CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table parliamentary return No. 135, the report submitted by George A. Touche and Company, auditors of the Canadian National Railways, in connection with the writing down of the capital. While I am on my feet may I say that we did not receive a sufficient number of copies from George A. Touche and Company to supply all the members of the committee, but we have supplied them in alphabetical order as far as they would go, and we are getting others run off which will be supplied as soon as they are ready.


Mr. WILFRED HANBURY (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the information which has just been laid on the table of the house for the first time was previously handed to the newspapers. I should like to know if the minister has any explanation to make in that regard.


Robert James Manion: I have no explanation to make, because I did not hand it to the newspapers. The report as we received it was supplied to some of the members, and quite possibly some member has handed it to the newspapers. We did not do so.



QUESTIONS

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

[Stage Direction]
FRANCOIS, QUE.*
Mr. LAFLECHE:: What are the names and addresses of the farmers of the judicial district of St. Francois, who have made arrangements pursuant to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act?


Mr. DUPRE:: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche) that this question is to be dropped.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.
POULTRY POOL SCHEME LECTURERS*


Mr. GERSHAW:: 1.	How many lecturers have been appointed in Alberta to promote the poultry pool scheme?

2.	What are their names?
3.	What remuneration is received' by each?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: As this question is now worded there is no answer, as there is no scheme called the poultry pool scheme, and my information is that there has been no scheme submitted by the Alberta poultry pool. I presume the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) has in mind a scheme known as the Alberta poultry marketing scheme. We understand that lecturers have been appointed, but at present their names are not available to the Department of Agriculture. Neither does the department know whether wages are being paid to these lecturers. W'hen the returns are submitted by the sponsors of the scheme showing the expenses that have been paid, those returns will contain the names of the lecturers, and we will be glad to give the hon. member the information.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Answered.
Mr. STEWART (Edlmonton)-:	I would
suggest that the Minister of Agriculture try to secure from the pool the names of the lecturers. I understand the vote has already taken place. The selection of the lecturers must have been completed by this time and it would be only a very small matter to obtain from the pool the names, the addresses and the remuneration received. If we have to await the return made by the pool we may not receive the information before next September or October, and we are very anxious to get the information if it can be obtained in this way.


Robert Weir: I thought I had
made the matter abundantly clear when I spoke previously. We have no means of telling the remuneration paid, until returns are received. So far as the government is concerned we do not know whether or not any wages have been paid-certainly they have not been paid out of funds advanced by the government or by the dominion marketing board. I said to the hon. member who asked for the information that as soon as the returns were received showing how the money had been spent I would supply the information, and he seemed content. There will be no delay; as soon as the information is received it will be passed on.


Mr. YENIOT:: That will cover all three
provinces?


Robert Weir: The other information will be available as soon as it comes in.

Questions
farmers' creditors arrangement ACT-SWIFT CURRENT


Mr. BOTHWELL:: 1.	Who is the official receiver under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act at Swift Current?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	On what basis is he paid?
4.	What territory is comprised within his jurisdiction?
5.	What amount has been paid or accrued to him since the date of his appointment up to the 31st of January, 1935?
6.	How many farmers in his district have availed themselves of the provisions of the said act up to the 31st of January, 1935?
7.	In how many cases has an adjustment been made?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	W. W. Smith.
2.	September 1, 1934.
3.	Remuneration, $150 a month.
4.	The judicial district of Swift Current.
5.	$750.
6 . 400 farmers have been interviewed by the official receiver; 16 proposals have actually been filed and many others are in process of being filed-correspondence being carried on in respect thereof. Three assignments have been made.
7. Thirteen adjustments have been made, one as the result of a formal meeting and the others independently, with reduction in debt load of $52,000.


SWIFT CURRENT, SASK.-PUBLIC BUILDING
Mr. BOTHWELL:: 1.	What was the total cost of painting and other repairs to the public building at Swift Current during the year 1935?
2.	Was the work done by contract or days work?
3.	If by contract, who was the contractor?
4.	If by days work, who was the supervisor and what rate of wages was paid to the men employed on the work?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	$910 (1934-1935).
2. No work done by day labour-local tenders called; for painting and' general
repairs.
3.	Bert Allen, painting and general
repairs	$ 624 00
W. J. Burden, fencing	 123	25
W. J. Burden, relaying cement
walks	
60	00W. Ashly, work on grounds..	47	00
J. Alexander, repairs to plumbing
and heating	
40	25W. J. Burden, repairs to	locks..	15	504.	Work done under supervision of district resident architect and caretaker of the building.


EMPLOYMENT OF LABOURERS
Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Has the government any control over the employment of labourers for the construction of the departmental buildings on Wellington street, Ottawa?
2.	If so, to whom must one seeking employment thereat apply in order to secure such employment?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	No; Employment under control of the contractor for the building, U. Boileau Limited.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



OLD AGE PENSIONS ACT

Mr. COOTE:: 1.	How many persons were receiving pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act on March 31, 1934?
2.	What was the total amount paid to pensioners under this act in the year 1933-1934?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	86,873.
2.	$16,566,116.74.



GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BRANCH-VANCOUVER, B.C.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Who is the representative in the city of Vancouver, of the Government Annuities Branch ?
2.	On what basis is he paid?
3.	What remuneration did he draw in 1934? Mr. GORDON:
1.	D. McL. Anderson.
2.	Commission.
3.	$9,460.86.



FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT-THREE RIVERS

Mr. BARIBEAU:: 
Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Champlain, St. Maurice and Maskinonge.
2.	To January 31, 1935-125.
3.	Four voluntary settlements completed, a number incomplete. 16 cases heard by the Board of Review.



CAP DE LA MADELEINE, QUE., VIADUCT

Mr. BARIBEAU:: 1.	Did the government of the province of Quebec request the federal government to share
Questions

in the cost of the construction of a viaduct in the city of Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Champlain county?
2.	If so, have the said works been approved by the Department of Public Works?
3.	Are such works being carried on at the present time?
4.	If not, what is the reason for the delay?


Mr. GORDON:: 1,	2, 3 and 4.
Under the agreement entered into between the dominion and the province of Quebec under the provisions of The Relief Act, 1933, the province submitted for dominion approval the following proposed works bearing schedule No. 457 which schedule was in due course approved.
Schedule No. 467
Champlain county, highway No. 19, Cap-de-la-Madeleine. Construction of a concrete viaduct over the C.P.R. track. To remedy unemployment at Cap-de-la-iMadeleine.
Total estimated cost, $35,000.
Total estimated labour cost, $24,000.
Man-days work provided by project, $15,000.
Basis of contribution, 50 cents per man-day,
Dominion proportion, $7,500.
The date set for the completion of the above project was March 31, 1934, that being the date on which The Relief Act, 1933, expired. As no accounts have been received from the province with respect to schedule No. 457, it is not known whether work was proceeded with or not,



BERET IMPORTS

Mr. BARIBEAU:: 1.	How many berets (in number of dozens and value) were imported into Canada during the months of September, October, November and December, 1934; and January, 1935?
2.	What is the number of berets now in bond ?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Statistical records do not segregate imports of berets and information is not available from trade returns.
2.	This information not available in department, details of goods in bond at ports not available until invoice produced, entry passed and examination made.



AMQUI, QTJE.-POST OFFICE

Mr. BRASSET:: 1.	Have tenders been called for the construction of a post office at Amqui, Matane county?
2.	Has the contract been awarded?
3.	What are the names of the tenderers, and the amount of each tender?

4.	If the contract has been awarded, what is the name of the party who secured it and for what amount?
5.	What was the lowest tender and the name of the tenderer?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Santo F. Walters	
$11,622.02J. E. Verrault	
13,458	00
F. Pelletier & R. Fournier.. 14,000 00 Dumont & Damours Enrg.. 15,505 57
Laurent Giroux	16562	00Ernest Dionne	
16,785	00
Stewart Construction Co., Ltd. 16,856 00 La Perrelle Lumber Co., Ltd. 17,185 70
4.	(a) Santo F. Walters, (b) $11,622.02.
5.	(a) $11,622.02.	(b) Santo F. Walters.
farmers' creditors arrangement act


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Was Mr. Albert Rioux, of Montreal, appointed to some office pursuant to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act?
2.	If so, what is the position, when was he appointed, and what is his salary?
3.	Are his travelling expenses included in his salary?
4.	Is he called upon to devote all his time to the duties of this position?
5.	Is he allowed by the government to write in the newspapers, under his signature or a pseudonym?
6.	Is he under the direct jurisdiction of the minister or of the civil service commission?
7.	In the first instance, under which minister's jurisdiction does he come, and is he acting, under the dispositions of the act, pursuant to instructions given to him from time to time by such minister?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Representative of debtors ou the board of review for the province of Quebec; $25 a day while engaged on the work. Appointed December 8, 1934.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	The government has no knowledge of any such writings.
6.	Appointment was made by the governor in council. The act is administered by the Department of Finance.
7.	Under the Minister of Finance, acting pursuant to the provisions of the act and regulations made thereunder.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-J. E. LAFORCE

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Is Mr. J. E. Laforce, of Montreal, an employee of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	If so, what is his position and salary?

Questions


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Yes.
2.	General agent for the province of Quebec in the Colonization Department of Canadian National Railways.
The Canadian National management consider question of salary to be a detail of railway operation and not a matter of public interest.



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE DELEGATES

Mr. LAPOINTE:: Who have been the government delegates, the employers delegate and the employees delegate at the meetings of the International labour conference in 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Year	Session
1930... .Fourteenth
Government
delegates
Gerald H. Brown Dr. W. A. Riddell
Employers'
delegate
Major J. R. Roaf
Employees'
delegate
Mr. Tom Moore
1931.. . .Fifteenth	 Hon. G. Howard	Mr. H. W. Mac-	Mr. P. M. Draper
Ferguson	donnell
Dr. W. A. Riddell
1932.. . .Sixteenth	 Hon. Senator G. D. Mr. Melville P.	Mr. Tom Moore
Robertson	White
Dr. W. A. Riddell
1933..	. .Special session (Tripartite preparatory conference on the reduction of working hours as a means of relieving unem-
ployment	.. Dr. W. A. Riddell	Mr.	A. R. Goldie	Mr. R. J. Tallon1933..	. .Seventeenth 	... Dr. W. A. Riddell Mr. P. E. Renaud	Mr.	A. R. Goldie	Mr. James Simpson1934..	.. Eighteenth 	,.. Dr. W. A. Riddell Mr. P. E. Renaud	Mr.	W. D. Black	Mr. Tom Moore



TREATT OF VERSAILLES-CONTRACTING PARTIES

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Has Canada prohibited imports from certain countries that were not among the contracting parties to the Treaty of Versailles?
2.	If so, what are those countries, at what date was an order in council passed to that effect, and for what reason?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Russia, order in council (PC. 463) dated 27th February, 1931, as amended by order in council (P.C. 3029) dated the 10th December,
1931-To prohibit the direct or indirect importation into Canada of coal, wood-pulp, pulpwood, lumber and timber of all kinds, asbestos and furs, in the public interest, having regard to the documentary and other evidence that has been received by the various Departments of the Public Service in Canada.



HILLSDALE, N.S., POST OFFICE

Mr. DUFF:: .
1.	Was the Hillsdale post office, Inverness county, Nova Scotia, closed last year and if so, why?
2.	If so, for what reason, and who was postmaster at the time said post office was closed?
3.	Was the said post office reopened in 1934?
4.	If so, for what reason was said post office reopened and who was appointed postmaster?
5.	Was a triweekly mail service established from Jud'ique north post office to Lower Hillsdale, via Judique interval?
6.	If so, on whose recommendation was such service inaugurated, and what is the name and salary of the mail carrier?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes-31st of July, 1934.
2.	(a) On account of its proximity to Lower Hillsdale (11 miles) and of the reopening of Judique-Intervale Post Office;
(b) Mrs. Jessie McEachern.
3.	No.
Questions

4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	Yes.
6.	Mr. I. D. MacDougall, M.P., Angus A. McDougall; $121.66 per annum.



JUDIQUE INTERVAL, N.S. POST OFFICE 2.

[Stage Direction]
Year	Domestic	Importations	1925-26 ..	.. 57,253,867 25	$16,771,226	061926-27 ..	.. 63,940,130 18	18,365,540	421927-28 ..	.. 55,379,084 49	16,721.159	631928-29 ..	.. 49.151,635 51	14.495,035	71
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Was the post office at Judique interval closed about two years ago?
2.	If so, who was postmaster at the time said post office was closed?
3.	Was the said post office reopened in 1934?
4.	If so, for what reason was said post office reopened and who was appointed postmaster?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes-29th of February, 1932.
2.	Miss Annie MacDougall.
3.	Yes-1st of August, 1934.
4.	(a) To give improved public service.
(b) Miss Annie MacDougall.



SALES TAX COLLECTIONS

Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What was the amount of sales tax collected in each of the years from 1930 to 1934, inclusive?
2.	What was the amount of sales tax collected in each of the years from 1926 to 1929, inclusive?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.
Year
1929-	30 .
1930-	31 .
1931-	32 .
1932-	33 .
1933-	34 .
Domestic . $34,936,375 98 .	16,586,975	30
. 34,557,787 87 . 49,275,962 46 . 54.244,031 52
Importations $ 9,922,325 22 4,196,968 85 7,834,822 44 8,701,609 35 8,979,576 38



SOREL, QUE., SHIPYARDS

Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	What is the name of the superintendent of the shipyards at Sorel, Quebec?
2.	What salary does he receive?
3.	On what date was he appointed?
4.	What was the name of his predecessor?
5.	What was his salary?
6.	How long did he hold the position?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Mr. David Ballantyne Carswell is acting superintendent ^of the shipyard.
2.	$5,000 per annum, less 10 per cent salary deduction.
3.	He assumed duty 30th October, 1933.
4.	Frederick Bridges.
5.	$4,500 per annum, less 10 per cent salary deduction.
6.	From 1st February, 1929. to 1st March, 1934.



LETTER CARRIER SERVICE

Mr. FEIRLAND:: 1.	What cities or communities were given a letter carrier service for house to house mail delivery since 1930?
2.	What is the population of each such city or community, and what postal revenue was derived from each of them during the last fiscal year?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yorkton, Sask.
Sudbury, Ontario.
Granby, P.Q.
Orillia, Ontario.
2.	Population	Revenue Fiscal	Date LetterCensus	year ended	Carrier DeliveryCity	(1.931)	31st March, 1934 Service inauguratedYorkton	
5,027	$35,047	39	4th	June,	1930Sudbury	
18,518	68,262	35	11th	June,	1930Granby	
10,496	29,254	00	13th	Nov..	1980Orillia	
8,183	40,926	81	12th	Nov,,	1930



OLD AGE PENSIONS ACT CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. FERLAND:: 1. Since the passing of the Old Age Pensions' Act, what has been the total contribution of the
federal government with respect to each province, not including Quebec and New Brunswick?
2. What was the total contribution of each such province?

