[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton) presented the second report of the select standing committee on standing orders and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 50, to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
INTRODUCTION IN SENATE On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) :: May I ask the Prime Minister, in reference to the anouncement made in the other place yesterday, whether it is the intention of the government from now on to have all private bills introduced in the Senate.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: I gave notice last evening, which appears in the votes and proceedings to-day. When the matter is reached, the hon. gentleman will observe, from a reading of it, what the proposals are.



COMMUTERS CANADA-UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Yesterday the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) asked whether or not, under the provisions of the Ashburton treaty, certain privileges were conferred upon residents of the Saint John district that bordered United States territory. I am of the opinion that he referred to article 3 of the Ashburton-Webster treaty of 1842, which provides for the movement of forest products along and through the river Saint John in the territory of Canada and the United States, and provides that residents of either country may follow, so to speak, these products as they pass down the river Saint John and its tributaries, through the state of Maine into New Brunswick or through New Brunswick into the state of Maine, as the case may be. It has no bearing on the border commuters' question. It is article 3 of the Ashburton-Webster treaty of 1842.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES IN CITY OF WINNIPEG On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: I
have a question to direct to the Minister of Railways. Perhaps I may say in explanation that some time ago, years in fact, the Canadian National Railways purchased certain lines in the city of Winnipeg, in Fort Rouge, for the purpose of extending the railway yards. Persistent rumours are in circulation that certain evils have taken place. On account of the depression which set in at about that time the railway did not go on with the yards, and the properties were left in the hands of the real estate firm which made the purchase, namely, Harris & Chis-
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

holm. It is now rumoured, firstly, that an excessive price was paid for these properties, secondly, that the expenses in connection with the handling of them were padded to a very decided extent, and thirdly that rents are collected on the properties that are not turned in to the railway at all in some instances, and that greater rents are collected than are turned in to the railway. I would like to ask the Minister of Railways if he has any knowledge of this matter, and if not, would he in the national interest have the matter looked into.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) :: I have no knowledge of the matter referred to, and in view of the statement made by the hon. member I shall gladly have it looked into.



BRANCH LINE CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): I have a question to direct to the Minister of Railways. A short time ago the minister said he would make a statement in connection with branch line construction in Canada. I think he intimated that he would make it when the estimates were up. I wonder if he can make any definite statement in that respect to-day?
Robert James Manion: I cannot do that. What I really meant to say, if I did not put it in those words, was that when the estimates of the national railways are under consideration by the special committee, that whole matter can be discussed. If the hon. gentleman is not a member of that committee no doubt he will nevertheless have opportunity to put his questions to the officers of the railway at that time.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 42, respecting relief measures

Mr. Gordon-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


The CHAIRMAN:: On the subamendment moved by Mr. Hanbury.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that was disposed of.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The amendment moved by the Prime Minister. Those in favour will say " aye."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.
IMr. Howden.]


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Those against will say " no."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: In my opinion the
ayes have it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On
division.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Carried on division.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Those in favour of the amendment please rise.
Some hon. members having risen:


Mr. IRVINE:: Mr. Chairman, what is the
vote about?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The amendment of
the Prime Minister.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: You may be explaining it, but we cannot hear one word in this comer.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Those against the
amendment kindly rise.


Mr. QARDINER:: Will you please read
the amendment so that we will know what we are voting for. The amendment has not been read yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, they
desire to have the amendment read, and it has not been read since this house convened. May the amendment be read so that they will know what they are voting on?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Well, the vote will
have to be taken all over again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All right, the amendment has not been read.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is the amendment
to section 2 moved by the Prime Minister:
That section 2 of the bill be amended by striking out sub-paragraph (b) and by inserting in the said bill as section 3 thereof the following:
" 3. In addition to the powers conferred under the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council may, when parliament is not in session take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to maintain, within the competence of parliament, peace, order and good government throughout Canada; and at all times to take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to protect and maintain the credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof."
Do you want me to read it in French?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Those in favour of
the amendment will kindly rise.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Pairs count.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Do pairs count?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes.
Amendment agreed to on division.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Is the section as
amended carried?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Same
division.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Again I must protest Mr. Ohairman, We cannot hear in this corner what you are saying. It may be difficult for the chairman to speak loudly enough, but we have reasonably good hearing and it is impossible for us intelligently to follow the business of this house-


Mr. YOUNG:: Just follow your leader.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are probably a
little better off than the opposition, which has none.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I say it is impossible for us to know what is going on, and I think it is due to the members in this corner that they shall be able to follow intelligently the 'business of this house.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am trying to maintain order, but I cannot guarantee that the hon. members in that corner will intelligently follow what is going on.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I
respectfully protest against such flippancy on the part of the chairman. I am serious in saying that we in this corner cannot possibly understand what the chairman is saying and cannot intelligently follow the debates. I insist that if we are to vote on these questions the question must be put in such a way as to be audible to members in this corner.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know, Mr. Chairman,
that you have recently Ipeen ill. Will tlie clerk assistant read the question? I entirely agree that the hon. gentleman, not as leader of his group, but as a member of this chamber, has a right to hear everything that transpires.
The Clerk Assistant: Shall the section as amended carry?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a
point of order. What is the section as amended? I understand the effect of the amendment moved by the Prime Minister, on which we have just voted, is to delete subsection (b) and insert in the bill a new subsection. There is no section before the committee now, as I understand, we have done both in one vote.
Relief Act, 1934


Richard Bedford Bennett: Precisely. The section is not amended; a new section is substituted for it, in order to remove the difficulty of the words that precede the operative words of section 2, "notwithstanding the provisions." They disappear in section 3, and the present section 3 which we now consider will be number 4.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
chairman put the question "Shall the section as amended pass?" That question cannot be put. We have already passed a new section 3.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: But section 2 is not carried yet.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Exactly, but the chairman put the motion, "Shall the section as amended carry "? That motion should not have been put; we have already passed the new section 3.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Section 2 is not
carried as yet; we must go back to section
2.	Shall section 2 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: As amended.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Mr. POULIOT:: Before this section is
carried, sir, I should like to ask one question. This morning I received bulletin No. 9, in regard to unemployed wage earners, issued by the bureau of statistics. Very often in this house I have advocated the classification of the unemployed. In this bulletin there is a partial classification according to their trades and so forth, and I should like to ask the government if it is intended to proceed with this classification or to discuss the matter at the next interprovincial conference in order that the provinces may assist in the work.
I am asking a very sensible question. I do not believe the problem of unemployment ever will be solved unless there is a classification of the unemployed. This can be done; it has been done in part by the bureau of statistics, and I am asking the government if it is the intention to proceed with that classification with the assistance of the provinces. If that is not possible I should like to hear the government say so, but until they do say so I believe it can be done. The Winnipeg Free Press, a great western paper, published an editorial some weeks ago in regard to this matter. I should like to stress the importance of this classification and I should like to know if the government are ready to proceed with that work.
Relief Act, 1934


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government has
done everything it reasonably could do, in cooperation with the provinces and otherwise, to classify the unemployed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand that we are now considering section 2 from which subsection (b) is deleted. Is that correct?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose that is so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Should
not an amendment have been moved to change the lettering of the subsections?


Hugh Guthrie: Under our rules the law
clerk does that. The numbering and lettering of sections and subsections is the duty of the law clerk.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall section 2 as
amended carry?
Section as amended agreed to on division.
On section 3-Further powers of governor in council.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: This is now section 4.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the only difference between this section this year and the section last year is the deletion this year of the subsection reading:
Assist in defraying the cost of the sale and distribution of the products of field, farm, forest, sea, river and mine.
Otherwise it is the same section?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I think 'that is
correct. I thought for a moment the hon. gentleman said this was the only change in the act, but of course there are other changes. The provision with respect to guarantees disappears from the act, and there is some little change in the language of section 3, which contained the provisions to which the hon. gentleman has referred.
Now I may reply to the hon. member for South Perth, who asked three questions yesterday. The return I have is rather long, and I can do one of two things; I can either read it and place it on Hansard or hand it to the hon. gentleman. The expenditures are brought down to March 31, as known and estimated; that is, all the accounts up to that date have not been received, but the estimate of the departmental officials has been added to the returns. The projects begin with No. 8, and perhaps the hon. gentleman desires that I should read the return.


Mr. SANDERSON:: How long is it? Perhaps it would be better to put it on Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It contains six pages. I can answer one question which my hon. friend asked, as to the camps in Ontario. They are as follows:
Strength
Diver, Ontario	 88
Gillies, Ontario	 46
Pagwa	 77
Nakina	 89
Kowkash	 58
Lamaune	  87
Wagaming	 100
Sioux Lookout	 112
Amesdale	 70
Vermilion Bay	 76
Camp Borden	 227
Long Branch	 78
Nakina, Group H.Q	 19
Royal Military College, Kingston.. 258
Petawawa	 1,002
Barriefield	 532
Reay	 96
Kapuskasing	 108
Lac Seul (Hudson, Ontario)	 261
Lac Seul,	Camp	2	
99Lac Seul,	Camp	3	
56Lac Seul,	Camp	4	
56Lac Seul,	Camp	5	
50Lac Seul,	Camp	6	
86Lac Seul,	Camp	7	
48Lac Seul,	Camp	8	
62Lae Seul,	Camp	9	
80Lac Seul,	Camp	10	
46Lac Seul,	Camp	11	
52Lac Seul,	Camp	12	
39Lac Seul,	Camp	13	
43Lac Seul,	Camp	14	
42Lac Seul,	Camp	15	
20Lac Seul,	Camp	16	
17
The total expenditure, including money actually expended and as estimated, amounts to $2,629,95X1. If it will serve the hon. gentleman's purpose I will send the report to him or I can put it on Hansard, as he desires.


Frederick George Sanderson: Perhaps the Prime Minister would be good enough to put it on Hansard, and I want to thank the right hon. gentleman for his kindness in giving me this information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very well.
The statement is as follows:
Department of National Defence Unemployment Relief Projects Expenditure and known and estimated commitments to March 31, 1934, inclusive Province of Ontario
Project
No.	Location	Amount8	Diver	$	35,6009	Gillies	
31,54011	Pagwa	
27,24012	Nakina	
68,16013	Kowkash	
29,60014	Lamaune	
25,77015	Wagaming	
55,65016	Sioux Lookout	
31,77017	Amesdale	
42,72018	Vermilion	Bay	
30,030
Reliej Act, 1934
Project
No.	Location	Amount27	Ottawa	Air Station	
202,98028	Trenton	Air Station	
320,18030	Camp Borden	
70,51033	Long Branch	
141,94035	Nakina	(Group H.Q.)	
29,49037	R.M.C.,	Kingston	
111,02040	Petawawa	
334,16042	Barriefield	
201,63045	Reay	
22,12046	South River	
9,58047	North Bay (Group H.Q.) .. .	16,15050	Kapuskasing	
27,12051	Lac Seul	
598,84059	N.D.H.Q., Ottawa	
17,71081	Ogahalla	
18,57090	Emsdale	
7,93091	Round Lake	
12.32092	Ramore	
13,98093	Porquis Junction	
8,52094	Tudhope	
9,940106	Allanwater	
14,420109	Kenora	
22,460112	Savant Lake	
20,670113	Sunstrum	
19,670139	Collins	
(On detachment from Nakina)
Total	$2,629,990
Department of National Defence Unemployment Relief Works Strength as at March 31, 1934 Project	Total
No.	Location	Strength1	Halifax, N.S	
2864	Upper Brockway, N.B	
65	Megantie, P.Q	
636	Bishopton, P.Q	
587	Quebec, P.Q	
4208	Diver, Ont	
889	Gillies, Ont	
4611	Pagwa, Ont	
7712	Nakina, Ont	
8913	Kowkash, Ont	
5814	Lamaune, Ont	
8715	Wagaming, Ont	
10016	Sioux Lookout, Ont	
11217	Amesdale, Ont	
7018	Vermilion Bay, Ont	
7620	Lac du Bonnet, Man	
7921	Winnipeg, Man	
5826	Hope, B.C	
11827	Ottawa Air Station,	Rockeliffe,Ont	
54328	Trenton Air Station, Trenton,Ont	
84829	Saint John, N.B	
15030	Camp Borden, Ont	
22733	Long Branch, Ont	
7835	Nakina, Ont., Group	H.Q.	...	1937	Royal Military	College,Kingston, Ont	
25839	Valcartier, P.Q	
1,62040	Petawawa, Ont	
1,00242	Barriefield, Ont	
53244	Dundurn, Sask	
98345	Reay, Ont	
9647	North Bay, Group H.Q	
1648	Victoria, B.C., Dist.	H.Q.	...	2049	Calgary, Alta.. Dist.	H.Q.. ..	2050	Kapuskasing, Ont	
10851-1	Lac Seul (Hudson, Ont.)..	..	261Project	TotalNo.	Location	Strength51-2 Lac	Seul,	Camp	2	
9951-3 Lac	Seul,	Camp	3	
5651-4 Lac	Seul,	Camp	4	
5651-5 Lac	Seul,	Camp	5	
5051-6 Lac	Seul,	Camp	6	
8651-7 Lac	Seul,	Camp	7	
4851-8 Lac	Seul,	Camp	8	
6251-9 Lac	Seul,	Camp	9	
8051-10 Lac	Seul,	Camp	10	
4651-11 Lac	Seul,	Camp	11	
5251-12 Lac	Seul,	Camp	12	
3951-13 Lac	Seul,	Camp	13	
4351-14 Lae	Seul,	Camp	14	
4251-15 Lac	Seul,	Camp	15	
2051-16 Lac	Seul,	Camp	16	
17
(Total all Lac Seul camps, 1,057)*
52	Winterburn. Alta	
6853	St. Johns, Que	
5555	Hope, B.C	
31856	Princeton, B.C	
23157	West Coast Road, Soolce, B.C.	26859	Ottawa, Ont. (N.D.H.Q.)....	3560	Kingsgate, B.C	
12661	Crowsnest, B.C	
24562	Kimberley-Wasa, B.C	
21163	Long Beach, B.C	
18864	Goatfell, B.C	
18765	Nelway, B.C	
20266	China Creek, B.C	
10967	Shoreacres, B.C	
10368	Rock Creek, B.C	
6770	Group H.Q., Yahk, B.C	
971	Group H.Q., Nelson, B.C	1073	Hope-Rosedale Road, B.C. . ..	21174	Agassiz-Harrison Mills, B.C. ..	31575	Esquimalt, B.C	
8976	Hope-Boston Bar Road, B.C. ..	38577	Group H.Q., Hope, B.C	
1378	Group H.Q., Princeton, B.C. ..	1179	Group H.Q., Sooke, B.C	581	Ogahalla, Ont	
5882	Merritt, B.C	
8886	Group H.Q., Spence's Bridge,B.C	1087	Spence's Bridge-Lytton, B.C. ..	12788	Spence's Bridge-Cache Creek,B.C	
19589	Spence's Bridge-Merritt, B.C. .	25791	Round Lake, Ont	
5395	Group H.Q., Salmon Arm, B.C.	1196	Salmon Arm-Sorrento, B.C. ..	9497	Salmon Arm-Sicamous Grindrod,B.C	
13798	Rooseville Cutoff, B.C	
96100	Group H.Q., Revelstoke, B.C. .	11101	Big Bend (Revelstoke Nth),B.C	
117102	Revelstoke-Sicamous, B.C. . ..	196103	Duck Mountain, Man	
157104	Dist. H.Q., Winnipeg, Man. ..	14105	Point Grey, B.C	
183106	Allanwater, Ont	
78107	Caddy Lake, Man	
101108	Boston Bar, B.C	
76109	Kenora, Ont.*	
95110	Shilo, Man	
112111	Point Grey, B.C., Group H.Q. .	11112	Savant Lake, Ont	
54113	Sunstrum. Ont	
62114	White Rock, B.C	
288
*While camps at Lac Seul are in Ontario the personnel is drawn mainly from Manitoba.

Relief Act, 1934

Project
No.	Location
Total
Strength
115	Aldergrove, B.C	
116	Pender Harbour-Half Moon
Bay, B.C	
117	Squamish, B.C	
118	Boston Bar, B.C	
119	Sarcee Camp, Alta	
120	Calgary-Banff, Alta	
121	Edmonton-Jasper, Alta	
122	Frank Slide, Alta	
123	Colter's Siding, N.B	
124	Taghum, B.C	
125	Cotton Creek, B.C	
126	Kamloops, B.C., Group H.Q. ..
127	North Thompson River, B.C. .
128	Dead Man Creek-Kamloops,
B.C	
129	Kelowna, B.C., Group H.Q. . .
130	Oyama, B.C	
131	Nahum, B.C	
132	Naramata, B.C	
133	Ladder Lake, Sask	
134	North Vancouver, B.C	
135	Yahk, B.C	
136	Kitchener, B.C	
137	Whitefox, Sask	
139 Collins, Ont	
248
2
640
203
99
9
58
101
69
54
85
10
Total
18,799


Edward James Young: Mr. Chairman, subsection (a) of this section reads:
(a) Provide for special relief, works and undertakings under control and direction of the Department of National Defence and the Department of the Interior.
We have been given to understand that the government contemplate endeavouring to relieve unemployment by embarking upon an extensive program of public works. Is it the intention of the government to submit that program of public works to this house for approval before they embark upon it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I explained to the hon. gentleman some days ago that it was the intention to do so.


Mr. VENIOT:: Before this new section 4 is adopted I should like to take the time of the committee to make a few remarks. I spoke on this bill on its introduction, and I should not be inclined to speak again were it not for certain statements and arguments advanced by the right hon. Prime Minister.
First let me say that the reference to an attempt on the part of the opposition to raise a sectional cry and to turn the east against the west should not have been made by the right hon. gentleman, I think, until he had first given serious consideration to what was done by his own party in 1930. If ever there was an attempt to turn the east against the west it was made by certain Conservative candidates in the election of 1930 when they criticized what was commonly known at the

time as the Dunning budget. True, that criticism was not made on the floor of this house, but it was made during the election campaign. I hold in my hand a press report of a speech delivered in Montreal. It is as follows:
The real aim of the budget-
The Dunning budget.

is to open markets for the wheat produced by the western provinces, but wheat is not the only industry in Canada. The man who gives $10 of labour in manufactures is doing as much in Canada as the man who produces ten bushels of wheat in the west. We have made sacrifices for these western provinces, and I give credit to the ministers of these provinces for what they obtained from the government, but I ask the representatives of Quebec what they have obtained for our population.
Then he goes on to state:
Mr. Dunning always thinks in terms of wheat. He has never had much else to think about. The entire wheat crop of Canada has never yet reached $500,000,000 in total value in any year. Yet the gross annual value of the products of the factories of the island of Montreal alone is approximately $575,000,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who said that?


Peter John Veniot: I am asked who said that. The press reports that the statement was made by Mr. Cahan, who now occupies the portfolio of Secretary of State.


Mr. CANTLEY:: What is the matter with it?


Peter John Veniot: I am asked what is the matter with it. Because hon. members on this side of the house have referred to the aid given to distressed western farmers, they have been accused of raising a sectional cry and of attempting to turn the east against the west. If ever there was a more determined attempt made to turn the east against the west than is to be found in the speech I have just read, I should like to see it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Peter John Veniot: Why appeal to the people on the island of Montreal in the way this appeal was made? Why did he refer to the west receiving the benefits under the Dunning budget, if he had not in mind opening the eyes of people in the east to what the government of the day may have been doing for the western farmers?
While I am on that point let me say this to the right hon. Prime Minister. I believe I speak for every Liberal member when I say that we on this side of the house have no fault to find with the government-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.

