TARIFF BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister); I beg to lay on the table certified copy of a minute of a meeting of the committee of the privy council approved by the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General on March 23, 1934, respecting the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada of certain questions affecting the Tariff Board Act.

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) :: I desire to lay on the table the following documents:
Complete texts of orders in council which were passed during the recess of parliament and which were synopsized in the Canada Gazette ;
Also sessional paper No. 84, being a memorandum of the auditor general with respect to the investigation of relief payments in the province of Saskatchewan;
Also a statement showing the number of refunds which have been made to the dominion government under the Relief Acts of 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933;
Also full texts of orders in council directing the auditor general with respect to audits of relief accounts.

All of this was asked for by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) on Thursday last.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. COTNAM:: How many native born Canadians returned to Canada to take up residence, during the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934 respectively ?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The number of Canadian born persons, still British subjects returning to Canada from the United States, after having taken up residence in the United States, is as follows:
Fiscal year 1930-1931	 26.811
"	"	1931-1932	
17,691"	"	1932-1933	
16,32010 months ended January, 1934.	7,619
The following table shows the number of Canadian bom persons returning from other countries than the United States, but the department is unable to show how many of these returned after having taken up residence abroad; it is thought that the number of such is very small and that practically the entire movement is made up of Canadians who have been visiting abroad:
Fiscal year 1930-1931	 13,989
"	"	1931-1932	
11,020"	"	1932-1933	
11,79610 months ended January, 1934.	10,090


MR. A. J. MORIN
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Has Mr. A. J. Morin carried the mail to the post office of Pied du Lac, Boisvert, Les Etroits and Belanger siding, since 1930?
2.	If so, from what date to what other date?
3.	Is there a contract between the said Mr. Morin and the Post Office Department with respect to the carriage of the mail to such localities?
4.	If so, what date does such contract bear and what sum was paid to the said Mr. Morin, to date?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	From August 9, 1933, to November 20, 1933.
3.	No.
4.	Mr. Morin performed this service free of cost to the Post Office Department.

Questions as Orders jor Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	Has the government received petitions asking that a tax of 20 cents per pound be levied on the sale of leaf tobacco?
2.	If so, how many such petitions have been received?
3.	How many persons in each province, made such a request?
4.	How many persons, in each separate municipality, signed such petitions?
5.	What manufacturers proposed or recommended the taxation of leaf tobacco?
6.	What are the municipalities whose municipal councils may have approved, by way of resolutions, the proposal to tax leaf tobacco?
7.	Has the government received petitions or resolutions from municipal councils protesting against such a proposal?
8.	If so, how many?
9.	How many persons, in each province, signed such petitions of protest?
10.	How many persons, in each municipality, signed such petitions of protest?
11.	What are the municipalities whose municipal councils may have protested, by way of resolutions, against the proposal to tax leaf tobacco?


Mr. RHODES:: In asking that this question stand, as an order for return I might indicate that it asks for a great deal of information of a character which hitherto has been regarded as confidential, namely, representations made to the government with respect to matters affecting tariff and taxation. I have no objection to its passing, but it must be understood that we must conform to the usual practice in this respect in bringing down the return.


PENSION COMMISSIONERS
Mr. ROSS:: 1.	How many sessions of quorums of the Canadian pension commission have been held since the appointment of the commission?
2.	Where vrere these sessions held, and what members of the commission sat at each session?
3.	How many cases were considered at each .session and how many decisions favourable to applicants were given?



LAUZON, QUE., DRY DOCK CLERKSHIP

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PO'UDIOT:
1.	Did the civil service commission advertise a vacant clerkship, grade 3, at the drydoek at Lauzon, Quebec, in 1933?
2.	If so, what persons applied for this position ?
3.	What was the rating of each such person?
4.	Was an appointment made in connection -with the filling of such position?
5.	If so, who was appointed and upon whose recommendation ?
Mr. CAHAN:: Return tabled herewith.



RENTAL OF OFFICES IN HAMILTON

Mr. WILSON:: 1.	What offices are rented by the dominion government in the city of Hamilton?
2.	Who owns these buildings?
3.	From what agent or agency were they leased?
4.	When and for how long were leases made?
5.	What amount of rent is paid in each lease?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Return tabled
herewith.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-SASKATCHEWAN AND MANITOBA EMPLOYEES

Mr. VALLANCE:: 1.	What are the names, ages, titles and addresses of all inspectors in the employment of the federal Department of Agriculture in Saskatchewan during the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, showing which were permanent and which were temporary?
2.	How many of such inspectors have had their services dispensed with in Saskatchewan since January 1, 1933?
3.	What were the specific reasons of termination of services?
4.	What are the names, ages and titles of all returned soldiers in the employment of the Department of Agriculture in Saskatchewan during the years 1930, 1931, 1932. and 1933?
5.	What are the salaries of each?
6.	What per cent of war pension did each receive, if any?
7.	What are the names, ages and titles of those whose services were dispensed with during 1933?
8.	How many inspectors have been engaged by the Department of Agriculture in Manitoba and Saskatchewan since 1929?
9.	What are their names, addresses and official titles?
10.	What are the names and addresses of such inspectors still in the employ of the Department of Agriculture?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. VENIOT:: For a copy of all correspondence, orders in council and other documents, in connection with the dismissal of Dr. L. R. Murray, medical representative of the Department of Pensions and National Health at Sussex, New Brunswick, and the appointment of his successor.



RIVIERE AU RENARD, GASPE, WHARF

Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of all pay lists respecting works carried out at the wharf of Riviere au Renard, county of Gaspe, during the years 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933.
1S06
Motions for Papers



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF ACT-NEW BRUNSWICK

Maurice Brasset: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and reports exchanged between the federal government	and	the	government	of	New
Brunswick, respecting the refund of federal contributions made by virtue of the Unemployment Relief Acts of 1930 and 1931.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF ACT-NOVA SCOTIA Mr. BRASSET (for Mr. Rheaume):
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and reports exchanged between the federal government	and	the	government	of	Nova
Scotia, respecting the refund of federal contributions made by virtue of the Unemployment Relief Acts of 1930 and 1931.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF ACT-ONTARIO

Maurice Brasset: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and reports exchanged between the federal government and the government of Ontario, respecting the refund of federal contributions made by virtue of the Unemployment Relief Acts of 1930 and 1931.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF ACT-SASKATCHEWAN

Maurice Brasset: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and reports exchanged between the federal government and the government of Saskatchewan, respecting the refund of federal contributions made by virtue of the Unemployment Relief Acts of 1930 and 1931.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF ACT-BRITISH COLUMBIA

Maurice Brasset: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and reports exchanged between the federal government and' the government of British Columbia, respecting the refund of federal contributions made by virtue of the Unemployment Relief Acts of 1930 and 1931.



LOANS TO BRITISH COLUMBIA-CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. PLUNKETT:: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, orders in council or other correspondence, between the Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, Minister of Labour or the deputy ministers, and the Prime Minister of British Columbia or any other cabinet minister of the present government of British Columbia or their deputy ministers in reference to direct financial loans to the province of British Columbia and unemployment relief measures, with a complete statement of such loans and amounts paid or received in accordance with the last available returns.
SALE OF NICKEL TO RUSSIA On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: 
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I presume that the hon.
gentleman heard the other day in the debate on this subject most of the information he is seeking in the question.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I could not get the information. May I ask if the Minister of Trade and Commerce has no knowledge of this nickel deal?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Only what I read in the
press.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: The hon. gentleman perhaps knows
that sales of all Canadian metals are largely made, not in Canada at all but through metal brokers in Great Britain, to whom the metal in many instances is sold and who resell it. That is the reason we are not in a position to say what the final destination of many of our sales of metals and minerals may be. I assume that the hon. gentleman from his personal investigations has ascertained that, as I have. That reference made in the Express of yesterday, if it is accurately transmitted, may involve a well known firm making sales with which we have nothing to do; the nickel might have been bought and held by them in store for a substantial period of time.



CAIRO POSTAL CONGRESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: I would
like to draw to the attention of the Prime Minister and to the members of this chamber generally the fact that although the Postmaster General has returned from an extended trip abroad the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is not in his seat to greet him.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: I
would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Senate of the United States has declined to ratify the treaty providing for the joint construction of a St. Lawrence waterway is that treaty now null and void?

Marketing Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: I made a statement on the matter
the other day which is self-explanatory, and to which I have nothing to add.


William Daum Euler: I am afraid I did not catch it.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Railways. A few days ago I asked him a question regarding the abandonment by the Canadian National Railways of the line from Hope to Vancouver. At that time he stated to me that he had no knowledge of any such abandonment. In view of a report which has just reached me that trackage is being constructed at the present time by the Canadian Pacific Railway with that end in view I would ask the minister if he would be good enough to inquire into this and bring a report.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) :: Yes, I shall make inquiry, and answer the hon. gentleman to-morrow if possible.



MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That, it is expedient to bring in a measure to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to provide for a dominion marketing board, the remuneration of the members thereof and of assistants and employers, and to authorize payment to the board of such sums of money as may be necessary for the purposes of the proposed legislation.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe that at the close of the sitting on Friday last it was indicated that the first order of business would be the relief bill. But if it be convenient to take up order number 17 first it would enable the house to see the printed bill as soon as the first reading is given. As the bill is already printed it might be desirable to proceed in that way, without in any way lessening anybody's rights.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: If it will expedite matters the opposition is quite agreeable to have the house proceed in that order.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Morand in the chair.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I think this is an opportune time for the minister to give us details of what he intends to do under the proposed bill.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: I feel that no purpose would be served by attempting to go into the details of the matter now, for no matter what interpretation I might give, hon. members when they have the bill before them, might wish to give another interpretation. Therefore I think it desirable that the matter be expedited so that the bill be placed before them for their own study and consideration.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: This matter of the establishment of a marketing board has been in the minister's mind now for over three years, and I have no doubt discussed quite fully by the government in council and so should be fairly well prepared for complete incubation by this time. I therefore do not feel like delaying it much, because there are farmer representatives here who have been waiting anxiously for the last two months to get a peep at this bill before they return home prior to the Easter recess. Therefore any delay on my part would be just aggravating the delay that has already occurred. I might however, point out that some explanation might be made as to what "natural products'' includes. Does it include processed or semi-processed commodities? Does it include bacon, cheese and other products which strictly speaking are not natural products because they have been processed? If the marketing bill does not include these products it would be looked upon by many as quite incomplete. Two years ago, when the minister's estimates were up, I indicated that I was favourably disposed to the proposition of an export marketing board, and I am still of that opinion, but I think the minister might give us a little inkling of what is contained in the bill and its main principles. We do not know when the bill will be brought down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be introduced as soon as the resolution is through.


William Richard Motherwell: Then perhaps I had better wait patiently for the bill.
Marketing Act


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think it is usual in a matter of this kind for the minister to supply us with some information; otherwise this becomes a purely formal matter. We are not generally asked to accept a pig in a poke, to use an old phrase; we should have some intimation as to what really is the scope of this bill.


Robert Weir: The bill is printed and it is intended to move the first reading as soon as the resolution is reported. Then hon. members will have the bill before them for consideration. The explanation of the bill itself is pretty well covered, in a general way, in the resolution. It has to do with the marketing of natural products. There have been many discussions in this house in connection with the marketing of natural products, and questions have been raised as to whether or not the farmer received a fan-proportion of the price paid by the consumer. The question also has been raised as to the control of the rate at which products should go forward. It is the purpose of this bill to take what steps may be deemed advisable to make it possible, by cooperation with the trade and the producers, to have a greater proportion of the money spent by the consumer go to the producer.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then may I ask one other question. Is it contemplated that this bill will dovetail with provincial bills that we may expect to have passed?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I should like to ask the minister the same question that was asked by the ex-Minister of Agriculture. This bill deals with natural products, such as wheat, cattle, pigs, sheep and so on, but does it deal with such things as flour, bran, shorts, bacon, ham, mutton, beef and articles partly processed?


Robert Weir: Natural products and those partially processed.


Thomas F. Donnelly: It does not deal with butter and cheese?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Mr. ILSLEY:: The horticultural council
passed a resolution in favour of setting up a dominion marketing board for fruit. I should like to ask the minister whether this is the board or w-hether a separate marketing board is t* be set ip for the marketing of fruit.
CMr. Motherwell.l


Robert Weir: I am sure hon. members will agree that this will be best explained when the bill is introduced. Full consideration has been given the recommendations of the horticultural council in the drafting of the bill.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Is it the intention to send the bill to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization?


Robert Weir: That still has to be decided.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If that is done this will be our only opportunity to ask questions of the minister.


Robert Weir: No; there will be
ample opportunity for that even if the bill is sent to the committee.


Mr. DUFF:: In view of the fact that this resolution mentions natural products I wonder if the minister can tell the committee whether fish and fish products will be included.


Robert Weir: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think the minister should give a little further explanation as to the provisions of this bill. This measure is of vital importance to many sections of the dominion; in my constituency there is perhaps more interest shown in this legislation than in anything else to be brought down this session. I think the committee should be informed as to the general principles of the bill. It might be possible to set up a marketing board with very wide powers; it might have the power to curtail exports or perhaps to restrict production. Very important and far-reaching principles may be at stake.


Robert Weir: Provision is made
in the bill for cooperation with provincial and other boards that may be set up in accordance with the bill. Might I suggest once more that if hon. members would report this resolution the bill would be placed in their hands at once for consideration and study.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is
the only time we will be in committee, and this is our only opportunity to ask questions of the minister in regard to the bill itself.


Robert Weir: On the motion for
second reading there will be ample opportunity to discuss the details of the bill.


Mr. IRVINE:: I should like to ask the
minister if wheat is included in the products to be marketed under the proposed bill.

Marketing Act


Robert Weir: All agricultural
products are included.


Mr. NEILL:: The words used are " natural products." Would that cover fish and lumber?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I should like to ask the minister if the members of this marketing board will be typically representative of agriculture in a national sense?


Robert Weir: I have no hesitation in saying that the members of the board will be chosen with regard to their qualifications to look after the interests of agriculture.


John Vallance: I should like to ask
the minister if this is the legislation under which the provincial measures are going to be made operative.


Robert Weir: I would suggest
that the'interpretation of the bill might better be left until the bill itself is before the house.


John Vallance: I appreciate that the
minister may not be as familiar with the procedure of this house as others may be, but this is the first intimation we have had as to this resolution on which the bill is to be based, and this is our first opportunity to discuss it. If the resolution is accepted probably the bill will be accepted, but I believe it would be possible- to kill this legislation at this stage. How can we consider the matter intelligently unless we know something of the provisions of the bill?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: This morning there came to my hand a copy of the legislation being introduced in the legislature of Alberta. I just want to say to the minister that if his legislation is as drastic, with regard to the marketing of wheat, as are the proposals contained in the provincial bill, so far as I am concerned I intend to offer it pretty strenuous opposition. I quite appreciate the fact that the minister cannot at this stage tell us about the contents of the bill; to get that we will have to wait until the bill is introduced. But the proposals which have been introduced in the legislature of the province of Alberta are the most drastic that I have know-n to be introduced into any democratic legislature since I have been acquainted with public affairs. I wish to say only this, that if I were a member of the legislature instead of a member of the House of Commons I would oppose them with all the strength I possess. I trust this government is not going quite that far.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: Is it any more drastic
than the Special Powers Act introduced by Mr. Pattullo in British Columbia?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will have to speak on his own behalf; I cannot say as to that.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Morand):: Shall
the resolution carry?


