had 20, 25 and 30 bushels of wheat to the acre, and of course the bonus helped them. It helped, as was stated when the legislation was being considered, to give some relief for high freight rates and tariff adjustments; it also partly made up for loss on the production of crops. But the disadvantages have been named by those who preceded me in this debate. The chief disadvantage is that those farmers who have nothing are compelled to make up, in part, by way of taxation upon them, the ten million dollars or thereabouts which goes to the farmers through the five cent per bushel bonus. That is most unfair and it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that no person can justify that inequitable application of the legislation of last year. In addition, there are many farmers who do not grow wheat; there are sections of the country not suited to the growing of wheat. Oats can be grown quite satisfactorily; other sections grow barley very well, while still others grow flax. Indeed, there are some types of soil where some of these other grains must be grown before wheat can be put in. In my own district the land first must be seeded with flax, or the likely result is no crop, because of a wire worm which works in the new land.
Looking at those different viewpoints the inequality of this legislation of last year will be seen, and I may add that considerable dissatisfaction was brought to my attention because of the way the legislation affected tenant farmers. There were cases in my own district where the owner of the land put up the seed, the feed, the necessary power either by way of horses or tractor and the implements necessary to till the soil. He owned the land, yet if the tenant happened to get a small share of the crop for his wages the tenant collected the five cent bonus on all the grain grown on that property. This led to a great deal of dissatisfaction; several cases were brought to my attention in this connection.
Farm Relief-Mr. Campbell

I can see considerable difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in applying the bonus of a dollar per acre to the crop of 1931, although of course if the government do not see any difficulties and are willing to apply it I will not object. But I do not see that there would be any insuperable difficulty to it being worked out for the crop of 1932. The legislation passed last year expires on July 31 of this year. Either that legislation will be dropped and nothing further will be done, or some other scheme will be worked out by the government. Personally I feel that in view of present conditions on the prairies it would be very helpful to agriculture if some scheme could be worked out by the government that would be fair and equitable, and for that reason I give my hearty support to this resolution.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, in presenting another side of the question under debate I hope hon. members will not take it that I am lacking in sympathy for the farmers of those districts affected by drought last year. During the recess I spent almost all my time in helping to the best of my ability the farmers from the dried-out areas who have moved into the bush district in my constituency. I know something of their problems; my heart goes out in sympathy to them, not only those who have moved to the north and are pioneering again there, but those left in the dried out districts. So I want to make it clear that while I am presenting an entirely different side of this question my sympathies are very much with the people of those districts.
The first part of the resolution reads:
Whereas the policy of extending federal assistance to western farmers on a bushel basis rather than on an acreage basis has worked out most unfairly and unjustly to the residents of those districts suffering from failure or near failure of crop . . .
My contention, sir, is that this is not a correct or fair statement, and I hope I shall be able to convince at least some members of the house of that fact. With regard to the five cent bonus, I believe this is the first time any Canadian government has done such a thing for western farmers. There has been direct cash assistance from the federal treasury to aid the farmers of western Canada through their difficulties. Let us consider the farmer who had a crop. In my constituency, where there was a fairly good crop, the farmers were selling their wheat for about 30 cents a bushel at the elevator. After a man paid his threshing bill that meant he had left 23 or 24 cents, certainly not more than
IMr. Carmichael.]
25 cents net per bushel. Everyone knows that this return would not provide a living for the farmer, to say nothing about his ability to pay debts or anything else. Therefore the bonus came at an opportune time; as far as my district was concerned it was very acceptable and greatly appreciated by the great majority of the farmers.
Perhaps I misunderstood the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) when he introduced this measure last year, but I took his meaning to be that while this was not a permanent measure it was something that we could expect to be applied during the low price period. That being so, the application has not been so inequitable as might appear. I have lived in the north, in the bush districts, for twenty-five years. Year after year I recall our farmers envying the farmers in the prairie districts which have now been so affected by drought. Those were the districts where they were having abundant crops, big yields and fine qualities of grain; our farmers were the ones who were having the difficulties. In the natural order of things conditions might be reversed next year. If this five cent bonus is given for another year-and I believe that was the intention of the Prime Minister last year, whatever he thinks about it now-those southern districts may be the very ones having fine crops, and when they have crops in the south they have a far greater acreage than we have in the north. In my constituency the average farmer will have only half his land under cultivation; the balance will be bush, but in the southern country the whole farm is under cultivation, so naturally when there is a crop the production is very much greater. So it seems to me that the attacks on this measure are not quite fair.
When the legislation was brought in last year it was met with an onslaught from opposition members, particularly from the province of Quebec but also to some extent from Ontario and the maritime provinces. In his provincial campaign last year Premier Taschereau made this one of the main issues. So it seems to me that the least the government should expect is unanimity among the farmers of western Canada, for whose benefit the measure was brought down. The legislation should have met with the approbation and Support of leaders of thought among western farmers generally.
I cannot say that there has been any agitation against this measure in Manitoba; if there has been I have not heard anything of it. But the policy was hardly announced before a movement was started in Saskatchewan against the five cent bonus and in favour