Questions as Orders jor Returns


Wesley Ashton Gordon: * Statement as at December 31, 1934
	(1)	(2)
Alberta	S 3,581,406 52	$ 1,678,368British Columbia	6,071,793 14	3,397,760Manitoba .. ..	6,559,037 81	3,485,112Nova Scotia. ..	1,154,148 81	384,716Ontario	
Prince Edward	30,061,336 10	15,302,285Island	168,886 04	56,295Saskatchewan. . N.W.T	6,020,614 45 7,774 58t	3,174,685
* Commencing on November 1, 1931, the federal government's share of expenditure was increased from 50 to 75 per cent of old age pension payments.
t The total amount of pensions paid in the northwest territories is assumed by the federal government.



MIGRATION TO UNITED STATES

Mr. MacLEAN:: 1.	How many Canadians migrated to the United States during the years 1931 to 1934, inclusive, showing each year separately?
2.	How many Canadians came back to take up residence in Canada during this period, showing each year separately?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	There is no information available showing emigration from Canada either to the United States or elsewhere. To record emigration across the International boundary would involve the employment of many additional officers.
ment of Labour and the Department of National Defence in connection with examinations of men in unemployment relief camps?
2.	What are their names and where do they reside ?
3.	How many examinations have been made and what numbers are examined daily by each of the said doctors?
4.	What amount is allowed for each one examined, and what was the total amount paid each doctor during the calendar years 1932 to 1934?



STEAM RAILWAY EMPLOYEES

Mr. OOOTE:: 1. What was the number of employees on steam railways in Canada in each year from 1913 to 1934, inclusive?	.
. 2. What was the total amount of wages paid m each of these years?
3.	What was the total amount of salaries paid in each of these years?
A What was the total amount of interest paid by railway companies in each of these years?__________________________


Robert James Manion: I would suggest that this question stand as an order for return, with the understanding that we will table all the information received from the railways.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Stands as an order for
return.



TRANSLATORS

Mr. OHEVRIER:: 1.	What are the names, and' the respective departments or branches, of all the translators transferred to the bureau for translation?
2.	What are the names, and the respective departments or branches of all the translators who, to date, have not been so transferred?
3.	For what reasons have these latter not been absorbed by the central bureau?



REGISTRATION OF VOTERS

[Stage Direction]
2.
Mr. FERLAND:: Fiscal year
1930-	31	
30,2091931-	32	
19,4111932-	33	
17,6251933-	34	
9,172April to December, 1934.. ..	6,050



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BRADETTE:: How many bushels of wheat and other varieties of grain exported from Canada, were shipped from the different United States ports during the years 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934 inclusive?


RELIEF CAMP DOCTORS-BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. REID:: 1. How many medical doctors have been engaged in British Columbia under the Depart-
1.	What was the number of electors registered on the federal lists in each of the counties of the province of Quebec in 1926?
2.	What was the population of each county in the province of Quebec in 1926, according to the previous census?
3.	What is the number of electors presently
registered on the federal lists in each of the counties	of	the	provinces	of	Quebec	and
Ontario?
4.	What is the population of each of the
counties	of	the	provinces	of	Quebec	and
Ontario, according to the census of 1931?


Mr. CAHAN:: I should like the question
to stand as an order for return. Such information as is available will be given in compliance with it. I do not know whether or not we have the list for 1926, but if we have the full information will be given. Meantime I should like it to stand as an order for return.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Stands as an order for
return.

Questions as Orders for Returns


BUTTER PRODUCTION
Mr. BARIBEAU:: 1.	What quantity of butter was^ manufactured in each province of the dominion during the years 1933 and 1934?
2.	What grades of butter were manufactured in each province during 1933 and 1934?
3.	What quantity of cheese was manufactured in each province of the dominion during the years 1933 and 1934?
4.	What grades of cheese were manufactured in each province during 1933 and 1934?
printing bureau allowed any extra pay or special salary when engaged in night work?
4.	If so, what is the rate of such extra pay or additional remuneration for night work?


PRINTING BUREAU MACHINERY
Mr. BOUCHARD:: What expenditures have been incurred or amounts paid for new machinery purchased by or for the dominion printing bureau since prorogation of the last session of parliament?


IMPORTATIONS OF FOREIGN COAL
Wilfred Hanbury: *
1.	What amount has been granted to the Yukon every year from 1920 to 1935.
2.	What amount of special allowance was made each year separately to the members or the Royal North West Mounted Police or Royal Canadian Mounted Police, m the Yukon, from 1920 to 1935?


HOPE, B.C., AIRPORT, PROJECT 26
Mr. MacLEAN:: 1.	What was the total amount of foreign coal imported into Canada during the years 1931 to 1934, inclusive, showing each year separately?
2.	What was the amount of unfavourable and favourable trade balance between Canada and the United States for the years 1931 to 1934, inclusive, showing each year separately ?
3.	Was any embargo placed against the exportation of any of our raw, natural products from Canada during the years 1931 to 1934, inclusive; if so, specify for each year separately?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	How many acres are being used at project 26, Hope airport?
2.	How much per acre was paid for this land,
and to whom?	, , ,
3 What was the total amount expended by the'Department of National Defence on project 26, Hope airport to the end of January, 1935?
4.	How many men are there in camp at project 26, Hope airport?
5.	How many acres have been cleared at project 26, Hope airport?


HOPE PRINCETON ROAD-CAMP BUILDINGS
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	What was the total expended by the Department of National Defence on camp buildings 210, 211, 212, 213, project 55, Hope Princeton road?
2.	Were sealed tenders called for the lumber
for these camps?
3.	If tenders were called for, who were the tenderers, and what was the exact amount of each tender?
4.	If the work was not done under tender or contract, what are the names of those supplying the lumber, and the prices charged for same?
5.	What was the total amount expended _ by the Department of National Defence on project No. 55, Hope Princeton road, to the end of January, 1935?


WORKING HOURS OF TRANSLATORS
Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	Since the opening of the present session, what are the working hours of the translators engaged in the translation of the House of Commons, debates?
2.	Are the translators engaged in night work allowed any special remuneration or extra pay for night work?
3.	Are the foremen, typographers, printers, mechanics or skilled labourers in the Dominion


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of all paylists, accounts for materials, iron, stone, etc., in conection with the work done by the Department of Public Works on the breakwaters at Sainte Adelaide de Pabos, during the year 1934-1935.


STE. ANNE DE BEAUPRE, QUE., WHARF
Mr. POWER (for Mr. Casgrain):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents, exchanged between the federal government or any of the ministers of the crown and any other person or persons in connection with requests for grants to repair the government wharf at Sainte Anne de Beaupre; also, copy of all lists of salaries or remunerations paid to those engaged in the supervising of the above works, from the 1st of January, 1934, to date.


LAKE SAINT-PIERRE SOUNDINGS
Mr. CHEVRIER (for Mr. Boucher):: For a statement showing the names, addresses, and salaries, of all persons employed in connection with the soundings made by the Department of Marine in lake Saint-Pierre, during the present winter; also, a copy of all telegrams, letters and correspondence, passed between the Minister of Marine, his department, A. K. Laing, and any other person or persons, concerning the appointment of the above persons.
SAINT-FRANgOIS DU LAC, QUE., POST OFFICE


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, complaints, petitions, reports and other papers, in the hands of the Post Office Department, since July 30, 1930, concerning the post office at Saint-Franqois du Bac and the postmistress thereof.

Motions jor Papers
chaklevoix-saguenay public works	Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver): A similar
On the motion of Mr. CASGRAIN:
For a copy of all paylists and accounts for materials in connection with work done by the department of Public Works in the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay, during the years 1933 and 1934.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I would suggest that this motion stand until the hon. member is here, because I have had some discussion with him about it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Stands.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF LEGISLATION-GUARANTEES
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: For a return showing in respect of guarantees given by the government under unemployment relief legislation: (a) nature of the guarantee; (b) name of bank receiving guarantee; (e) number of order in council governing each case; (d) amount of guarantee in each case; (e), amount, if any, by which guarantee reduced in each case.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF DISBURSEMENTS
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For .a return showing dominion disbursements under unemployment relief administration since August 7, 1930, for the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934 up to January, 1935, inclusive, and showing in each case to whom such disbursements were paid.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Mr. Speaker, part of this motion is quite in order, but I would suggest to the hon. member that the request contained in the last expression "and showing in each case to whom such disbursements were paid" is almost impossible to fulfil. The expression to which I have referred involves three departments, namely the Department of Labour, the Department of National Defence and the Department of the Interior. To give the particulars in each case would involve over a million documents. I would suggest that the motion would be satisfactory if the hon. member would stop after the word "inclusive."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is satisfactory.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Motion as amended
agreed to.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF STATISTICS
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For a return showing the number on direct relief in Canada by months 1934-1935 under the following headings:	(a) number of heads of
families; (b) number of dependents on heads of families; (c) individual relief cases only.


George Halsey Perley: In part (c) does the hon. member refer to the number of individual relief cases?
return was made two years ago.


George Halsey Perley: But not the individual cases.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
number.


George Halsey Perley: I would suggest that part (c) be changed to read "the number of individual relief cases only."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Satisfactory.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Motion as amended agreed to.


ST. ROMUALD, QUE., PROTECTION WALL-SUPPLIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. POWER.
For a return allowing: 1. The names of all persons who furnished supplies or services in connection with the construction of a cement protection wall at St. Romuald, county of Levis, Quebec.
2. The amounts paid to each suoh person.

Charles Gavan Power: For a copy of all paylists in connection with
the construction of a cement protection wall at St. Romuald, county of Levis, Quebec, from August, 1934, to date.


George Halsey Perley: I submit, Mr. Speaker, it has not been customary to bring down some of the information asked in this motion. For instance, there is correspondence within the department among department officials.
As the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not here to-day I would suggest that the motion stand, and that the hon. member might consider if he could not reword it in order to comply with the custom of the house not to bring down correspondence or papers between officials of a department and the minister.
Motion stands.


CUSTOMS TARIFFS CHANGES
Mr. B. M. STITT (Nelson) moved:: For a return showing all increases in the customs tariffs (British preferential, intermediate and general) passed by the parliament of Canada between April 1, 1922, and July 1, 1930, statement to show former rates as well as increases; also dates when changes were made.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I will call the attention of the mover of this resolution to the fact that there are over one thousand items in the tariff and that to compile a list of changes in the several items during a period of eight or nine years would require many weeks of labour. I would suggest that the hon. member withdraw this motion, and if
C.N.R.-Equipment

there are changes in the duties on particular commodities or in particular items of the tariff which he desires to consider, we will furnish him with as complete a statement as possible with regard to those items or those special commodities, but if the motion were to go through in this form it would be very difficult to comply with it, and it would require a long time to make up the complete list.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: If I heard the
minister correctly he stated that it would take several weeks to assemble these increases in the tariff that were made by the Liberals when they were in power.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. McINTOSH:: You did not catch his point.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion is not subject to debate.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I am quite willing, Mr. Speaker, to revise this motion. Some of the statements that have been made by the Liberals have been misleading.
Motion withdrawn.


LEAGUE OF NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, whereas we have seen in the press of to-day that Paraguay has withdrawn from the League of Nations, and whereas the acting leader of the government has particular knowledge of South America, may I ask him what stand has been taken by the government in the matter?


Right Hon.   S@: In reply to the hon. gentleman I would say that I have never been in Paraguay, but I accept his question as a notice and will have the matter looked into.


SALE OF BUTTER
[Stage Direction]
On .the orders of the day:
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) a question? I have not given him the usual courtesy notice, but I am sure his attention must have been drawn to the front page prominently displayed heading in this morning's Journal which reads thus: "150,000 pounds of adulterated butter are sold daily in Montreal, is the claim." As this is a very serious and illegal practice We shall be glad to hear anything the minister has to
[Mr. Cahan.l
say regarding whether the report is true or not. I hope that he will be able to deny it.


Robert Weir: As the hon. member suggests, When I saw the item in the press this morning I made inquiry, and the information given me in this connection was that tests were made of 1,396 samples of butter taken in Quebec in 1934, and out of this number there was only one case in which adulterated butter fat was found, and a conviction was obtained in that case.


William Richard Motherwell: Then this report would seem to be practically unwarranted.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: I have a question to direct to the Minister of Railways. On January 21 and 22 last I asked the minister if he or the government had come to any decision in regard to the construction of new equipment for the Canadian National Railways, and whether it would be constructed in the Canadian National Railway shops by Canadian National Railway employees, or by private concerns. On both occasions the minister replied that no decision had been arrived at. Will he be good enough to tell me if he has yet come to any decision on the matter?


Robert James Manion: The matter, Mr. Speaker, has not been further considered.


REPORT OF GEORGE A. TOUCHE AND COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: Can the Minister of Railways inform me to what members of the committee copies of the supplementary report of Touche and Company have been sent?


Robert James Manion: Before the hon. gentleman came in
I made a short statement. However, I will briefly explain the matter again. I think it was on Friday that we received, at our request, a number of copies of this report from Touche and Company. They were not sufficient to go round, but on Saturday I instructed my department to distribute them to the members, and some have already been distributed. They have been distributed alphabetically, and as the hon. gentleman's

City of Ottawa Agreement
name is high up on the list he should be among those who have received copies. His copy may be in his box. Some were distributed on Saturday and some to-day, and we are getting others copied from the ones we have kept so that we shall complete the list and distribute them to the members of the committee. The hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Banbury) mentioned that the press had obtained the report. Some members of the committee had it and I presume one of them allowed the press to see it, but after all there was nothing secret about it. The report does not contain anything except an elaboration of their previous report, arid as I say, members of the committee will have copies as soon as we have them prepared.
SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I
notice that there are 5,783 civilian purchasers of soldier settlement board land, and also 2,077 of these farms are being taken up by British family settlers. Can those farmers who have taken up deserted land imder the soldier settlement 'board take advantage of the benefits of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and thereby start with a new contract?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not the
statute before me, but my view is that all settlers operating farms under a contract with the director of soldier settlement may apply for the benefits of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.
MARKETING OF POTATOES On the orders of the day:


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: The
Minister of Agriculture was kind enough to send me a copy of the regulations relating to the marketing of potatoes in the eastern markets. I have received numerous requests for copies of these regulations and I understand that they are not printed in any quantity. I wonder if the minister can arrange to have them printed for distribution.


Robert Weir: I shall be glad to look into the
question and advise the hon. gentleman.


LIQUIDATION OF MERCANTILE DEBTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battle-ford):	I have a question to direct to
the Minister of Finance. LTnder the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934, and
amendment thereto, now before parliament, farmers are provided, for the adjustment of their obligations, with a provincial board of review. The retailers of the country, whose debts run into millions, have no such machinery provided for their financial protection. May I ask the minister whether the government has given any consideration to providing adequate debt adjusting machinery to help the several independent retailers of the nation.
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) :: That is a rather comprehensive question to be submitted without notice. It will require an answer involving major policy. The question will be considered and an announcement made as and when a decision is arrived at.