John Vallance: No; I should like to
ask the minister the same question he was asked before: Under the bill will it be possible for us to discuss the whole of legislation pertaining to marketing, or the control of the production of wheat in the Dominion of Canada? In this regard I am like the hon. member for West Edmonton. I have in my office to-day a copy of a bill which either has been put through the legislature of Saskatchewan or is being contemplated, and I should like tc know if the legislation now before us is tc be simply concurring legislation to make the provincial measure operative?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member probably knows that the provinces have jurisdiction with respect to property and civil rights, and the question as to the quantity of wheat which may be grown is a matter to be dealt with by provincial legislatures. The bill which will be founded upon this resolution, dealing as it does with natural products, will of course afford opportunities if occasion arises, to deal with any question which may arise in connection with wheat.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) has raised a question which I think might properly be discussed. The only reason the resolution is before the house at all is because it involved an expenditure of public moneys. I confess that when the new rules made it no longer necessary to introduce resolutions when dealing with matters of trade and commerce we thought possibly this measure might not require a resolution. But in view of the provision for the payment of officials out of public revenues it is quite dear that a resolution is necessary. I appreciate and sympathize with -the difficulty mentioned by the hon. member. In moving his resolution the minister is not supposed to do more than to state the general purposes of the measure. On the introduction of his bill, when asked, as I understand the rules he should, he may give a succinct statement indicating the general purposes of the legislation, and the principles to be crystallized into legislative form. And in committee after the second reading there may be a full discussion of every detail. In the very nature of things the market-
1S10
Marketing Act

mg bill is just what it says it is, it is a bill providing for regulations as to the marketing of natural products in the dominion. Details, of course, will have to be considered, and that can be done only when the house is in committee on the measure. The motion for second reading will involve the approval or the disapproval of the general principle indicated by the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In connection
with any measure which is introduced is it not customary for the government to advise hon. members at an early date as to whether or not the measure will be referred to one of the special standing committees of the house? That has been asked, and no reply has been made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I might say to the right hon. gentleman that in recent years a practice has grown up which is wholly at variance with what was the custom in this house or is the custom in the British House of Commons. To refer measures to select standing committees was not done with respect to all the great measures passed between 1806 and 1911, 1011 and 1917, and from 1920 forward. From time immemorial the Bank Act has been referred to a special committee for reasons that are obvious. But general legislation, upon which the government has determined its policy, is usually submitted to a committee of the whole house. I know of no reason why this measure should not be dealt with by a committee of the whole house, so that questions may be asked by hon. members and answers given by the minister in charge. If there are any good reasons given why this practice should not be followed, then those reasons will have to be considered and a conclusion arrived at in an endeavour to suit the convenience of the house and the best interests of the country as affected by the legislation. At the moment I can see no reason why this measure should follow other than the ordinary course, namely to be considered by a committee of the whole house after it has received second reading.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister has answered the question asked as to the government's intention. That is all that was asked.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I take it that it is the intention of the government to refer the measure to a committee of the whole house, and that is my opinion of what should be done. I understand also, however, from the Prime Minister's remarks, that on a resolution such as the present one the minister in charge

ordinarily explains the principle of the bill. That is the only thing we are asking the Minister of Agriculture to do. As this is a matter of some interest to the part of Canada from which I came I have made some inquiries about marketing board legislation in other countries of the world, and the principles upon which marketing board acts, per se, are framed in other countries of the world. I expected the minister to tell the committee about those functions. For instance, will this marketing board have power to purchase surpluses? That is a very important power for such a board to have, and I may say that marketing boards in some other countries do have that power. Another question which might be asked is this: Will it have power to destroy surpluses, as is done in Brazil in connection with coffee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And as has been done with pigs in the United States?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Will this board have power directly or indirectly to restrict production? That is a question which will go to the very root of the principle of the bill, and one which is very important because there are people who do not believe in restriction of production, and there are others who take the opposite view. Will this board directly or indirectly have the power to fix domestic prices? I believe that if the minister would explain these matters to the committee, and tell us as to whether or not those principles are embodied in the legislation we would be fairly well satisfied at this stage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure that upon a moment's reflection the hon. member will agree that the questions he has asked are details in the application of a principle. Obviously one of the questions to be asked concerning the application of a principle is: Does the marketing measure provide for the distribution of surpluses? Further, does it provide for the restriction of production? Does it provide for the destruction of animals, such as was done in Denmark during the last few months, the ashes of which animals were used for fertilizer? Then, in the United States, there was a destruction of pigs. All these questions could be asked on the application of a principle. We may or we may not do those things. But supposing the answer were either yes or no, such answer would not have any effect upon the resolution. On the first reading of the proposed bill, having regard to its character, I understood the minister proposed to make a short statement as to the principle. Then the house, after having become seized of the whole measure would

Marketing Act
or would not give it second reading, would debate second reading, or would divide upon it and take such action with respect to it as is desirable.
Let us suppose there were no resolution at all; the only reason for the resolution is that of expenditure. Had there been no resolution, by this time leave to introduce the bill would have been granted, the __bil.l would have been read the first time, after a statement had been made, and would stand
for second reading. I can see no great reason in view of what has been said, why the details of the bill cannot be dealt with at the proper time. The principle must be considered when the measure is submitted for second reading.


Mr. POULIOT:: Before the bill is submitted to us, Mr. Chairman, I wish to put on record a few statistics in regard to the production, export and home consumption of certain products. They are as follows:
Tobacco	
Dried apples	
Canned apples	
Canned pears	
Pickles and sauces. . .. Unmanufactured leather. Manufactured leather..
Canned tomatoes	
Vegetable oils in pounds Vegetable oils in gallons
Pish products	
Unmanufactured wood..
Pulp	
Paper products	
Production
1932 compared with 1930
Quantity	Value
(pounds less)	447,199	$ 1,641,172* *(pounds less)	208,832	75,168*(cases more)	238,479	489,530f(cases more)	78,541	75,329*(gallons less)	839,950	1,417,753* 5,748,197* 12,570,690*(cases less)	1,900,283	4,781,095*(pounds more)	9,257,179	149,807f(gallons less)	1,678,343	3,310,329* 21,847,107* 171,000,000* 57,943,419* 71,751,802*"Less.	fMore.It will be noted that there was an increased Now I wish to give a few figures comparing production in only two items, canned apples, home consumption and exports in 1933 with and vegetable oils in pounds.	1930:
Home consumption
year 1932-33	1933 exports
compared with 1930-31 compared with 1930 Increase	More
Tobacco	(pounds)	2,217,477	$2,413,375Canned pears	(cases)	78.541	243,409Pork meat*	(pounds)	196,774,707	4,788,666Butterf	(pounds)	25,698,173	416,369
*The price of bacon and hams per hundredweight was $24 in 1930 as compared with $11 in 1933.
tThe price of butter per pound was 30 cents in 1930 as compared with 17 cents in 1933. More.
Marketing Act


John Vallance: The Prime Minister
(Mr. Bennett) has stated that he desires that this bill should be considered in the committee of the whole house. I have no particular complaint to make as to this procedure but I would point out that many representatives of groups which will be affected by this marketing bill have contemplated that it would go before a standing committee of the house. The ramifications of this bill are so varied that it seems to me it should go before a standing committee in order that those who will be affected by the legislation may have an opportunity of being heard.


Jean-François Pouliot: As the government has
not answered my question I suppose I am to understand that it does not intend to do anything to improve home marketing conditions.

Marketing Act


William Richard Motherwell: I would direct the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to the fact that in the past and under previous administrations practically all bills affecting agriculture have been referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization. This is probably the most important legislation we have had in recent years and, as the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) has pointed out and as I have already indicated there are representatives of farmer groups who have been present in Ottawa for two whole months. It is quite true that they have been staying at a nice place like the Chateau but at great expense and they want to get away. They should be given an opportunity to be heard before the agriculture committee. I thought as a member of that committee I would have ample opportunity of taking part in the discussion. The attitude of the government in connection with this bill would look as though they are trying to conceal something. I understand that the bill is printed and will be placed on the table in a few minutes, but I do not know whether that information is correct. No witnesses will be able to come before the committee of the whole and I think the experts and those who are interested should be heard first before a standing committee also. This bill is supposed to be modelled upon the marketing act of Great Britain, but when that act was passed every opportunity was given to those interested to be heard. I urge the government not to depart from that practice, otherwise the bill will start out by leaving a bad taste in the mouths of those most interested. It is a sort of relative star chamber procedure and from the short talk I have had with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), I am sure that that is not his intention. I am committed to the principle of this bill because I took the stand early in the session that if the bill was to be based upon the principles of the British marketing act, I would be in favour of it. It looks as though it was not to be based upon those principles, otherwise the government would be adopting a different attitude.


Richard Bedford Bennett: After the bill has been given first reading and is standing for second reading ample opportunity will be given to consider whether or not it should be sent to the standing committee on agriculture or considered in committee of the whole. I stated
that my preference was that it should be considered in committee of the whole as that is the proper place but if it is desired that it should be considered by the select committee, there will be ample time in which to make up our minds as to how it can be best dealt with.


William Richard Motherwell: The consideration of the bill by the standing committee would not prevent its being considered by a committee of the whole.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: This bill refers to the marketing of natural products in Canada and I should like to ask the minister if it is being put through at the request of the provinces or will it become effective before enabling legislation is passed by the provinces?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Interprovincial business is governed by federal legislation. This bill has nothing to do with the internal business of the provinces, it deals with interprovincial and export business. The provinces may enact legislation to suit their own convenience. The bill contemplates the possibility of the provinces utilizing this board for their own purposes while, if necessity should arise, the provincial boards may be used as agents of the federal board.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Weir (Melfort) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provision in connection therewith.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister kindly explain the bill?


Robert Weir: Some of the fundamental principles of this bill are, first, principles that are embodied in the British Marketing Act, that if a representative number of producers of any commodity have a scheme which they think will be in the interests of the marketing of their products and feel that their numbers are sufficiently representative, they approach the marketing board or the minister designated to administer the act, and submit their scheme. In this respect the bill, like the British act, is flexible; it was felt that flexibility was essential because of the diversity of the problems connected with marketing the products of the primary producers in this country.
Marketing Act

Second, it will work in cooperation, where it is deemed advantageous to do so, by mutual consent with provincial boards or boards set up within the provinces, thus making more effective than at present the work of those boards. One part of the bill is different from the provision in the British act in that opportunity is given to investigate the various costs of marketing and to report whether those spreads are considered fair or unfair. The bill is, as I stated at the outset, flexible; it was felt that it should be because of the diverse nature of the problems that are certain to be submitted to it.


Mr. YOUNG:: Do I understand the minister to say that if a representative number of the producers of a given commodity had a scheme which in their opinion would be of benefit, they could carry that scheme, any old scheme, to the minister or to whoever is in charge of this board and have it imposed upon all the producers in Canada?


Robert Weir: The hon. member was certainly not listening with any degree of attention or he would not have given that interpretation.


Edward James Young: Would the minister please explain the bill again?


Richard Bedford Bennett: But not on the first
reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the bill be read the first time? Now. Mr. Weir (Melfort) moves that the bill be now read the first time.


William Richard Motherwell: If the bill is going to be read the first, second and last times right off, I must object.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bill will be read the second time at the next sitting.


William Richard Motherwell: What stage is it in now? Is this the first reading?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The first reading in order that the bill may be printed.


William Richard Motherwell: While I am on my feet I might as well speak on it; it is quite as much in order I think to speak on it on the first reading as on the second.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no debate on the first reading because the bill has not been printed and you cannot debate that which you have not seen.
uur. R. We r.]


William Richard Motherwell: We have had many discussions on first readings though that is not usually the time, but it is the option of the government or anybody else, so far as I understand the rules, to discuss a bill on its first reading even though based on the very meagre information we have and in this case it is very meagre.
Under this bill we are going to have an opportunity-and I endorse this principle-to facilitate the organization of groups in order that they may merchandise and warehouse their own commodities. But if that is applied to all natural products, the government is going to get into some trouble because that raises a somewhat acute issue in the west with regard to the pros and cons of a voluntary or compulsory pool. I would suggest to the minister that, he consider the advisability of making different majorities apply to different commodities. For instance, you might have a group of producers completely and entirely organized. They would go out and have a plebiscite where they had grouped themselves together; with their organization comprising the producers concerned over the whole surrounding district who had already become registered, they would be able to put their plan across with comparative ease and the majority called for in a circumstance like that should be I think larger where the opposition to it may not be organized at all.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is out of order. Standing order 71 reads:
When any bill is presented by a member, in pursuance of an order of the house, or is brought from the Senate, the question "That this bill be now read a first time," shall be decided without amendment or debate.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 42, respecting relief measures.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the minister going to speak at this stage? I did not notice whether he had risen to speak.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I did not intend to make any observations at the moment.

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the bill to which the house is asked to give second reading is the only measure the government has introduced thus far this session with respect to the relief of unemployment and farm relief, which continues to be the largest question before the country. The bill, as is apparent from its provisions, and as was stated at the time the resolution on which it was based was introduced, is similar to the measure which was enacted at the last session of parliament, the provisions of whic-h measure, however, expire on the thirty-first of this month.
I wish on the second reading to protest again as I did on the introduction of the resolution, against the little time that has been afforded the House of Commons for a discussion of this all-important question. As is well known, the house is to adjourn on Wednesday of this week and it was only on Thursday of last week that the resolution on which this bill is based was introduced. It is to-day, Monday, that we are asked to consider the second reading. After the second reading we shall have to discuss the bill at some length in committee and in order to become law before the Easter recess it has still to pass the Senate and receive the royal assent. If it does not become law before then, the position will be this, that though parliament has been in session now for a couple of months no provision of any kind will have been made with respect to the further relief of unemployment and for the relief of rural distress. In addition to that the government will be powerless to do anything whatever until some enactment is passed to enable it to deal with distress either in rural or urban areas, for the measure that was passed last session and which gives the government power when parliament was not in session to pass by order in council certain measures with respect to relief under the broad heading of peace, order and good government expires on the last day of this month. Moreover no supply for unemployment relief has as yet been voted. The act of last session gave the government moneys up to a certain sum for the purpose of unemployment relief; any portion of that sum ceases to be available with the expiration of the act, and the government will not have at its disposal any other moneys appropriated by this parliament for the purpose of unemployment relief. Nothing could show more clearly the indifference or neglect of the government or its incapacity to deal with this great question of unemployment than the fact that it is 74726-115
possible that this parliament may adjourn in the course of another two days with no legislation whatever enacted which will enable it to do aught for the relief of unemployment.
But serious as that is with regard to the immediate situation, it will be seen to become infinitely more serious when I draw attention to the fact that this delay in bringing down legislation relating to labour problems, and the problem of unemployment relief in particular, appears to be a deliberate policy on the part of the administration. It is the policy which has been pursued from the very beginning of the present parliament, to limit as much as possible any discussion in this house with respect to this great question of unemployment relief. Take the first session, the special session, called for the purpose of dealing specifically with the question of unemployment. Although hon. members came from all parts of the country to be present ait that session, the time occupied in discussing relief measures was only fractional as compared with the time taken up in the discussion of matters pertaining to the tariff, and amendments to the National Revenue Act. The session might much better have been termed a session to increase the tariff and give certain arbitrary powers to the Minister of National Revenue, than a session to deal with unemployment. The session of 1931 enacted the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931; the resolution under which that bill was introduced was not taken up until July 27; prorogation took place on August 3. Take the next session, that of 1932, which enacted two relief measures. The first of these, the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act of 1932, was not enacted until some time after the act of 1931 had expired. It continued its provisions from March 1 to May 1. It was April 26 before the Relief Act of 1932 was introduced, as I say. The Relief Act of 1932 was not introduced into the house until April 26, although the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, passed earlier in 1932, expired on the first of May. That meant that in order to have the discussion over before the expiration again of the previous legislation dealing with unemployment matters the only other time the house was given to discuss the whole question of unemployment relief that year was between April 26 and May 1. As a matter of fact the bill did not pass the commons till May 12. Prorogation took place on May 26. The same thing happened in the session of 1932-33. The Relief Act of 1932 expired on March 31, 1933, the resolution for the succeeding act was not


Mr. MALONEY:: May I ask to what province my right hon. friend is referring?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said at the
outset that I was not naming any province. I am not discriminating at all. My hon. friend is free to bring up any province he sees fit. He can read the return just as I did. The point I am making is that this is all federal money-


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Not all federal money.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is only
federal money that is spoken of here. There is not a reference here to moneys that were not federal moneys; they may have been used in association with provincial and municipal moneys but it was federal moneys that were being audited in this connection. Let me give a few more instances. The report says:
Municipal methods of auditing in several eases insufficient to safeguard interests of dominion treasury.
In some cases no allowance made for residual value of equipment for which government asked to share complete cost.
Damages caused by an explosion on relief work reported as material.
Rental charges in several cases were excessive.
Gasoline tax paid to province included in amount to be shared by federal government.
Wages paid for maintenance -work on city streets, et cetera, submitted for federal contribution.
Defective paylists were submitted.
Part of salaries of civic officials and other administrative expenses irregularly included for federal contribution.
It is impossible to audit the expenditure of funds for direct relief advanced by municipalities to welfare societies because complete records were not kept.
Relief orders not signed by recipients of relief.
The report continues:
This audit of relief work expenditures was not adequately protective of the interests of the federal treasury in respect to timekeeping; compilation of paylists, and payment of labourers; indemnities paid to injured relief labourers, which indemnities -were treated as wages; issues of municipal stores to the relief jobs; claims for contribution to the cost or maintenance of municipal equipment having a residual value;
And again:
Funds were used for undertakings other than those authorized.
A paylist was claimed for twice by the city and shared twice by the federal and provincial governments.