Farm Relief-Mr. Campbell
of the dollar per acre. It was claimed by some of the advocates of the latter policy that it is not in direct opposition to the five cent bonus, but the effect of this whole campaign has been to create dissension among the farmers and to develop a lack of appreciation of the measure passed last session.
What are the arguments in favour of this bonus of a dollar per acre, and against the bonus of five cents per bushel? It is urged that it goes only to the farmer who has a crop while the farmer who has no crop gets nothing. On the face of it that seems an unanswerable argument, but there is another and entirely different side to the question. The farmers in my constituency, most of whom have crops, are not getting any relief and yet the very crops they have are in most cases not paying expenses. But in the southern parts of the drought-stricken districts millions of dollars of federal as well as provincial money are being handed out in road work and direct relief. It may be true, as the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) has said, that the farmers are signing notes for the relief they get. I would not discuss that question very much until we are able to see how many of these notes will be paid. The great bulk of the farmers are destitute, and if we looked ahead ten years I would predict that the great majority of them will never be paid. I hope the notes will be paid; I hope the farmers will have crops that will enable them to pay these notes. But I know that the ordinary debts, mortgages, interest and so forth that are piling up against the farms in the south, in the dry districts, are so great that when the farmers do get some crops the money will be used in that direction, and I am afraid that the Saskatchewan Relief Commission will come in last when it comes to collecting the notes. So far as that angle of the question is concerned, therefore, I think it is scarcely worth consideration.
As regards my own district, we had on the whole a good crop, but there are farmers there who had no crop; and there are many other farmers again who, because of the nature of the soil, as well as frost and other local difficulties, are unable to grow wheat successfully, so that they are compelled to grow only oats and barley. These farmers get nothing from the bonus but I have heard no particular complaints from them. A few of them mildly suggested that the bonus should have been applied to oats and barley, but even these farmers appreciate the fact that something has been done for their brother farmers, and I do not know of one single
instance, by meeting or in any other way, of any attack on the five cent bonus in my constituency. Of course, in these dry districts there are farmers who will have no crop and who will have to maintain themselves although they are not getting relief. It makes no difference, however, what measure you bring down, there is bound to be some inequality. It is utterly impossible to bring in any measure that will apply with absolute equity. The reasons brought forward by the hon. member for Weyburn supporting this, although he objects to the principle, are not very valid and sound, because there is inequality in any measure that is introduced. There is inequality even in free trade, which my hon. friend is so fond of putting forward.
I do not, therefore, expect that even this five cent bonus will be found to apply with absolute equity.
So far as my constituency is concerned, the five cent bonus has been universally appreciated by both farmers and business men. May I assure the house that I am not discussing this question from any party angle, because in the province of Saskatchewan there were outstanding men among the Progressives, members of the legislature, Liberals and Conservatives, who got out and took part in the campaign; and a recent convention of the United Farmers of Alberta placed themselves on record as condemning the principle of the bonus. So that there is no party angle to the question. But in view of the difficulties which the government had in bringing down the measure, and in view of the attacks made upon the government in this house and in the country when they attempted to do something for the western farmers, I did expect something better from the leaders of thought among the western farmers themselves. I hope the government will not be influenced by this in their attitude towards the policy for the coming year. I hope they will bring it down as they did last year, but if they do not then the farmers have only their own leaders to blame for losing one of the efforts made to meet their difficulties.


Mr. W. J. LOUCHS (Rosetown):: As a western farmer, I wish to endorse what the last speaker (Mr. Campbell) has said. I do not want to see anything done that will be detrimental to the farmers of western Canada, and I know well the situation that exists there. Certain things have been mentioned with reference to the distribution of the bonus, and I would refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael). I might say in that connection that the greater number of the landlords in my con-
Farm Relief-Mr. Loucks

stituency are professional men who have other means of livelihood besides farming, and if there is one thing above another which calls for comment it is the fact that this relief went to the actual farmer, whether tenant or not. As pointed out by the last speaker, with the price of wheat at 30 cents a bushel, when the farmer cuts that in half there is not much left. Most of the land in Saskatchewan is rented, and if the farmer had to divide the bonus with the landlord you can readily see that it would not be of much advantage to 'him.
In any constituency I found that there was great appreciation of the bonus on the part of the tenants, and many landlords have said that had it not been for the bonus they did not think that the tenants would have been able to carry on during the coming year. I wish to make it clear to the house why I did not' endorse the petition when it was presented to me by those agitating -for the dollar an acre. In view of the fact that a second relief measure was brought into the house at the last session, and realizing that a dollar am acre would not begin to cover the needs in the dried out areas, I felt that I could not endorse the petition.
The hon. member for Weyfourn has referred to the signing of notes. In this regard, I agree with what has been said by my hon. friend across the way; I doubt whether very many of these notes will be paid. We trust that the farmers will be in a position to meet these notes, but if things continue as they are it is doubtful.
Mr. VALLAN'CE: Are you speaking for the government now?


William John Loucks: I am stating my own views to the house. The motion refers to the presentation by the representatives of the municipalities of a resolution asking for a dollar 'an acre. I take it that this applies to the whole province of Saskatchewan, and it means that they are asking for a bonus of a dollar an acre to cover the acreage of the province. I estimate, therefore, that the request is for 820,000,000, which would represent 20,000,000 acres. Now, considering ithat we have bad relief in the bonus that has been paid, and in view of the fact that we are looking to the government for further relief which is estimated to be about $15,000,000 for seed this spring, I for one do not feel like asking the eastern members to subsidize us further to the extent of $20,000,000.
Let me assure members on both sides of the house of the cheerful spirit in which the farmers in my constituency received the relief that was given. They felt grateful to the 
representatives of the other provinces of the dominion for the generous way in which they had come forward and supported the relief measure upon which the farmers in Saskatchewan are so dependent. I can only convey the appreciation of some of the electors in my constituency for the relief granted. Hon. members showed that their hearts were in the right place when they granted this answer to the plea that something be done for the relief of the farmers of Saskatchewan. I have before me a letter which illustrates the working out of this relief. This letter is dated February 5, and is written by George E. Tracy, of Alsask, which is on the border of Saskatchewan and Alberta. It is addressed to the premier of Saskatchewan and reads as follows:
I would like to take this opportunity also of congratulating you and your government on the splendid, fair and impartial way relief work has been carried out among the people of this province and this district in particular. During this past very cold weather thousands will bless you in their prayers that they have coal in their cellar and the necessities of life which could not have been supplied by the municipalities or local merchants. As head of the cooperative government you have refused to "play politics." In Saskatchewan in the hour of need you stepped into the breach in a truly great way and you have more supporters than a noisy opposition would lead you to believe.
That illustrates the appreciation felt in my own constituency. There has been no discrimination in the granting of this relief. I am informed that in the city of Regina similar notes had to be signed. I know that this spring it would be impossible for many in the province to carry on had not this relief been granted. But still further relief will be required in the way of seed. One dollar an acre would be only a drop in the bucket, if I might be permitted to use that term. The appreciation voiced by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) for the five cent bonus is echoed by the farmers in my constituency.
Those farmers in Saskatchewan who have not received any direct relief up to the present time will find it practically impossible to purchase seed this coming spring. Something in the neighbourhood of $15,000,000 will be needed. This government have been so generous that I cannot see my way clear to ask them to subsidize further the farmers to the extent of one dollar per acre.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William John Loucks: That is what is being suggested. The resolution does not discriminate, it states merely that the representatives of the municipalities have asked for a bonus of