ALGERNON LIGHTHOUSE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. FERDINAND FAFARD (L'lslet) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) whether he has been informed that the lighthouse at St, Roch Crossing, situated at the most dangerous point of the St. Lawrence river, has recently been carried away by the ice? If so, does the minister intend taking immediate steps for its reconstruction and will the work be done by day-labour or by contract?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) (Translation):: I have not been
officially informed that this lighthouse has been carried away by the ice; I learned the fact indirectly and have requested the officers of my department to investigate and report.


CITY OF OTTAWA AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of public Works) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize the Minister of Public Works, on behalf of His Majesty, to enter into an agreement with the corporation of the city of Ottawa to extend the period of the existing agreement with the corporation for one year from July 1, 1934,
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: The object of this resolution is to authorize the continuance of an agreement between the Dominion of Canada and the city of Ottawa for a further period of one year. The matter has been before the house on other occasions during the
City of Ottawa Agreement

last three or four years, and it simply continues the existing agreement under which $100,000 is paid for water supplied by the city of Ottawa for fire protection in connection with the parliament buildings. The water which is supplied to the buildings used as offices is paid for on a meter basis, and the agreement also contains certain provisions with respect to the maintenance of streets, pavements and bridges. This continues the existing arrangement for another year.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: How long has the present agreement been in force?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The agreement was made in 1924 for one year, to July, 1925, and then it was extended for five years from July, 1925, to 1930, and the amount was increased from $75,000 to $100,000 per annum. It has been extended annually since that time on the basis of $100,000 -per annum.


John Campbell Elliott: Has there 'been any change either in the amount or in the terms since 1930?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Mr. AHEARN:: Were any representations made this year by the mayor or the city officials with regard to increasing the grant?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not think any representations have been made in connection with an increase in the amount desired for this service. There were representations in connection with other matters in which the city of Ottawa is interested but which are outside the scope of this agreement entirely. There was some suggestion that the amount paid was not all it should be, but it never took the form of any definite negotiations.


Thomas Franklin Ahearn: I take it from what the minister says that it was never pointed out that, while the government property cannot be taxed, neverthless the total assessment has been made by the assessment commissioner of Ottawa. Can the minister tell us what that amounts to?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not that information before me. The property of course is by statute exempt from taxation. I believe they do carry on their assessment rolls a valuation, but the procedure is an innocuous one, because there is no power to assess.


Thomas Franklin Ahearn: I know. I will be glad to tell the minister what the amount of assessment is on the rolls. I admit the property
cannot be taxed, but nevertheless the assessment commissioner of Ottawa each year places

the assessment on the rolls. The value is $40,907,484. If this were taxed at the general public school rate of city taxation, the tax would amount to $1,505,394.41 per annum. I got that information from the city officials.
I merely want to point out to the minister that we are not over-generous to the city of Ottawa and that the grant is pretty low.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is rather a big subject, and as I have said, it is outside the scope of this agreement. I would like to ask my hon. friend whether the -total assessment of $40,000,000 includes all the buildings that are occupied by the government and for which they pay rent.


Thomas Franklin Ahearn: I understand this is on government owned property in the city of Ottawa. I may be mistaken, but that was my information.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Of course, as my hon. friend knows, in respect of buildings which the government rents-and there is a large number of them and the rental paid is very large-they are not exempt from taxation; we pay taxes either in rental or specifically.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Does the minister think this represents a very fair bargain on the part of the government for what the city does?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is an agreement made some years ago. As I have pointed out, for all the offices where water is supplied we pay on meter the regular city rate. This is only for water for fire protection and for the parks. Whether it be fair or not is a very big question and it cannot be determined exactly by itself, because it is linked up with other matters such as grants to the federal district commission and other features that are taken into consideration. I would not like to say whether the amount is too much or too little, but I think it is fairly reasonable. It is based on an agreement anyway and shows an increase of $25,000 per annum over the amount that was agreed upon previously. I think it is fairly reasonable, but all these matters are, as I say, more or less connected and will have to be considered together.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Has the city of Ottawa expressed its approval of this proposition?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The city of Ottaw-a would perhaps like to get a larger amount, but unless a bill founded on this resolution is passed there will not be any authority for paying any amount.


Mr. HEAPS:: Could the minister state how the amount of $100,000 was arrived at?

City of Ottawa Agreement


Hugh Alexander Stewart: By negotiation and agreement between the city and the government. As I said, prior to 1925 the amount was $75,000 and it was then increased to $100,000, the amount that has been paid since.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The mere recital of figures does not convey very much meaning to me. I would like to know what value the government obtains in return for this expenditure of $100,000 per annum.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We get water for fire protection and for services in the parks.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is actually the amount of water used in the parks?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is no meter, I believe, for that. The meter is on the buildings and offices, but I do not think there is any meter on the quantity that goes this other way.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would have preferred it had the minister given to the committee some method by which the amount of $100,000 could be computed, so that we could vote on the matter more intelligently. I do not know whether the amount is too large or too small. Naturally I can understand hon. members representing Ottawa constituencies trying to obtain from the government as good a measure of support for the city as they possibly can; on the other hand, those who do not come from Ottawa would like to have some idea of the equity of the amount arrived at as between the city and the central authority. At the present time, w'hile I certainly cannot object to the amount, neither can I approve it because in what the minister has said there is nothing to give me an intelligent idea as to how to vote on this particular question.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sorry I
cannot give the hon. member the information because the agreement was negotiated before I had anything to do with this matter. All I can say is that it is the result of negotiation embodied in an agreement. It must have been considered fair at the time the agreement was made.


Abraham Albert Heaps: On the face of it, it seems
a rather large sum of money to pay for the services rendered. I may be wrong in my understanding of the matter and as I say, I would be able to understand the matter better if we had the agreement before the committee; we would then know a little more about the matter than we do at present.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Do I understand from
the minister that the government pays 8100,000 a year merely for watering the lawn in front of the parliament buildings?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, that is for fire protection and parks all through the city. The park system is under the control of the federal district commission; it is rather extensive.


Abraham Albert Heaps: We have heard the Ottawa
representatives complaining about the amount. There are civic parks in all parts of the dominion and the local authorities are compelled to pay for their own water. Evidently the federal authorities are providing Ottawa with parks at federal expense and in addition we have to provide and pay for the water which we use in the beautification of those parks for the benefit of the people of this city. We have, I suppose, other similar expenditures to consider and I certainly would like to have if possible a little more information from the minister in regard to the equity of this agreement.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think the
treatment of the city is fairly generous. I do not know how the members representing the city of Ottawa will take that remark, but when all that is being done by the government in every direction, of which this is only a very small item, is considered, I think after all the city is receiving fair and generous treatment from the government.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would the minister be
prepared to do for other cities what it is doing for Ottawa?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I believe we
would be prepared to do the same for any other city in which the capital might be located.


Mr. ARTHURS:: 
Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is a matter which, I understand, is under the control of the city which regulates the traffic on the streets and the signals. I shall see if anything can be done about the matter.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Leeds) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 23, to
Farm Loan Act

authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 15, consideration in committee of Bill No. 15, to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act-Mr. Rhodes-Mr. Smith (Cumberland!) in the chair.
On the short title.
Jean-François Pouliot: This bill is supposed to give the farmers a chance to borrow S90,000,000. They need that money. In fact they need much more than that, because as I pointed out on June 6, 1934, as recorded in Hansard, the value of fourteen farm products in 1932, the year of the imperial conference, was
S440,000,000 less than in 1930. Since then the loss has been still greater. It means that since this government came into power the loss to the farmer has been nearly $2,000,000,000 on only fourteen farm products. I see the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan) laughs.


Mr. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: I did not.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is a most serious matter and it should not be taken with a laugh.


Frank Roland MacMillan: I was
reading the paper, I was not talking to you.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: Order, please direct your remarks to the chair.


Jean-François Pouliot: My words were not
addressed directly to the hon. gentleman, they were addressed to the chair; therefore I am m accord with the rules of procedure in this chamber.
Now, Mr. Chairman, mark you, the loss to the farmers on fourteen farm products only during the five years this government has been in power is $2,000,000,000. Now the government say to the farmers, We will save you by lending you $90,000,000. A nice proportion. This is how they are going to save the farmers. They are proud of their legislation. Some help! Great help, great assistance for those people who in the words of the Prime Minister have shown so much fortitude during these years of stress. Fortitude! They need help; he gives them words. But unfortunately they cannot swallow them

as well as the Prime Minister swallows his own words. And it is better for them not to swallow the words that come from the government because they would make them sick. Here we have this legislation to lend $90,000,000 to the farmers. They need money, but would it not be better if the finance minister came to the house with other legislation, to remove the tariff barriers that prevent the farmers from trading with the other countries of the world.
Who will pay for this? Will the farmer be self-sustaining with that legislation? No, sir, because the finance minister answering the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray) said, The farmer will have to pay that money back to the government. And that surely is a business proposition. But will it put the farmer on his feet? No, sir. Just humbug once more, just bluff. It is just an expedient to get past election time and afterwards the farmer will not be any better off than before. The government comes with legislation to serve as steps to enable the farmer to get over the tariff wall, but there are no steps and no ladder for him to come down, therefore the farmer is in danger of breaking his neck coming down the high tariff wall that has been built by this government. Sir, although it is necessary to come to the rescue of the farmer I find this legislation silly. If the government had been wise enough, the tariff barriers would have been destroyed and the farmer would not have had to get over this wall, he would have been able to pass through. The only blasting that the Prime Minister should do is to blast his own tariff walls, this would be the most sensible thing.


An hon. MEMBER:: Will he do it?


Jean-François Pouliot: He has not enough kick to do that. This is what he should use the ruthlessness of his iron heel against; he should destroy these tariff walls and blast them with the dynamite and pep of his supporters.
Sir, here we have legislation which means that a man who has a little money left will have to pay more taxes in order to give the farmer a chance. It is all right to give a chance to the farmer, I am for it, but the Minister of Finance, who is one of the ablest men in the government-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: Who is much abler than his own leader-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: See him smiling.

Farm Loan Act


Jean-François Pouliot: The Minister of Finance will understand very well that it would be much more logical, much more sensible, to destroy those tariff barriers which prevent the farmer from trading with the other countries of the world, so that he can sell his products outside of Canada, thereby putting him on his feet at no cost to this country, instead of lending him $90,000,000 and leaving him in trouble. This is what. I do not understand. If the members of the government are sincere in saying that they earnestly wish the welfare of the farmer there is only one thing for them to do, that is to repair the wrongs that they themselves have done to the farmer. This is what should be done. They can do that very easily; they have only to cancel the silly legislation which has been forced upon this house by their brute majority. That is the only thing which they have to do, and if it is done this bill will be superfluous. It will not be necessary, except perhaps at the start, while on the other hand the farmer will be able to repay the government. If that is not done, next year whatever government is in office will have to loan the farmers much more money, unless the tariff walls are demolished.
That is the situation. Now I should like to ask a question of the minister who, as I say, is a very sensible man, and who in addition possesses manners, which is something that counts. The farmers of this country have lost two billion dollars on the sale of only fourteen farm products during the five years this government has been in power. My hon. friend cannot challenge those figures, which have been on Hansard since June 6, 1934. I should like to ask the minister how the farmers who have lost so much because of the policies of this government will be made more comfortable by being able to borrow a sum which does not represent even one-half of one per cent of their losses. They have lost two billion dollars; you offer to loan them $90,000,000. That does not amount to even one-half of one per cent on their losses on only fourteen farm products. Far from being exaggerated my figure does not represent the actual loss, since it does not cover everything produced on the farm. The minister knows very well that we do not exaggerate the problems and worries of the farmers, and he knows very well that less than one-half of one per cent of their losses will not give the farmers very great comfort or help. So I should like to ask him if he does not think it proper now to do something more for the farmers, to steal a stick of dynamite from the office of his 92582-74
leader and blast holes in the tariff wall in order to give the farmers a chance to trade with the other countries of the world, thus lessening the responsibilities of the government and the taxpayers of this country and relieving the farmers.


Mr. VALLANCE:: It is not my intention to quote any further statistics with regard to the position of the farmer, but many of us in the house are receiving letters from every province in Canada, I believe, from farmers who want to know when it will be possible for them to get some of this $90,000,000. I have only one suggestion to make to the minister, and it is this. Why not give the farmers this money at cost? It is costing the government 3i per cent, so why not give the farmers the money at cost in view of the fact that the farming industry is not being included under the unemployment insurance measure and in view of the further fact that, as taxpayers, the farmers must contribute a considerable share of the amount the government will be compelled to pay for administration and as their contribution to the fund? It seems to me this is one way by which the government could assist agriculture to a very great extent, and I would ask the minister to take this suggestion into consideration.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am quite sure my hon.
friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) would be the last to expect me to reply to his political address, which I take it he was rehearsing here for the purpose of relating to his electors during the peaceful days of spring in the beautiful countryside which he represents. If his address had been in order at all it might have been in order on the second reading of the bill, but I submit to my hon. friend that he has not thrown any great amount of light upon the particular section of the bill now under discussion. At the proper time and in the proper forum I should be delighted to engage in a political discussion with my hon. friend, but I am sure that upon reflection he would be the last to expect me to do so under these circumstances. For the moment I shall content myself with saying that I do not accept his figures, his arguments or his statements, but I do not propose to attempt to controvert them in detail at this moment.
My hon. friend from South Battleford (Mr. Yallance) has raised a large question. I speak very frankly when I say that I believe the government would be doing the farming population of this country a disservice if it offered first mortgage money at 3J per cent. That

Farm Loan Act

is my own view, and I will give my reasons. It would dry up all sources of private funds, and unless the government was prepared to take the position that it would take over the total mortgage obligation, which to-day exceeds, $600,000,000, it would be a very sad thing for the farmers of the future if they could have resort only to government borrowing, and that to a limited extent. Three and a half per cent is not the cost to the government by any means. The cost of administration takes one full per cent.


John Vallance: But I want you to bear that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so, but that is not
money at cost; that is money at less than cost. I stated the other day that it should be the policy of the government to loan money to the farmers at a rate as low as possible consistent with the general well being of the country at large and of the farmer himself. I can see another very grave danger. There would be an inducement to many farmers whom I know personally to have not a dollar of mortgage upon their property to seek to get money at 3| per cent when they could turn around and loan it in their own neighbourhood at 5J and 6 per cent. We must look at these things in a practical way, and I believe as much harm as good would be done by loaning money to the farmers at such a low rate. Having said so much let me repeat that I should like to see the farmer get his money at as low a rate as is consistent with the general interest, including his own interest.
On that point let me say that in the United States where, as is well known, they have been very generous with public funds under the land banks which were set up for the purpose of loaning government money to farmers. At the present moment they charge b\ per cent, with the proviso that for a period until 1938, I think, the money is subject to a lowering of the interest rate by one-half per cent. Under the agreements they pay 5 per cent until 1938 and after that they pay 5A per cent. Even where the government loans money to cooperative associations of farmers set up in communities, where these farmers in turn guarantee the mortgage of each individual farmer, that money is loaned to the associations at the rate of 5 per cent, and in addition the farmer must make a subscription of 5 per cent to the stock of the association, which means that his interest is increased to the extent that interest would be added to that 5 per cent.