City did not pay any premium to workmen's compensation board for protection against injuries to labourers on relief work and that compensation for injuries was reported as wages.
Excessive claims were made for rental of municipal machinery.
Gasoline tax paid to province submitted in accounts for federal contribution.
The report reemphasizes the inadequacy of the audit to protect the federal treasury. There is this general statement:
It is needless for me to state the opportunities for misappropriation and for improper application of relief moneys, and other irregularities, -which were made possible when (i) funds received for specific purposes were not kept separate from other moneys; (ii) there was a total or partial lack of adequate accounting records and of supporting vouchers; (iii) there was not restriction on the destruction of documentary evidence of expenditures, and (iv) when proper audits were not carried out.
This is all information which the auditor general, as a servant of parliament, is giving to parliament for its guidance with regard to wrhat it may do in the future, as well as to what it may seek to remedy of the past.
The report in connection with another province states:
In some cases important information shown on the municipal statements is not carried forward to the statement made out by the province and there was no evidence on the accounts examined by me that any audit had been made other than the ordinary office check. The municipal auditors do not make any additional audit to safeguard either the province or the dominion and no inspectors' reports were upon any of the files examined by me.
The report goes on to speak of the instructions of the secretary of the unemployment relief fund not being supported by any vouchers and not giving sufficient information to enable the check of the proof of payment. It is then pointed out:
It is noted that a systematic program of audit was not carried out by the province.
Particulars are as follows:
Costs of administration were included in amounts submitted for federal payment.
Tax on gasoline paid to province was submitted for federal payment.
Item for supplies, for -which catering firm had paid province, was included in accounts submitted for federal payment.
Payments for compensation on account of injury or death of workmen were included in the accounts of one city.
Purchase of land amounting to $21,000 was included in accounts of one city.
It continues:
In some municipalities the indigent is required to do a certain amount of work for the municipality and by doing so is replacing the labour ordinarily charged to other municipal

iReliej Act, 1934-Mr. Mackenzie King
works. The relief given in payment for this work is charged to direct relief and the municipality is thus receiving assistance for expenditures which are properly chargeable against the general funds of the municipality.
The report shows:
Considerable items for wages of regular city employeies were submitted in accounts for federal payment.
City administration expenses were also ineluded.
Claims for reimbursement by one municipality were considerably in excess of the amount paid.
The report in connection with another province states:
The interests of the federal government are not protected by the provincial audit of municipal direct relief expenditures.
Among other things the report shows:
Salaries and other administration expenses were shared by the dominion.
That equipment for the new unit of a university amounting to $18,000 was included in the certificates of expenditure.
That large amounts were shared by the dominion on trans-Canada highway operations prior to the coming into force of the agreement under the 1931 act.
The report in connection with another province states that in the interests of the dominion the audit of the provincial records leaves much to be desired. It continues:
It was difficult to conduct a satisfactory audit because of the nature and condition of the records in most of the offices examined.
The report gives further particulars as to why this statement is made.
The report on expenditures in another province states that the accounting records of the provincial government are not intended to contain the details requisite for the conduct of an audit of relief expenditures by the federal government. The report shows among other things that:
The dominion has contributed to costs of administration.
The profits from boardinghouse operations on relief projects have not been shared with the dominion.
The refunds on seed grain advances have not been shared with the dominion.
The report in connection with the last province states:
To audit direct relief expenditures was a task almost impossible of accomplishment because of failure by the province to segregate suitably expenditures by means of proper accounting records, and to earmark the corresponding vouchers respectively applicable to the various direct relief schemes. It was also made difficult because in many eases expenditures were regarded by the federal government as applying to one fiscal period, whilst the province applied the same expenditures to the subsequent fiscal period, or vice versa.
It goes on to say:
-it was impossible to ascertain from them whether or not full credit had been given to the federal government for its share of recoveries.
And again:
-the vouchers for entries therein were not appropriately arranged for checking to the accounts of the respective projects.
And again:
-the provincial audit of provincial and municipal relief expenditures does not fully safeguard the interests of the dominion treasury.
Among other things the report shows:
Administration expenses were included in amounts shared by the dominion;
Also payments to persons not entitled;
Also equipment of camps;
Also profits on provincial supplies held in stock by the province.
As I have said, this is simply a gleaning from a cursory glance at the reports which the hon. minister presented to- this house on Friday night last. So far as the audit itself is concerned, as the minister said on Friday night, it is merely a test here and there, at random, by one or two officers of the auditor general's department. They all tell the same story, that money has been spent out of the treasury without any regard to safeguarding the treasury or the interests of the public. Be it remembered always that every dollar of this money is so much in the way of in creased taxation. If people wish to know why it is that they have had to pay a tax on sugar, if they wish to know why it is that the income tax has been increased, if they wish to know why it is that the sales tax and other taxes have been increased, they will find one of the reasons in the report of the auditor general which tells exactly how relief moneys have been spent by this government under the blank cheque authority which the government has sought and obtained from its followers.
I should like to refer to what was said in this house in 1930 when the government started this policy of contributing vast sums with no provision for a satisfactory audit. At that time I asked, nay I implored, the Prime Minister to adopt some system of auditing. First of all I advocated the appointing of a commission to supervise all these expenditures of federal monies and stated that such was the method which a previous government had adopted at the time of the great disaster in Halifax. On that occasion public moneys were voted and placed in the hands of a commission which had its own board of auditors and which superintended carefully all expenditures. There were no come-backs with regard
1824	COMMONS
Relief Act, 193/f-Mr. Mackenzie King
to the way in which that money was spent because proper provision was made in advance. The Prime Minister rejected my suggestion. It has been said that the opposition does not seek to cooperate with the government, but I would point out that in the case of every suggestion we have made we have received nothing but rebuffs from the administration although the suggestions which have been made have all been shown through the course of time to have been of a constructive and helpful nature. I should like to quote from Hansard of 1930, page 164. Speaking to the Prime Minister, I said:
If there is one time above another when the government should be careful to safeguard expenditures and to prevent extravagance and waste it is when this parliament is trying, with public money, to end unemployment and to use every cent to the advantage of those who are unemployed. That being the case I submit again that hon. gentlemen opposite find some means whereby all the moneys that are spent out of this appropriation may be audited to the last degree possible by the auditor general, who is an officer of parliament itself.
Elsewhere, at page 172, I said:
Before recess I handed my hon. friend for his consideration-because I thought that was the most courteous and effective way in which to deal with the matter-a suggestion as follows:	I suggested that there should be
incorporated in this bill some such clause as the following:
"Where any moneys are expended under this act by way of contribution to provinces, municipalities or other bodies, the auditor general shall audit the expenditure made by the province, municipality or other body, and shall report thereon to parliament within thirty days after the commencement of the next session."
How was that suggestion received? I quote the words of the Prime Minister as they will be found at page 173:
How can we depart from a fixed principle, that principle being that this parliament must provide machinery for the audit of public expenditures, but that it cannot follow to its destination every expenditure that is made, involving an interference with the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures and municipal councils and bodies of that character. Are we to be told, because two or three members of this house stand up and complain of a provincial legislature, that therefore we are to insult that legislature by saying that we are to deal with their affairs and not our own? Are we to mind our business or their business?
Again, as reported on page 175, the Prime Minister had this to say:
I will look further into the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition, but I cannot conceive ho\v under our constitution any self-respecting province would expect the dominion government to place upon it what I regard as an unenviable and unnecessary insult by saying:

"Where any moneys are expended' under this act by way of contribution to provinces, municipalities, or other bodies, the auditor general shall audit the expenditure made by the province, municipality or other body, and shall report thereon to parliament within thirty days after the commencement of the next session."
Those are only two of the occasions on which the Prime Minister said that it would be an insult for this parliament to direct an audit of the expenditures of its money. A third will be found on page 164, the Prime Minister again speaking:
This parliament has no jurisdiction to interfere with the provinces and the municipalities in the expenditure of their moneys. If that were made a condition I think it would be regarded by the provinces as an insult.
After four years, and after we have had this waste of public money that the auditor general has brought to the attention of the government, we have passed this order in council of March 12, 1934. And why has it been passed? Simply that the government may have something to point to, to enable it to say that it has taken a step to audit the accounts in a way which will safeguard the public treasury, and this after it is too late. That is the very thing they had termed an insult four years ago and the order in council is in the precise terms that were suggested to the government by me as leader of the opposition in 1930. This is done after, as I said the other day, it has become a physical impossibility for the auditor general to attempt, even with a staff as large as an army, to begin to find out how those moneys have been spent. I want to read the directions of this order in council again on top of what I have just given to the house:
Now therefore His Excellency the Governor General in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour, is pleased in the exercise of the powers so conferred by the Relief Act, 1933, to order and doth hereby order and direct the auditor general to conduct such audit of provincial and municipal accounts in connection with unemployment relief expenditures as he deems essential to safeguard the interests of the dominion treasury.
If it is possible to do that in 1934, surely it was possible to do it in 1930, in 1931, in 1932 and in 1933. The way in which this government has wasted the public money on unemployment relief is shocking beyond all words. We have only an indication there of the kind of thing that will be disclosed once there comes, as there certainly will in the course of time, a very full inquiry into the way in which those public moneys have been used. The point I wish to stress at the moment is that with this information before us, surely the house is not going to give to this administration power to issue from the public treasury

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Mackenzie King
any funds it pleases under a blank cheque given by the House of Commons: and that particularly, as I have already said, in a year in which there is likely to be a general election.
But those are not the only features of the bill which are bad. It has all the reprehensible features of the previous legislation but it has something reprehensible in addition that was in none of the other acts. We are being asked not only to give the government blanket authority to legislate with respect to peace, order and good government and to give them a blank cheque, but to give them the right to enter into commitments that will extend over a term of years. In other words they are asking for authority to make contracts in connection with public works and buildings and to commit the country to the expenditures involved not merely for the period of the next fiscal year but for a series of years thereafter. That, again, is wholly subversive of the rights of the House of Commons in its control of expenditure of public moneys and of its duty in the protection of the public in the matter of taxation. That clause should be struck out and I hope, when the bill comes into committee, the minister will see his way to do so, because he cannot begin to defend it.
In connection with this relief legislation, every single canon that exists with respect to the control by parliament over expenditure of public money has been violated, and set at naught by hon. gentlemen opposite. That wrong is being repeated in the bill before us. In the first place, by asking for this blanket authority to legislate and to spend, they are taking away from parliament altogether its functions in the appropriation of public moneys. Where they have come to parliament and asked for moneys, they have not brought in an estimate or given to the house any grounds on which an estimate might be based; they have not limited their appropriations to specific and definite items which, as no one knows better than does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), is the proper way to proceed in asking the House of Commons for moneys for any purpose. Those principles have all been set at naught. In the face of results which we now can see were inevitable, we are being asked to repeat the same kind of action for another year. I do hope the house will pause before it allows the measure to pass in the form in which it is at present.
I want to make a further reference to the significance of these powers being asked for this year. From the beginning I said that I did not believe the government's idea was
primarily that of meeting the unemployment situation as an emergency, that its desire was simply to get power to deal with an emergent situation. I said that I thought they had rather in view what would serve the large financial corporations and the situation with which they would be faced when a general election came on. I think one has only to look at the list of the different uses to which the moneys voted under relief measures have been placed to see how true the statement is that for every dollar there has been spent and gone to labour for unemployment relief, a much larger sum has been spent or guaranteed in the interest of some financial corporation. Under this relief measure the government took power first of all to fix arbitrary values of securities held by insurance companies. What has that to do with the relief of unemployment? Yet it is under this broad power to pass orders in council with respect to peace, order and good government assumedly for the purpose of relieving unemployment that action has been taken. The government has advanced moneys to the provinces, a proceeding which of course was quite right, but in that case we should have had a bill introduced especially for that purpose and the agreements with the provinces should have been placed before parliament for its approval. The government has advanced money to Newfoundland under this measure. How can the government justify the advance of money to Newfoundland under a measure enacted by parliament for the purpose of affording relief to the unemployed?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sure my hon. friend
does not wish to misstate the case-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No money was advanced
to Newfoundland.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, a guarantee was given.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my
hon. friend for correcting me. " Advanced " was a slip; it was guaranteed. A guarantee was given to Newfoundland as a means of aiding unemployment in the Dominion of Canada. The next thing is that the banks have been guaranteed for advances made by them to the wheat pools. Certain banks have been given guarantees for what they have done for some other bank. Moneys were advanced to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the banks have been guaranteed with respect to a $60,000,000 loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway.
1826	COMMONS
Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Daum Euler: And Beauharnois.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, and in
connection with outlays of millions upon Beauharnois the banks have again been guaranteed. There were purchases of railway ties. Finally we find among the orders in council that have been laid on the table, though not yet discussed, a guarantee given with respect to advances to the Algoma Steel Corporation for the manufacture of steel rails for the Canadian National Railways. I wonder how the government is going to justify that under its relief measure. The Canadian National gives a contract to the Algoma Steel Corporation, and under these relief measures certain advances to the Algoma Steel Corporation are guaranteed by the government. I should like to know in the face of all this, and it is far from being the whole story, if I am not right in saying that the government has been using this legislation to further the interests of certain financial corporations rather than in the interests of the unemployed.


Robert James Manion: That was done entirely
for the relief of unemployment in Sault Ste. Marie.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says it was done entirely for the relief of unemployment. We will have a discussion on the order later, but it will be interesting to discover just how advances to this corporation had to be guaranteed by the government to relieve the unemployed.
Now that we have before us these instances of the kind of thing that has been done under the powers given with respect to peace, order and good government and under this blank cheque authority, I ask this House of Commons, is it fair and just to renew those powers to the administration in this year 1934, powers which were given by the house to the government as powers solely to meet an emergency? That emergency having existed now for four years, is it just and fair to continue those powers in this year when in all probability this house will be dissolved before parliament has another opportunity to consider how these powers are to be or have been exercised? This is a year in which in all probability we shall have a general election. With this record of the past four years, what is the government not likely to do if it is to have a free hand to pass any order in council it pleases during the period of a general election, has the public treasury at its disposal to draw therefrom any sums it may wish in the name of unemployment relief? Surely there is such a thing as
[Mr. Mackenzie King.i
fair play and justice in matters of government, even as between political parties, to* speak of the least of all the considerations. Certainly in the interests of the country it is desirable that this government should not be given these powers to the extent they are asking for them at this time.
I heard an hon. gentleman opposite this afternoon, when mention was made of the arbitrary powers which the legislature of Alberta is about to take in connection with a wheat marketing measure, powers that practically give it absolute authority to control wheat production and sale in that province and with respect to some other matters, ask what about the Special Powers Act of British Columbia. I think that was a pertinent question. I received on Saturday a communication, which has since appeared in the press, which I will read to the house:
Victoria, B.C.,
March 24, 1934.
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Onit.	_
A mass nonpartisan meeting of protest held in Victoria, B.C., against Pattullo's special powers act appeals to you as Liberal leader to intervene for the preservation of civil rights and liberty in line with well known Liberal principles.
C. S. Quainton,
Chairman.
That is the Very Reverend C. S. Quainton.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: C.C.F.!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I have to say of that message is that the time to have called mass meetings to protest against arbitrary action on the part of the executive was four years ago when we, of the Liberal opposition in this house sought to arouse public opinion concerning action calculated to divest parliament of its powers of legislation and of the control of public moneys. For four years we have been steadily protesting against parliament being robbed of its authority in the matter of legislation and of the control of expenditures and taxation. Now when a provincial government undertakes to assume certain exclusive powers to meet a definite situation immediately a mass meeting is called to protest against an act of that kind. My reply to that message was that if there had been an infraction of provincial rights which demanded intervention it was the duty of the government of the day to intervene, that the leader of the opposition in the dominion parliament had no authority whatever to intervene in any provincial matter, and as far as he was true to the traditions of Liberalism in connection with relations between the provinces and the dominion he would allow the prov-

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Mackenzie King
inces to manage their own affairs and not attempt to intervene in them one way or another.
But what I want to ask is, what is going to become of our country if the government of one province after the other, in addition to the dominion government, undertakes to establish some form of complete control over public moneys and the right to deal with public resources as it thinks best? I deem it important to direct the attention of the house to what I regard as a very serious situation, namely that the example which has been set by this federal government and followed during the past few years has been such as to occasion provincial governments to adopt a like course. We have now at least two of them, and undoubtedly there will be more in the course of a little time-the same, I believe, is true of the government of Saskatchewan-making three up to the present, all beginning to emulate this government in the matter of taking away from parliament, in this case the legislative assembly, powers intended by the constitution to safeguard the rights and liberties and moneys of the people.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Is it possible that the suggestion to do so might have come from this government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, that my hon. friend will have to judge for himself. What I do say is that once the public becomes accustomed to a certain method of procedure the seriousness of it ceases to be as apparent as it otherwise would be. I well remember that when this legislation was first introduced in this house hon. members were aghast, even hon. gentlemen opposite, and would not have countenanced it for one moment except that they believed there was an emergency which might be very serious, and which after all might only last a very short time. They were prepared to grant these emergency powers for one year, then they granted them for a second year, then for a third year, and for a fourth. What at first was given only to meet an emergency has come now to be a regular practice. Having come to be a regular practice by this government, it has come in virtue of its action and example to be assumed by provincial governments that such is the way they also should proceed to deal with their problems at this time. I say that raises the largest question that has ever been raised in this country. After all, Canada and other parts of the British Empire remain in the world to-day the one stronghold of the liberties of the people preserved by their parliaments and legislatures. If this country
begins to go as Europe has gone, and Asia has gone, and some other parts of the world appear to be going, what is going to happen to the rights and liberties and freedom of the people of Canada? I direct attention to that large issue at this time because I think it needs to be reemphasized- I raise it in connection with this legislation because it comes concretely before us in that connection.
Apart from all that, I say about the proposed enactment itself, that it does not contain one single line of a constructive policy. The relief measure suggested is a continuance of the dole, that is all in the way of policy the government has to offer, notwithstanding that it came into office on the promise that it was going to relieve unemployment and give work, not doles, to everyone who was ready and willing to work. So, Mr. Speaker, while we are not going to take exception to the second reading, which approves of the principle of giving relief where relief is a necessity, we will reserve to ourselves the right to ask the government to amend some of the clauses of this bill before it gets through the committee stage.
I want to say just this further word. While the legislation before us offers nothing but a continuance of the dole as a means of coping with the problem of unemployment, here when we have come to the fifth session of this parliament there is nothing of record as to what really has been achieved by the administration except this statement that $110,000,000 has been spent, and another $52,000,000 advanced in loans or guarantees and that, by the way, obviously does not include the $60,000,000 guarantee to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. There has been no national policy of any kind with respect to relief; there has been no national recovery plan. No commission, not even a department of government, has been gathering data that would have been of infinite service to parliament in dealing with the situation today, and in dealing with the unemployment insurance problem which will have to be dealt with in the future. There has been nothing but this vast expenditure, and the vast waste which I have quoted from the reports of the auditor general.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: In his concluding words, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) pointed out that this relief measure is a continuance of the dole. At this stage might I ask why, after almost four years of Conservative government, it should be necessary to bring in a relief measure. I think this is an appropriate time to ask what
182S