Farm Relief-Mr. Gardiner
one dollar per acre. I do not see how we can come back to the government and ask for a further dollar per acre to be paid to those farmers who have already received the bonus of five cents per bushel.


Edward James Young: No one is asking for that.


William John Loucks: This petition was forwarded to me and I replied that I would endorse it if I could be assured that they would be able to get by with a bonus of one dollar per acre in lieu of the relief already voted. I received no reply, but had one been forwarded to me I know it would have stated that that would be nothing at all in comparison with what some farmers would require. I think we would be well advised to continue with the present system of relief.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution now before the house rises out of the legislation passed at the last session granting the bonus of five cents per bushel on wheat delivered to the elevators.
I had the privilege last year of travelling over most of Alberta and I can assure the government and the house that wherever there was a crop, the bonus of five cents per bushel was appreciated. Unfortunately, the crop was not well distributed; in the dry areas there was very little crop, while in the more prosperous areas the crop was quite heavy. Because of the weather conditions which had prevailed the difference in the yield was considerable. The five cent bonus would permit a farmer who had a crop averaging from 35 to 40 bushels per acre, grading not less than No. 2, to pay expenses. However, it must be remembered that that would be a very good crop. Should the crop be even larger than that the farmer was enabled to pay his taxes, and in some cases pay a little interest on his indebtedness. I understand that the average crop in the districts where there were crops was about 22 bushels per acre. Large portions of the province of Alberta were dried or hailed out, while in other portions the crop was quite heavy. In those districts where there was a crop at all the farmers expressed appreciation of the bonus because it helped them considerably. As I said before, large districts were dried out or hailed out and I would direct the attention of the house to the fact that the premium on hail insurance is so high at the present time that no farmer can afford to insure against hail.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is hardly as bad as that.


Robert Gardiner: The average premium
runs from 15 to 20 per cent. These districts received no benefit from this bonus. The
farmers in the dried out areas were not opposed to the payment of the bonus but they did think that in view of the fact that they had cultivated and summer-fallowed their land, gone to the extent of seeding and doing all work necessary, they were entitled to some consideration. It has been suggested that in order to be fair to the farmers in those districts which have been dried out or hailed out, a minimum bonus of one dollar per acre should be paid. If a man had a crop running only ten bushels per acre, he would receive a bonus amounting to 50 cents per acre, but these farmers feel that they are entitled to further consideration up to at least SI per acre.
The relief measures being carried on in Alberta differ from what is being done in Saskatchewan. When speaking in the debate on the address in reply I mentioned that the relief measures being carried on in the dried out areas of Alberta were totally inadequate to meet the situation, and I still maintain that as a fact. The farmers of those areas, however, feel that if they receive at least a minimum of one dollar per acre they will be satisfied to try to carry on under the circumstances.
Some discussion has taken place with regard to the attitude of farmer leaders in different provinces in the west. Some criticism has been levelled by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) against those farmer leaders. I do not know where he gets his information. I can quite understand that inasmuch as in his particular district the farmers had a uniformly good crop, the people would be fairly well satisfied. My hon. friend ought to have an opportunity of visiting some of the dried-out areas in either Saskatchewan or Alberta and then he would probably be in a different frame of mind; that is, if he is capable of understanding the feelings of those people in those areas. I say that in all fairness because of the fact that one has to get into the environment where those conditions exist in order to understand how the people feel in those particular areas.
At the annual convention of the United Farmers of Alberta held in January of this year at Edmonton, a resolution was passed which dealt with this particular subject. I am going to place this resolution on Hansard primarily because there has been some press criticism which has not been altogether accurate and therefore not altogether fair. This resolution reads:
*Whereas, the five cent bonus on wheat was not intended as a means of increasing the production of wheat but solely as a relief measure to meet the present crisis facing the farmers of western Canada, and
Farm Relief-Mr. Gardiner

Whereas, a very large proportion of our farmers are not benefiting by this payment through hail, drought, wind and other causes beyond their own control, and
Whereas, we have noted in the press statements by the Prime Minister of Canada that this omission would be taken care of, and
Whereas, the present relief schemes are inadequate as for obvious reasons they fail to meet the necessities of a great number of our farmers besides failing to make provision for the necessary finance to seed the crop of 1932;
Therefore be it resolved, that we ask the Dominion government, through our board of directors, to change the bonus payment to the effect that all grain growers be recompensed to a minimum of at least one dollar an acre seeded, so that all those who have received no bonus and all those who would not otherwise receive this amount should be treated fairly, and to those whose crop production exceeds this amount the bonus to be as it is at the present time.
That shows, I think very clearly, the state of mind in so far as the farmers of Alberta are concerned.


Milton Neil Campbell: Was that resolution not rescinded? I am sure I read in the press that that was done.