Relief Act, 1934


Peter John Veniot: for aiding the distressed western farmers. And when I appeal to the government to think of what they might be able to do to relieve the distress in the maritime provinces, and especially in certain sections, I do so at the risk of being told that I am the unfortunate medium expressing their wishes. I believe I am expressing the sentiments of every hon. member from the maritime provinces on either side of the house when I state that we were only too glad, when an appeal came from the distressed districts of western Canada, to do our utmost, despite the distressed circumstances under which we in the maritimes lived, to send our quota of help to those unfortunate farmers in the west. I wish to add my word of praise of the good people of the maritime provinces who generously, considering the depressed condition of affairs in their provinces, contributed carload after carload of produce and clothes which were sent to western Canada. We are prepared to do that again. If this government desires to ask the House of Commons for $1,000, $100,000, $1,000,000 or $20,000,000, any sum which in their opinion is necessary to relieve the distressed districts of western Canada, hon. members on this side of the house without hesitation will vote the money. We know about those distressed conditions in western Canada; we know that they have suffered from drought and from the grasshopper plagues. However, notwithstanding the sympathy we may feel for those people and notwithstanding the fact that we are prepared to help them with our votes, we from eastern Canada are not prevented from appealing to the government and pointing out to them the unfortunate conditions in our respective sections of the maritime provinces. And so I wish to join with the right hon. member for Antigonish


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter John Veniot: the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) in his appeal to the government. On this occasion I do not appeal for aid for the Canso fishermen; he has done that nobly and well. I appeal to the government to consider the situation existing in northern New Brunswick, including the counties of Westmorland, Kent, Northumberland, Gloucester and Resti-gouche. I appeal to the government on behalf of the fishing industry and interests of those counties. May I say to the Prime Minister that what the drought and grasshopper plague has been to the farmers of western Canada, the numerous storms of unprecedented fury which have prevailed along the north Atlantic 74726-134J
coast have been to the fishermen of those counties. Storm after storm has destroyed many ships. Fishing gear has been destroyed to a point where the men are not able to prepare themselves as they should be prepared for this spring's fishing operations. Not only have the storms destroyed the fishing gear, but in many cases the fishermen have been prevented from catching a quantity of fish sufficient to enable them to live through the winter months.
No doubt I will be told that this matter should be presented to the provincial government, so that they in turn may appeal to the federal authorities. May I say that if there were a slight amendment to the new section 4 of the bill no such process would be necessary. Under the new section 4 power is provided to give special relief, and such relief is placed under the jurisdiction of the departments of National Defence and the Interior. I suggest that the section might go a little farther, and that the Prime Minister might consider an amendment providing that special relief be within the control of the Department of Marine or the Department of Fisheries. As I understand the bill, if the section passes in its present form the two departments mentioned will not be competent to look after the needs of fishermen. I do suggest that the Department of Marine or the Department of Fisheries should be included in the section to work on behalf of the fishermen. In order to meet the situation I have described the government should name a special commission, if you like, composed of the Deputy Minister of Fisheries, an officer from the department which he would choose to act with him, and that the two should choose a representative of the fishermen in the counties I have named or, if they thought it better, the whole province. On their report the government of the day will act, having authority under section 4 to do so and provide the relief that is necessary. I am not now, Mr. Chairman, as has been charged by hon. gentlemen opposite against speakers on this side, speaking for political effect. There is no need for me to do that. I am speaking because I know the conditions under which the fishing industry is labouring in those counties, and I am making this appeal to the parliament of Canada and laying before it the conditions that exist in the districts I have mentioned simply because I think it is my duty to do so. Because I am speaking on this particular clause after having already spoken on the bill when it first came up, I may be aocused of attempting to delay its passage. I do not care whether that accusation is hurled across the floor at me
Relief Act, 1934

or not. I feel it is my duty to appeal to parliament on behalf of these people, and I repeat that I am making this appeal solely because I consider it to be my duty.
I have here certain statistics which I wish to submit to the house and to base thereon certain questions. The right hon. the Prime Minister in his statement the other day told us that there had been a considerable industrial movement for the better in this dominion. True I will admit that there has been some improvement in some of the industrial centres, but how are we to reconcile the Prime Minister's statement with the figures I shall now give? I find that in January 1933, there were 258,298 heads of families receiving relief in this country, and that that number increased in January 1934 to 260,157. There is certainly no evidence there of an improvement in the unemployment situation in Canada.
I do not wish to take up very much more of the time of this committee but I should like to refer once more to the statement that has been made that we are attempting to arouse the east against the west. The Prime Minister in his statement the other day said that aid given to the west was measured by the necessity that existed. We are quite satisfied with that. But may he not also cause to be inquired into the necessity that exists for the aid that I am now asking for the fishing industry in the province of New Brunswick?


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Will not that aid
be given under the Marketing Act?


Peter John Veniot: That act is not yet in force, and I am not going to discuss it at the moment. I shall be glad to discuss it when it is before the house. So far as I have read it, I do not think there is any clause in the marketing bill to meet the situation I have described, although I may be mistaken.
I think the Prime Minister is quite correct when he says that aid should be given according to the measure of the necessity that exists. I approve of that stand, and I wish that same principle to be applied to the necessities of the fishermen of the province of New Brunswick in the sections I have named. Why should we in the east oppose aid to the distressed farmers of the west? We in the maritimes have numerous relatives living in the west. Some of the first pioneers in western Canada came from the maritime provinces. Some of the brightest men and women, some of the best business heads, some of those who are now shining stars in western Canada came from the maritime provinces.
[Mr. Veniot.l
Our own blood is there, and we who have remained in eastern Canada have looked with longing eyes for the return of our friends. We would like them to return and stay with us, but at least we hope they will return and visit us. Numerous communications that we have received from our relatives in the west have placed before us in no uncertain way the hardships which they are undergoing. So we are in a position to appreciate the situation in the west, and we are only too anxious, especially those of us who have relatives out there, to do our best to help them out, and one of the best things we in eastern Canada can do to help those in the west is to vote a sufficient sum of money in this parliament to see that those in the west especially in those districts distressed by drouth and the grasshopper plague will be carried through their present difficulties.


Edward James Young: There is one other question I would like to ask in regard to the new section 4 (a).


Armand Renaud La Vergne: We are still on clause 2 of the bill. It is not carried yet.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall clause 2 as
amended carry?
Section as amended agreed to, on division.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Next is clause 3, now
clause 4.


Edward James Young: If I understand paragraph
(a)	aright it gives the government power to undertake, in addition to the public works program which lis to be submitted to the house, any other works under the direction of the Department of National Defence and the Department of the Interior. Is that correct?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will remember that last year under the act then passed we dealt in a special section with the operations in the national parks. This is intended to continue that. During the last few months the Department of National Defence has been carrying on certain works, and as I indicated yesterday the conditions under which the men worked involved their leaving for settled employment when it offered. This clause is to enable the operations in the parks and those carried on by the National Defence department to be continued. They will be separate and distinct from general relief work and are referred to as special relief works. A few evenings ago the Minister of the Interior indicated the character of the works carried on in the national parks, very necessary work that

Relief Act, 1934
perhaps otherwise could not be done for a long time under a general appropriation; and the work that is being done under the Department of National Defence I need not dwell upon. The special public works undertakings that will be dealt with in a bill are works along the line of the suggestions that were made by the construction association and other industrial groups throughout the country during the last few months, with which I dare say the hon. gentleman is familiar.


Edward James Young: That is to say, there will be no otheT works undertaken under this section except such as just now described by the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Relief works in the parks and those under the Department of National Defence. I would not like the hon. gentleman to think for a moment that I have put a construction upon the extent or character of the works that may be done under this clause for I am not in a position to do so, but there are relief works within the parks and relief works carried on along the lines of those now being carried on by the Department of National Defence; for instance, the work at Lac Seul, where a very large number of men is employed for the purpose of clearing up all that area within the provisions of international agreements covering that area.


Mr. HANBURY:: As 1 understand it, these works will be carried on by the single, unemployed under the control of the two departments mentioned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be too
narrow a construction for me to put upon the operations. In the parks some of the permanent residents engaged in roadmaking are those who have been residing in the parks for some years. It will not be limited entirely to the single, unemployed and homeless men but in a broad and general way that is the purpose of the class of work to be carried on by the Department of National Defence.


Wilfred Hanbury: I should like to say a word or two in connection with the single, unemployed men. I think the Prime Minister and all hon. members will agree that a more or less mental condition is arising in the case of these men which is not in the best interests of the country. Would it not be possible to do a certain amount of educational work among these men? I think this would be of practical advantage to Canada. At the present time we are importing very large quantities of oil and I think every hon. member believes that at some place in Canada there must be large reservoirs of oil which have yet
to be discovered. I suggest that some education in geology should be given to some of these unemployed single men in order to fit them to search the country for oil fields. They could be maintained just as easily in that work as they could be in these camps.
I should like to make a further suggestion as to the teaching of geology so that they might be able to investigate the minerals of Canada and, within a reasonable time, probably bring into production larger quantities of gold which has acquired such a great value in the markets of the world. I make these suggestions to the Prime Minister not so much for the practical value they may be to Canada as for the value they may be to some of these men.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is aware that arrangements were made last year whereby single men and some with families could carry on operations in the gold-bearing streams of British Columbia. In some instances, although not always, they were able to wash out sufficient gold to make it worth their while. In any event, considerable compensation was received for the efforts made. Under the agreement made with British Columbia, some assistance was given in the first instance, as was also the case with Alberta. In the no them part of that province there have been evidences of traces of gold in the sands of the rivers. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will remember that near Edmonton quite a substantial quantity of gold was washed in the days that are gone.
The hon. gentleman has mentioned a matter that has given us a great deal of thought, the extent to which the idle might be usefully employed in exploring for minerals. However, I am bound to say that the investigations appear to indicate that this is rather an expensive process. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman has taken the trouble to look into the figures, but the fact is that even with the large amounts of gold produced by our mines, the amount received for that gold is very little more than the amount which has been expended during the years in the endeavour to find that which unfortunately in many cases did not exist.
The oil question is perhaps the most difficult. For instance, the amount expended in Alberta in seeking oil-I speak subject to correction-is between eight and ten million dollars. So far all that has been produced is the wet naphtha south of Calgary and some small traces of crude petroleum. The Fort Norman field is too far north at the moment to yield to successful commercial exploitation-
Relief Act, 1934

The product is used for the fueling of aeroplanes at that particular point, a small skimming plant having been erected to purify and refine the crude oil. I have no desire to trespass upon the time of the committee, but this matter is of great personal interest. I hope we may be able to do something in that direction but our experiments thus far, beyond what I have indicated, are not such as to warrant any great hopes in this regard.
I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. members of this committee that the Frontier college 'has been doing substantial work in these camps in the way of education. The other evening I read with great interest a report from one of these camps and it quite heartened me to think that the young men had taken such an interest in education. 1 am referring to the camps conducted by the National Defence department, and I should have liked to have had this report to read to the hon. gentleman. It is really quite interesting and encouraging. These young men are endeavouring to improve their positions and the wastrels do not seem to stay in the camps very long because they are not encouraged to remain by that class of young men which has taken control in most of the camps. It is an encouraging sign that such conditions have been brought about as to warrant the encomium pronounced upon General McNaughton by Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, who was Minister of Labour in Great Britain for some years. There has been some measure of organization with respect to self-education and I assure my hon. friend that should the camps have to continue that feature of the work will not be overlooked. The fact is that out of 20,000 odd men, some 7,000 have found permanent employment and this would seem to indicate that industry is absorbing at least some of those who were in these camps.
Turning for a moment to the observations of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot). I think he will recall that what I said yesterday was in consequence of complaints which had been made as to the lack of justice, on the one hand, and unfairness, on the other. There were two statements made by different hon. members and it was in consequence of those statements that I made the observations I did. So far as the fishermen are concerned, the mass buying committee, if I may use that term-it got me into trouble in one case I believe-


Wilfred Hanbury: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I see that the hon. gentleman has read the joke. This committee is considering the matter and at the present time I think is receiving evidence in connection with the position of the fishing industry in the maritime provinces in order to see what may be done in connection with the prices received for the catch and the spread between those prices and the prices paid by the consumer. I should like to say to the hon. gentleman that when I made the observation to which he has referred, I was referring only to the fact-the newspapers have made jocular reference to this-that the representations that have been made to the federal government in connection with all these matters have not been made by the industries themselves nor the classes affected but by the governments of the provinces. Where we have received communications from industries affected by the efforts that we were making, attention has at once been directed to the necessity of these matters being presented by the government, they being the only authority with whom we had contact and with whom we had entered into agreement. Some assistance was given last year in the hon. gentleman's county with respect to hake fishing.


Peter John Veniot: How much?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This assistance was given in the counties of Charlotte, St. John, Kent, Restigouche and Gloucester and amounted to some $8,000.


Peter John Veniot: That was not given as assistance to the hake fishing industry. It was given for the purpose of buying from the fishermen to relieve the distress among the poor people in the different sections in the county of Gloucester. It was not a bonus or help to the hake fishermen in Gloucester.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All I can say is that assistance was given to the industry to the extent of $8,000 by agreement with the government of New Brunswick, and in the same way exactly as provisions were made with respect to seed grain. In connection with matters in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, so far as the fishing industry is concerned, or in British Columbia or in connection with the internal fisheries such as we have on lake Winnipeg and in northern parts of Alberta, any representations that are made by the governments of these provinces will be carefully considered and if the case is such as merits favourable consideration such consideration will be given to it. I can say that at least with great certainty.


Mr. BRADETTE:: I wish to say a few words with regard to an important movement that comes under this question we are discussing. I refer to the back to the land movement. The other evening the Minister of Labour gave an answer to the effect that most of the people settled under this movement have been doing well, and it is true that the failures are not the rule but rather the exception. Nevertheless, I should like to impress certain facts on the Prime Minister. This scheme is intended to last for a period of three years only, and everyone familiar with the agricultural situation-and this applies as forcibly to my own section of the country as to any other rural part of Canada-knows that at the end of the three years, or on the completion of the plan, the people who will have been placed under this scheme on new holdings will find themselves in the same position as in the initial year. This plan has been in operation for the last two years so that at the end of next fall the people on the land at the present moment will find it absolutely impossible to remain in their present occupation.
I would urge very strongly on the Prime Minister as well as on this committee the necessity of extending this scheme instead of having an iron-bound rule confined to three years. I submit that it should be more flexible; it should extend over a longer period. I am directly interested in this question for the excellent reason that there are more people placed on the land in my own constituency than in any other section of Canada. Nearly 250 families have been located under the scheme in northern Ontario, and for that reason I make this urgent appeal to the Prime Minister. I think that every member of this committee will readily visualize the situation that will face these families at the end of the three-year plan. Everyone knows that it is absolutely impossible for the families to do more than barely live with the $200 they receive under the tripartite agreement; it is simply impossible for them to make any provision to take care of the future. Consequently these people will find themselves on the completion of the plan in the same position as that in which they were in the initial year. I know that the government is fully aware of the situation, and I know that the Minister of Labour in particular is familiar with all the circumstances inasmuch as a good many of these families have been settled in his own constituency.
I read this morning with a good deal of interest an article published in the Ottawa Citizen entitled The New Settler. I gather that the city council was asked to vote the
Relief Act, 1934
sum of $3,000 for the purpose of sending fifteen families to settle under the back to the land movement, but the city fathers claimed that they were saving the sum of $6,000 a year, and the article in question contended that this was not a way to encourage a back to the land movement. In my opinion this article, well written, should appeal to the government. For that reason I again appeal to the government and more particularly to the Prime Minister, the same kind of appeal I made two weeks ago last Monday, namely, to enlarge the back to the land movement so as to make it acceptable to young farmers and settlers in this country. Their fathers are absolutely unable to provide them with farms and I think the scheme should be extended to meet their case. I have no doubt that the government is sincere in its attitude towards this matter.
I can speak quite freely with regard to this problem inasmuch as I have always given the government my approval ever since the back to the land movement was inaugurated, and I suggest that this would be one of the most tangible ways in which the government could manifest its sincerity in connection with this wonderful scheme, which in my opinion would go a long way towards restoring equilibrium between urban and rural centres. I would ask the Prime Minister to say something which would leave with the committee the impression at any rate that the scheme will be extended over a longer period than three years, because I think that, for the reasons I have enumerated,- this is absolutely necessary, regardless of any objections that may be made in some sections of the country to having it become a purely federal matter. Notwithstanding this objection I do submit that at least it should be made provincial and federal only. I know for a fact that in our own section most of the districts are still unorganized, and although there are dozens, yes, hundreds of young people who would like to come under the scheme, they find it impossible because their own municipalities have not sufficient means to contribute the $200 required.
I am personally convinced that this is a step in the right direction. It deals with the question from a proper angle, and it is one of the greatest movements the government has inaugurated. At the same time, after the experience of the last three years, I think the government must see the absolute necessity of extending the scheme, so as to apply to the rural and urban populations generally. In view of the exigencies of the situation I think the government should make
Relief Act, 1934

it not only three years but five years, and I make that suggestion believing in the absolute sincerity of the Prime Minister. I think that he will give this request the attention it deserves. May I put a direct question to the right hon. gentleman? Is it the intention of the government to extend this scheme at the very least to four years as an emergency measure?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The provincial governments speak for themselves. I am always glad to hear the hon. gentleman make observations, but in this instance he is dealing with a matter wholly within the jurisdiction, in the first instance, of the provincial governments, and to their representations we give every consideration. At the conference we had in January the provincial governments made their representations, and thus far it is only fair to say that the provisions made by the federal government have not wholly been met so far as settlers are concerned.
There is only one other thing to remark and that is this:	Lands belonging to the
crown belong to the crown in right of the provinces and the federal government is no longer, except in the Northwest Territories, in a position to deal with these areas. All these matters are matters of representation made by the governments of the provinces, and to their requests as made, and to their representations as presented we will give and have given most sympathetic consideration.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I certainly appreciate the words of the Prime Minister, but in this matter under discussion the lead has been given by the central government. We are all aware of the fact that the back to the land policy was adopted by the present government with the sanction of all the groups in this house. I believe that in this case the lead should again be given by the federal government. I am aware of the fact that the land belongs in most cases to the province, but we cannot get away from the fact that the back to the land policy has been inaugurated by this government and followed by the provinces, and if in this instance it is to be enlarged it will have to be by the central authority.


Mr. MacLEAN:: I would like to bring some matters to the attention of the Prime Minister. From a return brought down in the house on March 22 it may be observed that the province of Prince Edward Island received only $172,920 of unemployment relief in the four year period. We are very proud of this record, we are glad to see that 
Prince Edward Island has got along with less relief money than any other province. The amount is so small that the comparisons are striking. I think it figures out only at about $3.70 per capita for the population of Prince Edward Island whereas for British Columbia we find that it is $13 or $14 per head. Now this clause that we are considering is to provide for special relief works and undertakings. In the speech from the throne at the opening of the legislature of Prince Edward Island this year mention was made of a public highway, part I suppose of the trans-Canada highway. The different speakers emphasized the fact that this work was to be gone on with this season. We welcome the news, and we hope that this government will be able to assist in that work. One of the questions I would like to ask is whether in the construction of this trans-Canada highway half the expense has to be borne by the province, or is the federal government as in some other sections of the dominion bearing all the cost of this work?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has always been a matter of satisfaction I think to everyone that the province of Prince Edward Island had no such necessity as many of the other provinces had. The total expenditure on relief there I think is about $3.20 per head. The necessity of course was very limited. In truth the maritime provinces have shown up very excellently in the present depression.
As far as the trans-Canada highway is concerned, it will perhaps be within the memory of the hon. gentleman, if he will take the trouble to look at the report that was made by the Minister of Labour, that the government was to ask the several provinces to pass orders in council dedicating certain highways already existent as part of the trans-Canada highway. Upon these highways certain expenditures were made by the federal government to bring them up to a certain standard. Obviously there is no way of getting from Prince Edward Island to the mainland except by ferry, but they presented a case that some assistance should be given towards highways that traverse that province where gravel is difficult to obtain and where a highway that would be useful for motors would involve an expense almost prohibitive to a population so limited. The government agreed that when the proposals were settled between the province and the dominion it would bear a portion of the expenditure. It was proposed to send an engineer down to make an investigation as to what would be the most suitable highway to utilize for the

Relief Act, 1934
purpose mentioned, but the engineers being otherwise engaged have not been able to go yet although I expect that within the next ten days one will do so.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I wish to thank the Prime Minister for that information. It leads to another question. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, the province is connected with the mainland by the car ferry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This has nothing to do with relief.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: We look upon that steamer as an interprovincial bridge. I think we are justified in so doing. We have been advocating every year that the charge for carrying automobiles across on that car ferry should be reduced to the very lowest point and that it should be treated as an interprovincial bridge and prohibitive tolls should not be charged for carrying automobiles. At the present time the charge for carrying autos on that ferry is $7 return. In addition each passenger in the car has to pay a fare, even the chaffeur has to pay the regular fare in addition to the $7 for the car. Now if Prince Edward Island is to be included in the trans-Canada highway, every facility should be given to link up that province with the rest of the highway and make it possible not only for the people of Prince Edward Island but of the whole dominion to use that ferry. I have a clipping in my hand reporting the Prime Minister, speaking at Ormstown, Quebec, on June 29, as saying that he favoured dominion assistance towards a bridge across the St. Lawrence at Lachine, but not a toll bridge, which would prevent farmers getting their produce to the market cheaply. In these days when trucks are such an important means of conveyance, if there was a moderate rate on that ferry large amounts of produce could be moved by truck from our province as in the case of other provinces. I know that this is a matter that comes under the jurisdiction of the board of railway commissioners and the railway directors, and possibly it is out of order here, but when we come to this question of the trans-Canada highway, which is a very important factor, every facility should be offered on that car ferry to link Prince Edward Island up with the rest of the dominion. If on the old boat, with which automobiles had to be loaded on fiat cars and then shunted onto the car ferry, they could carry them for $7 each, under the new conditions, when they can drive on and drive off without any labour on the part of
the operating crew, I think the fares should be reduced.
Another point is that the passengers going over get a return ticket good for only thirty days, whereas the ticket for the car is good for ninety days, so that there is often a serious mixup when the times comes for them to return. If they have overstayed their thirty days the return tickets for the passengers are no good and they have to take new tickets, even though they go back within the ninety days allowed for their car. All those are matters that we have had up with the railway, and I am sorry to say that they have not made the adjustment that we think they should. I hope someone will convey to the Minister of Railways the fact that we have brought this matter up, so that he will read in Hansard the presentation that has been made.