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Heenan
this government has done, if anything, towards eliminating the problem of unemployment. We all know that several factors contribute to employment. I think it will be agreed that one great factor is international trade; if we have international trade and our factories are working, men are employed instead of unemployed. Another great factor is the purchasing power of the people. If men earn wages and have money to spend they can do much to relieve unemployment. If the purchasing power of the people, however, is reduced by wages being lowered or by high taxation, so that men have very little to spend, the unemployment situation is only aggravated in this or any other country.
In examining the record of this government of necessity we must compare it with the record of the government which it displaced in 1930. I need not remind the house that during the regime of the Liberal government the trade of Canada gradually increased until in 1929 it amounted to $2,654,000,000, in round figures; that between 1926 and 1930 the Liberal government reduced the national debt of Canada to the extent of about $250,000,000, and that during the same time it reduced taxation at the rate of about $118,000,000 annually. Under the regime of the late government we had the largest number of persons employed in Canada since confederation, and those workers received the highest wages ever paid to workers in this country during peace times. The working population, with increased wages and therefore with increased purchasing power, were enabled to maintain a fairly high standard of living and in turn that enabled the railways to show surpluses instead of deficits and to increase the wages of their employees.
That was the state of affairs at the end of 1929, when the world depression set in. In comparison with other countries Canada stood up well under that depression. We had an election in 1930, however, and the leader of the Conservative party and his friends wanted power. They took the opportunity to go through this country and tell the people that they never had seen anything like the unemployment that existed at that time. According to their own figures after they came into office there were 117,000 people in Canada unemployed. The Conservative candidates, led by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), went through the country making rash statements which they must have known, if they knew anything, were not true; they made rash promises which, if they knew anything, they must have known they could not fulfil and which they never intended to fulfil. They stated that the unemployment prevailing at

the time was not because of world conditions but was because of the policies of the government that was in office at the time. They said it was the duty of the federal government to provide work for all the inhabitants of this country, and the right hon. gentleman said he would end unemployment or perish in the attempt. He made his position very clear at Sarnia, when he said:
Someone is responsible for unemployment; not individuals, but governments. Governments by their majorities in parliament are responsible for enacting all legislation.
In Quebec he said that if his party were returned to power and he did not fulfil his promises he wanted his followers from Quebec and the rest of Canada to vote him out of power. His words will be found in the Ottawa Citizen of July 14, 1930, and are as follows:
There was no necessity for a conference on unemployment, he continued. The solution was too apparent. "What you want is work," he exclaimed, " not conferences, and you are going to get work." Unless hiis promises to the people of Canada were kept if elected to office, Mr. Bennett said he wanted Quebec and other members of his party to vote Mm out of office.
"Wages, not charity" was the slogan of the right hon. gentleman on that occasion, and many thousands of workers throughout Canada took him at his word. They have had very little but charity since that time, and now we have before us a bill providing for an extension of the dole. Thousands of workers throughout Canada took the word of the right hon. gentleman and his candidates; they voted for a change of government, and they brought about that change. What has been the result of about four years of inactivity on the part of this government? No one will deny that conditions have been going from bad to worse; not even members sitting on the government benches will deny that statement. They make excuses, however. In 1929 the total trade of Canada in round figures was valued at $2,654,000,000. By 1933 the total trade stood at $886,000,000, representing a loss in trade between the years 1929 and 1933 of $1,768,000,000. Is it any wonder that we have unemployment? As a result of unemployment and the accompanying loss of wages there has been a reduction in the purchasing power of thousands of our citizens. The loss of salaries and wages in our industries is a distinct menace.
Let us consider the manufacturing industries. In 1930 the salaries and wages were $736,000,000. In 1932 they had dropped to $497,000,000, representing a loss in that respect alone of $239,000,000. That means that there Was $239,000,000 less purchasing power in Canada. Is it any wonder that our workers

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Heenan
are becoming depressed and dissatisfied? Is it any wonder that they are becoming impatient at the inactivities of the government, a government which upon assuming office found only 117,000 unemployed, but deplored the fact throughout the country? Last winter the Minister of Labour admitted that there were 1,357,000 persons on direct relief, and now, only about four years after the government took office, there are about half a million unemployed, and thousands more are working in relief camps for their board and miserable pittances.
What about the farmers? Are they content?-because I understand this is also a farm relief bill. After four years of this government's legislation should the farmers have to read in the newspapers that they must accept further relief? What were they promised by this government? This is a sample of what was told the farmers during the election campaign of 1930. The right hon. leader of the opposition of that day, the present Prime Minister, is quoted as follows in the Vancouver Province of June 18, 1930:
If Mr. Mackenzie King thinks I will not so build up our agricultural and industrial life, that its strength will drive our products into the markets of the world', then he is wrong, for that I will do. If he thinks I will not establish new markets for those products, strive with all my heart to retain them, drive our products with all my power into new markets, into old markets, into reluctant markets, he is wrong, for that I will do.
He meant it, all right, there can be no doubt about that, because he is quoted in the Montreal Gazette of June 19, 1930, as follows:
So will I, when the government is mine, continue to blast a way through all our troubles and difficulties.
Well, let us see how the farmers are faring at the present time. In January, 1930, the index figure of price levels for farm products stood at 102-6. In January, 1934, it had dropped to 55-3. For the year 1930 the index price level for farm products averaged 82-3; in 1933 it averaged 51.
Then the presentation on behalf of the farmers before the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada is found at page 70 of the report of the Macmillan commission:
In a memorandum prepared by a committee representing the governments of the three provinces . . .
The western provinces-


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Has the hon. member the figures for the United States railways for the corresponding period?


Peter Heenan: No, I am dealing with the railway men in Canada.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I suggest that they might be useful for purposes of comparison.


Peter Heenan: I have not got those
figures, and if I had I do not think they should be compared with the figures I have given, because it was not President Hoover or President Roosevelt who told the railway men of this country that if the present government was put in power they would be working full [DOT]time and overtime at increased wages, and that their wives would be going around the kitchen and the dining room happy and smiling every day. It was my hon. friend's friend, the gentleman who is now high commissioner for Canada in England, who went out and told that to the people of this country.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The only reason I interjected was that if the hon. gentleman had the figures before him for the United States railways for the corresponding period I would have liked to see them spread on the record where they would be readily available.


Peter Heenan: If I had them I would not have spread them on the record, because I am talking about Canada and not about the United States. It was a very high price for the railroad men of this country to pay- $243,000,000 less in wages and salaries in three years-for putting in power a government that advocates and puts into effect policies that tend toward a restriction of trade. If my hon. friend wants to compare the United States and Canadian railroads, I can tell him that so far as Canada's railways are concerned the number of railway employees in this country decreased by 65,000 in 1933 as compared with 1929. That is not ending unemployment. This government is simply adding to the hordes of unemployed, and apparently now the government has made up its mind that there will be no further necessity for many of the railroads in this country. The government has given up hope that they will ever get much of this lost trade back, because last year they passed the most iniquitous piece of legislation that was ever put over on a people in a white man's country. It was camouflage, because it resulted in the amalgamation of the operations of the railroads of Canada and in a pooling and merging of their services under the guise of cooperation. The purpose of this legislation was to eliminate duplication and certain main lines and branch line services. So it is quite evident that this government

Relief Act, 1984-Mr. Heenan
has made up its mind that we shall no longer require railroads to the same extent that we did previously. I say that that legislation was iniquitous because a direct pledge was given to the people by the present Prime Minister, standing in the centre of Canada on June 9, 1930, when he pledged himself and his party that the policy of his government with respect to the railroads would be "amalgamation never, competition ever". Before many years have gone by, Mr. Speaker, the words of warning I have given will be found to be only too true. Competition? It is not competition that we are getting on the railways. The present. Prime Minister must have known the conditions of the railroads at that time. He was not a young and green member of this house. He had been in parliament for years and had taken part in the debates on railway matters. I recall the time in this house, I think it was in 1913 or 1;914, when he designated the present leader of the government in the Senate as the gramophone of Mackenzie and Mann. So he was well versed in the railway situation at the time he was speaking. He it wa9 who stated at Winnipeg on June 9, 1930, "We are all proud of this nationally owned system. We are proud of the transportation system of Canada." And he also said during that campaign, speaking, as he said, to one million of his fellow countrymen over the radio, "If any of you hear or see me tampering with the railroads, ask for my resignation, because I shall be unworthy of the great position to which I aspire." Then lo and behold! we find that we have an amalgamation of the railways under the guise of cooperation. We find that there has taken place a pooling of passenger and freight traffic, and that about ninety railway men have been laid off by the pooling of services between Ottawa and Toronto. The Minister of Railways, in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) the other day, stated that ninety-six men were affected between Quebec and Montreal. When he was reading a letter he had received from the chairman of the board of trustees he said that these ninety-six men would not lose their positions; apparently he was trying to leave the impression that they would just revert to other jobs by virtue of their seniority. Everyone knows that these ninety-six men engaged in passenger service would not lose their jobs; they would find work in mixed or freight service, but they would push ninety-six other men off the bottom of the list. Men who have been twenty and twenty-five years in the railway service, and who have worked them-74726-116
selves up to be engineers and conductors, cannot get jobs to-day as wipers or brakemen.
This measure states that further relief is needed by the provinces. I wonder if the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) have looked up the public works estimates from 1930 down to the present. Those estimates show a continuous reduction in the amounts voted for public works. Public works would have furnished relief to the unemployed in the various provinces. During the elections of 1930 this government promised that they would construct a great national highway with funds from the federal treasury, and that they would administer old age pensions from the federal exchequer. They promised also that they would provide for technical educational training, and in 1931 passed a bill under which an annual payment of $750,000 was to be made for fifteen years. Had those payments for technical education been made, a total of $2,250,000 would have been paid to the provinces down to the present time.
After listening to the speech of my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) one can understand why there is such a small amount left with which to pay the wages of the working men of this country. I may have something to say about this in the future. This government permits the governments of Ontario and other provinces to pay starvation wages under the guise of unemployment relief at a time when they are contributing one-half the cost. Why they have nothing to say about this is beyond me. This bill gives the government full power to make regulations with respect to the matter. When the subject was first before the house in 1930 the government made the promise that the fair wage and eight hour day clauses would apply to these works. According to the regulations which I have before me the provincial governments are permitted to set a maximum wage, that is, the government receiving money shall not pay more than what is paid by the federal government for the same class of work. The provincial government may pay as small a wage as they want to as long as they do not pay a wage higher than that paid by the federal government. This is a reversal of the whole fair wage policy; it allows a maximum wage instead of a minimum wage.
Having regard to the fact that we have a Conservative government in power; that this government has destroyed the trade of Canada; that this government has apparently given up all hope of recovering that trade; that this government led the way in the re-



Reliej Act, 1934-Mr. Nicholson
duction of wages and seemed to be proud of having done so, I suppose we should be very thankful even for this bill. Perhaps we should get up and thank the Minister of Labour and the government on behalf of the workers of Canada for allowing them to live. All I can see in this bill is the giving of a pittance to the workers to keep them from hungering to death. I can speak with knowledge on this matter because during last fall I visited some of these men. I saw the conditions in their homes. I have seen sickness and death in the homes of men who were working on the highways in northern Ontario. I have seen a hat passed around to buy a casket. I do not want to shed crocodile tears and try to make things out to be worse than they are. Whatever this government may give to the provincial governments, to the municipalities or to any other body, they should act according to the wish of this house, and it is the expressed wish of this house that fair wages should be paid on all works constructed by means of contributions, grants or guarantees from the federal government. With the exceptions as expressed by my right hon. leader, I support this bill.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the house, although not the most important one that will come before us this session, at least deals with what I conceive to be the most difficult problem confronting the Canadian people, namely, that of taking care of those who, by reason of unemployment, are unable to take care of themselves. More particularly is this the case because of the difficulties with which those are beset who are endeavouring to get Canadian workingmen into employment where they can earn a living for themselves and their families.
I am not at the moment going to follow the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan), who preceded me immediately before six o'clock, excepting as regards one question. My hon. friend made a comparison of the attitude of the present government with regard to unemployment with that of the government of which he was a member prior to 1930. This reminded me very forcibly of a situation that developed in the part of the country with which I am more particularly acquainted, northern Ontario, when from a period quite early in 1929 there had
[Mr. Hpenan.l
been a serious unemployment situation in the pulp and paper industry arising out of the collapse in a large measure of that industry. The hon. member who preceded me as representative for East Algoma, the Hon. Mr. Bowman, came to Ottawa to intercede with the Minister of Labour of that day, to see whether he could arrange some plan whereby the federal Department of Labour would join with the government of Ontario in providing relief for the 389 families that were entirely destitute at Espanola. The delegation that was here to meet the then member for East Algoma had the pleasure of sitting in the gallery immediately above where I stand and watching the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, then Minister of Labour, pound his desk in ecstatic glee as his leader spat out the words: "Not a five cent piece" to relieve unemployment in Ontario.


Mr. BRADETTE:: In Ontario?


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes, in Ontario.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: He never mentioned Ontario.


George Brecken Nicholson: I have said many times that I know of no other man who is quite so good a friend of labour in this country as is the hqn. member for Kenora-Rainy River except at times when there might be a possibility of his being in a position to do something for the workingman. At other times, however, he makes use of his position for political purposes to render it difficult for all those who directly or indirectly are endeavouring to provide employment for workingmen in Canada,
A few days ago, speaking in the house on this and kindred subjects, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) made statements to which I shall refer in some little detail later on, but at the moment I wish to say that those statements were of a character that indicate one of two things, and the hon. members can take their choice. They were either speaking of something of which they knew absolutely nothing or deliberately misrepresenting the facts. I might put the situation more strongly than that, but I think that will indicate what I mean.
In an effort to relieve unemployment, to put men back to work, the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia last year took steps to confer with operating lumbermen, pulp and paper manufacturers, to see what could be done, to take advantage of the opportunities presented in the United Kingdom market by

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Nicholson
reason of the 1932 Ottawa agreements, and also of the apparent upturn in the pulp and paper industry to see what the operators could do in getting men into the woods. As the situation in Ontario had been specifically mentioned, I shall deal with that province alone because I happen to know something of conditions there. As nearly as it was possible to tell, every operator from the Ottawa river to the western boundary line adjoining Manitoba met together with the Minister of Lands and Forests and his officials in Toronto and discussed the problem for a full day. Arrangements were made under which a number of operators agreed to undertake certain operations that they felt then were justified in order to take men off relief in northern Ontario. When I give the house the story of what has happened in the meantime, it will have some appreciation of what I meant when I spoke of the difficulties facing those who were endeavouring to provide employment to men who were on unemployment relief. No sooner had those operations begun, no sooner had it been announced that certain firms, contractors and companies were arranging to put men into the bush, than a composite organization which can best be described as the federation of Canadian communists, began to take action to make it impossible for woods operations to be carried on. The difficulty arose first in the Port Arthur district; it later spread to what is termed northern Ontario in its most northern point along the transcontinental railway, Kapuskasing, Smooth Rock Falls, Cochrane, Iroquois Falls; then along the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario and later along the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway through the part of the country in which I live. As evidence of the character of the organization let me say that ten days before any employer of labour or woods operator in the Port Arthur district was advised by any man or organization that there was any difficulty whatsoever, a communist newspaper, the original editor of which, Arvo Vaara, was deported from this country, published in Sudbury a notice to bush workers throughout northern Ontario advising them that there were going to be strikes in the woods operations in that section and saying: "Woodsmen, keep away."
Now I come closer to home, because I want to give just the situation of which I have personal knowledge. There were two contractors, Messrs. Brownlee Brothers and Mr. Robineau, substantial woods operators, men who have been in business in that country for twenty-four years, who are looked upon as ideal contractors, who have never hiad any difficulty whatever with their employees, 74726-116 i
maintaining the very best of relations with them and paying the highest rates of wages prevailing in the industry in that district. Arrangements had been made by which those contractors could give employment to approximately 700 men, and they began in October. With every gang of men that went into those camps there went a communist or two communists, agitators, to make it impossible for the work to be carried on. I have under my hand a list of more than 500 men who received transportation, meals en route, clothing after they arrived at the camp, tools with Which to work for Brownlee Brothers, and who remained there just Jong enough to get a good square meal or two, and then walked out. Others remained in the camps long enough to perform some labour, but none of them long enough in the main to make it possible for the contractor to fill his contract. In a moment I will tell you why- The same applied to the contractor further down the river, Mr. Robineau. These men had never had the Slightest difficulty in 1931, the last year they operated in the section, for as soon as it was known by workingmen that these contractors were going back into the woods, men flacked in; it was not necessary to send outside for anyone. But the situation this year was entirely different. These organizations, financed from outside this country-from soviet Russia in fact-in order to make it impossible for the Canadian lumber and timber industry to take advantage of the preference we secured in the United Kingdom and the curtailment of Russian timber purchases by Great Britain as a result of the Ottawa agreements, determined that they were not going to allow the Canadian lumber industry to come back if they co-uld prevent it. In the particular location to which I am referring these activities were carried on through October, November, December and part of January, making it impossible to keep men in the woods, or to get those who were in the woods to do a day's work, with the exception of a minority. Men were constantly gorng in and coming out. The doctrine was preached to them: Your purpose in going in there is not to perform the service for which you will be paid, but to make it impossible to perform service at all, as was stated in the circular that was then circulated and is now being circulated throughout the [DOT]lumber and pulp camps in northern Ontario. I have a copy of a circular that was distributed throughout these camps on the Jack Pine river and camps in the Port Arthur and Nipigon districts, and that is being circulated to-day through camps on the Kapu-

Reliej Act, 1934-Mr. Nicholson
skasing and ait Smooth Rock Fate. In effect it said:	"If you are cutting pulpwood by
the cord, do just sufficient to enable you to eam your board, buit not sufficient to enable the contractor to fill his contract. If you are handing and aire expected to haul six loads, be careful that you do not haul more than four." The hauling selason is short and if the wood is to be got out it must be got out rapidly. The foreman cannot be a:t every turn in the road where a load might upset. This really means damage of equipment as well as delay in the work.
That is one circular. Another one that is being distributed through the camps in northern Ontario is to this effect: "The camps will soon break up, and the men will have to come out of the bush. Do not go to your homes; stay at Kapuskasing"-where this organization has rented a large building and opened headquarters-"at Cochrane, or at Iroquois Falls, in order that we may make it impossible for the wood that is now in the rivers to be driven out on the drives, and tie up the pulp and paper mills."