We have every reason to expect that in Canada we will have money for the farmer at 5 per cent.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Could the minister tell us when these land banks were started in the United States?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I believe they were started in 1917, but I am speaking of conditions at the present moment.


James J. Donnelly: But they have not
changed since they were started?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I could not say as to that; I am speaking of the rate at the present moment. I have a wire here, dated February 5, from the governor of the farm loan bank in the United States, addressed to the Canadian farm loan board, containing the information which I am giving at the moment. I believe it is reasonable to assume there will be five per cent money. That may be too high, but it is a fair subject for discussion. I do submit, however, that three and one-half per cent is entirely too low. It will be found in the light of certain amendments which I shall propose to the bill that in other respects we are lightening the load of the farmer by the legislation now before the house. In every possible way it is our desire to go as far as is reasonable, having regard to the general public interest.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: Mr. Chairman, I believe the intention behind the legislation passed in 1927 was to loan money to farmers so that they would be in a position to carry on their farming operations. I believe, further, that it was the intention to loan money at as low a rate as possible, having regard to the cost of operation. It seems to me that an entirely different situation prevails to-day from that which obtained in 1927. At that time it appeared good business policy to loan money to farmers for purposes of production and for the general extension of farming operations. So far as my personal knowledge of present conditions in Saskatchewan goes, however, it would seem a first class policy not to loan money under prevailing circumstances to any farmers. I speak for the prairie provinces, with which I am more familiar. I make that statement because today the farmer cannot pay the interest on loans made to him, nor has he been able to do so for the past three or four years. I do favour the legislation however because I believe we are acting wisely when we attempt to make money available for the farmer who finds himself confronted with a considerable overhead of debt at a high rate of interest.

Farm Loan Act
It seems to me that this money should be earmarked so that it may be loaned to farmers for purposes of first mortgages and perhaps second mortgages, and for the purpose of discharging obligations to the banks or machinery companies.


John Vallance: You cannot get it.


Archibald M. Carmichael: The money should be made available at the lowest possible rate of interest. When the amendments were before the house last year the Prime Minister stated that the margin was being increased from $15,000,000 to $40,000,000 so that this measure might work in conjunction with the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act to make money available for the retirement of obligations contracted by farmers, and for the lowering of interest rates. My own opinion is the amount of money available should be increased for those purposes. There are scores -yes, hundreds of farmers on the prairies who would be glad to have facilities for refunding their obligations at a lower rate of interest, and I should like to endorse all that has been said about making the rate as low as possible. I believe the two per cent margin charged for the cost of operation-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: One and one-half per cent.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Well, it seems to me that even one and one-half per cent is one-half per cent higher than it should be. I recall that in 1927 we were given information in committee which showed that the actual cost of operation would be about one per cent. Possibly it would be good business to have one-half of one per cent in excess, but I believe it would be a better procedure to give the benefit of the one-half per cent to the struggling farmer. If the money can be borrowed by the Canadian government at the rate of three and one-half per cent there should be no greater increase than the one per cent to meet the actual cost of operation. If the money were made available for the purposes I have mentioned there would be many grateful farmers throughout the country.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I agree with the hon. member for Kindersley when he states that we should loan the money to the farmers at as low a rate of interest as we can. In making that statement however I should not like to go the distance the hon. member for South Battleford has suggested. It is the intention that cases such as the hon. member has instanced should be cared for by the farm loan board, provided always that the individual farmers commend themselves to the judgment of the board. I stated a few days 92582-741
ago that it must not be assumed a farmer could go to the board simply as a matter of right. However a farmer who is worthy, and in need, may without any difficulty have his situation improved by a loan from the farm loan board. As I stated before each individual case will be considered on its own merits.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I should like to urge upon the Minister of Finance the necessity for the government to carry the costs of administration of farm loans. They are carrying the administration costs in connection with the measure for unemployment insurance, they carry the administration costs in connection with old age pensions, and they have to carry the costs in other instances. Under present conditions in agriculture the Farm Loan Act is in the nature of a relief measure set up to relieve the farmer in his difficulties. As the government may know short of a straight bonus difficulty is found in finding ways of helping the farmer directly, and I suggest that we now have before us the means for helping him.
A very great percentage of farmers have some debt. Although not all have mortgages against their property, many would like very much to take out a small mortgage in order to settle irritating debts, grocery bills, doctor bills, twine bills, machinery bills and other bills they may have to meet. There would be no use offering them a loan at five per *cent or five and one-half per cent because they would not be able to pay the debt. The legislature of the province of Ontario proposes to pay one per cent, thereby lowering the rate to four and one-half per cent. Even at that rate however agriculture could not pay. To-day we are facing new conditions, conditions we have never met before, and whether we must spend a great amount of money or not I feel that the federal government could best serve agriculture by carrying the administrative costs of the farm loan operations thereby, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance, cutting the interest rates by one and one-half per cent.
It is true, further, that government policies, such as tariff and immigration policies and exchange rates affect farmers' prices. We know that world conditions affect the prices the farmer receives and in many cases the cost of his requirements. I believe it is admitted that government policy in the past has not been of a kind likely to assist the farmer of to-day. I believe it is admitted that the policy of solicited immigration which has obtained, until recently, for the past thirty years or more has not led to any improvement
Farm Loan Act

in the present condition of the farmer. I believe it is admitted, further, that high tariffs have been detrimental to his interests, and that an exchange rate which did not place Canadian money on a par with British money in the first year or so in which this government held office undoubtedly adversely affected farmers' prices. And so all these things being true I feel, though it may seem a radical departure and to the minister may even seem in many ways an unwise step, that it would be much better, to carry the administration costs and thus enable the farmer to pay interest on his loans than it would be to load him with the administration costs as well as four per cent, making 5i per cent altogether, which he is entirely unable to pay and, as time will prove, will not pay. I am sure that the minister wants the loans repaid and the interest payments kept up, and for that reason I feel that it would be better for the government to assume this responsibility. Indeed why should the government not assume the responsibility for agriculture's load just as much as it assumes responsibility for the administration of these other measures, such as unemployment insurance, which does not affect agriculture at all except adversely, and old age pensions, and so on. If it is true then that other groups of citizens should be served by having the administration costs carried by the federal government I can see no reason at all why the same service should not be given to farmers in this their day of extremity.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend from Southeast Grey will I think appreciate that it would be improper for me to be drawn into a discussion which is perennial on the subject as to how far the farmer is prejudiced by the incidence of the tariff. Certainly on this bill, as I said in the case of the matter brought up by the hon. member for Temiscouata, I do not propose to be drawn into a discussion of that question, but upon another occasion that is a different thing.
My hon. friend has put forward the suggestion that the government should carry the whole administrative costs of the Farm Loan Act. That is a fair subject for discussion. I have in mind the statement made by one member who is himself a farmer, who said that the farmer is not looking for charity. Well, he is getting charity if he asks that the taxpayers of the country at large shall bear the cost of administering the Farm Loan Act. Having said that, I say very frankly to the committee that I have an open mind on the [DOT]question. It might be sound policy to do it;
[Mis* Macphail.J
I am not so sure about that. But when my hon. friend was referring to interest rates she took the rate of five and a half per cent. That is the rate at the moment, but as I have said, I think we can safely anticipate a rate of five per cent or possibly a little lower. But let us take five per cent. Until the suggestion was made to-day by the hon. member for South Batt.leford the lowest rate I have heard mentioned here is four per cent. Everybody has been pleading for four per cent money. My hon. friend from Southeast Grey quite properly pleads the case of the poor farmer who has not a mortgage on his land but has some debts and wants to compound them and take a small mortgage on his farm. I presume she means a mortgage of $1,000. If she does- I may say that the average of all farm loans in Canada is slightly above $2,000,-the difference between four and five per cent for a $1,000 mortgage would be $10 a year. Well, Mr. Chairman, while I sympathize with the farmer every day as I do with many others in all walks of life because of their sufferings and trials and difficulties due to this period through which we are passing, you cannot tell me that $10 is going to make the difference between the success or failure of a farmer who is a farmer on any farm. I only say that in passing. I do not know that I stress it, but we must look at these things in their proper perspective.
I come back to the question of the cost of administration. It is a fair subject for debate, although I must say this, that I still have the feeling that if we put out mortgage money at 3} per cent we would make a grave mistake from the national point of view and the viewpoint of the farmer himself. I may be all wrong about that, but that is my opinion.


Wilfred Hanbury: You would have to provide about $900,000,000 instead of $90,000,000.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so. I indicated at
an earlier stage that it would dry up all sources of private lending.
Mr. BEAUBIElN:	Does not the minister
think that the sources from which a farmer can borrow to-day are all dried up and have been dried up for quite a long time? The farmer cannot borrow a niekle to-day.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will say this to my hon. friend. I believe no other factor has contributed so much to the drying up of the sources of credit money as the moratoria acts that have been passed by the different provinces in Canada. I do not believe any one thing has done a greater disservice to the farming population of this country although I have

Farm Loan Act
no doubt that the legislation was well designed and was put on the statute books with the best intentions. I do not find fault with any government for that, but I believe that that was the greatest damage done to the farming population that has been done in any quarter century in the history of Canada. I know that there is any quantity of private money to be loaned on farms to this day, and would be but for the moratoria laws that are to be found in the different provinces.


Charles Gavan Power: Will not the farmers' debt adjustment act have the same effect?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think so, for this reason. It is intended to deal with a situation that exists. There are farmers to-day, and we need not enter into a discussion why it is so, but there are good farmers, hard working, thrifty, honest men who because of an accumulation of circumstances find themselves carrying such a crushing burden of debt that they cannot stagger along under it.


Charles Gavan Power: Will not the farmers' debt adjustment act have the effect of restricting the farmers' credit for the future?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It may, so far as the immediate future is concerned, but if that farmer is placed on his feet by reason of the operations of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and is given new courage and a new outlook, and especially with improved conditions as we have a right to expect, I believe that in the natural course of events he can rehabilitate himself so that his credit will depend upon the manner in which he conducts himself in the future. It may be that the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act does dry up to some extent the farmers' sources of credit, but on balance I believe that it will do far more good than harm. I know that there is money available at the present time, and it will be available in the future, and even the farmer who has availed himself of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, if he lives up to his revised obligations, will I think be able to find more fresh money in the future.


John Campbell Elliott: I understood from a statement of the minister that he has in mind some amendments to be made to the act. I wonder if he would be good enough before he sits down to indicate them to the committee so that we can be considering them as we go along.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no objection. The first one is a revised definition of "farmer" to make it conform to the definition contained in the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. The second one is to enable the farmer who to-day owes the farm loan board, under agreements, payments of interest at the higher rates to secure money at the same rate as the existing loans carry.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: What if there is a drop in the interest rate?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There will be anyway for that farmer immediately this act passes, because we are loaning money to-day at five and a half per cent while the old rate went up to six and six and a half per cent. So there will be a drop of one per cent and probably one and a half per cent.
Another amendment is for this purpose: At the present moment in virtue of the amendments passed last year to the Farm Loan Act we are authorized to make loans up to fifty per cent on the land and twenty per cent on the buildings. We now propose to make it fifty per cent on land and buildings. And to indicate the favourable nature of that amendment, may I point out that under the existing legislation in the United States they lend only fifty per cent on land and twenty per cent on buildings. Another amendment provides that the five per cent which has hitherto been subscribed by the farmer shall be credited immediately to his account. That means in effect that he will be saved interest on that sum from this date on. Then there is another amendment designed to meet a situation which arises in the province of Quebec. It will be recalled that last year, in providing for second mortgages, we authorized the board to take in addition chattel mortgages. But they have no chattel mortgages in Quebec; and whereas we can loan up to sixty-six and one-half per cent where chattel mortgages can be taken under the act, where they cannot be obtained, as in the province of Quebec, it would restrict the opportunity of loaning in that province. And so we propose there, notwithstanding the fact that we cannot secure chattel mortgages, to make loans up to sixty per cent. Those are the important provisions.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I rise to support this motion for one reason only; I believe that any legislation put forward by the government to assist the primary producer should be supported by everyone. But after listening, not only this year but during the last three or four years, to what has been said on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that all the help that has been extended to primary producers has been given almost entirely to
Farm Loan Act

farmers, and I do not know what constitutes a farmer. We have swivel chair farmers, speculating farmers, homesteaders and others. If the government intends to pass legislation to assist home builders, then it should receive everyone's support. I would point out to the government however that when we are discussing the necessity of assisting farmers, who are no doubt the backbone of the country, the time has come to give some consideration to those who are handling the other natural products which we have in this dominion. I refer to fishing, lumbering and mining; no assistance has been given to these industries. Three years ago this parliament assisted the farmers of Canada to the extent of five cents a bushel on the wheat they raised, and those who produced wheat were assisted, but those who produced no wheat got no assistance. Consequently that was a failure. Another scheme was tried of assisting the farmers by giving so much per acre, and I understand that also was a failure. Now the government comes along with $90,000,000 to help agriculture, to provide loans on farms at a cheaper rate of interest. But I think-and there are others who feel the same way-that vhe more money you lend to the farmers the more difficult their situation becomes; some classes of farmers should not get any more money. We have tried assisting the farmers- those from the west will pardon me for saying so-and I think we should now try to help some other industry in Canada as well. I am going to support this legislation, but I do submit to the government that they should give some consideration to the other natural products of which I have spoken.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend will
remember what is said1 in Scripture, that to him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.


Jean-François Pouliot: Teach yourself before
teaching others.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I appreciate the plea the
hon. gentleman has made on behalf of the fishermen and lumbermen. It may be that we are doing too much for the farmer; apparently that is his complaint. But that is a larger question which we cannot discuss in committee now.


Peter John Veniot: I understood the minister to refer to an amendment whereby there would be paid back to the farmers, who have already borrowed, five per cent-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, it will be credited to him.


Peter John Veniot: It will be credited on principal?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Credited on principal immediately.


Peter John Veniot: Has the minister taken into consideration the point I raised the other day with regard to fixing the legal fees instead of leaving it to every lawyer to charge as he sees fit? I think the government should have a standard, fixed legal fee for searching of records and making out mortgages, and also a standard fee for the valuation or appraisal of property. If that were done a good deal of the expense now entailed would be saved and it would perhaps provide the minister with a means of lowering the interest rate to a greater extent than he anticipates at present. Legal costs are terrible.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is in existence a
scale of fees provided by the farm loan board, and I am advised by the solicitor of the board that there has been no complaint with respect thereto. The trouble my hon. friend has in mind is the one I referred to the other day, the question of search. I have known of instances where the cost of search has been more than the value of the land itself, and the charge was not high having regard to the amount of work done. You cannot avoid that.