Mr. HACKETT:: This relief act provides
means for coming to the assistance of people who have not the opportunity of earning a livelihood for themselves. I think that the act in its application this year will be restricted to the industrial populations of our large cities. In the past it has applied to areas which have been stricken with pest, tempest and other visitations in no way attributable to the depression. What does the government intend to do to assist, in some permanent way, those vast lumps of humanity that have come together in the industrial centres? The other day someone said in the house that fifty-two per cent of the entire population of Canada is now urban dwelling; someone else said that Mr. Taschereau has stated that seventy per cent of the populaton of Quebec now lives in the cities and towns and someone else said that from eighty to ninety per cent of the entire growth of this country between 1921 and 1931 went into the cities. We know that the international exchange of good s is being carried on with increasing difficulty. Is it reasonable to anticipate that even with renewed industrial activity there will be sufficient industrial work to absorb and give gainful employment to our industrial population? Does it not behoove us at this time to seek some permanent solution of the difficulties which confront us? In Montreal last month over 240,000 people were fed from the public purse. How long can that condition go on? How long can twenty-nine per cent of the population of a great city such as Montreal be maintained by money either borrowed on the public credit or raised by taxation? I for one fear that it cannot
Relief Act, 1934

go on very much longer. While I realize the constitutional difficulties that stand in the way of action by the federal government, and while I understand that the full burden of remedial activity and legislation may rest primarily upon the municipalities, cities and provinces, yet wherever the initiative lies the peril is common to us all. This country, and in fact any modern country, cannot persist and endure if its cities are bankrupt, and our cities, great and prosperous as they have been, cannot persist under this burden placed upon them by the inactivity and the inability of such a substantial percentage of the population to earn a livelihood.
Therefore it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that a way must be found whereby these people who are earning nothing and who are being fed by the state may at least be put in a position to grow their own food and provide for the essentials of existence. "Back to the land " is a slogan. It is extremely difficult to go back and undo a life's work. But it is well to remember that probably a great many of the unemployed in the cities came from the land. It is said that between eight thousand and nine thousand heads of families in Montreal are on the list already awaiting transportation to some place in the province where they can make agriculture their chief occupation. Many of these people, for reasons good or bad, abandoned the land. It is said that ten thousand heads of families in Montreal are less than ten years off the land. If that be true, ten thousand heads of families, if they were confronted with the necessity, and many of them, perhaps, if they were afforded the opportunity, could go back to the land and at least provide for themselves and those for whom they are responsible.
I said the other day that I did not advocate sending these people to the hinterland, to the fringe of civilization and beyond. While I am sure the minister has laboured valiantly in his attempt to get people to go back to the land, only a few families have benefitted by his policy. I believe it is not feasible to send great numbers of people into the wilderness. Pioneering is a profession and one does not qualify for pioneering in a factory town. But there are large areas of available land in organized districts where there are churches, schools, highways, electrical service and so on, districts in which the land, because it has been abandoned, is very cheap. In those districts plots of ten, fifteen or twenty acres could be made available to those people, who would not feel that by moving to those districts from the cities they were sacrificing all opportunity for the ad-

vancement and education of their children, and all possibility of communion with their fellowmen. The families who have been transported to the extreme north and northwest received something like $600, which is paid in two years, I believe. A substantial portion of this amount is consumed in transportation charges, and the balance is used up in providing those things which to some extent are provided already in the settled districts.
This is my suggestion, Mr. Chairman: In all the large centres there are social services in active operation. These agencies can make available to competent authority detailed information concerning almost any family in any of these large centres. On very short notice they can tell what people by training, aptitude or longing are proper candidates for this type of existence on the land, within striking distance of the industrial centres. It is said that we are to spend large sums of money on public works. I ask the committee what form of public work could be more advantageous to the country at large than permanently rehabilitating a large element of our population, which is now festering in inactivity in the cities, upon small tracts of land where at least they can provide themselves with fuel and food and without much difficulty, I believe, with all the necessities of life. The land throughout many of the old parishes is cheap to-day because farming as a business is not a paying vocation. Everybody on the land in the province of Quebec is free from any fear of hunger or peril from the elements. Many people on the land in that province are land poor. Land could be obtained from them at very low prices. I believe that a very substantial percentage of the farming population in old Quebec would be willing to part with some of their land for some small consideration which would enable them to pay taxes and to have a little ready money for their own immediate necessities.
I should like to know that at the beginning of this season the proper authorities would be invited to collaborate in a definite scheme to dissolve the masses of inert population who, for several years, have been unable to do for themselves that which every self-respecting Canadian citizen should at least want to do for himself, namely, earn his own livelihood. It is only a few years ago that the men and women who came to this country had absolutely nothing but the soil, their courage and their physical strength to apply to it.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: And no taxes.

Relief Act, 1934


John Thomas Hackett: That may be true;
there were no taxes then. But to-day there is offered a very large quid for their quo: good roads, means of education, freedom from fear of attack from any enemy and the elements. I do not think that taxes should be an insuperable source of worry to them.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury) only a few moments ago made reference to education. He thought it would be well to send some of the unemployed youth into schools that they might learn something of the methods useful in searching for gold or other minerals. I am of the opinion that a very radical change must be made in the education of the Canadian people, and that some day that change will come about. At the present time if a person hazards any criticism of our educational system he is immediately castigated. The fact remains however that careers in the city, and especially the intellectual careers, are overcrowded. Metallurgy, electricity, mechanics and chemistry have become gods on whose altars children have for years been yielded up as offerings by deluded parents. The time has come when we must look to rural careers as an outlet for natural increase of our population. There are great openings in the rural centres, great openings which have been left void for two or three generations. That is one of the reasons for the difficulties now experienced on the land. Nearly everybody who had youth, energy, talent or ability left the land, with the result that to a large extent the land has been left in the possession of the aged, the impotent and the indolent. That observation may be turned against the person who utters it, and it may be described as an impolitic utterance. It might be interpreted to mean that one is inclined to scoff at those living in the rural sections of the country. Far from it. The statement is made in the hope that it may give to the rural sections new blood; they need the assistance of those who are condemned to inactivity in the cities. I believe that if the surplus population of the cities could be moved towards the country there would be generated an activity on the soil which would bring relief and a solution to many of our fiscal difficulties and economic problems. It would reestablish equilibrium in our population; it would give back a measure of prosperity to the countryside itself by sending back to it some of the youth and enthusiasm which for the last twenty or twenty-five years have been drifting unswervingly and constantly towards the cities.
I am therefore hopeful that in any plan of public works which may be evolved the possibility of rehabilitating the countryside and of
sending people back where they can earn a livelihood will not be entirely overlooked. I trust that the constitutional objection may be overcome by a generous attempt on the part of all concerned to overcome it, and by a realization of the great peril in which the integrity of Canada stands, if it be not overcome.


Mr. MARCIL:: Some weeks ago when the Prime Minister moved for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into price spreads the hon. member for Queens-Lunen-burg asked that it be extended to fisheries. I immediately supported his contention. A few moments ago the Prime Minister said that some assistance has been given to the fisheries of the maritime provinces, and that conditions there are being inquired into. I should like to know if something has been done regarding the fisheries of the province of Quebec which, at the present time, are in a very bad state.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not hear the last part of the hon. member's question.


Charles Marcil: I should like to hear from the minister whether anything has been done regarding fisheries in Quebec. I understand an investigation is being made into the fisheries of the maritime provinces, and that some assistance has been given there. I should like to know if something can be done for Quebec.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I used the word maritime as applying to Quebec as well because Quebec is usually refered to by many of us at least as being a maritime province. When we speak of the lower provinces we say "the three maritime provinces." What I have said with regard to fisheries has equal application to the whole of that part of Canada producing fish, and even to the internal part producing fish from the lakes.
I should like to say to the hon. member for Stanstead that the hon. member for North Timiskaming is correct in his suggestion that as soon as the present Minister of Labour took office in 1930 he was of the opinion that some effort should be made to move men back to the land. Two plans have been formulated. One is the plan under which the federal government itself takes responsibility for the transaction when the arrangements have been made for the land that may be available for that purpose. The other is purely a relief measure. There has never been any constitutional difficulty. There has been no trouble on that score, and if the city of Montreal through the province of Quebec puts before the government proposals looking towards the absorption on the land of a num-
Relief Act, 1934

ber of residents of the city of Montreal the matter will undoubtedly receive most careful consideration. I am not going to discuss the sociological problem that is involved by the overcrowding of our cities, but a few months ago I heard a minister of the crown in Great Britain say that in Great Britain now there are a million men who would never work. That was the position that had come about there by reason of the conditions to which the hon. member for Stanstead has just referred. The machine age has increased to a great extent the number of people who are unemployed. Some people are of the opinion that the machine age would add to the number who would find employment, but in the aggregate, on balance, I believe that is not the opinion that is held to-day. I saw the other day an estimate that in the United States it was believed that forty per cent of the farming population would have to cease farming. That struck me as an amazing statement.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Through restrictions on fanning?
Mr. BEiNNETT:	Because production was
of such a character, it was said, that it would be necessary that forty per cent of the farming population should cease to carry on farming.
Whether a great movement of the people back to the soil, living there for the purpose of supplying their mere necessities, assisted by the state to the extent that may be necessary to enable them to become established, is capable of solving that problem is a question about which I express no opinion at the moment, but I do say that the government has given for the last three years, and will continue to give during this year, with the assistance of this legislation, such support to the joint efforts of cities and communities created by provincial legislatures and provincial authorities to make possible as large a movement of men qualified to make a success of living on the land as it is within reason to do. But I do not think that you can move ten thousand individuals from the cities to the land and undertake the work indicated by the hon. member for Stanstead unless we rearrange our whole theory of society. If we come to the conclusion that we will embark on some measure of socialization, one can understand a measure of that kind possibly becoming effective, but under our present conditions I am of the opinion that it could only be done as it is being done, by selection and with extreme care; and the assistance required to secure establishment may have to be continued, as has been stated here this

afternoon, beyond the three years for a very considerable period.
On the other hand, an equilibrium between production and consumption and consumption and production may come about sooner than we can realize. My own view is that it can only come about by an expansion of international trade.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. McINTOSH:: On that you are perfectly right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, no one has done
quite as much to bring it about in this country as I have, but there are those like the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) whose idea of international trade and improved international trade-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Freer trade.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -consists in merely permitting his own country to practise a virtue which others do not, and thereby become the victim of the virtue practised. That seems to be the theory on which so many of my hon. friends opposite dwell. I confess I cannot understand it. I cannot understand how any Canadian citizen would suggest that ten and a half millions of people should make it easier for other people to supply the wants of Canadians than the Canadians themselves, and how thereby you can add to the wealth of Canadians when you are depriving them of the means of livelihood which .they now enjoy. That is an amazing suggestion. My hon. friend from Hochelaga (Mr. St-Pere) smiles at the thought. He can readily appreciate how you could make it easier to sell the manufactured products produced in his riding by removing any imposts or duties, thereby giving employment to Czechoslovakia and closing the factories in his own district. It is a delightful thing to contemplate! It is one of those things that few Canadian citizens are ready to agree to, and when it is suggested that we do it, I can only say that I am not one of those who are prepared to do it. So far as I am concerned I never propose to do it.
But I am prepared to cooperate with the other nations of the world in doing our part as a small proportion, ten and a half millions of people, of a total population of about seventeen hundred million people; but to become the victims of our own virtue is not exactly what I contemplate doing. I can assure the hon. gentleman that when he applauds so warmly the thought of improved international trade, the kind of trade that he has in mind and the kind of international

Relief Act, 1984
trade I have in mind are entirely different.
I am thinking of international trade based upon fair play for my own country compared with the treatment we accord to other countries, and not of making Canada just a dumping ground for the products of other lands. I have digressed from my observations, Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of dealing with that phase.
My hon. friend from Prince (Mr. MacLean) dealt with a car ferry which he said was a floating bridge that travelled by night-


Mr. DUFF:: 'Ships that sail in the night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That pass in the night,
and he said that an unjust government insisted upon collecting a fare from the chauffeur as well as from other persons who passed on this floating bridge. Just why a chauffeur should be exempt from a fare any more than any other passenger I have been unable to understand. While my knowledge of Scripture is not quite all it should be, I thought while he was speaking I could recall a verse in the Bible, and so I sent for it, and these are the words:
But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the Lord, and' went down to Joppa; and he found a ship going to Tarshish: so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them unto Tarshish from the presence of the Lord.


William Duff: That is not sacrilege, is it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that is merely that
Jonah paid his fare. There are even members of parliament who do not emulate Jonah in that regard. Just why a chauffeur should not pay his fare when the passenger does, I am unable to understand. As far back as four thousand years or thereabouts we are told that when Jonah went down to Tarshish he paid his fare before he went.


Jean-François Pouliot: He did not pay his
fare when he was in the whale.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But he did not ask for
his fare back because of an interrupted journey.
These services cannot be carried on for nothing. Even a bridge has to be maintained and repairs would be necessary. If the charges are exorbitant-I cannot express an opinion as to whether they are-they are those imposed by the railway company and not by the government. Like every representative of the island, the hon. member has pressed this claim very strongly. A few days ago Doctor MacMillan, the premier of Prince Edward Island, presented some arguments with great strength and backed up with much material to show that the rates were excessive. The Department of Railways and Canals does not now deal with rates but the railway company has been asked on more than one occasion to look into the matter. They are of the opinion that the traffic does not warrant a reduction in the rates but it may well be that when the attractions of the island are better understood, and they are very great, the pressure of traffic will be such as to bring about a reduction in the charges imposed for the services rendered.


Charles Marcil: Mr. Chairman, I should like to complete the remarks which I commenced a moment ago. I understood that the Prime Minister included maritime Quebec when he used the general term, maritime provinces. I am very glad to hear this because at the present time the fisheries of Quebec are facing great difficulties. A conflict in jurisdiction has arisen through the transfer of the fisheries to the government of Quebec. A movement has been started by the Union des Cultivateurs Catholique, the Catholic Farmers' Union. I have received over one hundred petitions asking that there should be cooperation between the two governments in connection with the maritime fisheries of Quebec. These petitions have been received from all parts of the province. I read yesterday in the papers that the Minister of Fisheries in Quebec, Hon. Mr. LaFerte, complains that he has been unable to secure the cooperation of the Dominion government for the development of these fisheries. He asks that the fisheries be placed on the same basis as agriculture and that there be cooperation between the dominion and provincial governments in order that the fisheries may be helped. .As everyone knows, the fisheries of Quebec are the oldest in the country. This coming July we are celebrating in Gaspe the four hundredth anniversary of the landing of Jacques Cartier and the planting of the cross of Christ on this country. This is a testimonial which should not be overlooked and I hope the government will not neglect anything it can do for the inhabitants of 'Gaspe, one of the most interesting and picturesque parts of Quebec.
The Prime Minister has given us a very interesting view of the conditions under which we are living to-day. From the slight experience of over a third of a century in this parliament I have come to the conclusion that this country was settled by the people going on the land. That is as old as civilization itself. The cities are merely artificial outgrowths of the country districts; the country has to provide for the existence of the city. Any program of public works which
Relief Act, 1934

may last six months, a year or even two or three years will give only temporary relief to the unemployed. The real solution to the difficulty is to get our people back on the land. The settlers of Quebec, of Ontario and the other provinces of Canada were put on the land. We have some evidence in the Gaspe peninsula of what can be done. Three or four municipalities have been opened up and nearly a thousand people have been placed on the land. This has been done largely through the efforts of Monseigneur Ross, the Bishop of Gaspe, assisted by the provincial government.
I agree with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) when he says that there is a large overgrowth of population in Montreal which must be provided for. I knew Montreal when it had less than 200,000 people whereas to-d'ay it has a population of over a million. The island of Montreal lacks but 37,000 people to have half the population of the entire province of Quebec. The solution to our problem is not by manufacturing, which is only an artificial means. The primary industry of this country in the past, at the present and in the future has been, is and will be agriculture. Agriculture is the backbone of the country. During the war many were attracted to the city. Common labourers were able to earn $15 per day in the munitions shops and people were attracted by the automobile, by the moving pictures and by the fallacious modern civilization which we now have in the cities. These people must go back to the land. If they do not go back, their sons must.
I see the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) before me. He was a witness, as was I, of the efforts made thirty or forty years ago by that valiant pioneer of civilization, cure Labelle of St. Jerome. This man opened up the district north of Montreal and created thirty, forty or fifty parishes. He came to the assistance of the citizens of Montreal during the winter of 1874. Navigation had failed to bring in the necessary fuel, starvation was at its doors but one day he came into the city at the head of two hundred teams loaded with firewood for the relief of the poor. He was one of the pioneers of Canada and that is the position to which we must go back.
The Prime Minister occupies to-day a very unique position. He is gifted as any other man in this chamber is gifted. At the present time he can exercise an influence which will be overwhelming. When he evolves his great policy to settle our present difficulties I hope he will not spend money just for the sake 
of spending money; I hope he will not provide only temporary relief for a year or two years hence but will arrive at the correct solution. The pioneers of Ontario, Quebec and the whole of Canada came from the land. The traditions must not be forgotten. Canada is an agricultural country before all else. We have four great industries, and agriculture is the first. That industry must not be overlooked in any scheme evolved. I hope the Prime Minister will not overlook the suggestion made by the hon. member for Stanstead. At the present time there is the incredible number of 45,000 families receiving relief in the city of Montreal. The total number on relief would aggregate probably a quarter of a million, one-fourth the population of one of the most prosperous cities on this continent. But for the winters, Montreal would have long since passed New York. It is now one of the leading cities on this continent. It is a great cosmopolitan city, situated a thousand miles from the sea and inhabited by the flower of both our great races. Things are in such shape that the authorities are desperate and only two or three days ago the citizens arose and by a majority of 53,000 asked for a change. A change for what? They asked for an opportunity to earn their bread, they were seeking a way out of the stagnation in which they find themselves at the present time. I am not blaming one municipal, provincial or dominion government more than the other, it is a question with which all governments must deal. The permanent solution will be found only by placing the people on the land. The Postmaster General could give the committee an idea of how northern Quebec was settled. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier completed the Transcontinental railway he had in view the opening up of northern Ontario and Quebec, that part of the country which is to-day the most promising of all Canada. Mining in northern Ontario is to-day attracting the attention of the world and in this respect Quebec is following in the footsteps of Ontario. We must go back to the land, and it would be an excellent thing for any statesmen or government to bring about understanding and cooperation because we must all stand together. We are passing through a national crisis at the present time, a crisis which calls for our best efforts and we should agree to work together. In all humility I suggest to the Prime Minister that in bringing down this measure he should not overlook the importance of going back to the land. That is the first duty that rests upon the government.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I do not at this time desire to discuss either rural or urban questions, nor do I desire to discuss in all its ramifications the very serious problem that confronts the fishermen of the maritimes. I do not think that the committee of the house is the proper place in which to do that, but I intend to discuss the whole question in all its bearing when the budget is introduced and when a full dress debate, which will be worthy of the problem, is in progress. There is, however, one question in regard to which I should be glad if the Prime Minister would give me some information. This afternoon we have heard a good deal about the trans-Canada highway and if it is a fair question at the moment-for I do not know whether he has the information-I would ask the Prime Minister the number of miles of highway that were constructed under the trans-Canada highway program. I ask this question for a special reason. In a joint debate that took place between the hon. gentleman who is now premier of Nova Scotia and myself in 1930 that gentleman made the statement, before 7,000 people, that the program would mean merely the construction of six miles of highway in northern Ontario. I desire to get that information in order to find out how many miles of highway throughout Canada have been constructed under that program.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At the end of the year, as far as I can ascertain, the following mileage had been completed on the trans-Canada highway:
Province	
Nova Scotia	Mileage
Miles improved or	constructed		. . 59
New Brunswick. . .	. . 65
Quebec		. . 35
Ontario		. . 830
Manitoba		. . 451
Saskatchewan. . . .	. . 174
Alberta		. . 145
British Columbia. .	. . 160
Cost
2,094,384
459.635
150.366
7,742,158
655,108
67,367
336,310
868,891
Total	1,357

The abnormal cost in Nova Scotia arises from the inclusion in that case of the elimination of four level crossings, and construction of bridges, surveys, clearing of right of way, improving grade and alignment, crusher operations, surfacing comprise the balance of the expenditure.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How
many miles are yet to be built before the project is completed in Canada?
Relief Act, 1934


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not that information in detail but the hon. gentleman will recall that there are six miles in British Columbia that have to be completed between Canoe river and the west end of the park. This line is fairly complete across Alberta and Saskatchewan into Manitoba and from Manitoba to Kenora, and between Kenora and Fort William the work is being pressed forward rather rapidly; then it strikes north and there is a section incomplete. But from Montreal to North Bay the road is practically completed. From North Bay it is in a fair state of completion, and in the maritimes the roads set aside as trans-Canada highway have been improved to trans-Canada standards at the cost I have indicated. So that practically from Nova Scotia to British Columbia there is a relatively small mileage that is not included in what is called the trans-Canada highway. Part of this information was given to my hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) the other evening.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: What distinction will
be observed legally in the name of the trans-Canada highway, which will be recognized by the provinces and the federal government? Toronto will have its highway which will be part of the trans-Canada converging at North Bay with the road from Ottawa.