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Who signed that circular?


George Brecken Nicholson: I will tell the name of the man who signed that letter, it is D. Makela, of Port Arthur, the secretary of the communist organization. The man who signed the circulars that are going round the country now goes under a variety of names. He operated in the Chapleau district at one time under the name of Davis, another time Reilly and another time Dacko. My friend said a few days ago he knew all about it. These men, like their organization, change their name to suit the particular place or conditions under which they are working. I heard one of them make the statement in a public building in northern Ontario that his purpose in changing his name was that it made it easier for him to evade the police.
Now may I give you one or two concrete instances of this plan of malingering and sabotage. Because unlike my hon. friend, who says he visited the camps and never did-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I ask the hon. member
to retract that. I visited camps in my own section of the country.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am not going to wait at this moment-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I want it withdrawn now. The hon. member said I did not do it, and I did.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: What does the hon. member object to?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I object to the hon. member telling this house that I said I visited some camps, but that I did not. I say I did visit the camps.


George Brecken Nicholson: In Hansard of March 12, at page 1415, you find in the second column my hon. friend began his remarks with regard to what he termed the strike situation in the Chapleau district. For the whole of that column and a substantial part of the next he is referring to the Chapleau district. Let me quote one thing he said:
Some hon. members may object-
That is after the hon. member threatened to read to the house a nineteen page letter:
-but these men have been suffering. They do not know just where to find a solution for their problem. It is stated in this letter that certain comps are absolutely filthy and not fit for human habitation. I know-
How did the hon. member know?
-that no hon. member would live in them for even half a day.
That had reference to camps in the Chapleau district. Which camps were they? Later on my hon. friend said these camps were not in his constituency, and further on he said: "I visited these camps and know what I am talking about." If you read that page and a half of Hansard you will find verification for every word I have said. That is why I said at the outset that my hon. friend, like the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, was talking about something he knew nothing about, or was using his position in the House of Commons deliberately to misrepresent the facts. I personally visited those camps on an average of once a week from the fifteenth of October until to-day, every one of them. I know what the conditions are; I know how men were working and what they were doing.


Robert James Manion: The Ontario board of health inspectors visited them too, did they not?


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes, not once, but twice, at >my request, to see that the camps were in proper condition. I went to one camp, and I shall just give this as an illustration of the organized malingering. Fifty-two men were engaged in cutting pulpwood by the cord at a price ten per cent higher than that which is provided for under the N.R.A. code in the states of Michigan and Wisconsin and the northeastern part of the United States. That rate prevails both for monthly men and for piece workers all over northern Ontario, in the district represented by my hon. friend as well as that which I have the privilege of representing. These fifty-two men produced in one week 206 cords of pulpwood-a fair

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Nicholson
average but not up to normal. But when analysis was made of what the men actually did it was found that twenty-one of these men produced 162 cords and thirty-one produced 44 cords out of the 206. Half of the thirty-one men did not produce a cord of wood in a week. Thus it was made impossible for the contractor to operate, and he was defrauded of the money he had advanced for transportation, food and clothing for these men, to the extent that Brownlee Brothers are to-day out of pocket in actual cash in that regard between $6,000 and $7,000. I know it had exceeded $6,000 at the end of January;
I have not the figures for February or March up to date.
But that is not all. The communists work through these camps all the time. I have proof of the fact that when a group of men is put on the train by the employment service at Toronto, or when a group of men is put on at Sudbury, one or two communists get on the train with them and go into the camps. The camps are permeated with them. They continued this from the 30th October to the 15th of January. Then six communists, financed by Vapaus in Sudbury, secured tickets under false pretences, giving false names, from the government employment office and came to Brownlee Brothers' headquarters and were sent to the Jack Pine river on January 9. They hired as pulpwood cutters. They had never cut pulpwood in their lives, and so acknowledged; they knew nothing about it. They stated to travellers on the train that their purpose in going there was finally to tie up Brownlee's work, and bring about a strike if they could. It just happened that I was in the camps on that occasion; I did not know or see the men at that time, but I was there and I knew where these men went on their arrival that night. On January 15, I received a wire in Toronto that the men were leaving Brownlee's camps. I took the first train to Chapleau, from which point I went into the camps by plane to see what was the situation. I arrived on Tuesday, the sixteenth, and as I flew over the tote road I could see the men coming out.
Let me repeat that not a single man employed by Brownlee Brothers ever made any representation that he was dissatisfied with his wages or with the conditions under which he was living or working. After the men had left the camps, however, a series of demands was presented to Brownlee Brothers by a communist who had hired under the name of Riley. This man at times went under the name of Dacko, and as nearly as it is possible to learn his real name was Davis. He
was an ex-convict who had been out on ticket of leave for about a year; his leave had just elapsed. I am not going to take time to read these demands, which cover five pages, but I should like to quote one or two of them. One demand was that Brownlee Brothers undertake to secure the release of seven communists from Kingston penitentiary. Another was that they secure the repeal of section 98 of the criminal code, and another was that they undertake to recognize all workers' organizations, including the communist party. Finally they demanded that if the work were to be carried on in these camps the company had to undertake to agree to allow the workers' unity league, as it was called there, to organize camp committees, such committees to say where the men would work, how they would work, how the timber should be cut and so on, and no man was to be disciplined or removed without the consent of the committee. Let me say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that I have something, though not all, to do with Brownlee Brothers. When the time comes for the communists to say how the work is going to be carried on, then instead of using their funds to destroy industry in this country they will have to use their funds to finance industry.
It was stated, as my hon. friend has stated, that there was a strike. I say to you now, sir, and I know whereof I speak, that there never was a strike of any kind. Men were jumping, to use the expression used in the lumbering industry; they were walking out without saying why they were going or anything else. It is true that on January 15 and 16 these communists succeeded in getting a larger number to leave, but, as I say, they made no representations to their employers as to any changes they might desire. These communists were not employees of Brownlee Brothers in any sense whatever. They were there under false pretences, and if I had my way the law of this country would be changed in. order that these men could be put behind the bars, where they belong, for that sort of thing. Of a total of 561 men, 228 walked out. I had occasion to meet the men at their headquarters; I mingled with them, and I saw men whom I have known for years being led around by the nose by a group of men whose only purpose in this world is to destroy the opportunity for Canadian citizens to earn a living. One of the communists, who is now in gaol, had broken his parole in order to participate in this disorganization of industry in northern Ontario. He came out ahead of the men and came to the town of Chapleau. He had enough money to hire a large hotel;
Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Nicholson


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


George Brecken Nicholson: The Canadian Bushmen's Union sets this out:
The organization issuing this information is Canadian first and last. It is registered under the Dominion Trade Unions Act and affiliated with all Canadian unions in a National Canadian Labour Congress. Its members have complete liberty of conscience in matters political and religious. Their organization is not
interested in industrial strife and upheaval. It wants peace in industry, intelligent discussion, and goodwill manifested regarding workers' problems, and a fair deal.
Then these men say:	.
A strike should always be the last, not the first resort.
Every man who has any knowledge of how organized labour has worked and built up an organization knows that that is a fact. They present their grievances to their employers and negotiate for an agreement. But these people never let the employer know what they are going to do. The men are induced to leave the woods without saying why they are going, or anything about it.
Then, just one other point to show the lengths to which these so-called worker's organizations will go. In the Port Arthur-Fort William area last year they went the distance of closing the national highway. With this in mind they placed pickets on the highways leading out in every direction from Port Arthur and Fort William, and unless one carried a permit from communist headquarters he was not allowed to pass. I have in my hand three photostati'c copies of such permits, all signed by the same man, D. Makela, one of the men who came to tie up the operations of Brownlee Brothers. The certificate reads that so and eo may pass over the highway. These people went further than that; they closed the stables and barns of two or three lumber companies, and would not allow anybody to enter the barns in order to feed the horses. The humane society intervened.
These are the methods by which they preach [DOT]peace in this country. Here are three cards which any member may see. I had an oppor-, tinity of discussing the situation with the management of a pulp and paper industry in northern Ontario which controls certain mills. They have 175,000 cords of pulpwood to be driven down the stream to their mills, and these ^people have been working and organizing for the purpose of making the drives impossible. The result would be that-the mills will be closed down. They will do it in every other part of the country if they can.
One last word. As a result of their efforts to-day in British Columbia the logging industry is virtually tied up, and the mills in Vancouver are forced to buy their logs from Washington and Oregon and tow them up the Pacific coast, so as to be able to fill their contracts in Australia, the orient and the United Kingdom. The possible and almost probable result is that the operations of these people will defeat the very thing which for so

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Bradette
long we have been fighting for. We were supported by our government in that fight, and were able to open up a market for a thousand million feet of lumber, and to give employment to 50,000 men in Canada. These people are determined to make that impossible. I personally know an eastern lumber operator who has been forced to cancel cargoes of lumber from eastern Canada because of this very thing, and that is the kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members of this house will assist by their irresponsible prattle both in the house and out of it with regard to these conditions.
Mr. JOSEPH A. BRADETTE (North Timiskaming): It is easy to note, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) is still posing as a moralist in this country. He is bent on throwing out insinuations and innuendoes against the reputation of hon. members.


Mr. STEWART (Lethbridge):: His reputation is as high as yours.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Are you a judge of that? I have not said anything to the hon. member (Mr. Stewart), and I shall not because it is not my habit to do so. In 1926 my hon. friend from East Algoma was moralizing on the whole civil service. He said something during that campaign which no decent man would ever have said.


George Brecken Nicholson: Would you like me to read it?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Yes, I would.


George Brecken Nicholson: With the Speaker's
consent I will. This is the third time since 1930 that I have been challenged with regard to that so-called statement. I hold in my hand a copy of Maclean's magazine, dated July 15, 1926. I spoke for five minutes at North Bay on the occasion to which my hon. friend has referred, and I then held in my hand the same copy of Maclean's magazine that I am holding now. At page 16 of that magazine will be found an article written by H. Napier Moore.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. MacNicol):: I shall have to rule the hon. member out of order.


George Brecken Nicholson: Then I shall have to take another opportunity of gratifying the curiosity of my hon. friend. But I am rising now, Mr. Speaker, to a question of privilege. The hon. member for North Timiskaming has stated that I made a statement at North Bay that no decent man would make, and he challenged me to repeat it. Mr. Moore, whom

I have never had the privilege of meeting, wrote an article for Maclean's magazine entitled "Wanted: Clean Government," and I am only going to read some of the extracts that I read on that occasion:
Mr. King was compelled to resign because sufficient Progressives made an emphatic gesture in behalf of wholesome administration. Mr. Meighen's first and most important vote was obtained on the question of wholesome administration. However much the politicians may clack their tongues about constitutionali-ties-important in themselves-to the advantage or disadvantage of this or that party, the underlying issue which necessitated a new election was, and still is, that of clean government. No amount of hustings ballyhooing, no amount of logicians' hair-splitting, no amount of frenzied flag-waving can alter that fact. . . .
Stripped of all political camouflage, the sober fact is that the ship of state piloted by Mr. King foundered on the rocks of corruption. Admitted that the Conservative board of strategy forged a political weapon when the gravity of the customs report was apparent-
Then further on:
The plea has been made that the officials of the King government were no worse than their predecessors. That is for the judicial commission to decide. . . .
In short, the first minister of the land sacrificed the honour of Canada to political expediency.
Then, when at last he realized that exposure was certain, he "got rid of" a discredited minister by appointing him to the Senate-an insult to that body-an act which placarded the upper chamber as a haven for a former minister of the crown who stands charged with debauching his subordinates, a minister who hobnobbed with crooks and despoilers of the treasury, a minister whose conduct is described by investigators as being unspeakable.
There is no need to harp on the tactics of certain of the other members of the King cabinet. One former minister already has been censured by a vote of the house. The evidence presented to parliament speaks for itself. The evidence in the investigators' reports as yet not made public discloses vileness that cannot lie referred to in a family magazine.
That is exactly what I referred to at North Bay, Mr. Speaker. It is the only thing I said', and if that is any satisfaction to my hon. friend he is welcome to it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member may have said that at North Bay, but he said something else. He made allusions to the civil service-they were all bawdy houses.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Certainly he was wrong.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He never said it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Yes, he said it, and no wonder he tried to take it out of that statement. It is evidently in the minds of all hon. members that he said it in 1926.

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Bradette
I have not a single word to retract of what I said on strikes in northern Ontario during the debate on the address, or of what I said last Thursday. I placed the situation fairly and squarely before the house and the country, and I will leave it to the people of my section to judge my statement. The hon. member for Bast Algoma tried to insinuate that I was in sympathy with the communists.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Brecken Nicholson: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Who says "hear, hear"?


George Brecken Nicholson: I do.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: You will have to prove that statement. I spoke in Iroquois Falls, Cochrane and Kapuskasing before some of the strike leaders, and I told them that I was not in sympathy with any kind of communism or radicalism, but that I was in sympathy with labour unionism. If to help the labourers and their organizations is to be a radical, then I am a radical. Will the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Nicholson) compare our national and international labour unions in Canada with the communists?


George Brecken Nicholson: No.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am going to accept that statement.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are a Liberal.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am very proud of it. Much more proud than I would be of being a reactionary. During that strike in my own section of the country, where the conditions are better than they are in East Algoma, and I say that frankly, the International Sulphite and Paper Company workers of Kapuskasing, Smooth Rock Falls and Iroquois Falls gave an hour's pay per week to support the strike. They had support also from the mining unions in the Porcupine and Kirkland Lake district. These organizations are not communist in their ideas or their ideals. Some of the leaders might have been criticized for their actions, but you can always tell a tree by its fruits, and if we had strikes in the lumber camps of northern Ontario and Quebec last fall I want to point out that the legislatures of Ontario and Quebec have since found it possible to amend their laws so that to-day the bushmen are getting fairer remuneration and better sanitary conditions than they had previous to the strike. So they were absolutely right in striking.
In the debate on the address I said that an eighteen page letter had been sent to me by a strike leader in the Chapleau district, and
I challenge the hon. member for East Algoma to tell me whether the man who writes this letter is a communist or a radical. The letter is written by Mr. Ellard Connolly.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Ellard Connolly never wrote the letter.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have it here; it is signed by Mr. Ellard Connolly, and he gave me permission to use it and read it. I will leave that point to the judgment of the house.
I am not going to read the whole of this letter to-night, but just one paragraph telling of sanitary conditions at some of the camps of Austin and Nicholson in the district of Chapleau:
The living conditions in most of the camps are best explained by the word " uncivilized." AH mm on entering the camps were not issued with clean blankets, as provincial laws demand. When the camps first opened in the fall, clean blankets were issued to approximately five hundred men, but since that I venture to estimate well over another thousand men have used these same blankets without being washed. I myself was issued with a used blanket taken directly from another -man's bunk. This is a direct violation against the board of health regulations of Ontario, regulating sanitary conditions in lumber camps in unorganized districts, for which violation a penalty is prescribed by the act.
The point in this instance which I wish to bring out is that this serious violation being permitted allows for the spread of infectious skin diseases, and -even worse, the dread social disease termed "venereal." The citizens of Canada spend much money and I believe have enacted special laws to guard against the social health of the country being afflicted with venereal disease. I know, and I have proof, that imfectiou-s skin disease has been contracted from such blankets-
M-r. MUNN:	What camp is that?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I said Austin and Nicholson's in the Chapleau district. The letter continues:
-on the limits of Austin and Nicholson. I saw, along with a witness here, a young and apparently clean man assigned to the bunk and blankets of another man who was fired from the camp in the morning because he was so far gone with venereal disease that he was not able to do his work. This was reported to the proper authorities at the time, but still the same conditions exist.
I intend to -read the whole letter when we are in committee. The hon. member -compete me to -take this action', -as it is always ea^y to cast reflections -upon certain bodies of men or -even upon members of parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I challenge bon. members to contradict what I said to the house or to say that I have ever trd-ed to -oast reflec-

Belief Act, 1934-Mr. Bradette
tions upon any section of the population or any member of .this parliament. I never stoop to personalities, but there is one thing I aim always ready to do and that is to fight for the common people and the under dog. I cannot 'understand why the hon. member for East Algoma got so hot when dealing with this matter. There must be a nigger in the woodpile somewhere. I should like to ask him just what happened up in that part of the country. A couple of weeks ago a magistrate's court was held in Chapfeau when a number of contractors were charged with keeping insanitary camps. The hon. member for East Algoma appeared as a witness, and I should like him to tell the house what the decision of the court was.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to
a question of privilege. The hon. member has stated that I appeared in court as a witness. I never appeared in court as a witness or as anything dlse in connection with that case. If it is an advantage to my hon. friend1, let me tell him that the man who made the charges withdrew them in writing.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is still pending.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member said
that there were no strikes in the Chapleau district, but the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) Tecognized the fact that there were men Still on strike in that section of the country. More than that, the hon. member brought some strikebreakers from the province of Quebec to work in his camps. He cannot deny that.


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes, he can.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: No, you cannot. You cannot because it happened. I have another letter which I received from Mr. Ellard Connolly. This man is not a communist, regardless of what the hon. member may say. His letter reads as follows:
Regarding Ohapleau bushmem's strike-


William Duff: Is that a Nicholson camp?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Yes. The letter continues :
-the thirty strikers who have been supported by direct relief since February 6 were informed to-day by the relief officer here that he has no authority to grant any further relief after to-morrow, March 24; that there are places open for ten men on the Chapleau highway at a camp some forty-five miles from this town at the relief rate of $10 a month and board; that there are places open for eight men at the

Lockalsh relief road camp, about sixty miles west of here, at the rate of board, tobacco and clothing and that he can issue any man with a railway fare to home or any outside point by Saturday night, March 24.