Robert Gardiner: No, this resolution was not rescinded. It was passed and it will be submitted to the government in due course as being one of the resolutions which were passed by the convention and which will be called to the attention of the government. This resolution shows conclusively that as regards those portions of the province of Alberta where they had good crops, even those farmers who were well satisfied with the bonus as it is at the present time, still feel that in the dried-out and hailed-out areas adequate provision has not been made to take care of the distress.
I merely wish to say again I hope the government will be able to give some attention to this matter. It is a serious question; as a matter of fact, in the dried-out areas the agricultural population to-day is up against what one might term a calamity, and so far as present indications go, the relief that is being handed out is inadequate even to take care of the bare necessities of life, let alone to place those farmers in a position next year to secure seed and to carry on their farming operations. Therefore I trust the government will realize that, as regards Alberta, farmers there who had a crop appreciate the bonus and those who are in distress on account of there being no crop, hope the government will give further consideration to their needs.


Milton Neil Campbell: May I ask the hon.
member whether it is not a fact that the convention of the United Farmers of Alberta passed a resolution expressing approval oi the bonus and later repudiated it?


Robert Gardiner: No; this resolution
that I have read was passed by the United Farmers of Alberta in convention assembled. It has been sent down to the United Farmer members in the house and it will be presented to the government as one of the resolutions passed by that convention, anticipating and hoping the government will be able to take some action upon it when it is presented.
^ Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):	Mr. Speaker, before discussing the resolution in a general way, I should like to take this, my first opportunity of expressing to the government the appreciation of my constituents for its having passed the measure which gave the five cent subvention on wheat. While in my constituency there were very few farmers who shared in that, they generally approve and appreciate it from a realization of the fact that the government was endeavouring to do something to help the farmers.
I was surprised to note that the mover of the resolution, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie), did not give some credit or commendation to the government for what it had done. I suppose it is hard for some hon. gentlemen opposite to give this government credit for anything, no matter what it has done.
Every hon. member knows the principle behind the passing of the act granting the five cent bonus. It was agreed upon early in the session; it was embodied in the budget brought down on the first day of June and therefore it must have been considered by the government before that, at a time when there was no suggestion or thought of a complete failure of crop in a great portion of the western provinces, and particularly Saskatchewan. The principle behind the five cent subvention was that of bonusing the product of an industry similar to that of bonusing the product of the mining industry by giving them a bonus per ton of coal on a basis of the mile haulage. It was a straight bonus to the product of an industry. I supported the principle as adopted by the government, and I believe I was the first member to suggest that some bonus of this kind should be granted, when on the 13th April, 1931, I made this suggestion to the house. When the measure was brought down, we realized we had secured something that

Farm Relief-Mr. Perley
would prove to be of great benefit to the farmers of the west, for, as the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) has stated, when before did any government of this dominion do such a splendid thing for the farmers of any part of Canada? As has already been stated, this subvention was earmarked so that it went directly into the hands of the producer. The house will remember some of the discussions that took place last year when the measure was being debated, and some of the objections that were taken to it. I think it was the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) who suggested it was only a gesture to help out the railway companies, but it was so earmarked there was no doubt about that, and it went into the hands of the producers, direct. But, Mr. Speaker, owing to the climatic conditions prevailing in the west the people in the southern part of Saskatchewan have not to any extent shared in the 810,000,000 which has already been paid to the producers of the west. When the budget was under discussion last year some of us from the west, when it became evident about the middle of July that there was likely to be a complete crop failure throughout a considerable portion of the province of Saskatchewan, made the suggestion that there might be a change to an acreage basis. At that time, however, it was so evident that a calamity was imminent out there that the government considered the method they adopted to give relief would be more effective than that of placing relief on an acreage basis.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I was associated with the petition which was presented to the government, and the delegation which came to Ottawa. I played only a very small part in getting signers to that petition, and in fact attended only one meeting at which it was discussed. Right here and now, Mr. Speaker, may I take exception to the remark made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie) to the effect that there was no playing of politics. At the one meeting I attended I had to take the platform and defend the attitude of the government, because the man who was speaking in favour of the dollar-per-acre bonus-the member for the constituency of Estevan in the legislature of Saskatchewan-was certainly making a political speech. I think however that a great many of the people out there realized the exact situation.
In the western provinces, particularly in Saskatchewan, we will be interested for many years in the production of wheat, and any action to encourage the farmers and assist
them to stay on their lands will be a step in the right direction. Think what it would mean to the whole of Canada if for the next two years or so there was a normal crop in western Canada. It is quite possible if we have normal climatic conditions next year in the three prairie provinces, there should be a production for export of about 500,000,000 bushels of wheat. Furthermore, there might be 150,000,000 to 200,000,000 bushels of coarse grain. What would that mean in the matter of relief from the present condition? What would it mean with respect to a solution of our unemployment problem? In the province of Saskatchewan at the present time there are some 50,000 farmers receiving relief. If normal conditions prevailed, each of them would employ at least one extra man, and in that way we would take care of 50,000 men. From the standpoint of business for the railways, what would it mean? A crop yield of 500,000,000 bushels for export might easily mean an earning of between $50,000,000 and $60,000,000 for our railways. What about the increased purchasing power of our western people, who with a good crop could purchase from the producers in eastern Canada? The government is thoroughly familiar with the situation, and understands what it means to Canada to keep the west intact and the morale of the people at such a plane that they will carry on and produce to the limit. Undoubtedly the morale of the western farmers has been put to a very severe test during the last two or three years, but our flag is not at half mast and the people out there are prepared to carry on and do their best. They are facing the coming season with a spirit of confidence, optimism, courage and fortitude, and after the experience of the last three years I am sure they are prepared to go forward and do better. Certainly they will profit by their experience. There is no way in which a government could invest a few million dollars to better advantage than by assisting the farmers in some way either through a bonus or by whatever means may be adopted. I am sure these farmers in the dried-out area would be only too willing to have any bonus or further assistance that might be given by the government applied on the debt that they have shouldered in respect of the relief they have received. At least 90 per cent of the people intend to repay their debt; I know that most of these farmers would not accept the relief they are getting to-day without the desire to give something in return. They do not consider themselves paupers and are not accepting charity; they intend to pay.
Farm Reliej-Mr. Perley