Mr BENNETT:: So far as we are concerned, as I endeavoured to explain in 1931, it is the roads that were set aside by the province by order in council as part of the continuous highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific. On page 5 of the report for 1931, issued in 1932, these words appear:
The expression trans-Canada highways means, in relation to the province, such provincial highways affording a continuous route connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces as may be designated by the province and approved by the dominion.


William Duff: I wish to congratulate the
hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) on the excellent address he delivered this afternoon. As the representative of that important constituency in the province of Quebec he will, I am sure, be congratulated by everyone who has heard him or will read his address either in the newspapers or in Hansard to-morrow. Everyone will congratulate him, and thank him for the seriousness with which he approached the subject and the excellent way in which he delivered himself. As I sat here, however, I was wondering whether he would not be accused of delaying the passage of this bill. Perhaps he is a
Relief Act, 1934

"fortunate medium" inasmuch as he sits behind the Prime Minister, while I am an unfortunate medium because I sit opposite. In your absence a few days ago, Mr. Chairman, we were told that we were delaying the passage of this measure, and for that reason I was rather surprised when the hon. gentleman spoke that the Prime Minister did not get up and say something to him, as he did to me the day before yesterday. Perhaps the Prime Minister, after giving this matter further consideration, has come to the conclusion that possibly his words the other day were rather hasty when he spoke as he did of members of parliament who have been sent here from different constituencies from the Atlantic to the Pacific to express their views on this and other important matters.
Now, we have been accused of delaying this legislation, but as my hon. friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) said the other night, the first delay that was occasioned was not attributable to members on this side of the house but to the genial Minister of Labour, a gentleman who is respected by every man in this parliament irrespective of his politics, a man who was in a courteous manner trying to pilot the bill through the house, giving members of the committee every consideration and all information they asked for in reply to questions they put to him. And now, sir, we have another gentleman delaying this legislation, not one of those sitting on your left, sir, not even sitting behind the Prime Minister, but no less a person than the Prime Minister himself, who accused me and members sitting on this side of delaying this legislation. He is the greatest sinner of all. What did he do? In order to prepare the way for himself yesterday afternoon, he deliberately accused us of delaying the legislation. He practically told me if I did not sit down he would ask the committee to rise and he would not go on.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why?


William Duff: I shall tell you in a moment. When six o'clock came every one here was rather happy, and of course after I got through there was not very much trouble; other members were very decent about it. My hon. friend the Prime Minister said, as reported on page 2090.
In view of the very apparent desire to rediseuss this matter which has been already twice this afternoon set out in its entirety, I move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Then he goes on to say:
We will take supply, agriculture, after eight o'clock.

Why was it necessary to take agriculture after eight o'clock? Why did not the Prime Minister, if he was so anxious to get this legislation through, come back to this committee and go on with this bill? Let me tell you the reason. It shows he was not so anxious to get this legislation through, because from eight to nine o'clock my right hon. friend-as he had a perfect right to do of course, but he should not try to make us believe that he is more virtuous, more sincere, more righteous than others-tried to make out in righteous indignation that we were delaying. But consideration of the bill was deferred by him in order that he might speak over the radio to the people of South Oxford. Deliberately, in my opinion-perhaps that word is not parliamentary, so I shall withdraw it-he asked this committee to rise and report progress at six o'clock so that he could speak to the electors of South Oxford from eight o'clock until nine.


An hon. MEMBER:: Cheap stuff.


William Duff: Does my hon. friend want
to cheer those remarks? Now since I am on my feet I would like also to refer to another matter. The Prime Minister is a great constitutional lawyer, and he plays politics just as many hours of the day as I do. But in my opinion he would also make a pretty good actor, because in trying to answer my remarks yesterday when I referred to a certain important matter which I felt in the interests of the public should be discussed in this house and particulars given, my right hon. friend instead of giving the information, said this:
I ask the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough and those who cheer his sentiments, do they desire to destroy western agriculture and drive the farmers of that country into bankruptcy? Is that their object? Is that the reason he makes these attacks? Why is it he stands in this house and becomes the mouthpiece of those who make attacks against western agriculture?
Now let me say first that I was never the mouthpiece of anybody, Mackenzie and Mann or anyone else. I remember the right hon. gentleman saying that the present leader of the Senate was the gramophone of Mackenzie and Mann. I was never a gramophone in my life, and with all my faults, and God knows I have many, no one will accuse me of being a hypocrite or a pharisee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Or a good Samaritan.


William Duff: Yes, I am a good Samaritan. My right hon. friend went on and tried to

Relief Act, 1934
make out that we on this side, and myself in particular, were against the west. What did he say?
Now are these gentlemen going to raise this cry against the west in its time of peril, its time of difficulty, its time of stress; are they going to appeal to sectional and other prejudice for the purpose of carrying out any such policy?
And again:
It is little credit to any hon. member to raise that issue in the way in which they have endeavoured to raise it in this case.
Then finally he gets a little softer in his mood, and says:
All I can say is that the sentiment expressed by some of the members of this house is not the sentiment of the people of the communities from whence they come,-
That is referring, Mr. Chairman, to the very intelligent people who elected me to represent them in this house.
-for last year not ten, not fifteen, not twenty, but I believe it went up to something between one and two hundred carloads of produce went from eastern Canada to the west to help them in their need.
That last statement is quite true, Mr. Chairman, and I think my constituency and the county which is represented by the hon. member for Q.ueens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) in which I reside, the county of my adoption, of my home, as well as other counties in the maritime provinces, did what they could to help the distress not only in western Canada but also in other parts of this great country. My right hon. friend can write his cheque for a larger amount than I can

where I give my mite I have no objection to my right hon. friend giving the larger amount that he can give-but it does not lie in his mouth to say that I or any other hon. member is against the western provinces. Let me say to my right hon. friend that I am just as much interested in the welfare and prosperity of the west as he is. And, Mr. Chairman, from an economic standpoint I have proved it. Not only in this house, not only in the country, but in connection with manufacturing plants in which 1 have shares in certain cities I have never failed to demonstrate my belief in the policy which in my opinion is best for the western provinces, the policy of low tariffs and if possible free trade. I have always said that. It is true of course that my right hon. friend in the last general election went up and down the prairies and the west telling the people that he was going to make tariffs fight for them, was going to blast his way into the markets of the world. And what is the result as far as the western 74726-135
provinces are concerned? Look at the money that this country has had to spend for relief in the west as well as in the industrial centres in the maritimes and elsewhere. My hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Macdonald), who looks very stem, will remember what the right hon. Prime Minister said in his city, that he was going to end unemployment; no dole, no conferences, but he was going to end unemployment. What has been the result in the last three or four years?


Mr. MACDONALD (Cape Breton):: He
did as much as any man living could do.


William Duff: That is quite true. But what I am complaining about is that the Prime Minister went up and down this country saying he was going to end unemployment. He did not tell the people of Sydney and Glace Bay that he would do as much as any other man. Oh, no. He was going to be a superman. I will take no second place to the Prime Minister or anyone else in this country as far as my goodwill concerning the western provinces is concerned. Let me go a little further. Of course I do not want to delay the committee. My right hon. friend rather objected to my demand-no I should not use that word-my request-on behalf of some of my constituents that certain relief should be given to them in the form of a small advance of $15,000 to buy fishing gear and equip their boats, il am glad to see in the house this afternoon my good friend the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short), a gentleman who for years gave of his substance, of his time, of his ability, trying to do something for the fishermen of Nova Scotia and for the town of Canso. My -hon. friend knows as well as I do exactly the condition of Canso. If I am an unhappy medium-and I am sorry for it of course in a way-perhaps my good friend the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis would be a happy medium to place before the Prime Minister and the government the needs of the people of Canso as to this $15,000.
The Prime Minister took several stands on the matter I brought before him. First he said the mayor of Canso should not have communicated with me. I think perhaps there are as many Conservatives on the Canso town council as there are Liberals, or perhaps more; if I am not mistaken a very prominent Conservative in Canso is a member of that council and no doubt had something to do with sending this telegram. Then the Prime Minister stated that the mayor of Canso did not really expect to get this money under the relief bill which we are now discussing. Well,

Relief Act, 1934

sir, with all due respect to the mayor of Canso, he is living in the eastern part of Nova Scotia. No doubt he saw in the newspapers that the marketing bill had been introduced in this parliament and, without having the bill before him and without realizing that in the bill there is no provision for advancing money to fishermen, farmers or anyone else, the mayor and town counoil of Canso thought that under this bill they could get relief for their fellow townsmen and the fishermen of that district. My right hon. friend made use of that fact and said the mayor of Canso, in sending the telegram, had asked that the money be granted under that act. As far as I am concerned, and I believe I speak for the mayor, the town council and the fishermen of Canso, I do not care under what legislation this relief is granted; I do not care under what act of parliament or what order in council this small sum of 815,000 is advanced in order to permit the fishermen to buy their gear and equip their boats. As I said yesterday, sir, this government took action in another very important matter, and let me say here that I never criticized the government for having given that guarantee. I only said that there should be no step bairns in our family, that all should be treated alike. If in connection with another matter millions of dollars could be guaranteed I said there was no reason why a small sum like $15,000 should not be guaranteed by the government of this country for the fishermen of Canso. I do not criticize my right hon. friend for having given that other guarantee, although I think he is open to criticism; from the fact that the government do not want to give full information it would seem that there must be something they want to cover up.
In the other case, let me remind the right hon. gentleman, no law was required; the guarantee was given eight months before the act was passed by this bouse. There was no statute which permitted the guarantee in that case, but even after the act was passed another month or more elapsed, if I remember correctly, before the order in council was passed making it legal. As I said a moment ago I do not object to that; I only say that if this government were willing and anxious to do something for the fishermen of Canso they would not need to wait for this legislation. My right hon. friend said this could not be done in any case because we were delaying this legislation. I say that either under this or some other statute, whether by way of guarantee or by way of relief, this government can do something for the fishermen with regard to this $15,000. This clause

now under consideration states that the government may take all such other measures as may be deemed necessary or advisable in order to carry out the provisions of the statute.
This afternoon my right hon. friend comes along and says that this request should be made by the provincial government. Perhaps I am not as familiar with the law as I should be; perhaps I am not as familiar as I should be with the manner in which relief was granted to the municipalities and towns last year and the year before, but if my understanding is correct the federal government paid one-third, the provincial government one-third and the municipality or town one-third of the cost. My right hon. friend says the provincial government should take up this matter. I happen to be the representative of the people of Antigonish and Guysborough in this parliament, but my right hon. friend wants the people to go over my head, because I happen to be an unfortunate medium. I want to say to the Prime Minister, before I write the provincial government to-morrow morning or telegraph them tonight, if I have the money in my pocket-


An hon. MEMBER:: Send it collect.


William Duff: No, I will borrow it from you. I say before I do that I should like to point out to the Prime Minister that in their present financial position, due to the fact that they have had to expend large sums of money for relief and to the further fact that taxes have not been coming in as they should, the town of Canso cannot raise their share of this amount. So I say this is a special occasion; this is a special request, and so far as I am concerned if the Prime Minister wants to take credit for it, or if he wants any member of his cabinet to take credit for it, well and good. All I say is that the mayor of Canso and the town council thought I was the proper person through whom they should make this appeal, and they should not be criticized for thinking so.
My right hon. friend complained again that I should have taken up the matter with the ministry instead of bringing it before parliament. I explained the situation the other day, when I said I only received the telegram two or three hours before this bill came up for discussion. Again I say that I was perfectly justified, as the representative of the counties of Antigonish and Guysborough, in bringing this matter to the attention of the government from my place on the floor of parliament. So, not wishing to delay this committee further, I say to the Prime Minister that he should not ask the provincial govern-

Relief Act, 1934
ment to go about this in the ordinary way; he should pass a special order in council or make some special arrangement by which, at the earliest possible moment, either before or after this legislation passes, the government arrange that these fishermen will receive this small sum of $15,000, for which they are willing to give notes and which they expect to be able to pay back in the fall. All they want is to have the Bank of Montreal guaranteed in the meantime so that they may be ready when the season comes along to attend to their work in order to provide for their families and take them off relief.


Edward James Young: In reply to the remarks of
the Prime Minister a few moments ago in regard to our idea of improving world trade I might say that the Liberal idea of improving world trade is to sell our surplus products in the world's markets at the highest price the world is willing to pay, while his idea of improving world trade is to sell our products in the world's markets at the lowest price the world is willing to pay. The things we export are paid for by the things we import. When the Prime Minister and his government say, "We will not allow other countries to send goods to Canada except at certain advanced prices'' he is simply saying to our people, "We will not allow you to accept the price for your exports that the world is willing to pay; you must sell for a lower price." It is true that the Prime Minister says he is willing to negotiate with other countries in regard to lowering tariff barriers. When he proceeded to increase his -tariff barriers he did not wait to negotiate with other countries; he went ahead without consulting them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They had already done
so; they had prohibitive tariffs.


Edward James Young: No country had gone to the lengths the Prime Minister went. I do not know of any country that amended its customs act to say, "You shall not sell goods in our country unless you are making a profit on them." That is the way the tariff reads now. I do not know of any country that so framed its customs laws as to guarantee the profits of foreign manufacturers, regardless of our own manufacturers. It seems to me that if all the people in Canada were in a position to buy all their requirements in the way of houses, furniture, food, education, entertainment, and the conveniences of civilization, there would be an abundance of employment for everybody, and plenty with which to supply them. The reason our people cannot buy all these things is that those who sell on the export market cannot get sufficient for 74726-1355
their exports to enable them to buy the articles they require.
As for the machine age being responsible for unemployment I have only this to say: When one considers the vast need which exists in Canada, in practically every house across the country, for so many modern conveniences and necessities of life, and when you consider that the appetite of man-


Joseph Georges Bouchard: And woman.


Edward James Young: Yes, and woman,-for goods of all kinds and descriptions is insatiable, one cannot say that the market is saturated simply because some machinist has come along and made it easier to produce a given article with less labour. When a laboursaving machine is installed to produce a given article at a lower cost the Tesult should be that the machine would make it possible to put that article in the hands of more people. It would result not in less but in greater employment in the industry affected, because owing to its cheaper selling price more people would buy it. But when the advantage of the labour-saving machine is not passed on to the consumer in the form of lower prices, but is appropriated by one individual or one group of individuals to their own selfish use, it then results in less employment in the industry because there is no increased demand for the product. I believe the remedy is to be found not in reducing the use of modern machinery but rather in encouraging it, and seeing that the advantage brought about by modern inventions is passed on to the consumer, in the form of lower prices. It is the duty of the government to take whatever steps are necessary to see that those advantages are passed on. There is not much hope, true, so long as the government believes in high prices.
I have a suggestion to make to the government in regard to its expenditures on relief work. I never was enamoured of nor could I become enthusiastic about an extensive public works policy as a means of relieving unemployment. I have two reasons: in the first place, those public works must of necessity be located in a few places. The unemployment in Canada is so widespread that the employment given by the creation of those works would be too far away from most of the people needing work to help them very much. The second reason is that public works of that description almost invariably saddle us later on with large maintenance costs. They will be a burden on the taxpayers for years to come, and we cannot increase the purchasing power of our people
Relief Act, 1934

by increasing their taxation. Rather, we will reduce it. This type of public works is more inclined to increase unemployment than to relieve it.
A suggestion has been made to me which I place before the government for its consideration. It is this: I walk down the streets of this city and I see scores, yes hundreds of houses which ought to be first-class dwelling houses for years to come, and would be first-class if the owners were able to keep them in repair. But because the owners have not the money required for repairs those houses are falling into disrepair. They will soon be uninhabitable. I go into the rural sections of the country and I find hundreds of houses, outbuildings and fences in the same bad condition, all falling to pieces because the owners have not the money to keep them in repair. If we have to tax ourselves for the relief of unemployment would it not be the better part of wisdom to spend the money so raised in such a way that it will be most widely diffused, and will not saddle us with any maintenance cost? Would it not be wise to advance money to people for the improvement of their homes, so that they may make the necessary repairs? Would it not be wise to let the farmers have money to repair their fences, their outbuildings, and make other necessary expenditures, and in that way spread the money over the widest possible area and give employment in the most remote comers of the country as well as in the larger centres of population? By so doing we would avoid the necessity of saddling the government with maintenance costs in later years. I submit that suggestion to the government in all good faith, and in the hope that they will give it consideration.