William Duff: What camps are those?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Government camps. The letter continues:
This is apparently another move to disperse us before our civil action comes up against Austin and Nicholson Company for -wages and damages due to wrongful dismissal. Neil O'Hara has at present obtained power of attorney from thirty-five strikers to advance their claims in his name. Our intentions are to remain here in an organized manner until the civil action is settled, as we have established our status and maintained it this far, the object of obtaining justice, but after tomorrow, as it has been mentioned to us by the town police here, we are possibly liable to arrest on a charge of vagrancy, as we do not intend' to accept any of the propositions m'ade by T. H. Wolfe, the relief officer, and are therefore cut off relief.
It would be in the interest of justice that we be maintained here in the manner that we have been up till now. The relief officer has been told by us of our civil action. When it is won, our intentions are to repay what has been expended on us individually for relief by the taxpayers. As citizens it is hard to understand the tactics of the relief authorities.
Should we be arrested on a charge of vagrancy under the foregoing conditions, what can we do to clear ourselves?
Yours respectfully,
Ellard Connolly.
The signature to this letter is authentic, and I believe it gives an answer to the innuendo made by the hon. member. Again I repeat, I am in favour of labour organizations in our lumber camps. I repeat the statement I made in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, that conditions existing in some of the camps were a disgrace to the Canadian nation. As far as the activities of communists are concerned, if any of these people attempted to get into any of these camps, they would be thrown out. The big newsprint mills at Ka-puskasing, Spruce Falls and Iroquois Falls have recognized the new union. These companies are ready to bargain with the men and they have bargained and cooperated on several occasions since the strike was settled. The men are receiving justice from the larger corporations. Since the strike was settled the Ontario and Quebec governments have found it possible to amend their labour laws so that the axemen and bushmen in our section of the country will receive better treatment than they have in the past. I do not intend to retract one word of what I have said on two previous occasions. As the hon. member has

RelicI Act, 1934-Mr. Bradette
made an attack upon me personally, when we get into committee I intend to give the whole history of the strike in the Austin and Nicholson camps in the Chapleau district.
Leaving this matter aside, I shall deal now at some length with a matter about which I have spoken on several occasions in previous years. The back to the land movement has a direct bearing upon the matter now before [DOT] the house. A large number of people now residing in my section of the country have come under this scheme. They have left the larger centres of population in old Ontario and have taken up land in the clay belt, particularly in the riding which I have the honour to represent. I intend to follow the course I followed in the past and not make any destructive criticism of the administration. I intend to speak as a tiller of the soil and as a pioneer in my section of the country. I shall refer to the many good things which have happened under this scheme. If the government are really sincere, they will see that it is enlarged. This was the attitude I took in the fall of 1930, because I realized it was a step in the right direction. The following year the government was boasting that this movement was a success, although they had not found it possible to spend any money upon it. I told the government at, the time that this movement would never 'be a success until more money was spent. Another movement was inaugurated the following year in a more concise form. By means of a tripartite agreement between the federal, provincial and municipal authorities, people were placed upon the land. This was an enlargement of the first scheme, and it promised more fruitful results. I am not going to go at any length into the details of that policy as it has been applied particularly in northern Ontario, but as a whole the back to the land movement has been a success. A few cases may be picked out; where men who have been following one type of occupation for ten, fifteen, twenty or twenty-five years are suddenly placed in new occupations in different centres of colonization, naturally some of them are found wanting and return to their previous locations. But generally speaking- and this applies particularly to every section of my riding-ninety per cent of the people placed in the baek to the land movement scheme of this government are making a success of their new calling. There are anomalies; no doubt the system is not perfect, but I am giving due credit to the provincial and federal authorities for their effort to remedy to some extent, within the limit of the scheme, some of the drawbacks that a new population has to face.
Last year I stated that I thought the provincial government should have a better follow-up policy, and last summer I am glad to say that more attention was given to those new centres of population. First of all the people were placed in more concentrated areas; they were placed, for instance, in the township of Kennedy south of my home town. At least sixty families were put along the same road where the land was carefully surveyed to allow those people to have access to the main highway and to be closer to one another. This is certainly a step in the right direction.
One matter that I want to bring to the attention of the house at this time is the fact that there is much resentment of the attitude taken by the provincial authorities in not rendering monthly accounts of the money those people are receiving from the government. No doubt the prices are correct, but they do not know what they are paying for their goods; they do not know what they have to pay for the material they put into their buildings, stables and so forth, or what prices they are charged for some of the equipment they have received from the government. When the federal government finds it possible to grant those people S600, that amount becomes their sole property and they are entitled to receive a statement of their purchases of the previous month, the same as anyone dealing with a store on a credit basis is entitled to receive a statement of the goods purchased during the previous month. I am bringing this to the attention of the government because it is a matter that is easily remedied. Apart from a few minor anomalies that I found more particularly two years ago -the fact, for instance that some people were placed on new holdings where there was no colonization road and where they had to pack on their backs and in some instances carry for several miles provisions for themselves, their families and their cattle-the situation is being remedied gradually. Last summer the Hon. Mr. Finlayson found it possible to visit most of those new centres of colonization, not only in my section but in the whole of northern Ontario. There is, however, one anomaly that exists, under the present scheme, and it is something which will test the sincerity of the government in regard to it. The back to the land policy has caught the attention of the whole of the Canadian people. It came at the proper time; it has been accentuated on account of the prevailing economic conditions. The movement holds great promise for the equilibrium of population between the urban and the rural

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Bradette
centres, but I state frankly and sincerely that the present scheme does not go far enough. One limitation I have in mind, and one that is practically at the root of the question of the present administration of this policy, is the fact that it is a tripartite scheme. There is a section of our population which will more readily settle on the land, the farmers' sons, the young people who have spent their youth on the farm. This I suppose applies to every rural section not only of Ontario but of Canada generally. These young people find it impossible under this scheme to receive the $600 offered by the three different governments. I maintain that if the federal government is sincere in regard to this policy it will enlarge it, making it purely provincial and federal, so as to apply to all who have the necessary qualifications who live in organized or unorganized districts, in little towns, not necessarily in cities. I have in mind at the moment a number of people in my section, and this will apply just as forcibly to the riding of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). Our rural families have a surplus population that cannot be absorbed on the land, for the very good reason that while a farmer may be able to place a son-the eldest or maybe another-if he has two, three or four left, on account of the present financial situation he cannot place them also. Most of the farmers, practically all of them, find it impossible to place all their sons on the land. But if the scheme were enlarged to apply to young people not only in my section, but in every rural section of Canada, so that the $600 would be within their reach, thousands instead of hundreds of people would be induced to settle on the land. This would be a step in the right direction, and one of the best ways of solving the unemployment problem.
In all these schemes it is always easy to use poetic terms, to speak of the fine population living on the farms, and to describe farming as an arcadian occupation, almost an idyll, but any hon. member who knows the hard work the farmer has to do and the length of time he has to wait for the results of his labour without any remuneration therefor will realize that farmers are not interested in poetical descriptions. They want something concrete, something substantial. They feel that the government should enlarge the scheme. They know that the solution of the agricultural, the rural problem, means the solution of all the ills confronting the country, because the source of a nation's vitality is its rural population and the basis of its economic prosperity is agriculture.

I want to make myself very clear. Although for the last three years I did not criticize the movement, and it is not my intention to do so at the present time, I believe the people want this government to prove their sincerity by enlarging their policy. Only a few days ago in the Ontario legislature the Hon. Mr. Pinlayson asked for the sum of $75,000 which will be required by the Ontario government to place 250 families on the land. Anyone ' familiar with the present unemployment situation realizes that to take only 200 or 250 families away from the urban centres and place them in rural districts is only a drop of water in the bucket; it is only a beginning in solving the problem. A few days ago the Minister of Labour said that in Ontario last year the sum of $25,000 was spent in the back to the land movement. Such a sum is simply ridiculous. The government, to show its sincerity in regard to this movement, should spend money not by the hundreds but by the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
There is a reason for the back to the land movement. Only a few days ago the Minister of Labour mentioned the fact that in the past we had a bad immigration policy. I am pleased to refer to that because some years ago when I was on the government side I deplored the attitude of the administration of that day towards immigration. A Canadian citizen is struck by the fact that most of the people who came here at that time had the idea of settling on the land. Although there was plenty of land available and the soil was fertile, because of the amount of capital required to farm ninety-five per cent of them found their way back into the cities. It was not so much the immigration policy that was wrong as the new social order we had to face. That trek of the rural population to the larger centres is not a new thing; you read of it in the history of countries like England,, France, Italy and Germany, for centuries past. This trek to the large centres was accentuated when industry, reaching its golden age of development, became more highly specialized and a working man received a fair remuneration and was in a position to have at hand some ready cash. I remember my grandfather saying on several occasions that there were years when they did not see any real money on the farm. The movement to the larger centres of population was accentuated also by the war. Many demobilized young soldiers, having tasted of the pleasures and the glamour of city life, were not content to go back to the old father and the old farm. And so it was with the younger people who remained in

Reliej Act, 1934-Mr. Bradette
Canada during the war, on account of the high wages they received in the munition factories. But now that the situation is so bad in the industrial centres; now that we have what is called technological unemployment, a displacement of labour in highly mechanized industries, we find people in the cities looking away beyond the confines of their habitat to the green fields of agricultural life. Most of those who want to go back to the land have had a certain amount of agricultural training. To-day we are talking of unemployment insurance, and it is coming; we hear of the four hour day and the five day week; they are coming. But the present conditions, instead of making for equilibrium between the city and the country, are intensifying the difficulties in that regard. When the wheels of industry return to normal operation many who have been placed on the land will return to the cities; many young sons of our farmers, will find their way to the larger centres, because the country people have not received and are not receiving the attention from the government that the industries have received through tax exemptions, tariff protection and various forms of municipal, provincial and federal aid. Our best brains have been applied to the assistance of industries; artificial means have been employed to help them, and, the result is that our rural centres of population are declining. That is true even of our new sections and of the whole of the western provinces. I well remember when as a young man I lived on the farm we had local industries- the wheelwright, the harness maker, the shoemaker, the grist mill, the woollen mill, the general store, and so on. These employed a good number of people, and as our requirements were limited and we were satisfied with less, the rural sections were practically selfsupporting. To-day the situation is absolutely changed. Anyone visting the famous clay belt of northern Ontario, one of the finest agricultural sections of Canada, sees these small villages with perhaps a little church, perhaps a blacksmith's shop, one or two stores, but practically no local industries, no hospital, no such local institutions as I have mentioned; everything is becoming more and more centralized in the larger centres. A few months ago I read with interest an article in the Ottawa Journal stating that industries were being decentralized. Well, perhaps in our day we shall see a miracle, but I for one am doubtful whether industry will find it possible to decentralize to such an extent as to bring back our rural centres to what they were thirty years ago. So we must adapt ourselves
to the new order. If in the past we had to employ artificial measures to build up what we call our modern industry, we must adopt similar measures to encourage people to remain on the farms, which are the mainstay of any country. If our rural people could get a reasonable price for their products; if for the last three years western Canada had sold wheat at a dollar a bushel, with a market for all their production, unemployment and depression would be unknown in Canada. Agriculture and industry are closely linked together; there is no section of the country that is not concerned about the labourer and the farmer. The industrialists of the east are just as much interested in the wheat crop as are the wheat growers of the west. It certainly is a step in the right direction, therefore, when we find the provincial governments and the central administration and every public body concerned about the state of the farmer and seeking a solution for his problems.
I make this appeal very sincerely, I say that the present scheme does not go far enough. An expenditure of $25,000 in one year on the back to the land movement to restore the equilibrium between the two sections of our population is ridiculous. There is now under way a movement looking to slum clearance, which has been greatly accelerated by Doctor Bruce, the lieutenant-governor of Ontario. It is true that there are slums in our larger centres of population but if one could see side by side some of the little dwelling houses and log shacks and tumbledown sheds, stables and barns that are scattered throughout our newer sections, he would know the exact meaning of the word "slum." The original settlers have not been able to graduate from the status of pioneers to that of farmers; they find it impossible to put up proper dwellings for their families. Sanitary conveniences are practically unknown through lack of funds. In all these small places you will find cleanliness, but the fact remains that the dwellings are not sanitary. There are no proper means of ventilation, and they are far too small in many cases to meet the needs. Here is a wonderful opportunity for the government to inaugurate a policy which, as well as doing away with slums in the larger centres, could be adapted to providing better housing conditions for the farmers. The appropriation of
S5.000.000 a year for twenty years to assist in providing better housing for the rural population would be one of the finest steps the government could take. In my section the settlers see new people come in among them, and they ask themselves the question: How is it that after we have toiled for fifteen or
Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Bradette

twenty years to develop this country, at a time when unemployment is just as pronounced in our midst as it is in the larger centres, the government finds it possible to give these people $600 per family while we who have done the initial work of colonization are left practically to ourselves?
The hon. member for East Algoma a few moments ago spoke of the great sacrifices the lumber dealers had to make last fall to give employment to the poor settlers. But I say it was sacrifice to the settlers to work under that scheme. In my own riding they were getting the magnificent sum of $3.50 a cord for pulpwood. No settler can keep body and soul together on returns as small as this. Something will have to be done. I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of any hon. member on either side of the house, regardless of what the hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Nicholson) said against me. Still less have I doubted the sincerity of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). I say that very sincerely. But we find to-day among our native rural population a certain amount of dissatisfaction because they seem to have been left out of the existing order of things. So far as this policy is concerned apparently they are the forgotten men. Because they happen to live in the newer sections of the country, in unorganized districts which have not enough money to come under this scheme, most of their young men cannot be placed on farms. I do not ask the government to lay out millions or tens of millions of dollars; for a few hundred thousand dollars it would be possible to maintain all the young men in our section of the country.
In passing may I say that in my opinion the educational system of our province has been wrong in its relation to the rural population, but there are signs of the application of remedy. To-day we have college graduates in northern Ontario who under this scheme would be good farmers. A man on the threshold of life in my section of the country finds only two courses open to him now. If he goes on the farm without assistance he sees ahead of him a drab life of near despair, with no hope of success, but if he could receive government assistance he would have a good chance to come through and live a fuller life. Assistance has been given our industries in the past, and that money has not been begrudged in my section of the country. I have a vivid recollection of the occasion that the government bonused the wheat growers, when millions were spent in the west; not a word of criticism was heard from my section of the country. Last year we set up a stabilization fund which we ex-

pected would cost us from $5,000,000 to $8,000,000. L>ue to the fact that the English pound came to parity with the Canadian dollar that money was not needed, but the fact remains that in my section of the country we were willing to have that money spent to help agriculture. Surely, then, it ought to be possible for the government to work out a scheme which will permit our rural population to remain at their present occupation. Farming is not a profession; it is not a trade. It is more than that; it is a vocation. Sometimes people are inclined to laugh and to ridicule the farmers, saying that they ask too much, that they are not content to live on the farms. It is said that they insist on the attractions of the city. The farming population have an absolute right to the comforts that exist in the cities, but they are willing to make certain sacrifices in order to remain on the land, because there is a great appeal in having their own farms. To them the farm is their kingdom, where they can maintain the traditions of their ancestors, whether they be from the great Loyalist stock of southern Ontario or from that of the pioneering Frenchman who colonized the shores of the St. Lawrence river. These people have it in their hearts to remain on their holdings, and they are the finest people we have in Canada. They are one of the greatest stabilizing factors in the nation, if not indeed, the greatest.
During the last ten years in eastern Canada, with the price of land going up and with industry attracting workers, the young people have found it impossible to remain on the land. The movement towards the cities will not be stopped until we find it possible to allow the young people to settle on the land. It is not my intention to dwell longer on that very important question, but I believe this offers the solution of the evils we have to face at the present time. Let me repeat that if to-morrow our farmers could receive a fair return for what they have to sell, to-morrow unemployment would disappear. We must remember that a farmer must be and is also a business man in the true sense of the word. Sometimes, because the farmers live so far apart, they have not the organization that exists in other industries, but the farmer is a business man, and the fact remains that no class invest their money more readily than do the farmers. A prosperous farmer seldom puts his money into a savings account; he reinvests it in better buildings, new equipment, or improved stock, and this should make the government realize the necessity of finding a solution for the rural problem. In French we say, " La

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Plunkett
pitie de 1'agrieulture," speaking of his present plight, which is absolutely true. At present the farmers are toiling but are not receiving hardly anything in the way of remuneration; they realize that in the past they have not received the attention they deserve, and they are in a state of despair. Here we have a solution of the problem. Here lies the hope for the rural population of this country, its lifeblood, its future. Let us not lose sight of the fact that Canada must remain primarily a rural country. If we fail in this regard we shall suffer as all pasrt civilizations have when they allowed agriculture to deteriorate and decline.
Mr. D'ARCY B. PLUNKETT (Victoria): I should like to say one or two words in support of the remarks made by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson). I do not think I have ever heard a more definite statement of facts or a clearer exposition of conditions in this country. It was so clear that the seats of the C.C.F. were deserted: we did not seem to suit them tonight. They could not take it.
I should like to give a little evidence in support of what the hon. member said. He made the statement that throughout Canada there was an organized effort to upset the lumbering industry. I have before me a press dispatch which I should like to read, because legal minds consider the evidence in the case and nothing else. This is the dispatch:
Decide to Close Logging Camp
Lake Cowichan, March 20.-The workers of Camp 10, V.L. & M-, were surprised to be called in from work on Monday afternoon to attend a meeting at the cookhouse.
This cookhouse is an agreeable spot for all of us.
Their surprise was increased when, after an address by ,J. Long, camp superintendent, they were told it had been decided to close down the camp at once for an indefinite period. The reason given was the agitation which has been going on about wages and other matters in the camp during the last few weeks.
The workers recently gave one day's pay for the relief of the loggers on strike.
I believe that supports the statements that were made by the hon. member for East Algoma. I should like to hear from the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. Munn); he is a lumberman and he understands the difficulties of this situation. What has he to say in regard to it?