I should like to tender on behalf of the farmers in the constituency I represent an expression of appreciation of the gift cars of fruits and vegetables which came from eastern Canada. Two hundred or more relief cars came to our assistance, some of them to my constituency. I want the house and the country to realize that those people in western Canada appreciate the splendid spirit which was shown, there is no doubt that the action of our friends in the east has done much to create a more friendly relationship between the two sections of our country.
I am willing to leave the matter with the government in the belief that they will do what they think best. No doubt some consideration of western problems is necessary. I believe the Prime Minister knows just as much as or more than any other hon. member in this house about western conditions. He realizes, as I fully realize, the important position the western provinces hold and the outstanding part they will play in bringing back to normal the state of Canadian economic conditions. We all realize the part the western provinces will play in balancing our trade and furnishing exports. With those thoughts in mind I am sure the Prime Minister wants and intends to do the right thing, and I am prepared to leave the matter with the government and to support whatever measures they may consider right and proper. I trust the great majority of the people of Canada, and in the west particularly, are prepared to leave the matter there.
Hon. members to your right, Mr. Speaker, all realize, and I believe hon. gentlemen opposite who speak their minds will admit, that Canada is indeed fortunate to-day in having such a man as our present Prime Minister ai the head of affairs. I am willing to leave the matter there, merely suggesting to the member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) and to his Alberta friends that since they opposed the principle of government assistance by way of bonus, if any of their people prefer to give back any of this ten million dollars that they received probably the treasury would be only too pleased to accept it at the present time. As I said before, I am prepared to leave the matter to the due, right and proper consideration which I know the government will give to it.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express appreciation of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and his colleagues are sufficiently disengaged to remain in the chamber wh ile this matter is under discussion. When

it came up last session I expressed the opinion that the Prime Minister was desirous of assisting two classes in the west who in his estimation required assistance, and it is because of my belief that he and his new Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) still have an open mind that I am confident they will be prepared to consider any practical method that may be suggested to redress the discrimination between those farmers who had a crop and those who had none, incident to the measure of relief which they formulated last session. The Prime Minister's remarks on this question contained in his budget speech are so excellent that I do not think I can do better than read them to the house:
First, provision should be made to assist those who have a crop, because they have considerable obligations, taxes, etc., which must be discharged. Other methods will be taken to deal with the situation of the provinces which are not in a position to assist those who with their reserves exhausted and their crops a failure for the third time are practically ruined. We therefore propose to provide that the freight rates shall be adjusted by this country absorbing five cents per bushel on all wheat that is exported of the crop of this year.
So the Prime Minister was reasonably well aware that there were two classes of people that he proposed to assist, and I think the whole -house was ready to support him, namely, those farmers who had -a large crop or any crop that they had to deliver ibut were losing money on every bushel produced; these were to be compensated by a straight cash bonus of five cents a bushel instead of what was called a pegged price. No -complaint has been made with respect to that, so far as I know, since it was adjusted to apply to the farmer. But we did take exception -to these words of the Prime Minister:
We therefore propose to provide that the freight rates shall be adjusted by this country absorbing five cents per bushel on all wheat that is exported of the crop of this year.
We took the ground that you could not possibly get -that five -cents a bushel to the exporter back to the farmer. When a farmer is delivering his wheat at the initial elevator he does not know whether it is going to be exported or whether it will be consumed in Canada. It took us nearly -two months to convince my right hon. -friend that that was not a practical way of carrying out his own wishes. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) suggested that I claimed that it was only a handout to the railways. It could not be -anything of the kind, because the railways would get their freight rates no matter who paid it; but it was as first proposed a handout <to the exporter, and could

Farm Relief-Mr. Motherwell
not be anything else, because the exporter was	between that magnanimity to those who need
the only man in the country who had the	relief least and the treatment of those who
necessary documents to prove that the wheat	have very little or no crop. The latter on
was going to be exported. I think all men	their application for relief have to sign a
familiar with delivering wheat at initial	promissory note to repay this tall lor the
elevators will endorse this statement. We	goods advanced.
criticized the proposal to bonus the exporter for about two months, and then the Prime Minister brought down a bill indicating that the bonus was to go straight to the farmer, based on delivery to certain initial elevators throughout the country, on which the Board of Grain Commissioners could keep correct tab. So I think the ministry ought to feel- and I am going to say it as smilingly as I know how-very appreciative of the opposition for putting them on the right track to get the benefit of the five cents bonus to the farmers, whom I believe at the time and still believe the government was desirous of assisting.
We have two classes of farmers, those who had good crops running up to as high as 40 and 50 bushels an acre, on which they would earn $2 an acre. We take no exception to that. We did not object that they were getting too much, but rather that the others with a very light or no crop were getting too little. In other words the farmers who needed assistance the least got the most; those who needed assistance the most got the least. Surely the igovernment does not want to solve the problem on that basis. I know that they do not. All they are asking us to do, I expect, is to show them some practical way of adjusting and correcting that unjust condition, and I believe they are -ready to a-ccept such suggestions as I have already indicated.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer-the promissory notes which were given for the relief. As pointed out by the hon. member for Wevburn (Mr. Young) farmers in the distressed areas who have lost three consecutive crops are the only people we know of who have been asked to give a promissory note in return for the relief granted to them. Mark the difference, Mr. Speaker; men who have had abundance of crops and seed get relief running all the way from a few dollars up to a thousand dollars-a straight cash bonus. My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle should not complain that we are not boosting the government with respect to this matter. We are giving due publicity to the magnanimity of the government to those who need it least, for they are getting assistance, running up as high as eight hundred and in some cases a thousand dollars each. We are not complaining of that, but we are complaining of the ghastly contrast