Mr. BROWN:: I listened with a good deal of interest to the eloquent remarks of the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), and bo those of the highly-respected member for Bonavi nture (Mr. Marcil), both of whom spoke of t le return to the land as a solution for our gi ;at problems. I wish I could become as i nthusiaStic about that solution as are these two hon. gentlemen. I realize, as all bon. members must realize, that as a temporary measure many might be put in a position whereby they could earn sustenance. However it is difficult for me to see that the return of large numbers of people to the land, particularly through the use of the compulsory methods which have been described, Would meet the problem. It has been suggested that the farmer should go back to the use of primitive methods and that, as in pioneer days, the farm should become a self-

contained unit. I am ready to concede that if farmers to-day are content to live as did their pioneer forefathers, perhaps they may continue to live on the land and provide from it the bare necessities of life. But I do not think we could expect nor have we the right to expect that the rural population should be compelled to deny themselves all the privileges, conveniences and comforts enjoyed by the city dwellers. I do not think we have any right to expect that the farmers should be content with less of the good things of life than are enjoyed by people in the cities. I would make the suggestion to the hon. member for Stanstead-and I should not like to make it to the venerable member for Bonaventure-that he is yet a comparatively young man and, as some of the rest of us have done, he might set an example by going back to the land and showing the people how they can live on it and enjoy the comforts and conveniences which he now enjoys in the city. If the hon. member for Stanstead left Montreal, that city would lose a good lawyer, but the country would gain a man of capacity and intelligence, and one who would be able to use his intelligence to show how this problem can be solved.
No, Mr. Chairman, the farm problem is not to be solved in that way. It seems to me there are certain inevitable difficulties under which a farmer must live. Perhaps in the very nature of things he cannot expect all the conveniences enjoyed in the city. But recognizing, as many of us do, that there are certain inevitable and natural handicaps from which the farmer must continue to suffer, would it not seem to be an act of wisdom for the government, instead of raising artificial barriers, instead of increasing by tariffs and other means the artificial obstacles with which we have to contend, to remove these artificial barriers so as to make the natural difficulties less difficult for us to overcome. That is just where those who represent the school of thought to which I belong differ from those who represent the school of thought of the Prime Minister. One reason I could give strong support to many of the measures adopted by the preceding administration was that they did attempt to do at least something, probably not as much as I should like to have seen them do, to make it possible for us to secure the implements of production at a cost lower than that at which it is possible to procure them when they have to be purchased in the face of high tariffs. That at least is doing something to remove the natural handicap under which the farmers labour. Again I invite the hon. member for Stanstead to put his theories into practice and show

Relief Act, 1934
us how farmers can earn not merely a bare subsistence on the land but sufficient to put themselves in a position to enjoy what other members of the community enjoy in the way of modern inventions. I had a man say to me, "By spring you will find me the fattest and the raggedest man in the country." He simply meant that on the farm he had plenty to eat but that the prices at which he was able to sell his produce were not sufficient to enable him to clothe himself properly. Another man said to me in a jocular way, "I wish this depression would end. I am tired of eating turkey." It is true that there are exceptional circumstances in the west at the present time but the difficulty in most cases is not that the farmers have not sufficient to eat but that they cannot dispose of their surplus at a price that will enable them to buy clothing and the other necessaries and conveniences that every civilized man has a right to expect. I wish I could see the problem as simple as the hon. member for Stanstead and the hon. member for Bona-venture see it, but it is beset with infinitely greater difficulties than they seem to see.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: I wish I could see this problem as simple as the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) sees it, or the members mentioned by the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Brown), or the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young), who made a remark to which I shall refer a little later.
The hon. member for Stanstead stated that the farmers were dependent upon the cities. That may be so in the east, but it is not so in the west. Cities like Edmonton or Calgary are certainly exceptions to the rule. In Alberta generally, excluding Edmonton and Calgary, the farmers can live without the cities, but certainly the cities, neither Edmonton nor Calgary, and so forth, can live without the farmers of the west. So the hon. member's argument does not hold water so far as Alberta is concerned.
What we are suffering from is a lack of balance between town and country, between the rural and urban parts. I was in Detroit the other day and saw a beautiful Chrysler car marked S495, and you have to pay $1,000 for the same car in any automobile establishment in Ottawa. I felt pretty badly about that because I certainly would like to have, such a car for $495.


Mr. MORAND:: My hon. friend is surely not serious in suggesting that there is a difference of about $600 for the same car.


Michael Luchkovich: I certainly am serious. It makes a big difference to me and to any farmers or labourers in Canada.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: It might, if it were a fact. Does my hon. friend seriously say that the same car costs $1,000 in Ottawa?


Michael Luchkovich: Yes. I was offered a car in Detroit for $495, a Chrysler coach. I saw the price marked on it.
What I think is the trouble to-day is the lack of balance between city and country, between the price the farmer gets for his produce and the price he has to pay for the manufactured articles he buys. No one would quarrel with fifty cent wheat if you could buy a suit for $15 or $18 as you could fifteen or twenty years ago. Under such conditions fifty cents would be a very good price for wheat. So I think it is up to any government to-day to try to bring about a better balance between agricultural and manufacturing prices so that the farmer in the west may be able to buy bis necessaries far more cheaply then he can to-day.
The hon. member for Weyburn twitted the Prime Minister for his lack of negotiations with foreign countries, and at the time it came to my recollection that Germany, Italy and France shut down on our wheat during the regime of the present leader of the opposition. My hon. friend from Weyburn spoke with great energy of greater international trade and how to bring it about, and suggested that one way would be by negotiation, but certainly the leader of the opposition, when he was Prime Minister, failed to retain the market for our wheat in Germany, Italy and France when those countries shut down on our wheat during his regime. Does the hon. member think that by negotiation to-day we can force Germany or Italy or France to buy our surplus wheat?


Edward James Young: Would you rather try
blasting?


Michael Luchkovich: I do not know just
what the hon. member means by blasting, but if he thinks by negotiation he can force Germany, Italy and France to buy our wheat he is sadly mistaken. They refused to buy our wheat at any price, and the people in those countries to-day are compelled to pay $1.25 and $1.50 a bushel when they could certainly buy wheat more cheaply from Canada. Such being the fact the Liberal opposition certainly have turned out to be very poor negotiators.


Edward James Young: Did my hon. friend notice
what the French delegate said at the wheat conference the other day?


Michael Luchkovich: I say that these
countries shut down on our wheat during the regime of the present leader of the opposi-
Relief Act, 1934

tion, and what are you going to do now? Are you going to send an army over to Germany or Italy or France and at the point of the bayonet and with cannons demand that they buy our grain?


Edward James Young: Who suggested that?


Michael Luchkovich: I am just asking for information.


Edward James Young: You are the only man who ever thought of that.


Michael Luchkovich: It is a fact that these markets were closed to us years ago, and there is no use denying that before the farmers of the west who are very seriously concerned about this matter.
The hon. member for Weybum made one remark with which I agree when he said that the world is an economic unit. There is no doubt in my mind about that, and what should be done to-day I think is that the European house should be set in order. They should form of themselves the united states of Europe, taking in all countries on that continent on a basis of equality. That would preclude tariffs and big armaments. We would like to get a market over there. The prosperity of Europe is our prosperity. But certainly we lost that market four or five years ago, and no effort was made at that time so far as I know to maintain that market for us by negotiation, which the hon. member suggests is such a very valuable way of maintaining and improving markets. Something must be done to get that European market for us. Their prosperity is our prosperity, and unless we can regain that market it is hardly likely that we shall see prosperity in the Canadian west so far as the farmer is concerned.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I have listened to this debate all afternoon, and I have been intensely interested in certain parts of it. I have listened to the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Luchkovich) give his ideas with regard to international trade. He admits that the world is the ultimate economic and trading unit. If he admits that, then he admits a real case. After that, it is just a matter of getting the required international cooperation and that can be done by international negotiations and not otherwise. To say that in one part of the world the markets are closed and must remain closed indefinitely, to my mind is not stating the case fairly at all. One may want to negotiate with a man in one frame of mind and he may not desire to negotiate with you when in another frame of mind or another mood. It is the same 
with nations. A few years ago certain nations had a false conception of international trade and international prosperity and they did close down on our wheat. The consequence is that some think that because they did that, that condition must remain forever. But I am not one of those. I believe that with the right party in power, with the right leadership, with the right determination, with the right conviction and with the right desire to build up world trade, this can be done.
Further, I believe that Canada should 'be the first nation to give a lead in this regard. Canada should set a lead as far as taking action with regard to the pulling down of tariffs and making a start in the restoration of the world trade which we have lost. Until we do that, we are going to have unemployment. Until we do that, we are going to suffer a lack of trade. Until we do that, we are not going to advance financially and industrially. It is a simple matter. The hon. member for Weybum explained that all we have to do is to exchange our wheat for industrial products. If we show a willingness to take imports for exports, the job can be done. There is no doubt about that at all. If we are not willing to do that, then we will remain inactive. If we try to live within ourselves, our financial and commercial condition will gradually become worse.


Michael Luchkovich: Did not hon. gentlemen have a chance to do that and did they not fail to take it?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, we had a chance and we took advantage of our chance. Our total trade in 1929 was over $2,600,000,000 while today it is less than $1,000,000,000.


Michael Luchkovich: I am referring to the wheat market.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And I am answering your question with regard to the wheat market. We did not lose the wheat market by any means.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Wheat was still selling at $1.20 when we went out of power.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Because we lost a little trade as far as our wheat market was concerned is no proof that we lost the world market as it is lost to-day. There is no getting away from the serious effect of this high tariff question. Time and again Canada has tried this policy of higher tariffs, and it has always failed. The only tariff that will work in this country is one that is fair and not prohibitive, a tariff for revenue purposes and one that will be fair to the west, to industrial

Privilege-Mr. Neill
Ontario and Quebec and to the maritimes. Without a tariff of that kind we cannot improve conditions in this country. We certainly must recognize the fact that the world is the ultimate trading and economic unit. We have to face that problem and do our best to solve it. If we do that, other nations will be glad to meet us and gradually our trading and financial conditions will improve.
The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) said this afternoon that we have lumps of unemployed humanity in all our large industrial centres. That is an important admission by an hon. member to the right of the Speaker, and an hon. member supporting the government, that we have millions of unemployed, industrially and agriculturally, in Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes it is. I will admit that the hon. member was dealing largely with Montreal and other large centres, but the fact remains that we have a great number of unemployed in our villages, in our towns, in our cities, and for that matter, on our land. The hon. member stated that in order to give these people gainful employment all we would have to do would be to transport them back to the land, that a settlement policy would permanently solve this problem. That may be a very nice way of looking at the question, but it will not solve the problem. The problem of the men and women on the land is a continuous problem; the problem of the men and women in the cities is a continuous problem, and these problems cannot be solved by any cheap act of transportation. The hon. member stated that for many of those in the towns and cities no opportunities, professional and otherwise, were open and that something had to be done. Later on he said that the yeomanry, the farmers of Canada, were slowly deteriorating. If that is the case and the agricultural population of Canada are going down hill and are slowly deteriorating, if they are not measuring up to the problems of our agricultural and national life, if they are not making progress, then surely there is an argument for the government to act, to do its best to modify its high tariff policy and thereby give to these people the opportunity which they seek.
I was rather surprised to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) admit this afternoon that because we are living in a machine age, we shall always have unemployment. I do not believe that statement. We are living in a machine age and if we do not keep up to date with the development of the machine
and the production of machinery, if we do not keep up to date with our tariff policies, our financial policies, and our trade policies, if we do not keep those policies sane and progressive, then of course we will have unemployment. But if we measure our national policies in terms of the machine and act accordingly, instead of unemployment we will have employment and instead of starvation, prosperity.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVILEGE-MR. NEILL

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I
wish to correct an error in the press.


Mr. SPEAKER:: If the hon. member wishes to address the house on any subject it would be well for him to wait until private bills are disposed of. That is the order of business now before the house.


Alan Webster Neill: Is not a question of privilege always in order?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is tlhe hon. member speaking to a question of privilege?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, and it will not take me more than one minute. The Montreal Daily Star of April 12 quotes me as saying:
The Prime Minister has made statements which, -when he reads them to-morrow in Hansard, he will very much regret.
I did not make that remark at all. I have regrets of my own to worry about without bothering about anybody else's.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 44, for the relief of Gertrude Ethel Mosgrove Roast.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Alan Webster Neill: Don't you think, Mr. Chairman, we ought at least to see the bill? It is not on the file.


John Thomas Hackett: If the
hon. gentleman will look at his file he will see that it is letter G of the Senate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: These bills are
not on the file.
Private Bills


Mr. LAWSON:: Hon. members are looking at House of Commons bills.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: These
Senate bills do not appear to have been filed. I have not seen them and do not know what they are about. I do not suppose it is very important, but it seems strange that we should transact the business of the house in this way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is
quite right. We cannot proceed with the business unless the bills are printed; that is quite obvious.


John Thomas Hackett: The bills are printed; hon. gentleman will find them on the files.


Wilfred Hanbury: Some of the Senate bills are on the file, but these particular bills are not.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Therefore we cannot
proceed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Stand.


Edward Joseph Garland: The only relief bill on the file is No. 42.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And that is no relief.


Mr. VALLANCE:: In fairness to the pages who file the bills, I think there was a suggestion from some members that they did not want to be bothered with them. That should be stated in fairness to the boys who file the bills.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What the hon. gentleman says is correct; the filing of the bills has nothing to do with whether we should proceed with them or not. If they are printed and distributed-and apparently they are, because they are being brought in from the distribution room-that is the end of it. There is no rule with respect to putting them on the files, but there is a rule regarding their distribution. If they have not been distributed, they should not be proceeded with.
_ Mr. McINTOSH: The distribution system is wrong anyway.


John Thomas Hackett: The bills having now been distributed we will proceed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.
[The Chairman.]

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 45 for the relief of Clara Dingman Freeman-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Marguerite Pearl Hopper-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Sadye Harris Rosenberg-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Eva Brabant Paradis-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Williamina Muir Briggs-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 43 to incorporate Personal Finance Corporation-Mr. Hackett.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 42 respecting relief measures-Mr. Gordon

Mr. Willis in the chair.
Cameron Ross McIntosh: I shall not take long to conclude my remarks. When the committee rose at six o'clock I had touched on two or three points, one of them the question of international trade. I was rather surprised this afternoon when the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Luchkovich) took a stand identical with that which the government has taken for the last four years on this important question; presumably the hon. gentleman feels it his duty to support the government of the day in its prohibitive tariff policy and is inclined to think that there is no longer an external market, that it has vanished, that we ought to forget about it and apply ourselves assiduously to the development of the home market and the home market alone. That is neolithic nationalism, and he supports it. That is the type of narrow nationalism that in the end will ruin Canada if persisted in.
I dissociate myself from that view. I care not who puts it forth, whether it be from the opposite side of the house or from some of the Tories to our left.
In concluding my remarks on that question may I say that I believe it the duty of every loyal citizen of Canada to persist in trying to get an opportunity for Canada once more to trade with the whole world; not with part of it, a half, or a quarter, or any other fraction of it, but the entire trading world. Let us measure ourselves up to that great international possibility and problem, and if we mean business

Reliej Act, 1934
and are in earnest we can certainly make progress. All this idle talk about dumping ^amounts to nothing, it is just an argument to uphold prohibitive protection and have our Canadian people endure further sacrifices.
Secondly, I dealt in a brief way with the question brought before the house by the hon. member for Stanstead, that is the transportation of great masses of unemployed from the industrial centres to the hinterland of this dominion. I said that problem is not as easy as it looks, that it is a continuous, never-ending problem, not simply a problem of cheap transportation. I want to follow up the observations made by the hon. member for Stanstead and bring before the committee a problem pertaining to the constituency of North Battleford.
Before doing that may I just say a word on a point of view presented to the committee by the Prime Minister. I got the idea from his remarks that he thinks that because we are living in the machine age we have got to bow down before this problem of unemployment and accept it. I differ entirely from that conception of national life. I say that unemployment is something that we can overcome if we take the initiative and adopt rational trade and financial policies in Canada. I would not say that we must put an embargo on inventive genius, on initiative; briefly, that we must fight the machine. We have got to cooperate with the machine. We are living in a machine age, and unless our financial and trade policies go hand in hand with machine production we are not going to get very far. Our trade and financial policies will have to be progressive, they will have to be sound, they will have to be advanced. If we initiate policies of that kind, I believe that our problem of unemployment will gradually and surely disappear.
My last remarks will deal with a problem pertaining to one of the new and developing parts of the Canadian northwest. That problem is in reality a railway problem. I have brought it before the house on former occasions and will bring it before the house again and again until it is solved. May I say I have listened to this debate and I have heard hon. members say that we ought to have a policy of reforestation. That is all right, we need that. There is nothing wrong with reforestation activities, whether in the form of relief or of an ordinary government undertaking. Then it is said that we must have highways, we must have an allCanadian highway from ooean to ocean to open up Canada. I have no fault to find
with that policy, and I have no great fault to find with the government for the support it has given to a national highway during the last four dismal years. We have also had statements made with regard to a new public works program. I understand that program will be brought down later. Further we have had put before us the relief work that is going on in our national parks under the Department of National Defence and the Departs ment of the Interior. And we have had the question of land settlement and the development of natural resources, the seeking for oil and gas and gold and the building of our national prosperity.
May I say, Mr. Chairman, that the problem with which I should like to deal for a few moments is associated with the problem mentioned by the hon. member for Stanstead. After we get the people on the land; after we place them on the soil in undeveloped areas where there are no railway facilities, then another problem arises. That problem is to give railway accommodation to those settlers on the land, many of whom are on relief. In the area to which I want to refer for a moment we have a population of approximately ten thousand people located in the upper end of northwestern Saskatchewan, approximately one hundred miles northwest of North Battleford, on the way to Edmonton, and northwest to the Pacific ocean. This population is confined largely to townships 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62 and to ranges 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26. Some statistical information was gathered and forwarded to me with regard to that area. In it there are 96,320 poultry, 3,302 horses, 7,666 cattle, 5,145 swine, a population ranging from eight thousand to ten thousand, 19,360 acres of land under cultivation and 382,500 acres available for cultivation. In 1931 there were 345 settlers who went into that district; in 1932 there were 134 and in 1933 between 50 and 100. Some of these settlers are on relief, but they are out there on the land to grapple for themselves with the problem of making a living. In my opinion, in order to enable these settlers to get off relief, it would be a very wise move on the part of the government to fake a forward step and provide them with the railway accommodation they need so badly.
May I say to the Prime Minister that in this area we have seventy miles of right of way graded ready for the steel. Surely it would not take very much money to put steel on this seventy miles of grading in order to help these people who are doing their best
Relief Act, 1934

to open up that new part of the country, to cooperate with the government by keeping off relief and to carve out homes for themselves in this new section of the province. Many of these people, I may say, came from the dried out areas of southern Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta. They came north to a wooded, mixed farming area possessing great possibilities for farmers, to make a living for themselves and those who are dear to them.
I have brought this matter to the attention of the house on other occasions, and I have much pleasure in bringing it before the government again in the hope that if the government intend to carry on a relief program this summer they might consider as part of that program the laying of steel on the seventy miles of grading in order to connect that part of the country with North Battle-ford and Edmonton. In addition there are about forty or fifty miles of that entire line remaining ungraded. If the steel could be laid for the seventy miles already graded and if the other forty or fifty miles could be graded I am satisfied that such a relief project would be very popular among the farmers and business men of that part of the province, and I am sure the government would get due consideration for whatever action it took.
I do not want to make this part of my observations in any way political. I have taken up this matter with the Minister of Railways, who has intimated that a statement will be made in the special railway committee and that he will make a statement in the house later on, but I did not feel that I should let pass this opportunity to bring the matter to the attention of the committee once more, since other questions of much less importance have been brought before the committee for the consideration of hon. members.
It seems difficult to get any exact information as to the intentions of the government. I have interrogated the Minister of Railways on more than one occasion, without result. I do not say that he does not want to give me the information; perhaps it is impossible for him to secure it, but it is easy to understand the point of view of these people living so far from any railway accommodation. They want to know whether anything will be done this year, and the only way they can find out is for the government to state its intentions with regard to laying steel on this seventy miles of grade and with regard to the grading of the forty or fifty miles remaining. These people are from eighteen to seventy miles from a railway; those in the north are any-
[Mr. Mnlntosh.l
where from thirty to seventy miles from a railway. They must bring in and ship out all their goods by truck, and they feel that this adds to the cost of living. They are satisfied that there is plenty of business in that area, taking into consideration what they buy and what they sell, to pay for a branch line railway, and I believe they are right. I believe the potential business in that area is sufficient to pay for the line, so that the citizens of Canada will not have to pay a cent for the railway accommodation sought. I believe the development of the district will be ample to repay to the exchequer of Canada every dollar expended on the completion of this line.
I think that is all I have to say for the present, Mr. Chairman, except for one other point. Not only is it difficult to get information from the government; it seems impossible to get information even when one takes up the matter with the officials of the Canadian National. I took up this matter with the president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. S. J. Hungerford, to whom I addressed three questions. The first was as follows:
There are seventy miles of Canadian National grade ready for steel from St. Walburg north. Will there be anything done in the way of putting steel on this grade in 1933? That is a question that should be answered one way or the other without delay.
How was that for a straight question? I think it was as plain and as straightforward as it could be. Now, I put another question, and my second question was this:
There is a grading of forty or fifty miles to be done on this same road in order to complete the grade to Edmonton. Will there be anything done on this grade this year? That is another question that concerns thousands of settlers in that area of the province -men and women who are fighting anew for a chance to live, many without relief.
That is question No. 2 which I put to Mr. Hungerford. Surely that is a straightforward and pointed question which should have been answered. Then, question No. 3, and the last one which I put to Mr. Hungerford, was as follows:
On the Spruce Lake-Frenchman's Butte division of the Canadian National Railways farther south there is a stretch of road between Frenchman's Butte and Elk Point in Alberta not yet graded. Will there be anything done in the way of grading or construction in 1934?
Surely the third question is as pointed and as direct as were the other two.
Now then, how did President Hungerford answer these three direct and non-controversial questions? How did he answer these three questions pertaining to the development of a large area of the North Battleford

Relief Act, 1934
federal constituency, three questions concerning the welfare of ten thousand people, three questions affecting the families of thousands of settlers who came from the southern part of the province or from other areas in Alberta and Manitoba to carve out a living for themselves in that northern area of northwestern Canada? Here is the way he answered. I might say I took up the same three questions with Mr. Fullerton, and the answer I received from him was about the same as the information contained in the reply from President Hungerford. President Hungerford's reply dated March 28, 1934, was simply this:
Dear Mr. McIntosh:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 23rd with regard to branch line construction work in western Canada.
I understand that a similar communication was addressed to the chairman of the trustees and that he has sent you an answer to the inquiry.
Yours faithfully,
S. J. Hungerford,
President.
Well, he sent me a reply, but there is no information in it. Consequently I say it is no reply at all. So far as information is concerned, it was practically a negative reply. And so, without making the matter controversial I thought it was my duty as a member for that riding, to bring once more before the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals, once more before the attention of the Prime Minister of Canada and once more before the attention of the government of the country, the problem of railway development in that particular part of Saskatchewan. This matter has been hanging fire for four years, and nothing has been done. The grade is there,-at least, it ought to be there, although I understand it is gradually disappearing. The ties are there, and I suggest it would be an easy matter to get at least some secondhand steel to put on this seventy miles of road in order to facilitate the bringing into and sending out of goods from that splendid stretch of country known as "The Northland."
With these remarks, then, I shall say no more but will ask the Prime Minister to give every possible consideration to what I might term this miniature railway problem of northwestern Saskatchewan. If he can make it a part of the relief program which the government intends to bring down during the coming summer, I believe such action would redound not only to the welfare of the government but also to the good name of all concerned, and to the prosperity and happiness of these ten thousand toiling people.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Willis):: Does the section carry?