Mr. MUNN:: In regard to what?


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: In regard to what I have just said. It is not my fault if the hon. gentleman did not hear me.


Albert Edward Munn: I heard you; I know all about the situation there.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: Would the hon. gentleman make a statement?


Albert Edward Munn: I am not contradicting your statement.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: Thank you. Then, Mr. Speaker, I am through.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Mr. Speaker, I am intensely interested in this unemployment and farm relief bill, and wish to make a few remarks in regard to it. I have the misfortune to represent a district which for the past five years has had no crop whatever. Of our people ninety-five per cent are on direct relief; ninety-five per cent have to receive their dole from the government each month. In regard to conditions in my constituency may I say that it is necessary for the farmers to haul their grain, straw, hay and rough feed from the towns out to the country so that they may feed their stock. No hay, straw, grain or rough feed of any kind have been grown there for the last five years. One may gather from that information an idea as to the conditions under which the people in that district have been living due to the crop failures in the past five years.
I do not wish to criticize the government with respect to the manner in which it has handed out unemployment and direct relief in my constituency. Politics has played no part in the handing out of relief, but I do offer criticism from a business standpoint, because in relief measures there has been an absolute lack of business practice. As the years go by and relief measures are continued the people in charge seem to become more and more inefficient, and each year more difficulties arise.
May I give an illustration of what took place in my own district. The people there were told that anyone living within twenty miles of the coal mines had to go to the mines to get coal. They were ready to comply with that arrangement, and were waiting for orders. They waited a long time, and time after time sent in requests for coal orders. At last, when winter weather had set in and coal was essential, they went to the coal miners and, almost on their knees, asked for coal. The coal miners replied, " We will give each of you a ton of coal, so as to carry you over, and when your orders come in let us have them." The people got their coal from the miners, but did not receive any orders until late in November when the snow was on the ground and frost had set in. Why those orders could not have been given
Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Donnelly

earlier, when the officials knew that relief had to be given, nobody knows. This is only one example of a lack of business ability.
Let me give another. For some reason last fall the authorities took the notion that all orders for flour had to be for a particular brand; the order received indicated the type of flour which had to be purchased. The result was that sometimes sixty or sixty-five orders would reach a small town, all calling for a certain kind of flour. Often the particular brand named on the orders could not be obtained in the town, and the people had to wait two or three weeks until that flour was brought in. Why could this matter not have been handled as it had been for years previously1-give a man an order for so many sacks of flour, and let him get it?
These are only examples, and I could give many, indicating an entire lack of business ability in handling relief problems out there. Many other problems of the same type exist; these are not political difficulties, but arise from a lack of business ability in the handling of relief. One would think that an organization which had been handling relief measures for five years would be working smoothly by this time, but year by year they seem to be unable to meet the difficulties and get into more and more trouble.
As I have said, ninety-five per cent of the people in my constituency are ion 'relief. Let me indicate for the benefit of ban. members the amount of relief they receive. A family of eight wild receive each month an order for groceries, such order not to include flour or coal; these two items are 'extra. The order for groceries will amount to $8 a month. With that amount of money these people are supposed to buy their tea, sugar and groceries. Then, if they have on the farm a hog, cows, eggs, milk or butter, or if they have a hen so that 'they may get an egg now and then, the $8 is reduced and they must accept less. The amount the person on relief receives depends upon how much he produces himself. Hon. members may imagine what a fiat 'living the people receiving this relief must enjoy.
Then, as to clothing the adult receives $9 a year, with which he is supposed to buy overshoes, boots, socks, unddrwear, overalls, smocks, caps, mitts, and if he has anything left he must buy his bedding. Hon. members will know about how much bedding he could buy with anything left from the $9. The relief - which these people are handed each month is their only moans of keeping alive. Children do not receive as much as adults.
fMr. Donnelly.]
Depending on its age, a child will receive $5.50 or $4.50, and as to the amounts received a distinction is made between boys and girls. This is an indication of the way people are being treated in this district. They are alii on the dole. I know of only one or two farmers who are not receiving relief from the federal government working in combination with the provincial government.
Hon. members will recall that during the last election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) went through the country almost crying for the unemployed. He was going to have work for all of them. Instead of that, however, they have received nothing but the dole.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: He has no control over
the weather.


Thomas F. Donnelly: We should have had
some kind of work. Let me telll my hon. friend that practically no money has been spent on road work in our district, while in the northern part of the province where there were crops thousands of dollars have been spent. The authorities seem to think that the people in my constituency do not need the work, that as they are living on the dole they should: not have employment. Although the government has kept those people alive, kept their foodies and souls together, what about the stock? What about the horses, the cattle, the pigs, the sheep and other animals? Last winter all through the country horses were dying through lack of feed. They were coming to town and 'lying down to die beside elevators filled with grain, because there seemed to be no way to get the feed out of the elevators. I remember quite well that a request was sent in to the relief officers asking for feed. The provincial Minister of Labour went through our district, returned home and stated that he had not seen any horses dying,-just as if a farmer would drive his horses to town to die! Following that the officers of the municipality became indignant and wrote a letter to the Regina Leader explaining conditions in their locality. They stated:
In five municipalities in southern Saskatchewan more than 600 horses have died since October 1, 1933. In the rural municipality of Lake of the Rivers more than 100 horses have died. ... In Stonehenge municipality officials reported 120 horses dead. ... In Waverly municipality about 130 horses have died. . . in the rural municipality of Wood River more than 150 horses have died since October 1. . . . Rural municipality of Pinto Creek is in the same position; 100 horses have died.

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Donnelly
Horses are dying all over the country just for lack of feed. Here is another letter written to the Regina Leader:
I have nine horses and two cows. Seven of the horses are trying to get a living out on the bald prairie. This winter I got a ton and three-quarters of hay and eighty bushels of oats, which is used up. I have 150 acres for crop this spring and these horses must do it. Four of the seven just manage to walk around. If I do not get feed within a week it will be too late.
I could read many other letters. Here is one from a municipality:
Our allotment of feed grain from the Saskatchewan relief commission is just over
49.000	bushels, which figures out to approximately twenty bushels per horse in this municipality, and this leaves nothing for other live stock such as pigs and poultry. Owing to the scarcity of forage and fodder it has been necessary to feed the grain shipped in by the commission during the past months. We have already received two-thirds of the allotted
49.000	bushels and the balance, if and when received, will no more than carry the stock through to seeding time.
We have made representations to the commission that we will require at least a further allotment of 50,000 bushels to feed our horses during seeding time but to date have had no assurance that any further amount than the
49.000	bushels will be supplied.
Here is another letter:
We have the unfortunate experience of a great many of our clients coming in and advising us in some cases that they have no horses left, in other cases that they have two or three or four where they need six, seven, eight or ten. The high mortality which has taken place during the past winter is, in our opinion, almost entirely due to shortage of feed.
Those are the conditions that exist, Mr. Speaker, with regard to our stock. We listened the other day in the banking and commerce committee to a story-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Reference to what takes place in a committee is not in order until the committee reports.


Thomas F. Donnelly: We have heard from many sources, Mr. Speaker, of the terrible problem that exists in this country with regard to our wheat. We have a great carry-over of wheat that we do not know what to do with. We want to get rid o'f it; why not put some of it to a useful purpose? Some have suggested that this wheat be sent to China to feed Chinamen. Charity begins at home. Why not use a little of it to help our own people? If I may suggest it to the government, why not take this wheat, mix it up with oats and barley and other grains, have it ground up into feed and give it to these farmers so that they may feed their stock? Finance them, if
you will. Do not give it to them, for they do not get relief to-day in any form whatever for nothing. The farmers have to sign notes for whatever they get from the relief commission; let them sign a note for the feed. Then they will have something to do; it will enable them to work for a living. They can start to feed poultry and pigs and sheep and other stock, and raise and sell this stock and make a living in that way. If this suggestion were acted upon, not only in the west but all over Canada, the government financing it, if you will, in a year's time or eighteen months, or at most two years, we would be able to supply our full quota of bacon and ham in the English market; there is no doubt about that, and our people would be doing something and earning a living. Besides we would be getting rid of this surplus glut of wheat of twenty or thirty or fifty million bushels. France has a scheme whereby she puts an analine dye in her wheat to make it unfit for use as flour. Why not in somewhat the same way grind our surplus wheat up with oats, barley and other grains so that it cannot be used for flour, and then hand it out to these people to be used as feed for their stock.
The whole morale of our people has gone. When you put people on the dole, on charity, and tell them to live on a handout from day to day, their whole morale goes. I have heard people say, "Oh, the morale of the west is as good as ever," but I do not find it so, I am sorry to say, and I believe it is due to the dole more than anything else.
I just want to leave that suggestion with the government. I believe it would be a good scheme to take some of our surplus grain and grind it up into feed and supply it to our farmers, financing the thing so that the farmers could earn a living for themselves and not have to be kept on the dole.


Mr. J. E. MICHAUD (Restigouehe-Mada-waska):: Mr. Speaker, the bill that is now
before the house for consideration is entitled the Relief Act, 1934. The fact that for the fifth consecutive year it has been found necessary to submit a relief measure to the house for renewal is sufficient to arrest public attention and indicates a situation that is deserving of serious consideration on the part of members of this house.
One must not forget that this country was promised that unemployment would cease four years ago. It is interesting to recall those promises in view of the statements which were made in this house on Friday last and today. In 1930 the country was promised that if the present government was elected unem-



Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Michaud
ployment would end, work would be provided for all those who were willing and able to WOrk-that work, not doles, would be provided for Canadian workmen. But to-day we are asked to renew a relief measure in which there is no program of work whatever. Coupled with that is the statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) in the house the other day that the government has no unemployment relief program.
This bill by its preamble and its main provisions gives power to the government, first, to enter into agreements with any of the provinces respecting relief measures; second, for the granting of financial assistance to any province by way of loan, advances, guarantee or otherwise; and third, to maintain peace, order and good government when parliament is not in session. These last mentioned powers, as contained in paragraph (b) of section 2, were not within the last five years directly used for the purpose, and so for the moment I will dismiss that provision.
The main features of the legislation are to enable the government to enter into agreements with the provinces to relieve unemployment, and to grant financial assistance to provincial governments under the guise of unemployment relief. The principle of the bill, and its main feature, is to enable the government to help the provinces solve the unemployment problem, in spite of the fact that the government had promised that it was to undertake a program of public works for the definite purpose of relieving unemployment. The following admission of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), appears on page 1721 of Hansard of March 22:
It must be remembered that at no time was the policy of direct relief or of works or otherwise a policy of the Dominion government.
I should like to know what has been the policy of the Dominion government with regard to the relief of unemployment if the methods adopted by the provinces in conjunction with the dominion for the last five years are not the policies of the Dominion government? This is the system which was adopted in 1932 and continued during 1933, but the minister does not want to acknowledge it as a child of the government. Section 4 of the act of 1932-33 reads:
The governor in council may pay out of the consolidated revenue fund such moneys as may be necessary for all or any of the purposes of this act, but the amount paid for direct relief for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1934, shall not exceed the sum of twenty million dollars.
I submit that during the last fiscal year the government has been committed to the extent of twenty millions to a direct relief policy or

dole system. We now hear from all quarters that this is not a proper policy for the permanent solution of unemployment, but so far the government has failed to submit to the country a proper scheme or program for the solution of this problem. All it promises to do is to help the provinces with respect to relief measures that may be adopted. The government have failed to implement the promise made five years ago, and repeated since, that they would offer a program for the permanent solution of unemployment. They have also failed to adopt a permanent program to deal with the nine provinces. The minister has stated that as far as certain provinces are concerned there is a defmiie program of public works projects. As I understand the statement made on page 1720 of Hansard of March 22, the policy of the department is to agree upon certain projects of public works submitted by the provinces. When these projects are submitted the Department of Labour sends an inspector to the district in which the work is proposed to be carried out. If the inspector reports that the work is necessary and is of such a nature as will relieve unemployment; if he reports that relief is necessary in the district, then the department approves the proposal and the work is proceeded with. I submit that this is the method which should be adopted with all the provinces. So far as I have been able to ascertain, it has been followed in the province of Quebec. No work has been carried out in that province without first receiving the approval of the Minister of Labour.
However, I find that a different policy has been followed in New Brunswick. It has been brought to my attention that during the past year no projects were agreed upon by the Department of Labour and the provincial authorities. The provincial authorities informed the public during last spring and last summer that no works were being carried on for the relief of unemployment and that there was no necessity for any such works. However, we find that on October 10* twenty days before the end of the fiscal year in the province, a retroactive agreement was made with the Department of Labour under which the province was to be reimbursed for work done. It was to receive forty or fifty per cent of the expenditures made on the trans-Canada highway and fifty per cent of the expenditures on road work and bridges.


Peter John Veniot: For which no projects were submitted.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: For which no projects were submitted. After the provincial authorities had broadcast that no money was being

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Michaud
spent last year on public works for the relief of unemployment, and only ten days before the close of the fiscal year, this agreement was arrived at. I submit that the works for which the province has been reimbursed to the extent of forty and fifty per cent were not works carried on for the relief of unemployment but were simply the usual road work carried on year after year by the provincial department of public works. It was only toward the latter part of October that certain districts in the province were told that there was money available for the relief of unemployment. When the soil was frozen several inches deep and when in some districts there were two inches of snow on the ground, the government of New Brunswick and the federal Department of Labour got together and decided that some money should be spent for the relief of unemployment in my province. This was at a time of year when in the province there was no need for that because lumbering operations were resuming and the men were being engaged in some kind of employment, more or less profitable. This, however, synchronized with the election which was then being carried on in my district. On that occasion responsible ministers of the crown in New Brunswick made statements to the electorate of the province directly promising that under the unemployment relief program work would be given to those who would support the government candidate. Only to this extent was unemployment relief granted to that province last year under the act of 11930. I submit that this is an abuse of power, and if the relief has been carried on in other provinces as it has been in New Brunswick it is no wonder that irregularities have crept in and that to-day criticism from all sides is being directed at the Minister of Labour for the way in which unemployment relief money is being spent in the various provinces. This is one of the results of the fact that the Dominion government has not outlined any unemployment relief policy.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I assume the hon. gentleman wants to be sure about his facts. In New Brunswick fifteen projects were approved in 1933, and only one of them in Restigouche county.


Peter John Veniot: On what dates were they approved?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I can get the dates when the bill is in committee. It is quite true the agreement was dated October 10, 1933.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Will the minister state to the house that the projects were approved 74726-117^
before October 10, 1933? They could not have been approved before that because the agreement with the New Brunswick government regarding unemployment relief in that province for 1003 was entered into only on October 10, 1933. If the minister wants to refer to the report of the Minister of Public Works for New Brunswick for 1933, he will find on page 3 this statement:
Lnder the terms of the agreement made with the federal government under date of October 10,	1933, the federal government
agreed' to pay 50 per cent of work on trans-Canada highway and 40 per cent of other projects retroactive to June 1,	1933, on
colonization roads and to August 1 on other projects. This agreement terminates March 31,
So the agreement between the Dominion government and the government of New Brunswick regarding not direct relief, but unemployment relief works for that province, was entered into only on October 10 last, twenty-one days before the close of their fiscal year. As a result of this agreement and the payment of $200,000 by the federal Department of Labour to the province of New Brunswick, applicable to the works as mentioned in the agreement, the deficit of the province was lowered to that extent. In view of the attitude taken by the Department of Labour, the minister and the government towards Quebec, I submit that the same policy should be followed in regard to the agreements with the other provinces. This would prevent abuses and it might save money from being wasted.


Mr. PRICE:: I should like to ask the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud) whether it is not a fact that during the period of which he speaks in the month of October, he and his friends were complaining about certain piles of broken crushed stones, asking what they were for-if they were there simply to look at, or if they were to be put on the roads. Was the hon. gentleman during that campaign not asking why this pile of stones had not been put on the roads, and by so doing did he not show that nothing of the kind he suggests was being done to help the government candidate?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: If my hon. friend does not yet know the history of that pile of stones, he must be deficient in his knowledge of the history of New Brunswick. He refers, no doubt, to the Dalhousie pile of stones, which has been there for three years and has cost New Brunswick $67,000, pprhaps half of which was paid for by the Dominion government. The pile is there yet.