Edward James Young: No, 1933.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, that will
come around very soon. Imagine how many years it will take these distressed farmers to catch up on their obligations. The government is going to pile in on the second crop. That will be an invitation to everybody else who has prior claims, dating back perhaps several years, to go in and collect from their debtors until the latter's homes will be as bare as the palm of your hand. That in itself is a mistake, and if that or any similar part of the country is ever to get on its feet again,
I would point out to the government that some different kind of treatment will have to be given to all such. The southwest part of Saskatchewan, three years ago was looked upon as one of the best wheat areas in the whole west. I know from 1901 on to 1908 and to some extent during 1909, that homestead settlement rushed over that territory like a prairie fire, and it was settled up almost overnight because of the magnificent crop that it produced. I believe that country will come back again, but the farmers there are destitute now, and I plead with the government to find some better way of helping them than by exacting a promissory note for the relief granted. They are the only people I know of -that are so treated. Surely the government do not want to discriminate against those distressed farmers. The member for Weyburn has suggested a practical way of relieving their distress, and I submit that plan to the Prime Minister with some confidence. From the fact that he is listening to this debate I take it that he is ready to weigh an}T evidence on the question that we can bring before him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might I say to the hon. gentleman that the promissory notes were given at the request of the beneficiaries; that was what started it. They did not desire to take relief as charity and thought that some day their position would be improved, so they asked that the notes be given. That is the story as I have it from the commission.


William Richard Motherwell: I can understand
that, but will not those same farmers be satisfied if they are given a dollar an acre to be applied to their relief account? A man may have $300 of a relief account for food,

Farm Relief-Mr. Motherwell
fuel, fodder and so on, and he may have two hundred acres of crop. This would give him S200 to be credited on his relief account, which the government would be some time in collecting in any other way. Those men do not want to feel that they are accepting charity; we appreciate that spirit in our people, but they will have the satisfaction of earning this money on an acreage basis and having it applied to their account. That would be quite satisfactory; it would be easy on the treasury; it would be meeting the wishes of those farmers who feel independent -and all honour to them-but I do not think they represent as large a number as those others who are so loaded with indebtedness, that they shrink from further debt when it is a question of relief. But this relief has been turned into a loan policy, the only case of the kind in Canada.
In order to meet the needs and wishes of all classes of the community let us give this bonus to the cropless on an acreage basis. This is the only year we could carry out that proposal, because this is the only year during the next ten years when we will have an accurate computation of the acreage. This has been obtained through the census; it is right there in black and white, taken at a time when it was not known that anything of this nature would be suggested, so the figures are probably as accurate as we could expect any such figures to be. There are many further claims we might still bring forward; this is really the minimum. There is still the injustice to the men who do not grow wheat at all. Some farmers grow oats because their land is adapted to it; some grow rye, some barley where others grow flax and yet get nothing by way of bonus.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I might tell my hon.
friend something. Ever since this government has been in power, at every meeting of the treasury board there have been presented on an average from 50 to 100 recommendations, under the adjustment arrangement, by which the provinces and the dominion have had to cancel debts owing for sums of money advanced for seed grain, fodder and relief for which liens were registered. If I should put them on the table they would amount to many thousands, and this was done under the act passed some years ago, when my hon. friend was in power. I say that to him so that he may know just what has been the result of past dealings of that kind. I do not know what influence it might have upon his mind, but I want him to have the facts.


William Richard Motherwell: I am quite well
aware of that. We are dealing with a country where there are intermittent droughts and good crops. When the crop is good it is marvellous, but when it is poor it is horrible, so what are you to do under these circumstances? There is a saying that you cannot take the breeks off a Highlander and that you cannot draw' blood from a stone; in this case there is nothing to do but write off these debts, and large amounts have been written off. In the spring of 1915, when my hon. friends were in power, a vast amount of seed and fodder and so on was distributed to farmers in very much the same area, and it had a very beneficial result. At that time the cry was for greater and greater production; every possible acre was sown, and we had the largest crop yield in our history. If the government will follow the same policy this year we may possibly hope for the same result.
I do not think the remarks of my right hon. friend have very much to do with the case in point, though they may have some bearing on the question of collection. During the fall following the distribution of seed grain in 1915 the government sent out very active collectors, because they thought that was perhaps the only chance they would have of getting back what they had spent. As soon as the government collectors went around, collectors representing every private interest went abroad also, with the result that the farmer was in danger of being worse off than before. So I would implore the right hon. gentleman not to go after those poor but worthy farmers too soon after this disaster. Give them an opportunity of getting on their feet, so that they may carry on.
Let us not forget the other point. If my right hon. friend could chat for half an hour with the mover and seconder of the resolution and try to arrive at an equitable solution,
I think a great deal could be accomplished. Something could be done for those men who had no crop, and if my invocation does not sway my right 'hon. friend on behalf of those farmers let me appeal to him on behalf of himself personally not to let the impression go abroad in the west that either he is careless with regard to the fate of these cropless farmers or he does not understand the question with which he is dealing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The advances which have been made answer that observation. If my hon, friend knew just what this government has done in the Hast six months, and the load we have carried for the three prairie provinces, perhaps he would not be so glib.

Farm Relief-Mr. Kennedy (Peace River)


William Richard Motherwell: I know, but I am not going to answer my right hon. friend in the spirit in which he made his reply. I think if he knew the dissatisfaction, the discontent, and I was going to say the hate which has been aroused by the rank injustice of the present arrangement it might make him pause to think. I suppose I could let my right hon. friend go on blundering. Why did we not let the government go on with their proposal about the income tax last year? That was another blunder. Some say we should let them go on now but I have too much regard for my constituents to let the government keep on making these blunders. I would rather come to the rescue of my constituents, even though it helps my right hon. friend out of a hole. If the government insist on remaining just where they are on this question at least I will have done my best to set them aright once more.