Mr. RALSTON:: I should like to say one or two words to the Prime Minister about a very limited portion of section 3 in the bill which now becomes section 4. Subsection (a) is as follows:
Provide for special relief, works and' undertakings under control and direction of the Department of National Defence and the Department of the Interior.
This afternoon the hon. member for Gloucester was speaking about the fishing industry, and I did not get clearly in my mind whether the Prime Minister contemplated making any provision under this section for small works in various communities around the coast. The wording of the subsection is "provide for special relief." It would seem to be not for special relief works, but for special relief, and to provide "works and undertakings under control and direction of the Department of National Defence and the Department of the Interior."
The point about which I am concerned is this: I understand that there is a very limited vote for public works. When the estimates for the Department of Public Works were before the committee I brought the matter to the attention of the minister of that department, and he thought that out of the general vote there might be some opportunity to make small expenditures for works around the coast such as boat landings, breakwaters and works of that type. There was a sort of intimation, at least I gathered the impression, that out of the relief votes there would be something for facilities of this kind. I am disappointed to find that what is now section 4 apparently eliminates that possibility. I concur in the view expressed this afternoon by an hon. member who spoke as to the desirability of decentralizing rather than centralizing this matter of relief work. I take it from what the Prime Minister has said that the public works which are to be included in the program to be brought down later will be public works of considerable magnitude in certain centres. I feel that there would be a great opportunity to provide employment and relief in isolated communities by the erection of small works to provide facilities for fishermen. This afternoon an hon. member on this side spoke about improving houses. I am not dealing particularly with that suggestion, but I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not think it desirable to introduce into this section some provision under which for special relief purposes small works in the nature of
Relief Act, 1934

breakwaters, boat landings, wharves, boat shelters and so on could be undertaken.
I am thinking particularly of the fishing communities. If I may, I should like to give an instance of what I mean. Only this afternoon I signed a letter addressed to the Minister of Public Works asking him to consider recommending a very small work, something which would not involve much money but which would provide cooperation with the enterprise of fishermen in the particular section to which I referred. That is a case, Mr. Prime Minister, if I may address you through the chairman, where the lobster fishermen today have to drag their traps down the beach to low water mark and wait until the tide comes in before they can put the traps into their boats. Coming back in with either freight, fish or mail, a boat of any size has to send a small boat ashore and drag it up on the beach fifteen, twenty or thirty feet. The coast is not protected; seaweed is entirely gone from it, which makes it open to storms. For that reason some protection is needed. This facility may cost a couple of thousands of dollars, and is in a community where employment is very much needed. It is in a community the people of which have tried to work out their own salvation. There are ten boats there now, and I believe two or three more are being built. Then, there are other places along the shore where the same kind of work might be done.
I am not asking the Prime Minister to construct works which are not needed, but I am asking him, if he can see his way clear, to combine relief with provisions for facilities for those enterprising fishermen, whereby they will be allowed to help themselves and avoid being on the dole. I have called the Prime Minister's attention to this particular section, because I think it might be changed so as to include this type of work.
Then, further, only this afternoon I spoke to the Minister of Marine to ascertain the respective jurisdictions as between him and the Minister of Public Works. I believe that wharves, breakwaters and landing places of this type are constructed by the Minister of Public Works, but are under the control and direction of the Minister of Marine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: After they are finished.


James Layton Ralston: Therefore the words
"control and direction" found in section 4 (a) would apply, if the Prime Minister could see fit to insert the words "Department of Marine" or "Department of Fisheries."


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman I am sure has a very clear understanding of the difficulties of expanding this measure in the way he indicates, for I do not know how many hundreds of places would claim to be treated exactly as he has indicated that we should treat a given place at an expenditure of $2,000. The hon. gentleman will recall that last year it was thought by hon. gentlemen opposite that I should state to the committee that we would not use this relief measure for public works, it being thought that we might improperly use relief moneys in that sense.
I suppose the hon. gentleman realizes that the Department of the Interior comes into the matter because of the fact that it has control of the national parks, and with respect to the expenditures by the National Defence department they are for works that have some remote or near relation to that department in connection with airways and matters of the kind. It was thought that it was very desirable to have this work undertaken when the opportunity offered. Of course, both these departments have organizations for dealing with these particular works, as perhaps the hon. gentleman knows. He certainly knows with respect to one department, and he also knows that the Department of the Interior does carry on parks works every year which necessitates this very class of work being done.
My mind not long since was travelling apparently along the same lines as that of the hon. gentleman. I thought possibly a scheme of general repairs and painting might offer employment to the unemployed in communities which would not otherwise be affected, but the Minister of Public Works had already anticipated that last year in connection with repairs for various public undertakings, and he has also some provision for this year. I think it will be found as we proceed that there is a provision in this statute that is broad enough to permit this to be done. I want to put this to the hon. gentleman, who I feel sure will see our difficulty. For the federal government to engage in constructing all the little-if I might use that word-undertakings that would be sought to be constructed would be an almost impossible position. I can tell the hon. gentleman I know something of that from dire experience. But whatever can be done to remedy the difficulties along the coast to which he refers I think will be done, and rather than expand this bill, when the measure for dealing with public works and under-

takings is being considered I shall try to add to it an appropriation that might be useful for effecting the objects to which reference has been made.


James Layton Ralston: I appreciate the assurance of the Prime Minister and the way in which he has received my suggestion. He will remember that the first year there was a certain number of projects under the relief vote, and I do not think he will find that much difficulty was experienced with regard to undue pressure. There was a good deal of proper discrimination shown in connection with these projects and I do not think the department was altogether flooded with applications of that kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think there is a list of them for the second year, 1931.


James Layton Ralston: I believe the Prime Minister will find that while there may have been quite a number of such projects the amount in dollars was comparatively small compared with some of the large votes that are being made. I know that in the endeavour the Prime Minister is going to make in regard to the Public Works vote he appreciates the fact that it is desirable to help people help themselves, and that is what this proposal does.


Richard Bedford Bennett: About 82,500,000 was the sum involved in 1931.


James Layton Ralston: For all of Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: For public works, yes.


James Layton Ralston: I think that is very moderate.


William Duff: I regret that I cannot agree with the hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth. It is quite true as he says that under the relief measure two or three years ago certain of the relief moneys were spent for public works, for repairs to breakwaters and wharves and for new ventures, and my information is that with regard to these expenditures in Nova Scotia that method was very-unsatisfactory. We do not want to lose control altogether in this parliament of the voting of public moneys, and if it is the intention of the government to spend moneys for wharves or breakwaters or for other public purposes in Nova Scotia or any other part of Canada, in my opinion the amounts required should be specifically set out in the supplementary estimates, or if the Prime Minister and the government think better, a special bill could be brought in voting a lump sum of money, and attached to the bill there should be a schedule giving the places where the money was to be spent, and the amounts. I think I
Relief Act, 1934
voice the sentiments of the people of Canada generally as well as my own when I say that I do not like this idea which has prevailed in the past of spending money under the Relief Act without parliament or the public knowing anything about it. While I agree with the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth that there are a great many places where the expenditure of this money would be advisable in the interests of the country in order to encourage fishermen and others to prosecute their calling, I think it should be done in an orderly and proper manner. Any measures with respect to peace, order and good government should be passed by this parliament and not by the executive after parliament rises, and further, under this relief measure money should not be spent as it has been in the past by the Minister of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-4 (now section 5)-Payments
out of the consolidated revenue fund.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: into the relief legislation: first the provision relating to peace, order and good government, to which I shall refer in a few moments, and secondly the blank cheque feature. At that time I well recall, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Quebec East, the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) took exception on high ground to this parliament abdicating its control over expenditure.
May I say that of all the relief bills of 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934, this bill of 1934 gives to the administration more extensive powers than any of the previous four. In order to keep the record straight may I once again place upon the pages of Hansard a quotation from a high constitutional authority on the power of parliament and its proper control over expenditures. This authority was quoted frequently by the Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition. I quote from page 159 of The Procedure of the House of Commons by Redlich, as follows:
But there is something more to say. The fundamental principle just referred to secures only one of the great functions of parliament with regard to money matters. Soon after the great change made at the end of the seventeenth century, political experience showed that a second principle must be established before the foundations of parliamentary government could be regarded as secure. It was necessary to gain for the commons full and unrestricted control over the destination of the money spent, to enable parliament to check its application and to see that expenditure corresponded to the grants made. The working out of this principle led by degrees to the present financial apparatus of the House of Commons. The form of a bill of supply and the division or parliamentary business between the two money committees of the whole house had long been in existence. But from 1688 onwards the development of law and practice in finance procedure took a new turn: The old framework was retained, but a new spirit was breathed into all the forms of financial management, especially those relating to the expenditure of the state, and the administration of the moneys placed at the disposal of the government. The complete realization of the idea of parliamentary control reacted upon the whole organization of financial administration, just as the vast extension of the latter determined the way in which the great past of modern parliamentary government-direct parliamentary control over the whole of the national finances

reached its present shape. The result of the whole process has been to establish in actual fact the vital principle of modern parliamentary government-that of the full sovereignty of the nation's representatives in disposing of the financial burdens borne by their constituents.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Is there anything in the constitutional practice evolved during the years in the parliament of Great Britain or of any of the British nations which lays it down
(Mr. I. Mackenzie.]
that the majority of the elected representatives of a free people are not capable of delegating to the executive the power over taxation and expenditure?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I appreciate fully the suggestion contained in the interruption of the hon. member for Inverness CMr. Macdougall), but may I say to him that in the whole history of the development of British and Canadian parliamentary institutions, the essential feature of the growing power of democracy has been the greater power exercised through control by the peoples' members over finance and expenditures. In order to illustrate my point further-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The people must rule.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
used to. I desire to quote from another great authority. Colonel A. J. V. Durell in his book entitled The Principles and Practice of the System of Control over Parliamentary Grants states on page 2:
The bedrock on which the English system if built-
The English system is the British and Canadian systems.
-is the principle of the maintenance by parliament of control over the grants which it makes.
The following is to be found on page 3-


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: But not by the minority of parliament.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By all the members of parliament provided they are properly carrying out the functions which they are here to carry out and not abrogating to any executive council, without any restraint or control, full and unrestrained powers over the expenditures of the country.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Not partyism.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
author states on page 3:
The most ancient, as well as the most valued, prerogative of the House of Commons is the right of supreme control over taxation, to which the right to control issues is a natural corollary. The prohibition of raising taxes without parliamentary authority would be nugatory if the proceeds, even of legal taxes, could be expended at the will of the sovereign. The right, therefore, of appropriation was a logical consequence of the right of levying supplies. "The chain of historical evidence undeniably proves that a previous and stringent appropriation, often minute and specific, has formed an essential part of the British constitution." Though the practice of appropriat-

Reliej Act, 1934
ing supplies, in a general sense, is of early origin, that of appropriating them to the specific purposes for which they were granted did not become an established usage until the revolution, when the principle that "the grant of supply, and the control of public expenditure in conformity therewith, belongs inalienably to parliament, and preeminently to the House of Commons" was formally incorporated amongst the maxims of the constitution.
I have just two more brief quotations to make and I shall have finished with my authorities. The next is from the same author and reads:
The power of appropriation drew with it the necessity for estimates being regularly laid before the House of Commons, and by exposing the management of the public revenues, has given the house not only a real and effective control over an essential branch of the executive administration, but in some measures made parliament a partaker in it. Appropriation alone is, however, of little avail if no provision is made for securing compliance with it. The right of appropriation must be accompanied by the right of parliament to satisfy itself as to the expenditure of the money on the services for which it has been voted.
The last quotation from page 9 is as follows:
The supreme control of the Commons over public grants, as already mentioned, necessarily demands the complete right of control over the manner in which those grants are spent. This second right must be inseparable from the first if the control over the grants is to be effective; but it is a right which was not claimed nor enforced by the House of Commons until long after the right of control over supply had been established.
So much for the old section 4, new section 5, which constitutes the worst feature of the bill, next to the section upon which the committee voted this afternoon. While I do not intend to make any argument upon that section, this being the same debate I am entitled to refer to the vote. The amendment moved by the Prime Minister is as follows:
That section 2 of the bill be amended by striking out subparagraph (b) and by inserting in the said bill as section 3 thereof the following:
"3. In addition to the powers conferred under the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council may, when parliament is not in session take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to maintain, within the competence of parliament, peace, order and good government throughput Canada; and at all times to take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to protect and maintain the credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof."
May I remind this house that in 1932 I moved the following amendment:
1. That this house has been from the commencement of the session and continues to be
ready and willing to consider and vote without delay any money or grant, submitted and asked for by the government for relieving distress and providing employment throughout Canada.
2. That this house cannot surrender the rights of the people of Canada, through their representatives in parliament, to maintain direct control over matters of taxation and expenditure, nor vest in the governor in council or in any other body absolute and despotic powers under the guise of dealing with peace, order and good government, particularly while parliament is in session.
My hon. friends to my left voted in condemnation of the usurpation of parliamentary authority by this administration. The following gentlemen voted in favour of my amendment: Messrs. Gardiner, Garland (Bow River), Heaps, Maclnnis, Mitchell, Speak-man and Spencer.
I desire to congratulate the Prime Minister upon the new allies he received this afternoon in the policies he has adopted and the powers he has assumed with regard to the functions to be performed under peace, order and good government. Let me tell my hon. friends to my left what they voted for this afternoon. From time to time they have introduced into this parliament a resolution for the repeal of section 98 of the criminal code. Should the Prime Minister, during the course of his duties next year, see fit to add to the powers which he is now given under section 98 of the criminal code, with the support of the C.C.F. party in this house he can go the extreme limit in carrying out these powers, because those gentlemen all voted for him this afternoon. .
Let me say this to my right hon. friend. Hon. gentlemen may smile, but they repudiated this afternoon everything they have stood for in the last four years. Let me put this to the Prime Minister: We trust there will not be any strike or labour disturbance in Canada in the next few months, but supposing such a thing happened; well, the Prime Minister under the section passed this afternoon might choose in his high office to take the extraordinary powers given him, and he can say that he does so with the support of the C.C.F., because he can point to the fact that the C.C.F. members who voted had given him its support one hundred per cent. Those hon. gentlemen cannot therefore criticize or condemn any action the right hon. gentleman may take in that regard. Suppose there is a dispute in regard to wages: the Prime Minister can take certain drastic powers under this section dealing with peace, order and good government, and he has the support not only of his own followers but of those gentlemen who call themselves the C.C.F., and who by
Relief Act, 1934

their vote this afternoon have endorsed the right hon. gentleman. They are supposed to represent labour, but they have absolutely reversed and repudiated their position of a few years ago, and given to the executive council of the nation complete and unrestrained powers to go beyond parliamentary authority in dealing with the situation for the next year. Personally, I am proud, prouder than ever to-day, to belong to the great minority in this parliament. I do not want to use the language of exaggeration, but I believe that Canada to-day is, with respect to her liberties, like Rachael weeping for her children because they are not; and the only ones who stood up this afternoon, this gallant minority, in defence of liberty in this land and in parliament were the members of the Liberal party.
I commiserate with Canada upon this new alliance. Here we have a would-be dictatorship of the proletariat in the comer becoming allied with the dictatorship of autocracy and reaction represented by the government. But so far as we are concerned we condemn this measure not only because, of its iniquitous provisions, the clause dealing with peace, order and good government, but because of the unlimited, unrestrained powers given to the administration, in which they are supported by the socialists of the house. We condemn the measure because of its extreme features. Let me tell the government something. I speak here to-night with a humble voice on behalf of the liberties of Canada,, and I say that the battle for personal liberty, for political liberty and for constitutional liberty will have to be fought once again in Canada. My right hon. friend may find it easy to take a light hold of these powers of autocracy, but some day very soon the people will demand that parliament once again resume control of the powers that are being relinquished in regard to taxation, expenditures and finance.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I rather think my dramatic friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) spoke a little out of turn. When he referred to Rachael weeping for her children, I wondered whether he was thinking of Pat-tullo and his peace, order and good government legislation in British Columbia. The bill there may not be exactly the same sort of bill as this one, but as regards the assumption of authority it goes this bill fifty per cent better.
Let me make quite clear what our action this afternoon amounts to. During the last week, or possibly the last ten days, the official

opposition, led by their right hon. leader, have been drawing attention to the words in the bill, in section 2:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council may-
The Prime Minister a few days ago said that he felt there was some merit in the opposition of the Liberal party in objecting to that sweeping word " notwithstanding " and that he would take steps to modify it, and for that purpose he brought in the amendment voted on to-day. Surely when we have a bill before the house and, by some modification of it, the government can improve it we are entitled to vote for the amendment. My hon. friend objects to this, however. He wants to make the bill as bad as possible so that he will have something to speak about. Let me tell him this: We are satisfied that the bill will pass anyway, and since it will pass in any event we want it to be as satisfactory as possible. That is the difference between ourselves and the Liberal opposition. When the bill comes before the house for the final vote the hon. gentleman will find at least one socialist member in this house voting against it.
What has my hon. friend's party done in British Columbia? The hon. gentleman worked hard for that party during the election-mighty hard indeed. He was in British Columbia during the Easter recess and I did not hear him say anything in opposition to the powers assumed by the British Columbia government. Let us see what powers are given by the Special Powers Act. Section 2 provides:
To the full extent to which the powers of the legislature extend thereto, and notwithstanding the provisions of any public or private act of the legislature, the lieutenant-governor in council shall have power to do and to authorize within the province such acts and things and to make and promulgate from time to time such ordinances as he may by reason or in anticipation-
He is not obliged to wait for something to happen; he can anticipate it.
-of any condition, or for the purpose of any matter referred to in the preamble or in this section, consider necessary or advisable in relation to the matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say:
Now let us see what they can do-and considering the past history of the Liberal party, this is rather dangerous legislation. When we consider how that party dealt with Beauhar-nois, this legislation is something which the people of British Columbia may well view

Relief Act, 1934
with alarm. These are some of the powers they have taken:
(1) The reservation, preservation, management, development, sale, and disposition of the natural resources of the province,-
Just imagine leaving the natural resources of the province in the custody of the Liberal party.
*-including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, all lands, forests, waters, oil, natural gas-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Angus MacInnis: Well, my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre has a monopoly of at least a part of that.
-mines, minerals, and royalties belonging to the province.
Could anything be more sweeping than that? Yet my hon. friend has not spoken a word in protest against it, though he was in British Columbia and could have done so. And he could have done so in this house. But no; what he condemns in the group in this corner here is a very good thing in British Columbia. But not only that; my hon. friend from Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury) wanted to go further. He wanted the Minister of Labour to adopt the principle that, when the lumber workers, for example, did not accept the conditions laid down by that government, they should be starved into submission so that they would have to go to work. I said the other day that I was surprised that he should advocate such a thing. In looking over the 1931 Hansard I see that he was going to bring about prosperity by reducing wages all around. Well, I should not have been surprised.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is the hon. gentleman referring to me?