Charles Gavan Power: Some provinces pay it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That may be so. I appreciate what the hon. gentleman says, and the idea will be to make the charges as reasonable as possible.


Mr. COOTE:: The minister said that the
protective legislation that exists in certain of the provinces was responsible for the fact that there was no credit available for the farmer.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I did not assign that as
the sole reason; I said that was the greatest contributing factor in my judgment.


George Gibson Coote: I will not quarrel with the
minister over that, but I do say that the real reason why so little credit is and has been available for farmers in the last three or four years is the collapse of farm prices. I do not need to give a lot of statistics to show what has happened, but I have here a copy of a statement which was received by one of my neighbours in connection with a cow he sent to Calgary in the summer of 1934. It was sent to Adams, Wood & Weiller, live stock commission agents, on July 18, 1934. The cow weighed 870 pounds and brought a price of 50 cents per hundred. The freight on 870 pounds at 30 cents represented$2.61; yardage,35 cents;

Farm Loan Act
hay, 30 cents; yard fire insurance, 5 cents; commission 75 cents; brand inspection, 10 cents. All these charges came to $4.16, and the total selling price was $4.35, which left the farmer with 19 cents for his cow. On the bottom of the statement there is this note: "Please call at the office the next time you are in town and we will give you this credit in cash. We cannot very well issue a cheque for this amount." When that neighbour was discussing this question at the table one day, one of the men said to him, "It is a good job they did not send you that cheque." He said, "Why"? The man replied, " Well, you would have had to pay fifteen cents exchange on it and probably thirty cents for a telephone call to Calgary to see whether there were sufficient funds for the cheque." The minister said a little while ago that he could not believe one per cent difference on the interest rate was such a vital matter as some hon. members had been trying to make out. There was a time when this cow would have brought this man nineteen dollars. This summer she brought nineteen cents. It is true she was a canner cow.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Did he cash the cheque?


George Gibson Coote: No, because he did not get
it. I said to him, " Why are you so anxious to get this cheque"? He said, "I am anxious to frame it, and if when my young son grows up he complains about the price of farm products I shall show it to him and say: You have no kick coming because this was the price I once got." The commission man got 75 cents while the man on the farm got nineteen cents for the cow.
There have been other instances nearly as bad. I remember two years ago last summer when I went home, a five gallon can of No. 1 churning cream brought ninety cents; that is about eighteen cents a gallon for cream. Someone can work out how much that means for a quart of milk. A returned soldier was trying to make a living milking cows. He said that one day as he was milking he endeavoured to figure out how much he was getting for his work, and he came to the conclusion it meant about five hundred pulls for a cent. Farm prices have dropped so low that in many cases there is no possibility of the farm paying its way and had it not been for the protective legislation put on the statute books by some of our provincial governments, thousands of farmers would before this have been in the cities and the provincial governments and municipalities would have been taking care of them under the unemployment relief act. That is the only result there could have been.
In the United States where they did not have protective legislation there were farmers' strikes in some places and in one case the agent of a loan company who came down to a sale to bid in the farm had a rope put around his neck and was threatened with hanging. That kind of thing might have happened in some provinces had there not been protective legislation. Conditions got so bad that legislation of that kind was unavoidable. The men in charge of some of these big companies that have so many millions of dollars at stake in farm mortgages never showed any intelligent interest in this question; I never heard any of them make any suggestion to the farmer except that he reduce his production costs, tighten his belt and work a little harder. I never heard of them tightening their own belts. As for some of those heads of insurance companies drawing $50,000 a year in salaries, I never heard of them offering to reduce their own salaries. We in parliament could have done something for the farmer and we did not do it. Over four years ago I urged upon the house the necessity for doing something, abandoning the gold standard and stopping this deflation that was going on in Canada. I have been urging this every year since; I know I have made myself a nuisance to some hon. members. A couple of years ago one of them said to me: "Why are you always yapping so much about Australia"? If it is not out of place at this time I would like to take five or ten minutes to tell the house what conditions might have been like if we had gone even as far as Australia has done.
Before I do that may I point out that in 1929 the net revenue -of the farms of Canada was $1,034,000,000, but in 1932 it was only $425,000,000 or 40 per cent, while the volume of production in 1932 was 14 per cent greater than in 1929. From 1929 to 1932 the average farm income was reduced from approximately $1,500 to approximately $600. The farmer, however, was still required to make the same payments on his overhead and his debts in 1932 that he had in 1928, and the money was not there. Therefore I do not wonder that credit facilities dried up. No man will give credit to the farmer if he cannot see any possibility of getting his money back.
Australia adopted an entirely different policy from that adopted in Canada. Not only did they reduce the rate of interest by legislation, which we did not do, but they allowed their currency to depreciate in outside countries. This was part of a national plan, a deliberate depreciation of their currency. They abandoned the gold standard in 1930, five years
Farm Loan Act


Mr. YOUNG:: Was the volume of production the same?


George Gibson Coote: I am not able to get any figures for the volume of production in Australia but I will give the volume in Canada just in a moment. The total actual gross value of production in Canada for the three years 1931, 1932 and 1933 was 12,382,000,000, if the percentage drop had been the same as it was in Australia our total gross production would have been $3,424,000,000. The actual figure being $2,382,000,000, it shows a loss in our gross production of $1,042,000,000. I estimate the loss for 1934 at $300,000,000. I have no figures to verify it, because the figures for Australia are not available at the moment, but assuming that sum, for the sake of the argument, it gives a total of $1,342,000,000. That is what I would consider the drop in gross value of agricultural production because of the fact that we have not been on a comparative exchange basis with Australia.
There is a difference in the figures given by our bureau of statistics between gross value and net value in agricultural production, because in the gross value there is much duplication. For instance field products are valued separately from live stock, but a large percentage of field products are fed to live stock. The bureau give net figures as well as gross; and for 1931, 1932 and 1933 their figures of net production are 63 per cent of gross production. Taking therefore 63 per cent of the estimated loss of $1,342,000,000 would give an estimated loss in net revenue to Canadian farmers in these four years, due to the difference in exchange between Canada and Australia, of $845,000,000. Let me say at once that these are not positive figures; they are based on estimates which have been prepared in both countries by the bureau of statistics.
Coming now to the question raised by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) as to the volume of production: no statistics are available as -to volume in either country so far as I could ascertain, but 1 have the figures for agricultural marketings in Canada, also

Farm Loan Act
secured from the bureau of statistics. Taking 1926 as equal to 100, the agricultural marketings in Canada were:
1929	 101
1931		 99
1932		 114-3
1933		 105-1
This would indicate that the average production for 1931, 1932 and 1933 was somewhat greater than in 1929, so we can say that the drop in the value of production in Canada was not due to a decrease in volume. I have only taken into account the difference in the money income to the Canadian farmer because of this exchange situation, but that is the important point when dealing with the question of debts and interest. In Australia in the fall of 1932, due to the difference in exchange and the resulting difference in the price of wheat, and due also to the legislation in Australia reducing interest rates by 22J per cent, of the existing rate 100 bushels of wheat would pay the interest for one year on a mortgage drawn for $1,000 at 8 per cent interest, whereas in Canada it would take 200 bushels to pay the interest on a similar mortgage. That is the reason the Canadian farmers could not pay their interest; it took too much of their product, for of course the only way a farmer can pay any interest is from the product of his farm. If in order to pay his interest he has to drive three times as many steers or hogs to market or deliver twice as many bushels of wheat, he is not going to have as much for himself. Under the conditions of the last few years a farmer could not pay the interest or reduce the principal, and in many cases he could not even pay his taxes.
I want to go a little further. In addition to the increased ability of the Australian farmer to pay debts or fixed charges, he also had a large advantage in purchasing power or real income. The statistics are not quite up to date, but in March, 1932, using the March, 1930, figures in both countries as equalling 100-these figures were worked out for me by the bureau of statistics here-the purchasing power of farm products in Australia gave an index figure of 96-1, whereas in Canada the figure was 68-6. In other words the purchasing power of farm products in Australia was 40 per cent greater than in Canada.
In June, 1934, on the basis of 1913 prices equalling 100 in both countries, the purchasing power of farm products in Australia and Canada was as indicated by the following figures:
Index figures for farm products
Australia	 116-1
Canada	 93-5
Cost of living
Australia	 118-0
Canada	 119-6
These figures indicate that the purchasing power of farm products in Australia was 25 per cent greater than it was in Canada. There you have a pretty good indication of the cause of the present farm debt situation and the reason why reasonable credit facilities are not available to farmers in Canada to-day.
Until the present deflation I do not think there was any field of- investment in Canada that Showed a better record, outside of government bonds, as far as losses to the investor are concerned, than farm mortgages. But during the last five years we have gone through conditions that in many cases made payment absolutely impossible. Even yet I do not think the default in farm mortgages is as great as it has been in connection with corporation bonds. I have a statement here which shows that corporation bond defaults in Canada during the last four years total over $500,000,000, which I believe is twenty-five per cent of all the corporation bonded debt in Canada. Then I have a statement of the default in municipal bonds, which shows a total for 1934 of over $118,000,000, made up as follows:
British Columbia	 $11)006)000
Alberta	 427,000
Saskatchewan	 4,000,000
Manitoba	 14,000,000
Ontario	 77,000.000
Quebec	 11,500,000
Maritimes	 Nil
There is another question that I wish now to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance and the committee, namely, what has been done in other countries in regard to this matter of credit for farmers. I feel safe in stating that farm mortgages in Canada are carrying at the present time a higher rate of interest than in almost any other country, certainly any of our competitors. A great many people in my constituency are still paying eight per cent, some nine per cent. If the minister has any fuller information in regard to rates in other countries to-day I hope he will give it to the committee. In New Zealand in 1932 they had a National Expenditure Adjustment Act, under which there was a reduction of interest rates on mortgages, as well as of rents and other fixed charges, to five per cent on real estate mortgages and six and one-half per cent on chattel mortgages. The court was also given power to postpone payments and to reduce interest rates and principal and to remit arrears of principal in whole or in part.
Farm Loan Act


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have refused to be drawn into a discussion of the tariff. Much more will I refuse to be drawn into a discussion of inflation, because with all deference to my hon. friend from Macleod I submit that his argument in that respect had no more to do with this bill than would a discussion of the Einstein theory. AVe are discussing, or should be discussing, a farm loan bill. AVe lend dollars and dollars are paid back, and it does not matter whether they are ten cent, fifty cent or gold dollars. AVhat the hon. member says with respect to inflation may have its bearing on another question, but certainly it has no bearing upon this bill. I am sure he would be the last to accuse me of any discourtesy if I refuse to pursue his line of argument in that respect. I have only this general observation to make, that my hon. friend certainly reminds me of the old saw that distant pastures look green.

Farm Loan Act
I marvel that my hon. friend should content himself with living in this benighted land when there are so many countries much more favourably situated than we are.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: This is the unemployment insurance bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: What is the Olympus
giving utterance to now?


Edward Joseph Garland: No, not
Olympus; I could find a name for it, but I will not now.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Then perhaps my hon.
friend will allow me to conclude my remarks and then make his.


Edward Joseph Garland: My hon.
friend asked me a question. However, we will answer later.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: And any time I have a
remark to make may I say that I will rise and address the chair. Now, my hon. friend from Macleod-


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Morand):: Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope my hon. friend
from Southeast Grey does not think she is entitled to a particular disregard of the rules of the house. Personally I have always endeavoured to treat her with all deference, not only because she is a member; in addition I have pleasure in treating her with the courtesy which is due her sex. But at the same time I do not think she should trade upon that and feel that she can disregard the rules.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: How did I disregard
the rules, Mr. Chairman?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend did disregard the rules by speaking from her seat, without even addressing the chair, while another hon. member had the floor.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Is that an unusual
occurrence in this house?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: It is
not according to the rules.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Then hon. members
had better observe that rule.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am just making that
suggestion, Mr. Chairman. Now, coming back to the reference of my hon. friend from Macleod, I cannot add anything to what I have said already with respect to the question of interest. I am in the judgment of the committee upon that question to a very large extent, but I do feel that we are going as far as we can when we provide money to the
farmer at cost, which is practically what we are doing. My hon. friend from Macleod has spoken about other countries. I have pointed out that at the present time in the United States, through the farm loan banks, they are charging the farmers five per cent under contracts which call for the payment of five and a half per cent after 1938, and I have stated already that I think we can have at least five per cent money in Canada.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, I am	tempted	to	believe	that for theMinister of	Finance	this must	indeed	be ablue Monday. Rarely have I seen him so, shall I say,	prickly	or	crusty.	It is	quiteopposed to	his usual	rather	genial	good
humour. I wonder if it is not true that it was the excellence of the argument of the hon. member for Macleod that really got under his hide a bit. There is no doubt that the policies of this administration, in their mad, insane desire to maintain what they called sound money in the face of the inevitable financial trend of all nations at that time, resulted in ghastly losses to agriculture and many of the other primary industries of this country, not excepting lumbering and fishing. If the government had been well advised, as they would have been had they followed our advice, in regard to the question of attempting to maintain some balance between the value of the Canadian dollar and the value of the British pound when Great Britain went off the gold standard, our cattle trade would have been saved $10 per head.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Would the hon. member please stick to the bill?