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Michaud


Otto Baird Price: If the Minister of Labour at Ottawa had wished to assist the province of New Brunswick and the government candidate in that campaign, would it not have been a good policy to go ahead with the work which the hon. gentleman says took place as a result of the election campaign?
Mr. POUtLIOT: People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member who has the floor gave way to the hon. member who interrupted him, and therefore I shall ask him to proceed.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In order further to
enlighten the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Price), let me tell him that last year not a single part of that pile of rocks was used to carry on work under the unemployment relief scheme to which the Minister of Labour has contributed some forty or fifty per eent.^ I did not mention this by way of complaint, because I have no reason to complain. I brought it to the attention of the minister because he told the house last week that in respect to certain projects carried out in Quebec he had a definite program, which I think is the only way in which such projects can be carried out. I thought that principle applied to all the provinces, but to my astonishment I found that it did not apply to New Brunswick, and the people in that province who were out of employment last year complained that they were deprived of the unemployment relief to which they were entitled. This has led to certain abuses and may lead to greater abuses if the policy regarding cooperation with the provinces is not strictly adhered to.
For example, it is a matter of public knowledge that the government of New Brunswick intends to carry on an extensive program of permanent paving of highways. We have 1,300 miles of main highway, and it is the intention of the government to embark on a program of permanent paving provided the Dominion government contributes fifty per cent of the cost under the Unemployment Relief Act. It is not for me to say here whether or not, that is a good policy on the part of the province of New Brunswick, but it is our duty to give our opinion as ^ to whether money contributed by the Dominion government should be spent on such a program. I submit that the money so spent will not end unemployment, will not solve permanently the unemployment problem in that province. It would be a palliative; it would help temporarily, but the problem cannot be solved in that way. The unem-

ployment problem in New Brunswick will remain unless some definite policy is adopted to reestablish in the economic life of the country those who are now unemployed.
I submit that our unemployment is due largely to the fact that certain secondary industries had to close down and cannot be profitably reestablished, and thus a great number of men have been thrown out of work. It is also due to the reorganization of the lumber industry in the eastern part of Canada, more particularly New Brunswick, the transition from the long lumber era to the pulp and paper era. We all know that the long lumber industry employed many more hands than does the pulp and paper industry, and as a result of that transition a large number of men have been permanently thrown out of employment. If the Dominion government have any money to spend for the relief of unemployment, I submit they should embark upon a real policy looking to a permanent solution of the problem instead of contributing to work on highways which will give employment only for a few months in the year. They should adopt some policy to reestablish permanently these men in the economic life of the country. My suggestion is that instead of being provided with work with pick and shovel on the highways for a few months and then thrown back on their villages and towns without work, they should be placed on the land; the money that would be spent in providing temporary work on the highways could be much more effectively used to defray the cost of an extensive scheme of reestablishment on the land.
I throw out the suggestion to the minister because if the problem is a national one, it must be treated nationally. We have proof that the policy followed during the last four or five years has not solved the problem. For the fifth consecutive year the government have come to parliament with the same demands. Not until the Dominion government embarks upon a program of real works of a permanent nature which will enable large portions of our unemployed population to be permanently reestablished in the economic life of the country, will our unemployment difficulties be solved.
Then I submit that the provision relating to the granting of financial assistance to the provinces should be carefully considered before it is again renewed and power granted to the government in that respect. Provincial governments have taken advantage of these powers to embark upon schemes of great magnitude for small provincial governments. They know that the Dominion government have these powers whereby the provinces will

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Brown
be saved from default; they know the Dominion government will come to their rescue, even if they fail to balance their budgets, and so they embark upon projects upon which they should not embark. I submit that if this power were curtailed, or restrictions placed upon it, it would help the Dominion government and strengthen its hand in intimating to the provinces that they cannot continue to overexpend year after year, fail to balance their budgets, and then come to the Dominion treasury for relief. An end has to be made to this kind of policy which has been followed in recent years by practically all the provinces.
Another feature of this act which is not healthy and is bound to lead to difficulties is that it is a blank cheque for unemployment relief. In the act of last year a maximum of
820,000,000 was set for direct relief. The minister reports that under that act up to a few days ago, the tenth of March, $13,000,000 had been spent, and that there are accounts not yet filed, so that the total may overrun the $20,000,000. But this is no reason why this year the amount should be left blank. If it is necessary to make it a little higher, well and good, but I submit that it would be in the best interests of the provinces as well as of the Dominion government to place a limit on the powers of the provincial governments to spend money; because after all it is the provincial governments that have the last word in the matter. The amount contributed by the Dominion government depends upon how much the provincial governments spend, and we know that in the provinces the matter is left to the municipalities. I submit that this leads to abuses, to overexpenditures, to unnecessary expenditures, and to other difficulties which will have to be met before very long. We cannot allow the provincial governments to overexpend year after year, under the guise of unemployment relief, and then come to the Dominion treasury for assistance. Unless some limitation is placed on the power of the provincial governments to spend money for the relief of unemployment, the Dominion treasury must meet these demands. I submit that the government should say once and for all that they will abandon making contributions towards the cost of direct relief, that they will not subscribe to the cost of public works which are not necessary, but that instead they will undertake a relief program, either by way of public works which are absolutely necessary or by way of gratuities or bonuses to the main industries of the country, which would reinstate a large number of our unemployed. Instead of holding out inducements to the provincial governments to embark upon schemes which will some day lead the provinces to bankruptcy, the Dominion government should initiate a policy of spending that money, if it has to be spent, in helping the basic industries.
Let me illustrate what I mean. I am familiar with the lumbering industry of the east, and particularly of New Brunswick; I do not speak of the industry in the west, where I am not familiar with the conditions. If two years ago the lumbering industry of New Brunswick had been granted half the money that has been spent for road work and direct relief in that province, in order to compensate for the lower prices, they would have continued to employ large numbers of men who have been thrown out of employment and put on relief. Those men would have been employed at the work with which they were familiar, and to-day we would not be faced with the problem presented by many of our people who are not willing to work, who prefer-and quite naturally-to receive the dole or direct relief instead of going back to their former employment. Instead of giving these blank cheques to the government we should limit them, so that in dealing with the provinces, the municipalities or different industries they will be in a position to establish very clearly the different contributors to any unemployment relief projects. In that way we will prevent the abuses which were pointed out this afternoon by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King).
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I should prefer to see the government embark on a real policy of some kind to relieve the situation and do away with direct relief, which, if it is not a policy of the Dominion government, has been subscribed to and approved by the government, and unfortunately to-day we cannot get away from it.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker,. I shall not detain the house at any great-length ; I rise only in order to substantiate a statement I made during the debate on the address. At that time I stated that one of the factors likely to bring about a curtailment of production in the west was the fact that, as the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) has just said, the mortality of horses has been very high, so high that many men will not be in a position to put in their usual acreage. I gave a specific illustration; I said that a gentleman had told me just before I left home that he had counted eight dead horses while driving between two towns only seven miles apart. Now I find that not only can I substantiate my statement but that the condition is infinitely worse than I thought.
Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Brown

When I made that statement, Mr. Speaker, it was questioned by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) who, in a very patronizing tone, advised the hon. member for Lisgar to be careful in the statements he made. I know that by the rules of the house I am not allowed to read from a former debate, but if any person wishes to find a fine example of the sort of thing that at times passes for reasoning in this house I would refer him to page 336 of Hansard, where the hon. member for Souris sought to offset my statement by saying that he had received letters from four men who were prepared to take affidavits stating that the things I had said were not true. What kind of logic is it when a man puts against a plain, positive statement a negative statement from a man who says he knows nothing about it? That was practically the argument advanced by the hon. member for Souris.
When my statement was questioned I thought I would write home, and I did write to thirteen persons in a very small part of my constituency. I received thirteen replies, and when you receive thirteen replies to thirteen, letters you may rest assured that conditions are serious. I shall not take time to read all these letters, but I should like to quote a sentence from one of them:
Many horses have died. I know of sixty-nine horses that have died in 1-13
That is in one township, six miles square. I also wrote two persons living in the district to which I referred in my previous statement. One man gives me not only the general statement that fifty horses have died; he gives me the names of those who have lost horses, and the number they have lost. I know the majority of those people personally. So I was not very far astray when I said that probably it would be necessary to reduce the wheat acreage in the west because of the mortality among the horses.
I should like also to endorse the position taken by the hon. member for Willow Bunch. Is it not a serious situation when, within a few miles of where these horses are dying, there are thousands of bushels of wheat in the elevators that might be used for feed, if not in the immediate vicinity at least within easy reach? These are the conditions which prevailed six weeks ago, and I am satisfied that they are much worse to-day. When seeding begins the condition will be aggravated, because the horses which have managed to live through the winter will not be able to do half a day's work. The condition in this area is particularly serious, because, comparatively speaking, it is not large. In the southwestern

part of the province, through drought and grasshoppers, there has been complete devastation, and relief has been handed out. In this more limited area, however, there are many individuals who were hit by the drought and grasshoppers just as seriously as were the people in the larger area. Conditions as I know them are most deplorable. [DOT]
Again let me emphasize the necessity for and the desirability of doing something along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Willow Bunch. We are worried about how to dispose of our surplus wheat. Well, we need not worry very long if we are willing to take the obvious course and use it to feed the live stock which is now dying. That is all I wish to say at the moment.


Mr. J. R. HURTUBISE (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak this evening, but after hearing what was said by the hon. members for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) and North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) I thought it my duty to make a few observations. I do not wish to say anything about the general purport of the bill, but shall refer only to one or two points.
May I first speak about the lumber camps in my constituency. In the past I was not as much interested in the lumber industry, but owing to the fact that under the last redistribution the territory allotted to the member for Nipissing has been greatly increased and now embraces an important lumber region, I feel that I have added interest in the matter. Under the redistribution I have not only a district but almost a diocese. At the outset may I say that at least in part I agree with what was said by the hon. member for East Algoma. He spoke at length about the propaganda broadcast by the communist organizations throughout the camps. I know of that activity, and, with the hon. member for East Algoma, I believe if we wish to have peace among our loyal citizens, some measures should be taken to curb such activities. On the other hand he forgot to speak about the honest industrial workers, but it was pleasing to note that the hon. member for North Timiskaming spoke on behalf of that class of labour in the lumber camps. I too will always sympathize with and defend the rights of organized labour, as long as they are reasonable in their demands.
Referring to the work in those camps, located, for the greater part, in the constituency of East Algoma, may I say that in January I wras visited by three young married men full of ambition, who were thrifty and eager to make a success of life. Although

Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Hurtubise
they were not within my constituency they will in the future belong to it. If horn, .members will permit I shall relate briefly the story they told me, which I am sure will indicate that these young men were honest and industrious, and not communists. On October 11 they were hired in Sudbury to work in the Austin and Nicholson camps, and were to work specifically -for J. J. Brownlee, who was mentioned by the hon. member for East Al-goma. For their work they were to be paid from eight to ten cents a log. The three of them worked1 from October 11 to December 5 and in that time cut 3,000 logs. On the 5th of December, wishing to go home to see their families and to settle some of their accounts, they were offered $14, $7 and $11 respectively. May I add that the company scaler oulted 1,000 or one-third of the logs but when the government scaler came along he culled only 300. The men refused the amounts offered to them, and as a result there was an argument. The next morning they were offered larger amounts. The $14 offer had risen to $27.46, the $7 offer to $20.78 and the $11 offer to $22.62. The men accepted the money because they had to go home and had no money in their pockets. The case is now in the hands of their lawyers. These facts will serve to indicate 'the treatment some of the men receive in lumber camps. With the hon. member for East Algoma I am in favour of curbing communist propaganda, but at the same time if we do not take care of the honest men in the lumber camps we will get that condition which we are trying to avoid. We must give justice and satisfaction to the poor labouring classes.


George Brecken Nicholson: May I ask a question? Would the hon. member furnish the names of the men and the camps in which they were working?


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: If I am not obliged to give the names I shall not do so, because those men might not have a chance to get further work in the camps. I shall furnish the names only when I am forced to.
The hon. member for North Timiskaming has spoken about a matter in which I am particularly interested, namely the back to the land movement. When last year or the year before we were offered the Gordon plan I, for one, was pleased to see that at last the colonization movement had been given some encouragement. I have watched in detail that movement in my district. I took the trouble last summer to visit at least one hundred of these settlers, and I questioned them as to how they came there, how they were doing, and whether they were on
relief or otherwise; so I know what I am talking about. I do not want to discourage the Gordon plan at all. Perhaps the minister is in earnest about it and means well, and it may succeed in some places, but in my district around Sudbury I must say that the Gordon plan is a real joke, and when we read in the newspapers that the Minister of Labour is increasing the total grant from S600 to 8700 it is a worse joke still, because none of the settlers has yet received one cent of the $600 grant. Naturally the municipality has first to contribute its $200 before the provincial and federal governments will contribute their $200 each, and if the municipality does not furnish its $200 the settler gets none of the S600 grant. So the minister can promise 85,000 if he likes; the settler will not get one cent just the same. Around home the Gordon plan, while it has not been altogether a failure', is not a success; its success has been nil.
A few days ago I put this question to the Minister of Labour:
How much money has been spent in the province of Ontario for colonization purposes?
The answer I received was, $20,564.60. As the hon. member for North Timiskaming said, that is just a drop in the bucket. It means nothing at all. To talk of colonizing a province with S20.000 is absurd, so I hope that the minister will not boast about the amount the government has spent for colonization.
My second question was as to how many had benefited from that colonization plan in Ontario, and the answer was 362. That is, 362 had received the $200 from their municipality. But none of them came from, my district. I was also given a list, in reply to my third question, of the municipalities from which these settlers had come. There were 362 settlers, according to the reply I received, and on the average they had received $455.
I have this question of colonization very much at heart, and I am afraid that if the present plan is not changed we shall lose a great opportunity of making it a success. Many healthy young men who are fitted for the vocation of farming will be lost to the land and will either join the ranks of the socialists or communists or take the first chance that offers of getting work in the industrial centres. These young men are ready to accept some help and go on the land, but they are not given the chance.
I say first of all, Mr. Speaker, a general plan should be formed not only for Ontario but for all the provinces. There should be put in every centre of colonization one man for each little district who will make coloni-
1854	COMMONS
Relief Act, 1934-Mr. Hurtubise
zation his special work-not a political job, but a man who has colonization at heart and wall give his best efforts to make the plan a success. Do not let us have a repetition of what was done in my district, where townships were opened for colonization and men were sent out by the municipalities who would tell them: You go out there and we will see you in a few days. I questioned these settlers and I found that they were given transportation and food and a small building outfit and from $40 to $75 by the municipality. It is done because the municipalities want to get rid of part of their unemployed. After these men have gone out on the land they have to live as best they can. They are not encouraged in any way. They never get the $200 from the municipality, nor the $200 from the province or the federal government.
The first thing that should be done is to survey the townships and have the lots well defined, because what happens now is that settlers very often find, after they have cleared their land and built a little home and put in a few months' work, that it has all been done on their neighbour's property, and that their whole work and time has been lost. That has happened in many cases around Sudbury. So I say that no township should be opened for colonization until it has been properly surveyed and every lot well defined.
Next the settler should be given the chance to earn a few dollars. Do away with all kinds of timber restrictions. To-day the settler is forbidden to cut certain kinds of timber. Remove these timber restrictions, open colonization roads, and even pay the settler a small wage. Give him a chance to earn a few dollars with which to buy something according to his tastes and needs. Just now the situation is that these poor settlers do not know where they stand. They have no work and no chance of earning a dollar. They are on relief, and the first chance they get of a job in the industrial centres they will leave the land and go back to the city. Unless the present plan is changed it is absolutely useless. I am making these suggestions to the government for the benefit of colonization and of the settlers, and I hope that they will be taken into consideration. I have studied the situation in considerable detail.
For the information of the minister may I say that in Sudbury a plan of colonization is being carried out. The man who looks after colonization looks after relief at the same time. It is Mr. Laforest. He is very earnest and

he tries to do all he can. He likes the farmers and he is doing his best to help them, but he himself admits he is absolutely helpless- "We have nothing more to work with." So if the government are earnest about this scheme I hope they will take the means to help these poor fellows and encourage them in their work. As I said a little while ago, agriculture is a vocation, and there is no use bringing from the cities men who are hard up and have big families and do not know what to do for a living, and put them on a farm and expect them to make a success of it. Rather encourage those with farm experience who have only lately gone into the city. Those who have been there a long while it is useless to bring to the land because they will not stay there; as soon as prosperity returns they will hasten back to the city. It would be better to take only those men who have had agricultural experience and have been in the cities but a Short time. The government should give encouragement to the sons of farmers. These boys have had experience and they should ibe assisted with settlers' loans. If these men and boys are not placed upon the land during this time of depression they are liable to go astray and no one knows what will happen to them.
I agree with the hon. member for North Timiskaming when he states that agriculture is the principal industry of this country and that it should be given every encouragement. During the past few weeks reference has been made in the house to all kinds of loans and guarantees given by the government to different industries and corporations in order to help them through this crisis. What has been done and what is intended to be done in the future for agriculture? Unless something is done, that industry is doomed.
As I stated last year, the system of education in the rural districts should be changed. The present system develops mentality for the city, and the textbooks should be changed entirely. I hope the federal and provincial governments will cooperate and see that there is a change in the system of education. I should like to see less money spent on agricultural colleges and more on small district organizations. A short time ago I read that there were 250 agronomists in the province of Quebec and as many more engaged in preparatory work. In northern Ontario, which is the largest part of the province, there are only three or four agronomists. These men can only get around to the different districts once in a while. Unless the younger generation is

Private Bills
educated along scientific lines the future of agriculture is doomed. I hope the government will be able to make as large expenditures, under the peace, order and good government part of this bill, on colonization work and agriculture as will be made for the assistance of other activities.


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: I should like to ask the minister a question based upon the statement made a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). If my memory serves me aright, the hon. member stated that 69 horses starved to death in one township. I do not doubt the veracity of that statement but I should like to know if the government has attempted to limit the Manitoba government in any way, shape or form in connection with the giving out of relief in these drought areas.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The answer is in the negative.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: In that case the
fault lies with the provincial government, the government which the hon. member for Lisgar almost ran his feet off two or three years ago trying to elect.
On motion of Mr. Veniot the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 27, 1934