Angus MacInnis: No, no. I was referring to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. You have not got that far yet.
Before this bill is finally passed we shall have another word, but as we know it is going to pass anyway-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Angus MacInnis: -we want to make it as good a bill as possible. When the bill comes up for its final vote I, at least, will be found voting against it.


Michael Luchkovich: I have often wondered why it is that some of our hon. friends to the right, when they are in a tight corner, generally call us Tories. Even a rat will fight, when it is cornered, but the hon. members to the right of us will not fight nor will 74726-136
they answer argument with legitimate argument. I have had the long finger of scorn pointed at me by both the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), and instead of answering by argument our very valid argument in regard to negotiations with Germany, France and Italy, in both cases they have referred to us as Tories.


Hugh Guthrie: Hear, hear.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: You have no argument to answer.


Michael Luchkovich: Well, for the benefit of the hon. member for North Battleford may I point out that in 1930 every Conservative in my district voted for the Liberal party, which may or may not be a compliment to the Liberal party. My opponent in that election wrote a public letter in which he thanked all the Conservatives in the Vegreville district for voting for the Liberal party-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: But they will all support you in the next election.


Michael Luchkovich: -which may mean some relationship between the two older parties for all I know. Now the hon. members for Vancouver Centre and North Battleford drew a red herring across the path of the argument submitted by myself. They trot out the old constitutional question when the people ask for bread and work. Both these hon. members have referred on other occasions to international trade, but they have not answered my argument to-day; they have proposed no method by which that international trade is going to be brought back to Canada. If the Liberal party happens to be fortunate enough to be elected in 1934 or 1935-


Hugh Guthrie: No chance.


Michael Luchkovich: -I do not care if they introduce the provision concerning peace, order and good government or not, if they get the German, the French and the Italian market by introducing those words into the legislation before us.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What has that impossible statement got to do with the point at issue?


Michael Luchkovich: Well many Liberal members on this side have spoken of negotiations. But as far as 1930 is concerned all I have to say is that the Liberals have turned out to be a pretty poor flock of negotiators, because it was under them that we lost this very valuable market for our agricultural

Relief Act, 193Jf

products, especially wheat. Now I am not afraid of names. I have been called a rascal, a scoundrel, and a Tory, but I have not yet been called a Liberal, which may or may not be "the most unkindest cut of all." I do not see why hon. members to our right should try to draw a red herring across the path of the valid argument that we have submitted. Every time they get into a tight corner they inevitably flaunt this old constitutional question in the face of the committee instead of suggesting something that will help the farmer and the labourer to get out of the difficulties in which they now find themselves. I believe in the doctrine of the economic unity of the universe just as much as any man in this house, and I believe in low tariffs just as much as any hon. members to my right.


Edward James Young: Why not vote for them?


Michael Luchkovich: When you get into power why do you not lower the tariffs? Why not do something about it? Why don't you practise what you preach?


William Richard Motherwell: It was the lowest since confederation.


Michael Luchkovich: The reason the
Liberal party was defeated in 1930 was that they were trying to be an imitation of the Conservative party, and the people of Canada wanted the real thing, not an imitation. I am not going to make any prophecy with regard to the election of 1935-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: 1934.


Michael Luchkovich: Or 1934, I do not care which it is, but as far as I am concerned I am prepared to run in an election tomorrow.


Hugh Guthrie: Don't be in such a hurry.


Michael Luchkovich: The people of this country can no longer be fooled with tariff talk. They know that ever since confederation the tariff has been a football between both the old parties, and they are not going to be fooled by that again. What they want, as I have already said, is a real low tariff, not the tariff we got under the Dunning budget, which was nothing but an imitation of the tariffs introduced since confederation by what the hon. member over yonder would call the Tory party. Now, sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to detain the committee very long-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles A. Stewart: But may I say that I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that this is another of the very obnoxious provisions of this bill. I am not going to say a word about my hon. friends to the left; I am leaving their justification to themselves. If they are satisfied with their action we must be satisfied. I regret, along with my hon. friends on this side, of course, the apparent slipping that appears to be going on among them. It does not do much good to say you are a devout adherent of lower tariffs when you continue to vote for higher ones.


Robert James Manion: You ought to know.


Charles A. Stewart: May I say to my hon. friends that I have been here a good number of years and I am quite prepared to justify my vote on the tariff on all occasions. But for heaven's sake, don't let my hon. friend go around the country supplementing the statement made by hon. gentlemen in the corner that the Liberal party did not lower tariffs. He can say that undoubtedly the Conservative party did increase them.


Mr. ROBINSON:: That is what we were
elected for.


Robert James Manion: How much did you lower them on furniture?


Charles A. Stewart: I would not like to state how much the Conservative party increased the tariff.


Robert James Manion: How much did you increase it on furniture?


Charles A. Stewart: Not at all.


Robert James Manion: Oh yes, to 42 per cent.


Charles A. Stewart: No, we
did not. We increased it on steel, if that is any comfort to my hon. friend. But we are not going to get very far with an argument on tariffs, so perhaps we shall leave that until the budget comes.
I want to voice my opposition to the provisions of this particular section which is now section 5. I wish to support everything my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre said about the provisions of this section. It is a usurpation of the powers of parliament by the executive, and as long as I continue to be a member of the House of Commons I shall vote and work against any such provision being placed in any statute. The executive are supposed to carry out the will of parliament, but here the executive ask parliament to give them power to spend money willy-nilly in any way they see fit. I am going to say in the same breath that I am not finding any particular

Relief Act, 1934
fault with what the government have done under this legislation; it is the principle of the thing. I am not raising my voice against the actions taken by the government under this bill. I do not know what they want the power for; I never could understand why they required it. They have had four years of experience in dealing with this matter and they can say to within $5,000,000 how much money they are going to require. If they would put that in the statute; if they would say they required $100,000,000, for example, to carry out the provisions of this statute this year, they would get that amount. But when they say they are not going to state the sum, that they want us to give them carte blanche to spend any amount in any way they deem fit and necessary, I say the principle is wrong.


An hon. MEMBER:: Prior to an election.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
particularly exercised about an election; I have that much confidence in the government. I do not think they would abuse the privilege for which they are asking, but I do say the principle of the thing is absolutely wrong and that this power should not be granted by any parliament that has any respect for itself.
I am going to say this also, Mr. Chairman:
I believe the day will come when the members of the government, as well as the members of the Conservative party in Canada, will regret having taken this action. They are regretting it already. Just the other evening the leader of the government voiced the opinion that because similar action had been taken in two of the provinces he had grave doubts whether he would not require all the powers contained in this statute for the purpose of counteracting what might be done. The example is being followed, and the men who introduced and stood behind this thing are beginning to be nervous in view of the results that are apparent all over Canada.
I say in the most vehement manner possible that I disapprove of this provision, this blank cheque which we are asked to give to the executive to spend as they see fit.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: They have a majority of the members of the House of Commons.


Charles A. Stewart: I quite
appreciate that a majority of the members of the House of Commons will pass this bill; . the members of the Conservative party will support it to a man, and they are the majority. But minorities have some rights; at least we have the rights of free speech and free 74726-136 J
expression of opinion in this house, and we propose to exercise them.


Mr. STITT (Selkirk):: You can abuse
them, too.


Charles A. Stewart: I challenge any hon. gentleman on the other side of the house to say that I have abused my privileges. Since this bill was introduced I have taken up only about fifteen minutes of the time of the committee, but nothing will deter me from expressing my opinion as forcibly as I can upon any question in regard to which I feel as strongly as I feel in regard to the matter now under consideration. There are two provisions in this bill which are thoroughly obnoxious to me, the one dealing with peace, order and good government and the other dealing with this blank cheque, which gives to the executive powers which should not be given by any parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not propose tonight to traverse the ground that has been so often traversed, nor do I propose to enter into any elaborate argument as to why these provisions to which reference has been made are included in the legislation under consideration. I shall content myself by saying that in our very sincere conviction it is essential, perhaps at this time more than any other, that the words " peace, order and good government" should appear in. this legislation; if it were not for that conviction they would not appear. I had hoped that it would not be necessary to use them, but I have convinced myself that I should be failing in my duty to this country and to the position which I occupy if they were not there. Therefore they are inoludued in the legislation. And if this afternoon hon. gentlemen who sit opposite and to the right supported the legislation to which reference has been made, I take it they did so because there is no case in which it has been alleged that there has been any abuse of this power by this government. No one has suggested that at any time during the four years that will have elapsed by March next there has been, on the part of this government, any usurpation of power, any abuse of authority or any effort to do other than utilize in the interests of the country the powers conferred by this parliament upon the executive.
I shall deal very briefly with the question of the limitation that it is alleged should be inserted in the bill as to the amount that might be expended for the purposes provided by the measure. In the first place the bill provides that the money must be expended in
Reliej Act, 1934

a given way. I hesitate to say to the committee what I am about to say, but the truth is, a democracy being what it is, that every time you put in a measure a provision that the sum to be expended shall not exceed a given amount, at that very moment those who would be beneficiaries under the legislation immediately begin to claim their share of that amount. 1 say that with hesitancy, but unfortunately it is true.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Would the right hon.
gentleman permit a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not just now; when I
conclude I Shall be glad to answer any questions.


Vincent Dupuis: I was just going to refer
to the 820,000,000; it was not all spent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the claim to a
share of the amount, generally based upon a population basis, unfortunately, creates a situation in which the test , is no longer necessity but ability to get. Perhaps hon. members of this house may question that statement, but if they will make some investigations they will find that what I have said is exactly correct.
Then let us go one step further. The executive is being clothed with power to spend money for the purposes indicated, and it is true that the sum to be spent is not mentioned. It is not as though this were something unusual in this parliament. I need not again give the instances I have in mind, but the government of which the hon. member for West Edmonton was a distinguished member gave to the same executive, the same governor in council as is mentioned in this bill, authority, for instance, to guarantee the bonds to secure the money to construct the harbour bridge in Montreal, without mentioning any sum whatever in the bill. The result was that nineteen and a half million dollars were expended on that bridge and every year the people of Canada are taxed to secure the money to pay the interest on that amount.


Edward James Young: You should take warning
from that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was a public undertaking which was being constructed, where it was possible to ascertain with reasonable certainty the amount required. Here you have an uncertain condition. You have a situation which I hope and believe will be greatly improved as the months go by, but I say to this committee very frankly that it is my very sincere conviction that if we stated in this bill a given sum of money,
(Mr. Benne** *
every province would claim what it regarded as its share of that money to be expended for the purposes mentioned in the bill. I speak now not from guess work but from experience. If I ask this house to grant this power I say again to the committee that when they talk of usurpation of power and dictatorship, they would only have to endeavour to discharge the duties that have rested upon the executive during the last few years to realize the necessity for powers being conferred upon it to enable it to deal with any situation that may arise. And further, the very fact the power is there has had tremendous effect in enabling matters to be disposed of. Now, as Canadians we are all more or less familiar with business as it is done in the common, ordinary, everyday run of life. We are a cross section of the country. We know perfectly well that there is nothing quite so bad as to hold out the sign of something to get and create a competition for the getting of it on the basis that competition arises in connection with a democracy. Everyone of us knows that; there is not one of us who does not know it. I ask the committee just to apply their ordinary, everyday, run-of-mine judgment to this transaction, and to realize what we are endeavouring to do. Dear only knows we do not wish to add further cares to the ones we already have, or seek authority to do something which we believe is not in the interests of the country. Will the committee not realize that in endeavouring to discharge our duties we have thought only of the welfare of Canada, and not our personal welfare.
Sometimes I hear hon. members in this dhamber talk as though members of the government derived some satisfaction or happiness from working eighteen hours a day, when in fact one might just as well be free of it all. I say to this house sincerely that I did hope it would not be essential to put a provision of this kind in the bill. It would not be fair for me to disclose to hon. members all the information which comes to one, or to this office-not to the man but to the office-from all parts of the world. I realize that the great experiments being conducted in various parts of the world have placed upon this country, situated as it is-because geography is a fact which we cannot change-terrific and at times almost terrifying responsibilities.
When I heard my friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) declaim, I could almost fancy I heard myself. I am fair enough to him to say that I thoroughly appreciate the position which he has taken; for there is nothing which he has said touching freedom,

Relief Act, 1934
liberty or control that is new to me,. There is nothing that he has said in that regard in which I do not entirely concur. But when applied to these particular facts or circumstances, and the conditions which exist today, we must realize that when Professor Redlich, that eminent Austrian, developed his statements from historic conditions surrounding expenditures of public money in Great Britain, he then was not dealing with a world depression. He was not dealing with a world distressed; he was not dealing with universal chaos in economic affairs. He was dealing with the orderly, commonplace conduct of public business. And when Colonel Durell wrote bis book and placed before his readers the historic aspect of the development of parliamentary control over public expenditures, with particular reference to the control of the House of Commons over such expenditures, he was not dealing with a condition where thousands of men and women were looking to the state for sustenance, for food, for Clothing, or for support. He was not dealing with the congregation of people in great cities who had no employment. He was dealing with the orderly conduct of human affairs as they had been developed under our parliamentary institutions. And if I say to this chamber that it is my profound conviction that the extraordinary conditions which the world has seen develop during the past few years have not passed, I go further; notwithstanding the inherent right of hon. members to criticize everything done by the government, they will at least admit that there is no evidence of any abuse of authority, of any usurpation of power for the sake of power, or of any effort being made at any time by this executive or any member of this government to do anything other than what was honestly and earnestly believed to be in the interests of this young dominion.
It is on that ground that I put to the committee the overwhelming necessity imposed upon us of seeking this legislation again. I say frankly to this committee that if I could bring my mind to the belief that it was not necessary to ask parliament to confer upon the executive for the next eleven months- because the act expires on March 31, 1935-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With the qualification contained in section 10.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, those are qualifications with respect to expenditures which have to be paid because obligations were created. I thank the hon. member for bringing that to my attention. I think it would be fair to say that if I did not believe it were essential to ask this chamber to accept the legislation for
eleven months, I certainly would not ask for it.
To be vilified, to be held up to execration and abuse, is not a thing a man should seek who is endeavouring to serve the public. If by properly eliminating the legislation I could escape it, does it not appear to hon. members that I would do so? But because I cannot do that, and because I should be failing in my duty to my country if I were to do it, these clauses are in the bill. I ask the committee to believe that nothing but an overwhelming sense of duty and of obligation has induced us to place them there.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask a question before we leave this subject? Is it not a fact that in the agreements with the provinces no limitation is placed upon the provinces with respect to their expenditures? Are there limitations placed in the agreement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No agreement with a province becomes effective until it has been approved by this government. And the estimate of the expenditure involved under it is always present, with the agreement itself. No blank authorization to spend unmentioned sums is conferred upon a province.


Charles A. Stewart: That is, I am right in assuming that before the provinces may make any expenditures under the relief agreements, there must be an agreement for a fixed and definite sum with each province before expenditure takes place.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I said a moment ago that the exact sum is not mentioned. But an estimate is made when the application for approval of the expenditure is sent to the federal government. May I repeat the statement I made, lest it be misunderstood: In connection with direct relief there is not a limit placed upon the dollars which can be expended. The necessity is the measure of expenditure with respect to direct relief. I should like to make that point sufficiently clear. That is, if the provincial authorities caring for the necessitous poor at point A expend certain sums of money on each, we make a fixed contribution of a percentage or fractional part, and the exact sum which may be expended, of course, cannot be determined. But the character of relief which is to be afforded is imposed by a condition in the agreement that is made. Is that clear?


Alan Webster Neill: May I suggest something which may solve what appears to be rapidly approaching a deadlock? The time cannot be very far removed when the government
Relief Act, 1934

may consider instituting closure, and I do not know that an extended discussion of this matter would do any of us any great good in the minds of the people. Parliamentary institutions are on trial in a sense if we cannot bring this matter to a head before very long. The Prime Minister has said that in his official position, information comes to him from all parts of the world and all parts of the country, and we have no reason to doubt his word, which makes it imperative for him to insist on inserting, much against his will, these words relating to peace, order and good government, and what they involve. If that is the case, and we will assume for the moment that it is, and I admit that for obvious reasons he cannot make this information known to the house and the country at large, why cannot he do what I have known to be done in other countries-call in the leaders of the two opposition parties, honourable men who can be trusted, and explain to them at least the reasons that actuate him in inserting these words? Then if they could go back to their followers convinced that the attitude of the government was one of necessity, the difficulty would be ended. I submit that that has been done before, and it might well be done in this case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can only say to the
hon. gentleman that if a crisis should develop I certainly would not hesitate. On more than one occasion I have endeavoured to make known what I conceived to be of interest, but I think it is only fair to say that the leader of the official opposition-I am sorry he is not present at the moment-holds so very strong an opinion in this matter, expressed probably in the terms used by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, that I feel he would not regard any reason I advanced as being sufficient for the purpose the hon. gentleman has indicated. I think that is a fair statement of it in connection with what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has said.


Charles A. Stewart: In order that we may get on with the bill I may say that the official opposition have only one more amendment to be disposed of.


William Duff: Before the amendment is put, Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention this year to arrange for public works being undertaken in different parts of the country under this act, or does the government intend to bring down a special bill for that purpose, or to place votes in the supplementary estimates for the different undertakings?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Twice to-day I have said that the government proposed to introduce a bill dealing with public works, and that a schedule would be attached to it indicating what the proposed works were. I did not hold out any hope that there would be large appropriations covering small items, and the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth was quite correct in what he said with respect to that; but I did say in answer to a question that I would consider whether special provision might not be made to deal with items of the character he mentioned.


William Duff: My reason for bringing this
matter up, Mr. Chairman, is this:	Under the
relief measure of two years ago certain sums of money were handed over to the Public Works department for different expenditures, and the Minister of Public Works, instead of calling for tenders in cases where the amount involved greatly exceeded $5,000, gave these works out to certain persons in the different provinces without calling for tenders at all. While the Prime Minister has told us that there has been no talk of scandals or undue pressure in connection with the money spent under the Relief Act, I would point out to him that it is in the interests of the country that the provision in the Public Works Act should be observed, namely, section 36 of chapter 166, part 2 of the statutes of 1927, which specifically provides that except in cases "of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest" tenders shall be called for in the case of all works over $5,000. If it is the intention of the government to give to the Minister of Public Works, as was done two or three years ago, certain sums of money to be spent on relief undertakings, the Prime Minister should instruct the Minister of Public Works to call for tenders whenever the amount involved is over $5,000. I know of a number of cases where there was no pressing emergency, and where the Minister of Public Works gave these moneys to certain persons and they were not spent for relief purposes at all. People who were not in need of relief, men in good circumstances, were made foremen of the works and supplied timber to carry on the work. If moneys are to be voted under this act the government should be very careful to see that all of the moneys spent go direct to the people who are in need of relief and who want to get work or to supply timber in connection with these works. I would ask the Prime Minister to see that that is done.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the statement of the hon. gentle-

man who has just addressed the committee I would point out that he has apparently overlooked one clause of that act which says that when the officers of the Public Works department certify that in their opinion the works can be executed more expeditiously and economically by days' work than by calling for tenders, it may be done in that way. Obviously there are certain works for which it is very difficult to prepare specifications and call for tenders in advance, and it is only in cases of that kind that works exceeding $5,000 are done by days' work, or possibly in some cases under the Unemployment Relief Act where it was possible to give a larger measure of employment by doing the work by day labour rather than by contract. Of course when a contract is awarded the contractor decides who shall be employed, and although in some cases the works done by days' work did exceed $5,000 the work was done in that way in places where there was considerable unemployment and where it was possible to rotate men who were in need of work. I can assure my hon. friend that the spirit and intention of the Public Works Act has been respected, and whenever it has been departed from it was either for the reason that the work could not be done expeditiously and economically by contract, or because the circumstances were such that there was special need for relieving unemployment.


William Duff: I cannot agree with the Minister of Public Works, because I know of cases where the work would have been done much more expeditiously and economically if tenders had been called for, and not only that, but more men would have been employed had the work been given out by contract. The minister could very well have inserted in the contract, if he was afraid that the contractor would not give work to certain people, that the work should be divided among the people in the community who were in need of work. It is all very well for the minister to try to put this on the shoulders of his officials and say that they advised him that these works could be done more expeditiously by days' labour than by contract, but I know differently, and I say that he cannot blame the officials of his department. These amounts were spent and the advice was given to the officials and they were told what to do by the minister in the head office here at Ottawa. All I say to the Prime Minister is that if any moneys are to be spent under this Relief Act for public works, tenders should be called for instead of the work being done as it has been done in the past by the Minister of Public Works.
Relief Act, 1934


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend has said either too much or too little. I ask him to give me now the work that he refers to which he says was done in this irregular way, and I will investigate. I assure him that no instructions were given by me in any way in conflict with the Public Works Act.