Edward Joseph Garland: We are sticking to the bill, and sticking strictly to' the bill. What I have said has a very direct and definite relationship with the whole argument of the Minister of Finance on this bill. He has suggested that the hon. member for Macleod is to be rebuked because he used illustrations from other countries, notably New Zealand and Australia, to point the moral of his tale. I heard the Prime Minister himself for hours and for days pointing the moral of his tale by holding out the unemployment insurance measure of Great Britain. That is a distant pasture, almost as distant as Australia or New Zealand.
If it comes to a question of distant pastures this government should not rebuke anybody. It was the government's anxiety to guard the well being of New York and other foreign creditors which resulted in the deliberate action of maintaining currency at a fictitious
Farm Loan Act

value in relation to international exchange and which resulted in a ghastly loss to us, as I stated formerly. The hon. member for Macleod has put up an argument which the minister has not and cannot answer. I do hope however that in spite of that the government will consider the advisability of helping to carry the costs of the administration of this bill. I hope before the bill is given third reading the government will have become sufficiently well advised to introduce a clause such as has been introduced in connection with the unemployment insurance measure. Subsection (3) of section 8 of the unemployment insurance measure contains the following provision:
The costs of administration of this act, including remuneration of commissioners, officers, clerks and employees, shall be paid out of moneys provided by parliament.
I submit the inclusion of a section exactly the same as the one I have read would enable the farm loan board to advance moneys to agriculture at a rate of interest which would be in some degree commensurate with the farmers' ability to pay.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I say to the hon. member for Bow River that if when he used the elegant phrase whereby he suggested something had got under my skin he had in mind anything I may have said to the hon. member for MacLeod, he is entirely mistaken. I hold the hon. member for Macleod in the highest esteem and would be one of the last persons in this chamber who would desire to give that hon. member the slightest offence. I do not think the hon. member for Macleod was offended in any way. What I did attempt to say was-and I may have said it clumsily or may have been unfortunate in my manner of speaking-that his argument had no bearing upon the bill. I still say that in my judgment it had no bearing. I do not decline to discuss the question of inflation and various matters cognate thereto which he did discuss. Were I competent I would proceed to do so upon another occasion. But I say that matter has no bearing upon the bill, nor by any stretch of the imagination can a discussion of that point be said to be a discussion of this measure. What I did take exception to wras the hon. member for Bow River, who very frequently takes a superior attitude and rather sympathizes with or feels sorry for every other hon. member in the chamber-


Edward Joseph Garland: No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: -interjecting remarks from his seat. I have a sense of the fitness and proportion of things, and I like to see the business of parliament conducted in a proper

manner. That cannot be done if we allow one hon. member to interject remarks from his seat when another hon. member has the floor.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: We will remember that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I wish the hon. member for Southeast Grey would remember that, because she has spoken out twice since she made her former observations. I will leave it to this committee-


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Do the rules of the house apply only to hon. members on this side, or do they apply on all sides?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith Cumberland) :: They apply on all sides of the house.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I leave it to the judgment of the committee to decide as to whether or not I am one who is in the habit of interrupting either from .my seat or after rising. I have always endeavoured to listen to what every hon. .member has had to say, and I have endeavoured to conduct myself with a degree of courtesy. May I say to the hon. member for Bow River that my skin both inside and out is, so far as I know, perfectly normal, and that I have not the slightest feeling of ruffle-ment. His suggestion is not going to deter me from asserting the position I have the right to assert either in matters of discussion or in the application of the rules of the house.
Having said so much I hope the hon. member will accept my observations, that he will feel that the hon. member for Macleod is quite capable of looking after his own interests and does not have to call upon the hon. member for Bow River to come to his rescue, especially on an occasion when such aid is entirely uncalled for and when he is in friendly hands.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Mr. Chairman, a little
while ago, before the flare up the minister intimated that the field for borrowing was practically nil, and I believe he indicated that the reason for the limitation of the field in which the farmer might borrow was found in the moratoria of the different provinces.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope the hon. member
will permit me to state that I did not assign that as the sole reason. I said that was a very important, if not the most important reason.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I am pleased the minister has made the correction. One of the contributing factors of limitation of the farmers' borrowing powers has 'been the debt adjustment acts of the different provinces.

Farm Loan Act
The de'bt adjustment act of the province of Manitoba, with which I am most familiar, does nob go as far as the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. All the debt adjustment act of that province means is a postponement of the conditions; they have no power to write down. It is simply a postponement, and eveiry person who comes under the act in the province of Manitoba must put his cards on the table aDd give a true statement of his affairs. If he does not do so the debt adjustment board will not protect him. We know however that the farmers in western Canada who are not and never have been operating under a debt adjustment act at certain periods of the year want to borrow small sums of money to buy twine or other articles connected with production, and they find it impossible to borrow the small sums necessary. They cannot borrow it from the banks-and may I say I do not blame the banks. The condition is that a farmer with one hundred or two hundred acres of grain ready for the binder cannot get S30 or $40 to buy twine. But when the resolution was before the house I took the stand that the amendment to the Farm Loan Act should be complementary to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. I stated the impression had been created in western Canada that the Farm Loan Act of 1934 was complementary to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and many farmers were under the impression that if they went before a receiver and had their debts adjusted they could, go to the farm loan board and borrow the amount due after the readjustment had been made. They were further of the opinion that if they had to go before a board of review, such board having power to make a compromise despite the views of the creditors or debtors, they could use the farm loan board for purposes of consolidating their debts. The minister rather doubted that that opinion could exist. The minister distinctly said that the Farm Loan Act was going to be run along business lines and he could see no reason why the farmers in any part of the country should get the opinion that these amendments to the Farm Loan Act would be complementary to the debt adjustment act. But I have the Prime Minister with me. It is not very often, but I have him with me this time, for here is what he said in 1934 when he proposed the resolution that it is expedient to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act:
I endeavoured to indicate to the house this afternoon in a broad and general way that this bill is complementary to the bill dealing with the adjustment of farm indebtedness.
Then further on he makes this statement:
I also indicated that the measure founded upon the resolution contemplates that additional advances to those already provided for in the provisions of the Canadian Farm Loan Act may be made, to enable a scheme of composition or arrangement to be carried into effect.
I know the Minister of Finance is a fair-minded man, except when some hon. member gets under his skin, and I do not think he could get any other impression from the words of the Prime Minister than what the farmers in western Canada got, namely, that immediately the machinery created by this parliament to make a debt compromise was available, together with this other machinery, providing 870,000,000 or $90,000,000, the farmer could go and use this other piece of machinery and consolidate his debts. I am still of opinion-I have not changed my mind at all-that if the Farm Loan Act and the debt adjustment act are going to work the benefits for the farmer that the minister and the government expect, they must work in conjunction. If they do not I doubt very much the success of these two pieces of legislation.
May I say this to the minister before taking my seat? The echoes of the Farm Loan Act and the debt adjustment act were heard throughout the country last year. In fact, politicians were going around saying that the farmers could borrow from the farm loan board at no more than five per cent interest. Now in 1935, with an election on the horizon, the minister can readily imagine what the supporters of the present government will be spreading around in the country to the farmers. They will point out that the legislation that was brought down last year was amended this year, increasing the amount available, and the minister who is a fair-minded man generally, can imagine what will be broadcast to the farmer, giving the impression much more strongly even than last year that both acts are designed to work together.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is necessary for the hon. member for Provencher to quote the Prime Minister in support of his assertion that the amendment to the Farm Loan Act wa3 intended to be complementary to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I thought he was a good authority.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend apparently had the idea in his mind that he was controverting some position that I had taken. I have never for one moment suggested that the
Farm Loan Act

Farm Loan Act was not to be regarded as complementary to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Quite the contrary. What I did say was this. I am not sure whether the suggestion came from the hon. member for Macleod or some other hon. member, but it was suggested that we should make an amendment whereby it would be obligatory on the farm loan board ipso facto to loan money provided that the board of review under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act said they were to do so, I pointed out how illogical that would be, that you could not have one body issuing orders upon another responsible body. I said that each individual case would have to be dealt with by the farm loan board on its merits, and the farmer who has an adjustment made under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act can still get his loan from the farm loan board, but not as a matter of right. The discretion must rest with the farm loan board, as to the man, the character of his farm, the probabilities of his succeeding and other necessary factors. But if he is a good farmer, a worthy farmer, with reasonable security, he will have no difficulty in securing money under those circumstances from the farm loan board. But I wanted to dispel the idea that simply because a farmer comes and knocks at the door he must of necessity gain admittance. That would do away with all discretion on the part of the board, and we could not hold them responsible for the handling of public funds.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I am very glad to have this statement from the minister because now I shall be in a position in the next campaign, if any of his supporters try to create the impression that they did last year, to quote the minister's own words in denial.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I usually find, even though I do not agree with all his premises, that I do agree with the logic of the Minister of Finance, but I am compelled to say that I could not quite follow the logic of his position when he replied to the hon. member for Macleod that any discussion of the monetary policies of this and other countries in their relation to farm prices had not a very close relation to the bill now under discussion.
After all, what was the suggestion of the hon. member for Macleod? The suggestion was that the government of the day might well insert a provision in this act that the administrative costs of the farm loan board and of the Farm Loan Act should be borne from public funds. In pointing out that this was a responsibility which the government might well assume, . the hon. member for

Macleod also pointed out that to a degree at least other policies of the government were responsible for the necessity of the provisions of this bill. He pointed out, as I understood him, that one of those policies which had made this bill essential, which had decreased the value of farm credit and had made it difficult for the farmer to borrow money through the ordinary channels, and made it difficult for the farmer to pay anything but the lowest interest rate, was the policy of deflation which had been followed by this country, followed in the opinion of the government in the direct interests of the nation itself. Certainly with my limited powers of logic, Mr. Chairman, I thought the argument was one which had an absolute relation to the matter in hand and one which might well have been answered, although I will admit at once that I would not expect the minister to go into any detailed discussion at this time of the policies of inflation or deflation.
But there is another point which has to be considered, and after all it is the foundation fact. What is the purpose of the legislation? As I see it, it is twofold: First, to provide for farmers a credit which they otherwise might not receive, to make available to them a source of credit which is made necessary by reason of the fact that private commercial credit is no longer available to them. Secondly, to establish some form of interest control, indirectly, by loaning that money at as low a rate as possible. Now the question arises at once, what is a reasonable rate? That, as has been stated again and again, and as I think the minister will accept, must depend on two factors; one is the cost of the money, and the other is the ability to pay. Many arguments have been advanced to show that the farmer's ability to pay has been greatly reduced. As a matter of fact I can go a little further. The reduction in price levels and farm values is accompanied by much more than a corresponding reduction in ability to meet interest charges, because after all while interest charges are paid out of prices they are paid only out of that proportion of the price received for production which is over and above the cost of operation and of living. The lower the price the less the proportion of production which is left available for meeting the payment of debts or taxation, and the greater the proportion of that production that must be absorbed in ordinary operation and living cost, so that the proportion available for debt is smaller, and the value of each item of that proportion is smaller. The debt paying ability of the farmer is therefore reduced

Farm Loan Act
by far more than the percentage of price reduction. I believe I am following closely logical reasoning in this.
Now we come to the point of the government's responsibility in the matter. I will not say, because I think it is unfair to say, that the government has a definite responsibility to perform any service for any part of the community at the cost of the state itself. But the government has set in many instances the precedent of having accepted that responsibility, and the precedent which has been cited again and again, the precedent most recently discussed in this house, that of unemployment insurance, is very much in point. That is a policy which in the national interest must be put into effect, but it is a policy which will directly benefit only a limited percentage of the population of the country. And yet it is a policy towards the support of which every part of the country must contribute, so far as state expenditure is concerned. I have no quarrel with that, because I believe that in a large way if anything is really good for any part of the community it must be good for the community as a whole.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no.


Alfred Speakman: And I think the
reverse is also true. But if in the long run it is really good, if it is sound, and raises one part of the community to a proper level, it will have a corresponding beneficial effect on all other parts of the country. Now if that is so, when we turn to agriculture I can see no logical reason why the same process should not be followed. It is just as much in the national interest that agriculture should be on a reasonable basis, that it should be able to meet its obligations and continue to operate, as it is that there should be unemployment insurance for those who in the future may be unfortunate enough to lose their job. To my mind it is even more important, because the maintenance of agriculture on a proper basis means the maintenance of increased wealth in the nation as a whole. The maintenance of the unemployed on a basis of reasonable insurance is much more individual in effect, except in so far as it will reduce the cost of unemployment relief and maintain the morale, the decent citizenship and! the moral; standards of those affected.
It is unnecessary for me to stress the fact that the lowest possible rate of interest is all, and sometimes indeed more than all that the farmers can pay. Of such paramount importance is this question of interest that it is worth the government's while to look
upon it as a definite national policy to be supported to a degree, at least so far as administrative cost is concerned, by national expenditure, towards which the farmers themselves will contribute their mortgage, which is more than can be said for the unemployment insurance measure; because the larger part of the state's contribution under that measure will be paid by those who receive no benefit from the fund.
It is all very well for the minister to say that, taking a mortgage of $1,000, one per cent means only $10, which is not much. Well, in some instances $10 means a good deal, but apart from that it is not just $10. The average mortgage debt, at least in the west where farms are larger, is much more than $1,000; and if you multiply that $10 by two, three, four or five, as it is multiplied right through, then that $30, $40 or $50 may mean the difference between the ability of the farmer to meet his obligation and his inability. And if he can meet it it may spell the difference between a reasonable standard of comfort and a standard far below par. The next important point is this-and I am glad to see that the minister has it in contemplation, although of course no act is any stronger than its subsequent administration, and no minister can say definitely how an act will be administered; he can only indicate the lines along which it should be administered and, to the best of his ability, safeguard its administration through legislation. You can have a poor act and it may run fairly well if it is in the hands of first class men with first class policies; and on the other hand the best act may be unsatisfactory if it is administered by the wrong men with wrong ideas. To my mind it is imperative to meet one of the greatest abuses, one of the greatest weaknesses of the old act; and after all we are discussing the weaknesses of the old act. And this was one of the greatest of its weaknesses: that the factor the minister has laid down again and again as one of the important features in the lending of money, the moral factor, the question of the type of man himself, had never to my knowledge [DOT] been taken into consideration under the old administration At least I can say this, that time and again, in scores of instances, hopeful borrowers have come to ask my advice as to the best way of presenting their case, and I have had a good many cases laid before me of intending borrowers who were refused a loan. And so far as I could discover, judging from the correspondence, the letters sent by the provincial boards-because, as the minister understands, there is no direct application to
Farm Loan Act

the federal board, and I am not discussing the board under the old act, for it was the provincial board that took that responsibility -never in a single instance have I read or heard of the slightest reference having been made to the personal character, the personal ability and the moral standard of the man himself. It was always a question of tangible security. I am glad therefore that the minister stressed the character of the borrower. That is the greatest criterion. The second is this, and it is a weakness which I hope the government will rectify. I refer to the habit that has persisted through the years of blanketing various areas within which no loan would be made on any terms. I represent one of the better areas in the west, an area which generally speaking has a reasonable rainfall and in which the type of farming carried on is as a rule looked upon as the best foundation for loans-the moderate sized farm in which there is mixed farming, plenty of stock, cattle, hogs, and all the various forms of agriculture, with a good record of production. And yet in that area, in district after district, no loans could be made, no matter what the value of the farm or the character of the man might be. The answer has always been: (Generally speaking, your area is not one of which we approve. The man may be all right, but it is not worth while; it will cost too much to take his application and examine it on its own merits.
I believe the whole scheme should prove a success if the administration is carried on as is contemplated in the act and as is indicated by the minister's statement, that is that there shall be no blanketing of cases, but that each ease shall be taken on its individual merits, as it should be; that the moral character, the spirit, the personality of the man himself will be one of the controlling factors and above all that a generous spirit shall be shown in the administration of the act. If you have that, coupled with what I believe is absolutely sound, the lowest possible rate of interest made available-and I think that is a sound stand to take

by the assumption on the part of the state of the administrative costs of this act just as the administrative costs of other acts have been taken over by the state, so that the farmers who do borrow will have the same rate as that at which the state can borrow, the effect of that low rate of interest will be so reflected in commercial rates as to carry the benefit far beyond the bounds of the act itself. After all-and this to my mind should never be lost sight of-I have heard lenders, mortgage companies and others state again and again

that the high rates of interest on farm mortgages in western Canada were rendered necessary because of the insecurity of the loan; that is, they had to have a higher rate in order to. cover possible losses. Yet it has been driven home again and again that the greatest single factor in making a loan insecure is a rate of interest beyond that which the money will earn in that particular business; that is what makes a loan insecure. I am taking it for granted that the loan in the first place is made to the proper type of person engaged in the proper type of industry and with reasonable security. I am not afraid the farm loan board or any other will go outside those factors in making loans, but taking for granted those factors, the biggest one that tends to insecurity of loan, of repayment, is charging a rate of interest beyond that which the man can earn in the business during the term of years the money is loaned. The government would be well advised, realizing this fact, to take over, for the time being at least and until prices reach a reasonable level, the cost of administration.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may be permitted a word in reply to the hon. member for Red Deer, who is always most fair and, if I might say so, extremely logical in his presentations. I do not think there is any very great difference except that he inadvertently, I am quite sure, took the wrong interpretation of something I said in reply to the hon. member for Macleod. I should be the last to take any exception to his using an illustration from another country which had a bearing on this bill, but I did not hear him suggest-and I was not dealing with a suggestion which I had not heard from him-that in other countries they had borne the administration costs. In proof of that I may say I stated earlier in the discussion, not only to-day but on previous occasions, that I felt that was a fair subject for discussion, indicating that I had an open mind on the question. I merely took exception to what the hon. member for Macleod said as to what had been done in Australia in respect of the question of inflation, which I most respectfully suggest has no reference to this bill or to any provision of the farm loan act. My hon. friend also quite unintentionally put into my mouth words which would be capable of an interpretation furthest from my thoughts. In fact he put into my mouth words which I am quite sure I did not utter when in reply to the hon. member for Southeast Grey I spoke of the difference between four and five per cent on one thousand dollars. I do not think I used the ex-