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: I do not want to speak for any length of time, but I think I should say a few words on the question whether or not ithe United Farmers of Alberta were opposed to the five cent bonus on wheat. Before I come to that, however, I wish to refer to the terms of the resolution, and the proposal that the bonus be paid on an acreage basis. On the whole I believe it would be fairer if something of that kind could be worked out, but I would add this proviso, that only land in fit shape for putting in a crop should be considered, and that would be one of the difficulties in administering a plan of that kind.
I do not think I need argue that the five cent bonus on wheat was generally acceptable to the farmers of western Canada, because I hiave not heard of one farmer who turned it down. I think that should be answer enough to anyone who considers that the five cent bonus was not acceptable on grounds of principle or on any other grounds whatsoever. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) read the resolution that was passed at 'the convention of the United Farmers of ALberta. That resolution reads:
Therefore be it resolved, that we ask the Dominion government, through our board of directors, to change the bonus payment to the effect that all grain growers be recompensed to a minimum of at least one dollar an acre seeded, so that all those who have received no bonus and all those who would not otherwise receive this amount should be treated fairly, and to those whose crop production exceeds this amount the bonus to be as it is at the present time. . . .
A resolution was introduced at the convention after that. It came from my own constituency, but I do not think I am to blame for its having come to the convention. However, it came from Grande Prairie, and here it is:
Whereas we appreciate the bonus on wheat by the Dominion government being a step in the right direction; and whereas there is no bonus on other agricultural products:
Therefore be it resolved that we demand that the Dominion government bonus agricultural production and that the amount of bonus be in proportion to the benefits enjoyed by the manufacturers through the tariff.
Some of the delegates at the convention of the United Farmers of Alberta thought that we were going just a little too far in asking for that, and they voted it down, and some of the people who were behind this resolution thought that they were treated unfairly and requested a reconsideration of the first one passed, but they could not get that one reconsidered or rescinded. That explains the newspaper stories that have come to eastern Canada to the effect that the convention was opposed to the bonus on wheat.
I should like to point out to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) that the average price received for wheat by the farmers in western Canada is around 38 or 40 cents. A lot of them sold their wheat for 30 cents a bushel last fall.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At the elevator?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: At the
elevator. Wheat went up to 50 cents or a little better, but a good many of them did not have sense enough to sell at that price. Possibly somewhere between 35 and 40 cents is the average price received for No. 1 northern but it is not all No. 1. Now that is not the cost of producing wheat; you cannot produce wheat for that. If, therefore, as I believe, the general economic conditions in Canada are largely determined by the volume of wheat purchasing power of the western farmers, it is necessary to continue, until the price of wheat rises, to bonus wheat considerably, and I hope that the government will seriously consider carrying on even though it may have considerable difficulty in doing so.


Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina):: I had not intended to take part in this debate had it not been for the statement by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) that the only people in Canada who were asked to give notes in return for relief were the farmers of the west. That statement was corrected by the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Loucks), but I find it repeated with even greater
Farm Reliej-Mr. Turnbull

emphasis by the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) in his address. The fact is that the citizens of my city are being asked to repay any moneys they get during this winter by way of relief.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


Franklin White Turnbull: It is not a shame, because the people of my own city are asking for it. They are not asking for charity. They are asking authorities to assist them temporarily over a period of strain, and those gentlemen who say shame do not know the people of the city of Regina, because those people wish to stand on their own feet. They who say shame represent those who are not ashamed to take money that is not coming to them.
As regards the giving of notes in Saskatchewan, I am strongly of the impression that those notes are not given as a result of pressure brought to bear upon the people either by the federal or by the provincial authorities. There are hundreds and thousands of men in Saskatchewan who have said that they would not take any money by way of relief but would starve first unless they got the opportunity of repaying the money advanced them. There are citizens of that type all through Saskatchewan and I am sorry that my hon. friends opposite, apparently, have not met more of them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask whether the manufacturers helped out in this crisis are promising to give back afterwards the favours given them?


Franklin White Turnbull: I am not concerned at all with any of your friends the manufacturers. I am particularly concerned with my own people in Saskatchewan and I say that notes have been given by the farmers of that province largely because those farmers are used to standing as far as possible on their own feet and want to continue to do so. For that reason representations were made by many farmers to members of this house and of the government that they be allowed to repay the moneys advanced to them. There has appeared in the public press of the country within the last week, from those in charge.of relief work in Saskatchewan, a report that already some of those who have received assistance in that province are making arrangements for the return of the money they have been given and are asking for statements of account so that they may begin their repayment. I know there are some who do not wish to sign notes.
I had the privilege of addressing a meeting in the constituency of the hon. member for Mel-

ville (Mr, Motherwell) last fall, and at the close of the meeting one of the hon. gentleman's constituents came to me and asked whether the government was going to request the repayment of the money. I said I thought the Saskatchewan Relief Commission would, and he said, "If they are going to, I don't want it." I said, "Well, my friend, if that is the way you feel about it I shall be glad to see that you don't get it."


Mr. VALLANCE:: Were you in a position to prevent him from getting relief?


Franklin White Turnbull: I used what influence I had to see that he did not get it without signing a note for it, and I did so on representations from a great many respectable citizens of Saskatchewan who did not wish to take relief without signing notes. The relief commission in Saskatchewan which is administering relief in the southern part of the province, in whose favour the notes are drawn, and whose recommendations are largely followed in the policy laid down in that province, is a non-political body including representatives of the farmers and of the Labour party. It is quite true that the majority are Conservatives, but it is equally true that those who represent the Liberal party and the farmers' party in that province are not, so far as the administration of relief is concerned, at variance with other members of the commission.
I think that possibly one of the troubles about the resolution brought before the house is the fact that the resolution itself recognizes the absolute impossibility of providing for all classes of people on an equitable basis, because neither the resolution itself nor those supporting it suggest any solution that would be absolutely equitable. It is quite true that the hon. member for Weyburn and the hon. member for Melville suggest that the men who have given promissory notes be given credit at some time or other for a certain amount of money on those notes. That does not apply to many people who did not ask for relief, to those who went out on their own scheme rather than apply to the government for relief. It is impossible to have an absolutely equitable system. If the representations of the Saskatchewan Rural Municipalities Association had been made in May or June of 1931 they might have been considered more favourably but, as I understand it, those resolutions were formally presented to the government in December, 1931, when the relief commission had been launched and when it was impossible to make the necessary changes.