William Duff: I quite agree with the minister that no instructions were given by him in conflict with the Public Works Act, but you can drive a horse and cart through that act if you want to; you can read it seventeen different ways, and that is the way lawyers draft bills. I say to the minister that I know of different cases but I am not going to give him the information. Let him go down and examine the files. I know of one instance where they had two foremen, one at $7 per day and one at $6.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where was that?


William Duff: Let the minister go down and examine the files. There is another case where he paid 15 oents per foot for logs and 6 cents for poles.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where was that?


William Duff: I ask the minister to find out where it was.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Say where it was.


William Duff: The minister knows where it was.


Thomas Cantley: You are making the
charge; why do you not substantiate it? ,


William Duff: When the public accounts
committee meets I will make the charges. Let the minister produce the files then; that is the time to do it, not now.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is the second time my hon. friend has made this statement. On the previous occasion I pressed him just as hard as I could, and I do so now, to tell me the place where this work was carried on. Will he tell me the constituency in which it was carried on?


William Duff: When the public accounts
committee meets I shall be delighted to produce the information. All I am doing now is to ask the Prime Minister not to repeat in this bill what happened two years ago when money was passed over to the Minister of Public Works to do certain repairs and to construct certain works in Nova Scotia.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will my hon.
friend give me the name of the foreman?
Relief Act, 1934


William Duff: No; go and look at your files and find out.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How can I go
through all the files to find out?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I ask my hon.
friend to confer a favour and enable me to investigate this matter to see if there is any further action which should be taken. I ask him to give me sufficient information to do this. If he is not prepared to do it now, will he write me a letter?


William Duff: My hon. friend can look over the returns which I asked for last year. There were not very many.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There were a
good many last year.


William Duff: Not by me.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, a good
many.


William Duff: No.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will my hon.
friend write me a letter giving me such information as will help me to trace this matter or to identify it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Antigonish-Guysborough has charged the Minister of Public Works with having done certain things. The minister has asked him for the name of the constituency, and if he cannot give that; for the name of the work and the name of the foreman, but the answer he has received is "go and look at the files".


William Duff: I did not do the work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Most hon. members of this house are at least fairminded. I have always found them thus, although the bitterness of their criticism of myself is not always fair. Let hon. members just reverse the conditions; put one of you in as Minister of Public Works. If a member on this side made a charge and then you, as minister, asked for the name of the foreman, of the work or of the constituency, would you not expect an answer? He who asserts must prove. A charge is made but the only answer given is "go and look at your files." Is that fair?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stirling):: The question is on the amendment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Read the amendment.
IMr. H. A. Stewart.]


Grote Stirling: It is moved by Mr. Mackenzie, Vancouver Centre, seconded by Mr. Casgrain, that section 5 be amended by inserting the words "and appropriated by parliament" after the word "necessary" in line 16.
Amendment (Mr. Mackenzie, Vancouver) negatived on division.
Section division.	4	(now	section	5)	agreed	to	onSection division.	5	(now	section	6)	agreed	to	onSection division.	6	(now	section	7)	agreed	to	onSection division.	7	(now	section	8)	agreed	to	onSection division.	8	(now	section	9)	agreed	to	onOn section	9 (now section	10)-Payment	
of delayed accounts in excess of amount authorized.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is a new section?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. This is to meet a situation which developed in the case of Montreal, for instance, and I trust my mentioning this will not cause any unnecessary discussion. In this case the accounts were received yesterday, which is several days after March 31.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is retroactive in effect?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is to cover a situation of that kind. Yesterday we received the accounts only down to July and we have not as yet received the remainder.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10 (now section 11)-Duration of act.
Grote Stirling: An
amendment is moved by Mr. Ralston, seconded by Mr. Stewart (West Edmonton), that section 10 be amended by striking out all the words which follow the words "March, 1935" to the end of the section.


James Layton Ralston: I am sponsoring this amendment. Could the Prime Minister give the committee an explanation for the proposal that a liability incurred before March 31 but not paid shall be authorized by this bill rather than follow the usual practice of the audit act? The fiscal year expires on March 31 and that act makes provision by order in

Relief Act, 1934
council, not by governor general's warrant, for the extension for two months of the time of payment of all liabilities incurred before the end of the fiscal year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A specific case arose a year ago, and upon consultation with the Department of Justice it was found that there was grave doubt as to our ability to deal with the situation unless we included the provisions of section 9. Section 10 deals with the actual conditions of this year's work. We were hoping that this would be the end of this form of legislation and this provision would enable the government to clean up the situation in the manner I have indicated. Having regard to our experience last year in connection with expenditures for which we did not get vouchers, it was thought desirable to deal with it in this way.


James Layton Ralston: The Prime Minister will remember the discussion which took place in 1931 when a special vote was brought down for capital requirements of the Canadian National Railways. At that time the Prime Minister had a provision in the bill to this effect:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, this appropriation shall not lapse before May 31, 1931.
He proposed to incorporate in the bill permission to extend payments under it over a period of two months after the end of the fiscal year. His attention was directed to this matter by the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) who, from his long departmental experience, was very familiar with the audit act. After considering the matter, the Prime Minister moved to strike out-that clause. I do not know that I recall the exact words of the hon. member for Rimouski, but his argument was to the effect that this was a grave invasion of a very important principle which had been laid down in connection with capital expenditures. Section 49 of the act says that the bell rings and the fiscal year closes on March 31, and that all bills shall be in at that time. However, in order that the public service may not suffer there is a provision in the same section which says that for two months afterwards the governor in council may, by order in council, pay accounts for expenditures which have been incurred prior to the end of the fiscal year; in other words, two months' leeway is given. I ask the Prime Minister if he cannot see his way clear to accept the amendment now proposed in connection with this measure in order to preserve that principle. When the Canadian National bill to which I have referred was under consideration in 1931, the Prime Minister gave as
a reason for the insertion of this clause the fact that it was a very special matter and that the advice given by the auditors was that it was desirable. He said it was for that reason and no other that the clause was inserted. At page 517 of Hansard of March, 1931, he is reported as having made this statement:
This is not our money for the purpose of expending it as we please.
In other words, the fund was specially earmarked for the purpose of expenditures for the Canadian National Railways. This, on the other hand, is a general fund earmarked for relief purposes, but without the limitation of a specific amount, and it may be devoted to a variety of purposes. So that the special nature of the funds in connection with the bill with which we are dealing to-night is not nearly so pronounced as it was in connection with the Canadian National bill of 1931. He proceeds:
It is required to meet specific deficits in the operation of the railway; and their audit is made, not ours. All we do is to pass it out of our hands under the circumstances to which I have alluded. I desire, inasmuch as it may be difficult under present conditions to raise the sum of money required in a moment or two, that we and the railway company both should have an extension of time until the 31st of May in which to deal with the matter. It is unusual, I admit. It has been done only once before, but that was on an occasion somewhat similar to this. If the committee thinks that the public interest is not being as well served in this way as in some other, I am content; but it might result in the sum of money not being made available at all.
Now that we have had relief bills for two years without this provision, I would ask the Prime Minister seriously to consider accepting the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We could not accept the amendment the hon. gentleman has offered without dislocating the whole machinery, unless we got in the accounts a little more rapidly than we have. I shall be quite content, if it will meet the wishes of the opposition, to add these words, after the words "revenue fund":
-at any time prior to the first day of July, 1935.
That gives a little longer than two months; it gives to the end of June-April, May and June-in which to clean up the situation. I think the hon. gentleman will realize, having regard to the difficulties of getting the accounts straightened out, audited and vouched, that it might take that time, and if it will meet the situation I suggest that the amendment be accepted.
Relief Act, 1934


James Layton Ralston: How will it work out?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The section will read:
This act shall expire on the 31st day of March, 1935, but any obligation or liability incurred or created under the authority of this act prior to the 31st day of March, 1935, together with any liability for expenditures after that date for projects required to be completed in order to preserve the value of work already done may be paid and discharged out of the consolidated revenue fund at any time prior to the first day of July, 1935.
In other words, that extends the time, so that instead of two months as indicated in the Audit Act, it will be three months, having regard to the very special difficulties that have to be met in connection with some of these matters. I am content to do this if it will expedite the transaction.


Charles A. Stewart: The objection is that it gives an extension of three months to the activities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. The
fiscal year ends on March 31 and this amendment extends the time for three months.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; it extends only the
time for payment of obligations.


Charles A. Stewart: But you
have still embodied in the clause works that may be continued.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only for one purpose,
but they have to be paid for within that time.


Charles A. Stewart: My objection is just as serious to the amendment as it is to the section as it stands.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Frankly, I do not think my hon. friend has followed the purport of my suggestions. I am prepared to limit that section to three months. The hon. gentleman said two, which is the general provision of the Audit Act. For instance, when the budget is delivered we can only make an estimate of revenues and expenditures up to March 31, because the accounts come in for the next two months, in order to clean up the transactions for the fiscal year. I suggest that we be allowed the extra month, having regard to the kind of business this is, and dealing as we are with municipalities, direct relief and matters of that kind, and our experience in Montreal and other places, though perhaps not to the same extent. Under the circumstances I think I am warranted in making this suggestion.

The only other question, then, in regard to which the hon. gentleman has any difficulty is that we may create further liabilities with respect to projects that require to be completed in order to preserve the value of the work, but they would have to be paid for also. I am making provision for payment by the first of July.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
still opposed to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am prepared to provide that payment for everything mentioned in section 10 shall be made prior to the first day of July, 1935.


James Layton Ralston: With all deference to the Prime Minister, and realizing that he is endeavouring to meet us, I submit that the compromise which he proposes is not worth while. For the extension of the extra month it is not worth while violating the principle laid down by the Audit Act, which has been observed by parliament with the single exception to which reference has been made. The Prime Minister is asking us in this particular bill not only to extend the powers with respect to peace, order and good government, not only to grant a blank cheque, but to amend the Audit Act as well. I submit that the matter ought to be left as it is. These accounts should be in by the end of May. I appreciate his endeavour to meet us but it is the principle of the thing and not the length of time. I submit that the Audit Act should be the governing act so far as the payment of government liabilities is concerned, and we know that under the general act all accounts must be in if the federal government takes the responsibility of passing orders in council.
Amendment (Mr. Ralston) negatived on division.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I move that after the
word "fund" in the last line but one of the section all the words to the end of the section be stricken out and that there be substituted the following words:
At any time prior to the first day of July, 1935.


Alan Webster Neill: Does the Prime Minister not think that the section still needs the words proposed to be struck out?


Richard Bedford Bennett: With the language that precedes those words they are not necessary.
Amendment (Mr. Bennett) agreed to on division.
Section as amended agreed to.


Grote Stirling: Shall
the preamble carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are two lines added to what was there last year, about the Department of National Defence and the Department of the Interior.


Mr. HEENAN:: On this section I should
like to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that this is the fifth bill of this nature that has been introduced in parliament, if he does not think it is about time we should try to get together with the provinces for the purpose of amending the British North America Act so that the federal parliament can deal with its own expenditures and the provinces deal with theirs. I have observed that many of the newspapers in Canada to-day that were opposed to social services such as old age pensions, unemployment insurance and matters of that kind are now advocating that the British North America Act should be changed so as to permit the federal government to carry on certain services. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister state the other evening that he now sees the necessity of amending that act so that the government can deal with social problems. I cannot see now very much to hinder such amendment: the people of Canada are in favour of it, the newspapers seem to be in favour of it, the Prime Minister is in favour of it, and the leader of the official opposition placed himself on record in favour of it in two or three statements which I shall quote.


Hugh Guthrie: Are the nine provinces in favour of it?


Peter Heenan: I shall speak about that
in a minute or two. The leader of the opposition said on March 13, 1930:
If the provinces themselves are not able to meet the obligations it was hoped they would be able to meet when there was a division of jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government, then the way to meet that situation is by revising the subsidies that are to be paid to the provinces. Let us have a general revision of the subsidies, and let us make an allotment to the several provinces in the form of subsidies to which each will be entitled as a matter of right and as a matter of law, not something for which they will have to look to the federal treasury for a term of years, and which comes to them as a matter of grace.
That will be found at page 580 of Hansard for March 13, 1930. Then again on May 26,
Relief Act, 1934
1931; at page 1966, he is reported as having said:
The time I think has arrived when this matter should be made the subject of a conference concerned with a financial readjustment between the dominion and the provinces. If it does appear that the provinces are entitled to something more than the subsidies as fixed at the present time, by all means let the subsidies be revised and an increased amount given. A step which might serve the purpose equally well, and possibly even better, would be for this federal government to take over some of the services which at present are being left to the provinces.
Again on July 23, 1931, at page 4102 of Hansard:
I have no objection to any just increase which might result from proper revision of the subsidies, but I would point out to my hon. friend that before having the country go further into debt, before imposing more in the way of taxation upon the people, it would be advisable for the government to call a dominion-provincial conference and review the different services which are being carried on by the different administrations, take into account all grants which have been made in the past and now are being made to the provinces by the federal administration and see if it is not possible to make some definite arrangement whereby the provinces on their part and the dominion on its part will themselves thereafter raise all that is necessary for the carrying out of the particular services which may be assigned to them. If the provinces have not a sufficient latitude in the way of fields of taxation, then more latitude should be given.
Again at page 4120 of Hansard the right hon. leader of the opposition is reported as having said:
... I again appeal to the ministry, although I know my words will not be hearkened to, to consider whether the time has not come when we ought to call the provinces into conference to find out, where there is any doubt, what services should be carried on by the provinces, what services should be carried on by the dominion, what is a fair adjustment of financial arrangements between them, what are the sources of revenue and taxation for each of them to have. If as a result of that conference it is decided' that the British North America Act should be amended so that the federal parliament shall take over in its entirety the work of industrial and technical education in all parts of Canada, I shall be prepared to support a recommendation of that kind.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) a moment ago asked me if the provinces had agreed. I do not know. I do not know because I have not been in the confidence of the government. The government have called a few dominion-provincial conferences, but
Relief Act, 1984

little has been made public as to what occurred at those conferences except a statement once in a while from the government benches that we cannot do thus and so until the provinces agree. Surely if ever any government of Canada had a mandate from the people to amend the British North America Act, or at least to do things even to that extent, this government has. Hon. gentlemen who are now members of this government went out and told the people that they would do these things if they were elected. In my opinion that mandate is of more force and effect than that which any British parliament, any mother of parliaments, can give. I consider that the government have a mandate, especially since they asked for it. The time is long past for any further delay in the taking of steps to secure an amendment to the British North America Act to enable the government to carry on necessary social services such as old age pensions, workmen's compensation, unemployment, health insurance and all these matters. The official opposition has through its leader put itself on record as favourable to it, I know that the Liberal party in the province of Ontario are in favour of it, because they have had it in their platform for three or four years. Steps should be taken, especially after our experience of the last four years, to secure an amendment of the British North America Act so that the federal government can keep control over its own finances and take charge of all these social services.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mentioned to this committee the other day in answer to observations made by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) that I was of the opinion that the constitution would have to be amended in order to enable matters affecting social services to be dealt with by the federal power. I suggest to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) that he communicate with the leader of his party in the province of Quebec. I hold in my hand a newspaper in which already, as a result of the very few observations I made the other evening, we see on the front page in large headlines:
Bennett would revise the constitution. Taschereau defends the rights of the provinces.
Then there is a picture of the Prime Minister, under which it says:
Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, Prime Minister of Canada, who signified his intention to make [Mr. Heenon.J
amendments to the constitution of Canada for the purpose of dealing with social measures.
Then there is a picture of Mr. Taschereau, the premier of Quebec;
-who has constituted himself the new champion of provincial autonomy and is opposed to any changes in the Canadian constitution without a conference between Ottawa and the provinces, and the unanimous consent of all the provinces.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which paper is that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the Sherbrooke Tribune of April 12, and similar statements appeared in other newspapers in Quebec. With the best of intentions I commend to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River the very pleasant task of spending the recess in converting to his principles the premier of Quebec, and I doubt not that after he has laboured with that gentleman long and arduously he will have induced him to believe that these amendments are necessary. I leave that task to the hon. gentleman.


Peter Heenan: If I were to use the words of the right hon. Prime Minister probably I would say, as was said from the platform in 1930, that I will not prescribe until I am called in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You have been a volunteer prescriber.


Peter Heenan: There is also the fact that I talk a little Gaelic; I am not so sure that Premier Taschereau would understand that, and I know I would not understand his French, so I think probably the Prime Minister would make a better job of it.
I realize that there is something in what the Prime Minister says; I realize that if we wait here until we get the nine provinces to agree to the amendment of the British North America Act it never will be amended.
I recall a conference I attended here in 1927, when not only Premier Taschereau and his government but the government of Nova Scotia as well were unalterably opposed to changing the British North America Act. At that time the government of Nova Scotia was headed by the late Premier Harrington and was represented here by the present Minister of Finance. The province of Ontario, represented by the present attorney general, Hon. Mr. Price, and my old friend Hon. Howard Ferguson, was opposed also. So here we are

Relief Act, 1934
boxed up, as it were. To-night the Prime Minister advanced the best argument that I have heard as to why the act should be amended. The right hon. gentleman said that if we state a definite amount in this bill the provinces will clamour for what they think is coming to them; even if they need only $2,000,000 if there is $20,000,000 to be divided they will want their share. I think the Prime Minister was right in that argument; I agree with him, and that is just another reason why we in this federal parliament should take care to see to it, when we are spending money, that we spend our own money over which we have control.
There is another course that occurs to me. If these provinces are in the financial position they say they are in, and I have no doubt that is the fact; if they come to this government for aid why could not the government make it a part of the bargain that the British North America Act should be changed in order to allow the federal government to administer many of these things on their own account? I make that suggestion to the Prime Minister in good faith;
I believe that could be done. I do not believe the present Prime Minister, the present government or any government of any other political stripe ever will be able to induce the nine provinces to agree to the amendment of the British North America Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We got them to agree to a uniform companies act.


Peter Heenan: Yes, they will form companies, but when it is a question of legislating with regard to fair wages, old age pensions, shorter working days and so on it is a different thing altogether. I am not going to take up the time of the committee further. I make this suggestion, and by this time I should think the Prime Minister would be convinced that we should have control of our own money. If we have to give it to the provinces then let us give it to them under proper conditions so that we can control it ourselves.


Wilfred Hanbury: Before this bill is reported may I say that I think the discussion introduced by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is quite interesting. I refer to the questions of the amendment of the constitution. I have no desire to embarrass the Prime Minister at all, but in view of the
interest that has been shown in this subject from one end of Canada to the other during the past month or so I would inquire of the Prime Minister if he cares to say whether he considers that any amendment could be made that is not unanimous.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Two answers could be given to that question; one is the political answer and the other is the legal answer. The legal answer is that if this parliament-and that means both houses-adopts a resolution embodying a petition to the sovereign for the enactment of legislation by the parliament at Westminster amending the British North America Act, under the statute of Westminster such legislation would be enacted accordingly.
I referred to the political argument the other day. The constitution of Canada is a compromise, and the extent to which variations of that constitution should be effected, if they impinge upon the rights of the provinces that were the original partners to the confederation pact, is a matter that would require careful consideration, in my judgment, looking to the future as it might be affected by any breach in the harmony that would be involved by making amendments that did not meet with the approval of all the provinces.
Preamble agreed to on division.
Title agreed to on division.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the bill is reported I should like to correct one error into which some of my hon. friends fell. When I moved the house into committee last night just before eleven o'clock I did so because, when I moved the committee up earlier in the day, I stated that it would meet again that day, and in order that the rules might be kept I had to move the house again into committee and move it up at once. That was not done in consequence of any action taken by the opposition. I should like to free the opposition from any blame that may attach in relation to that phase of the matter.


Charles A. Stewart: We were not taking any.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That condition never
arises, but I noticed the press expressed that opinion. There is one other thing; with regard to the address over the radio last evening it lasted only until half past eight. It was because my hon. friend pursued the course that he did with respect to a matter that I had endeavoured to explain three times

________________ Questions
that it was thought that if we delayed discussion a better opportunity might be afforded for disposing of the matter than would be the case if we then proceeded. If we had been in a position to go on my hon. friend the Minister of Justice would have taken up that phase of the question.
Bill reported.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house , adjourned at 10.35 p.m.
Monday, April 16, 1934