Farm Loan Act
117!
pression "only just ten dollars," and I doubt whether Hansard would bear out any statement that I did. What I did say was that I doubted whether a difference of ten dollars would spell the difference between success and failure, and I used it in that relation. I should be the last person not to realize that ten dollars is of value to anyone who is thrifty and frugal, and much more so to one who is hard put to meet his obligations. I am quite sure my hon. friend will be the first to accept my statement that if I did not say so, that was what I intended to say.
I will say just this one word more; I am told by the farm loan board here that the instructions were that the personal character of the borrowers was to be taken into consideration. One of the difficulties in connection with our old farm loar act was that we had to go through the medium of the different provincial boards with different personalities and difficulties which local conditions could create. I can assure my hon. friend and the committee that while I have to do with the administration of this act, the personal equation will be regarded more highly than will the land itself. If I were lending money I would put the personal equation first and foremost, over and above the value of the land itself. I do not think I can make that any stronger than I have. I hope those who may succeed me in the administration of the act will take the same view, because to my mind it is one of the cardinal principles of the successful operation of the farm loan or any other type of loan act.
Mr. VALLAiNCE: There is another matter I would like to draw to the attention of the minister. I notice in the Saskatoon Star of February 21, an article headed "Farmer can waive his exemptions." Might I be permitted to read to the minister just a little of the article? It reads:
In other words, the legislation put through its final stages-
This is through the Regina house.
In other words, the legislation put through its final stages Wednesday night, gives to a farmer the right to negotiate a loan through the federal farm loan board, offering as security for the loan certain chattels which under the terms of the exemptions act up to the present have been exempt from seizure.
In defining the clause in the legislation, Hon. T. C. Davis, attorney general, said the clause had been inserted at the request of federal farm loan board authorities, as the condition upon which the federal act would be made operative in Saskatchewan. He pointed out that while the legislation gave the right to the farmer to waive his right to exemptions for seizure as a
means of obtaining a loan from the federal farm loan board, there was nothing to compel him to do so.
What were his exemptions?
The property for which exemptions from seizure are now provided, and for which farmers would be asked to waive exemption rights as a means of getting a loan would include:
Four oxen, horses, or mules, or any four of them, six cows, six sheep, four pigs and fifty domestic fowls besides the other animals kept for food purposes, together with food for such animals for the period from November 1, to April 31, or such portions of the months which follow the date of seizure.
The question I would like to ask the minister is this:	Have the exemption laws in
any or all of the provinces where they have such laws been waived in order to make the act operative in such provinces? Because if they have been, it seems to me that it is rather, shall I say, a drastic step to take. In Saskatchewan the movement from the dried out areas to the northern portion of the province would not have been possible had it not been for the exemption laws in operation in that province; that is to say, farmers who were down and out claimed under the exemption law enough chattels to permit them to move into some other portion of the province or of the country and start anew. If these exemptions have to be waived, I can foresee the time when simply because of the waiving of those rights in order to make it possible for the federal farm loan board to operate in the particular province, there will be a greater percentage of destitution among the farmers than there is now. I hope the minister will be able to explain the situation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That statement was drawn to my attention, but so far as I can ascertain it is purely gratuitous. No request was made by this government or any member of it, so far as I am aware, to the government of Saskatchewan or any other government that there should be a waiver of any statutory exemption. Furthermore the chairman of the farm loan board advises me that he made no such request. Where it came from I am at a loss to understand.


Frank Roland MacMillan: Propaganda.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is the only explanation that I can give. If the legislation were put through for the purpose of improving the position of the farmer I could understand it, but so far as I can ascertain there was no request from Ottawa.


John Vallance: Section 12 reads:
In the event of legislation being passed by the legislature of any province after loans have

Farm Loan Act

been made available in tbat province which, in the opinion of the board, would prejudicially affect the security of existing or future loans, the board, by notice to be published in the Canada Gazette, may cease to make further loans in that province.
So that if the legislature of any province passes legislation that might not meet with the approval of a government then in power at Ottawa, the Ottawa government has the right to use the big stick and say: This act shall not be operative in that province.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If in the picturesque language of my hon. friend from South Battleford that section means wielding the big stick, I can only say it was placed in the hands of the government by the government which he supported.


John Vallance: I still object to it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: But the hon. member asks how it arose, and I am telling him. Section 12 of the original Canadian Farm Loan Act, passed in 1927, reads:
In the event of legislation being passed' by the legislature of any province operating under this act after loans have been made available in that province which, in the opinion of the board, would prejudicially affect the security of existing or future loans, the board, by notice to be published in the Canada Gazette, may cease to make further loans in that province.
That I think is a sound provision; I do not find fault with it. I think the farm loan board would be remiss in its duty, dealing as it does with a large volume of public funds, if it were not in a position to avoid having confiscation effected by provincial statute. That is practically what it means.


John Vallance: Was there not this difference, that in 1927 the federal legislation was enacted in view of the fact that you had provincial farm loan boards? Now you are demanding that in order to make this act operative the provinces must do away with the provincial farm loan boards. I think the situation to-day is entirely different from what it was then.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, the old act applied only to the provinces that passed enabling legislation, therefore it did not apply in Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Ontario, but did in the other six provinces. This legislation had no reference to whether a province came in or not. It simply protected the board from legislation which would be inimical to the proper operation of the act.


John Vallance: Will the minister give me the assurance that as far as the exemption

(aw of Saskatchewan is concerned it is not accessary that it be wiped out in order to make this operative?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The exemption law of Saskatchewan had never been brought particularly to my attention. The first inkling I had of it, I believe, was when the statement in question was brought to my attention. I asked the chairman of the farm loan board if he had asked for it, and he said no. I do not know where the request came from.


John Vallance: Will the minister still give us the same consideration?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I certainly would have to inquire as to the Saskatchewan law itself; I am not familiar with it. I could not give my hon. friend any answer now.


John Campbell Elliott: What was the cost of administration, say in the last year, which makes the difference between the rate at which the government lends money to the board and the rate the farmer pays?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The percentage or the actual cost?


John Campbell Elliott: What we have been referring to as the cost of administration.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The actual cost of administration I am advised is one per cent. The other one-half of one per cent was intended to be used for a reserve. That is why in Doctor MacLean's evidence before the committee of the house he has always stated that he regarded one and one-half per cent as the minimum.


John Campbell Elliott: Can the minister state it in dollars per year?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The actual amount last year was $124,000.


John Campbell Elliott: I think that must be substantially correct. I see here on page 10 an amount of $124,6S6; I take it that covers the whole cost of administration. The point I would like to make is that, for some time past we have been considering a measure which if I understood the Prime Minister correctly is to cost for administration about
S7.000.000. I refer to the unemployment insurance bill.


Wilfred Hanbury: I understood the total cost of that is estimated to be $14,000,000 to $15,000,000 including administration. The Prime Minister said $7,000,000 for administration.


John Campbell Elliott: I know the minister is sympathetic to the people affected by this

Farm Loan Act
act. Tf the government is bearing anything like $7,000,000 as the cost of administration of the unemployment insurance measure, then I am greatly surprised to find this hesitation about bearing an expense of $124,686 to administer an act that means something, I hope and believe, to the farming community. There is no body of employed people in Canada to-day that are suffering as are the people engaged in farming. They will receive nothing under the unemployment insurance measure, and I submit that at least the cost of administration of this act should be borne by the government. I think more than that should be borne, but I do think the man who comes to borrow money on land should be in a position to know what rate per cent he has to pay.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: He does.
Mr. EiLLIOTT: Well, I think he should know that it would not be more than four per cent. I discussed that phase the other day, and I am not going to add anything to what I said then.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, in the course of the afternoon the hon. member for South Battleford read a statement appearing in the press which indicated that certain changes had been made in the laws of Saskatchewan with respect to exemptions under chattel mortgages, which would indicate that the request had come from Ottawa. In replying to the hon. member I made the statement that I knew nothing of the transaction and that I was informed by the commissioner of the farm loan board that such a request had not been made. I had a deputation meet me at six o clock, but after I had finished with them I met the commissioner of the farm loan board who advised me that he had not heard the question put by the hon. member for South Battleford and that inadvertently he had given me wrong information. It now transpires, according to the correspondence which he has (placed in my hand., that on the first of December of last year the commissioner did wire the attorney general of Saskatchewan as follows:
Re your letter of twenty-seventh-
I understand that refers to the passing of legislation by the province of Saskatchewan 92582-754
which had for its object the bringing into being of a provincial board under the farm loan act.
in view of fact that Saskatchewan is only province which provides for exemptions from seizure under chattel mortgage and in view of fact that conditions of loan require additional security on chattels, believe board will require legislation in your province which will make security taken on chattels in province of equal value to similar security taken in other provinces. Suggest for your consideration as a means of achieving this result that your legislation be drafted _ so as to enable farmer to waive his exemptions from seizure in giving chattel mortgage to the board.
That was signed by J. D. MacLean, and was followed on Decejnber 5 by a letter from the commissioner in which he cites the telegram I have just read. I shall read two or three paragraphs from that letter, as follows:
While the aggregate of loans that may be granted to any farmer under the provisions of the Canadian Farm Loan Act and the Canadian Farm Loan Act Amendment Act, 1934, is fixed at a maximum of two-thirds of the appraised value of the land and buildings taken as security for loan the board is also required under the terms of the legislation to take additional security on the borrower's live stock and other personal property for the advance made under section 9 of the amendment act. It was evidently the intention of parliament in view of the aggregate advances sanctioned being in excess of the normal mortgage loan advance that the security on land should be strengthened by the additional security afforded by a charge on live stock and other available personal property.
In view of the rather broad exemptions from seizure provided under the terms of your provincial laws it is apparent that the additional security afforded by a mortgage on live stock and' equipment in your province would be of little additional value as security to the board. Since under the existing legislation in other provinces no exemptions from seizure under chattel mortgage can be claimed by the mortgagor it is at once evidence that the relative value of such security in Saskatchewan would be considerably less than similar security taken in other provinces.
For the above reasons I am of opinion that the suggested changes in legislation are advisable in order that the security taken on personal property would be of the same relative value to the board in your province as in other provinces.
So far as my knowledge at that time was concerned the facts were precisely as I stated them this afternoon. I have seen this correspondence for the first time, and have learned of it for the first time, within the last few minutes, so the statement made this afternoon was made in absolutely good faith. I desire, however, to make this correction in order that the facts may be properly before the committee.
Farm Loan Act


John Campbell Elliott: When the committee took recess at six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I was just referring to what it would mean to the farmers who have loans from the farm loan board to have the cost of administration borne by the dominion government. As I understand it there is approximately $9,900,000 out in loans as of March 31 last. In round figures we will say the loans amount to $10,000,000, and one per cent of that sum would be S100.000. Surely that is a mere bagatelle for the government to pay in view of the fact that under the legislation we were considering during most of last week the farmers will bear a very substantial share of the cost of administration which, according to the' Prime Minister at page 941 of Hansard, will amount to approximately $7,000,000 annually. I utterly fail to see why it is not possible for the government to go even much further than the cost of administration in this case. I submit the farmer should not have to pay over four per cent. I am not objecting to the other proposition at all, that the country should bear the administration cost of the unemployment insurance measure, which is expected to amount to about $7,000,000, but I do say that surely it is a very moderate and most reasonable request from those representing the people in the rural districts to ask the government to bear the cost of this measure as well. I may say to my hon. friend that the farmers are suffering much more than the people who have employment, who are the people that will be affected by the unemployment insurance measure. Of course the man on the farm always has employment; the difference between him and some of the other employees is that frequently he gets very little if anything for his work. That is the condition at the present time. I hardly think my hon. friend meant to suggest that in making our request we were asking charity for the farmer.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If I might make a correction, with my hon. friend's permission, I did not make any such statement. I merely cited the statement made by an hon. member of the house who is himself a farmer.


John Campbell Elliott: That the farmers did not want charity?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I was not uttering it as
my own statement.