Farm Relief-Mr. Turnbull
The situation which has arisen to-day apparently arises from a confusion of ideas. The five cent bonus was applied for a certain purpose, and hon. members are complaining because it did not happen to fit another purpose. This bonus was to be a cure for a certain condition and because it did not cure a totally different condition, hon. members are complaining. The five cent bonus was granted to meet the complaint made by the farmers of western Canada and by hon. members opposite, among others, that agriculture in western Canada was losing money on every bushel of wheat produced. It was contended that the farmer was not able to raise wheat, not only at a profit but at a price to cover the cost of production. It was to meet that condition that the bonus of five cents was granted. It was a bonus on the production of wheat, not a bonus to those who did not produce, no matter whose fault it may have been.


Mr. LUCHKOYICH:: Was not that measure in a sense a relief measure?


Franklin White Turnbull: In my judgment it was not- a relief measure, it was a bonus to industry. It was no more a relief measure than was the bonus given a few years ago to the steel industry. That bonus was granted to enable them to produce steel at a price to compete in the markets of the world.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is not a bonus
given under those circumstances a form of relief?


Franklin White Turnbull: Not the form of relief
we are talking about. That is my judgment but the hon. member may have his own conviction. The bonus was granted to enable farmers to produce wheat at a price which would enable them to sell it in the markets of the world.
Another condition arose; a large number of farmers had no wheat, either because of crop failure or from the effects of hail or something of that kind.


Robert McKenzie: Does the
hon. member realize that the act was passed on August 3?


Franklin White Turnbull: I realize that.


Robert McKenzie: The hon
member said the condition arose later.


Franklin White Turnbull: Did I say "later"?


Robert McKenzie: Yes.


Franklin White Turnbull: I do not think I did.
As my hon. friend well knows, the budget which contained this provision was brought 41761-20
down on June 1. As I see it, that provision was not intended to apply to crop failures, whether or not it was known at that time such crop failures did exist; it was intended as a bonus on the production of wheat.


John Vallance: At that time it was an export bonus.


Franklin White Turnbull: The interruption of my hon. friend has nothing whatever to do with the argument.


John Vallance: Oh, yfes, it has.


Franklin White Turnbull: Not a thing. Another
condition arose in western Canada, a complete crop failure, in some districts extending back for two years and in others for three years. When this bonus was introduced the government said that this condition would have to be taken care of by other means, and it has been taken care of fairly well. The Saskatchewan Relief Commission has provided the things necessary to maintain these people and their cattle through the present winter. I do not know of one person in Saskatchewan who has starved, everyone who needed it has been supplied with fuel, food, clothing and shelter.


Mr. POWER:: Do I understand that those who produced the wheat received a five cent bonus while those who unfortunately had none will be obliged to pay for the relief granted by way of bonus?


Franklin White Turnbull: Those who produced
wheat received the bonus.


Charles Gavan Power: Those who did not, pay for the relief.


Franklin White Turnbull: Those who did not produce wheat did not receive the bonus.


Charles Gavan Power: But they paid for the
relief-


Franklin White Turnbull: Not yet.


Charles Gavan Power: -by way of the bonus.


Franklin White Turnbull: At the request of a
great many people in Saskatchewan, those who received relief were given the privilege of repayment. This had a deterrent effect upon some people-


Charles Gavan Power: The people who were worse off actually paid by means of the notes.


Franklin White Turnbull: -I am happy to say the number is few-who had the intention to hold out both hands for relief when, in fact, they did not need it. Other measures were taken to provide for those who did not have a crop. There were measures taken to supply

Farm Relief-Mr. Gershaw

them with the necessities to carry on through the winter, and other measures were adopted to supply seed and feed for the spring and to grant the necessary assistance to put the crop in the ground. The suggestion has been made that those who buy this seed and feed will have to pay the five cent bonus. Wheat was quoted yesterday on the Winnipeg exchange at 66 cents per bushel, but I venture to say the farmer in Saskatchewan will receive his feed and seed for considerably less than 66 cents per bushel.
Two conditions existed; the bonus was applied to one and the relief was applied to the other. The policy of taking back notes may be right or wrong but I do not intend to argue that matter. All I am trying to point out is that it is not right to apply to one disease the cure for another. It may be said that the second cure was not the proper one, but I am not concerned with that; it can be argued at another time. It is owing to this confusion that the present resolution has been introduced.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, the constituency which I have the honour to represent adjoins the constituency of Acadia, and the description of the difficulties faced by the farmers in that constituency as given by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) applies to the farmers in my constituency. During the last few months I attended a large number of gatherings of farmers, and at each a resolution was passed, usually unanimously, in favour of having the bonus paid in some other way or upon some other basis, the acreage basis being the one usually chosen. The fanners realized the difficulties in checking up, but felt that under present conditions the amount of money paid was not applied in such a way as to give the most relief.


John Vallance: Mr. Speaker, a notice of motion which stood in my name asked for the production of certain communications which had passed between the government and different organizations in the province of Saskatchewan. I mentioned this matteT this afternoon to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and he said he would telephone immediately and endeavour to get these communications to me. Just this minute I am in receipt of one of the documents asked for, but I would like to have all the documents asked for in my motion, so that when this debate is resumed I will be able to deal more intelligently with this matter. At this time, I would like to have it called six o'clock. The Prime Minister very kindly told me he would get them and

that if he was not able to get them, he would have the debate adjourned so that I might have an opportunity of discussing the matter. There are also some others who wish to speak.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 18, 1932