John Campbell Elliott: Really I cannot see that
it makes very much difference whether or not my hon. friend was quoting someone else as
(Mr. Rhodes.]
to the farmer not wanting charity; evidently my hon. friend gave the quotation with approval.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


John Campbell Elliott: I say this is not charity.
It is bare justice. Before we reach the amendments to which my hon. friend has referred I should like him to take this question into consideration. If money can be borrowed at three and a half per cent on long term loans, as my hon. friend suggests, and the cost of administering the $10,000,000 already on loan is only $124,000, that means practically one and a quarter per cent. One and a half per cent would amount to $150,000. Surely that is a very small amount to ask the government to bear in connection with this great industry. I wonder if what has been said regarding the tremendous difficulties under which the agriculturist is labouring is fully appreciated 'by hon. members representing constituencies in which the people are engaged in other industries. The figures I placed upon Hansard a few days ago serve to show that in 1933 the price of farm products was just a little more than fifty per cent of the price in [DOT] 1930. That fact, coupled with the extra overhead, makes the difficulties of the farmer just that much greater. I believe it is time the government came to the rescue in some substantial way. I appreciate what the minister has said about what he is doing to lighten the burdens of the farmers, and I thank him for placing before the committee a memorandum of the amendments he proposes to mpve, one of which will change the definition of the word "farmer," while another would fix all accrued interest at the same rate. I realize those changes would be beneficial. I must- say however that as the province of Ontario has not had any loans under the act a reduction in accrued interest will be of no advantage. The other changes mentioned by the minister really amount to very little if anything so far as helping the farmers is concerned. If there is to a real attempt to stem the tide of migration from the farm to the city, an action which is sorely needed, we must have more than the assistance offered by the amendments the minister has mentioned.
I again urge that the farmer who is borrowing money cannot afford to pay more than four per cent interest. It is no greater charity to reduce the rate the farmer has to pay from five per cent to four per cent than it was to reduce the interest rate the banks had to pay on savings accounts from three to two per cent. I am not objecting to the change, but simply make that observation in passing. I

Farm Loan Act
believe the minister received sympathetically the suggestion for a change in the act whereby the farmer may at any time pay off any amount he may choose. Under the act as it now stands the board may make long term loans to farmers. If there were a clause making the provision I have suggested I believe the arrangement for long term loans could be overcome. At times money may come in from unexpected sources which may be worth to the farmer as much as he is paying to the farm loan board. I do believe some provision along that line should appear in all the mortgages, and would suggest an amendment along those lines.
I do not believe the minister has proposed any change in the scale of fees. I know that the truck or market gardener on the outskirts of a city working probably twenty-five acres of land is suffering a hardship if he has to pay the same fees on a small loan that the farmer on a much greater acreage has to pay for a larger loan. I do not wish to repeat any of the arguments I stressed a feiw days ago, but I believe the great question is that of deciding how much interest the farmer is going to have to pay. I hope that something may have enabled the minister to take a somewhat different view before he puts into effect the amendments he has suggested.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I shall deal first with the last point, lest I forget it. The act already provides that the farmer may pay at any time he wishes, and the regulations of the board amplify the point. It is a practice the (board has always followed.
When referring to the amendments I believe I did not mention the provision for shorter term mortgages. If hon. members will recall they will realize that the whole set-up of the original act provided for long term loans. In the amendment we are providing a discretionary power enabling the board to take shorter term loans. When I use the expression "shorter term" I mean a five year or six year mortgage, rather than a twenty-two year or thirty-five year mortgage for which provision is made in the present act.
The hon. member has laid stress upon the point that the state should bear the cost of administration. Earlier in the proceedings I admitted that the point was debatable, and I believe my stand will indicate my view, namely that it is a fair subject for discussion. I do not believe I need enlarge upon the point, but I must say the hon. member should not refer to 8124,000 as a mere bagatelle; neither should he have that sum in mind when he considers mortgages running up to $90,000,000,
because inevitably while the cost of administration may not rise in exact ratio to the volume of loans, nevertheless it will tend to rise, and for that reason the figure the committee must have in mind is something larger.
The hon. member seems to hold the view that the farmer is called upon to bear a proportion of the general taxation in com neetion with other measures. That may be true, but I would suggest that the hon. member must bear in mind, if he wishes to be logical, that there are tens of thousands of farmers who do not have mortgages on their property, and if we wish to pursue the argument what we are saying is that the farmer who' pays his way and has no mortgage must be subjected to additional taxation in respect of the farmer who has a mortgage. For that reason I do not think it behooves us to pursue that line of argument too far. One hon. gentleman suggested that inasmuch as the state bears the cost of administration under the Old Age Pension Act the farmer should receive a similar benefit under the present measure. I would draw to the attention of the committee however the fact that the farmer participates in the Old Age Pensions Act precisely as does any other man. For that reason it seems to me the argument is not consistent.


James J. Donnelly: What about unemployment insurance?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There may be a point there; I am not resisting the argument. It may be sound public policy, bearing always in mind the question how far we should go in the matter of interest rates. According to the press reports-I have nothing official with respect to it-the Ontario government has announced that the farmer in Ontario will pay only four per cent on mortgages. If so, my hon. friends need not worry about the farmers of Ontario because they are going to get four per cent money anyway.


John Campbell Elliott: Four per cent on gilt edged loans; that is up to fifty per cent of the value of the land, and I think twenty per cent of the extra value as a result of buildings. But those are the only loans to which it applies, as I understand it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If that is so the offer is not worth a great deal, because gilt edged loans can take care of themselves.


John Campbell Elliott: How could gilt edged loans take care of themselves during the last two or three years?
Farm Loan Act


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The answer is obvious. If any loan will take oare of itself, it is the gilt edged loan, even in these days of stress. Notwithstanding the statement which has been made so sweepingly here that the farmer is not in a position to pay his mortgage, let me say that even with the rates of interest as they were, at six and a half per cent under the Farm Loan Act, plus contributions towards the principal by way of amortization, the farmers have paid their interest with remarkable regularity. We have provinces where even under existing conditions the farmers have made their payments promptly to the extent of at least seventy-five per cent. Even in western Canada, where conditions are even more acute owing to circumstances which I need not discuss here, the payments have been made to a remarkable extent. But in stating that-
Mr. MePHBE: Mr. Chairman-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may say to my hon. friend from Yorkton that I happen to have the facts before me.


Mr. McPHEE:: That is not what I had in mind. I was going to say, do not make the same mistake your leader made two or three years ago.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am obliged to my hon. friend for warning me. I have made plenty of mistakes in the past and I have no doubt that I shall make more in the future, but if I am making a mistake in stating what I believe to be a fact, I can assure my hon. friend that I shall make many of them. I was simply proceeding to disclose the facts from the record. If my hon. friend had allowed me to finish my sentence I was going on to say that I did not regard that as indicating that the farmer is not having a difficult time. Far from it. I know that in many instances he is carrying a burden that is too heavy, and I am just as keen as my hon. friend from Yorkton and my hon. friend from West Middlesex to see the burden of taxation lightened. But we must keep a sense of proportion. It is true that we are passing through difficult times, but we must not predicate our legislation upon the assumption that present conditions will always exist. I think we might make the mistake of attempting to do too much for the farmer, with the inevitable result that I endeavoured to indicate in my remarks at an earlier stage.
Having said so much, let me say to my hon. friend again that I am prepared to hear further discussion as to whether it is the part of wisdom to determine as a matter of policy

that the whole cost of administration shall be borne by the state. It must be borne in mind that we should not only be involved in the cost of administration, but inevitably there are bound to be losses, and if there is not some reserve within the administration of the act itself, those losses in addition must be borne by the state.


John Campbell Elliott: In answer to one statement of the minister, in referring to the $90,000,000, may I point out that this act has been in operation for eight years, and as I understand the statement, the total amount loaned in that period is under $10,000,000; in the last year, 1033-34, they have loaned very little aver half a million dollars, and the year before that the amount loaned was $1,276,000. So that unless there is some change in the lending under this act it will ibe a long time before there would be needed any sum that would approximate $90,000,000.
Then as to what the minister said with regard to gilt edged loans taking care of themselves, the regrettable feature about farming conditions at the present time is that gilt edged loans will not take care of themselves. I do not care how good a loan may be, you could go round the best sections of Ontario in the last few years seeking a farm loan and practically everybody would simply say: We are not taking farm loans. It did not make any difference whether it was for fifty or twenty per -cent of the value of the farm. Perhaps I should not say that it did not make any difference, but the answer invariably would be simply:
We are not lending on farms at the present time. I quite agree with the minister that there are great differences in the kinds of security you may get, both real estate and the personal security of the mortgagor. I agree that there are some to whom it is not safe to lend any money, and that there are others to whom you could with safety lend perhaps a little more than fifty per cent on account of their particular ability to pay interest and part of the principal. But when my hon. friend refers to gilt edged farm loans taking care of themselves, that is not the condition that obtains at the present time, except with the farm loan board of Ontario, so far as I know. I am glad to hear the minister say that he is at least considering having the government bear the cost of administration, and I hope the government will go at least that far. .


Henry Elvins Spencer: During the life of the old bill we had somewhat of a dual responsibility, and without a great deal of satisfaction. We

Farm Loan Act
were governed here by a board of three trustees, and the finance minister was either chairman or ex officio a member of the board. Then in the provinces there was a farm board manager, plus three trustees, or whatever you like to call them. But under the new act we have a Canadian farm loan board made up of from three to five members, the finance minister not being one of them. We also have a chief executive officer for each province, or more than one, and he has three advisers. I would ask the minister to tell us whether the chief executive officer is to have anything to say at all in regard to the loans, or is he to be simply in the position of advising headquarters at Ottawa? Is Ottawa to have the final say or the Whole say? The old act was very unsatisfactory because if the provincial board did not want to grant a loan they passed the buck to the Ottawa office, and then the Ottawa office passed it back to the province. The offices would seem to be about the same in both bills. I should like to know what the main difference is in the present bill and whether, in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance will not be connected with the board, he will be responsible as he is now to the House of Commons, to answer for the administration of the act.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Minister of Finance will be responsible and the government will be responsible to the same extent as they are responsible in connection with the administration of any board which functions under a minister. I did not emphasize the desirability of having the minister of finance removed from the board, but I thought I made it clear that it is quite impossible, in practice and experience, for the minister of finance to find time to attend the numerous sittings of the board and to deal with the various details that will come before it. He has about all he can do to deal with matters of administration without enlarging his activities and getting into actual details of admin-istraton. It is not our desire in this bill to pass the buck, to use the common parlance which we all understand, whether or not we indulge in the game that gave rise to the expression. We want to get away from any such suggestion, and under the new set-up the provincial representative will be an officer of +he board. The policy and final voice will rest with the central board at Ottawa, but in practice it will be tound that the type of man chosen as provincial representative will be a person fully cognizant of the situation in each province and therefore in a position to advise the board with respect to the character of the intended borrower or the
actual borrower as the case might be, and as to the nature of the security. It follows that if a man of the right type, one who carries the confidence of the board, is appointed, his judgment will go a very long way in determining whether an individual borrower shall or shall not secure a loan or, if he does secure it, as to the amount that will be secured. But I do not think it can be contended by any stretch of the imagination that under the circumstances the responsibility will not be that of the board; there can be no question of evading responsibility. The advisory board which it is intended to set up in the provinces is more an honorary board; it is not intended to be at all a salaried body, but a body of men who will carry, I think, the judgment of the people, outstanding men who have the opportunity and willingness to give something of their time to the public service. They are intended to be more largely a consultative body, to guide the provincial representative in dealing with matters affecting lending operations in the individual province.
Mr. McINTOSH; The chairman will be a paid official.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, and so will the provincial representative, who will be ex officio chairman.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is what I mean.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is what my hon. friend means.


Henry Elvins Spencer: But what difference will there be between the advisory board now in existence and those who will be called into consultation?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If I did not make that point clear the fault is mine. The old provincial board was a body which was selected and appointed by the dominion government by order in council, but it was selected from the nominees of the province in question. In fact, one province, the name of which it is not necessary to mention, insisted that there should be no question of selection but that its nominees should be appointed, and they were; and as a result there has not been the same cooperation between the provincial boards and the federal board that ought to have obtained, giving rise to the suggestion of passing the buck, as my hon. friend from Battle River has said. That cannot arise under the new set-up because the provincial representative will be an officer of the federal board and there will be only one board. The advisory body may or may not be called in, but their services will be available should it
Farm Loan Act

be thought desirable to seek this advice for the purpose of assisting the provincial representative.


John Campbell Elliott: I want to correct the minister on the answer he gave with regard to subsection (h) of section 7, which provides that any borrower may at any time repay the whole or any part of the amount. My thought was that the money might come in shortly after an interest period; it might come from some source not anticipated, and the borrower should have the right, instead of waiting until the end of the year and leaving that money in the savings bank at two per cent while interest was accumulating against him at the rate of five per cent, to repay when he received the money. He cannot do it under this subsection; he can only repay at the interest date. My suggestion was that the money was worth one hundred cents in the dollar at any time to the government, and under these circumstances no loss could possibly occur by receiving it, without waiting for the expiration of the remaining period of the year. There is another question I want to ask the minister and it applies particularly to Ontario. The province, as the agent of this government, ceases to function under this act; that is to say, loans are not being handled by the province.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Canadian Farm Loan Act has never operated in Ontario.


John Campbell Elliott: But if it were brought
into effect in Ontario the government would be operating through a board set up by the province. Is not that the practice in the various other provinces?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Under the old act the
provincial board was appointed by the dominion government from a list of nominees submitted by the province, but the whole spirit of the new measure is different. We appoint a provincial representative who will not have any contact with the provincial government.


John Campbell Elliott: But where it has been
in operation, then the provincial board disappears. Now this government makes the loan. What about the responsibility for the collection of loans that have been put out by the province up to the coming into effect of this measure?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There never has been any loan by the province qua Canadian Farm Loan Act. The new board will be respon-
sible for dealing with the collections at present existing under mortgages under the old farm loan board.


Edward James Young: The discussion this afternoon and evening has centred largely around the question whether loans under this bill shall be made at cost or less than cost. I am heartily in accord with one statement made by the hon. member for West Middlesex, to the effect that much of the legislation this session has been grossly discriminatory against the farmer. But when he says that in compensation for that discrimination bare justice can be done the farmer by lowering the interest on those loans to the extent of one per cent by the government paying the cost of administration, I must disagree with him.


John Campbell Elliott: Then I must be right.


Edward James Young: The reduction of one per
cent will not be accepted by the farmers, so far as I can speak for them, as compensation for the discrimination that has prevailed against them in the legislation passed in this house.


John Campbell Elliott: Partial compensation.


Edward James Young: Not even partial compensation. It should be remembered that a very small percentage of the farmers of Canada will be able to borrow money under this act, and if that small percentage are given their loans at a lower cost, that in itself will constitute an unfair discrimination against the great bulk of the farmers who will not be able to secure loans under this act.
Before I take my seat there is one question I would1 like to ask the minister. This afternoon before six o'clock the hon. member for South Battleford spoke to him in regard to legislation that was requested of the Saskatchewan legislature with a view to farmers waiving their exemptions. The minister stated that that was not the case. To-night he corrected that by stating that the farm loan board at Ottawa had written a letter to the province to the other effect. Which of those statements is going to prevail?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I thought I had made the matter abundantly clear. Just before the house rose at six o'clock the statement which I then made stood because it was made not only with my knowledge so far as I was personally concerned, but after I had inquired of the farm loan commissioner who told me that there had been no such communication. After six o'clock I had a deputation meet me and following the deputation I met the commissioner, who stated he had not

Farm Loan Act
understood the hon. member for South Battleford clearly and had given me wrong information. After eight o'clock I corrected it by reading a letter which the commissioner had written to the attorney general of Saskatchewan. Under the circumstances it is clear the last statement obtains, but the first statement was made in entire good faith and under the conditions I have outlined.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: If I may judge
by the correspondence I am receiving with regard to this act, the farmers of my district are exhibiting a certain amount of anxiety as to its ultimate application. If my information is correct, when the farm loan act was passed in 1927 the government of Quebec passed enabling legislation and under it a provincial board was formed. When the act was amended last year or two years ago, it was impossible for the province of Quebec to pass enabling legislation in view of the fact that in my province there is no such thing as mortgages on personal or chattel property. I understood the minister this afternoon to say that he was going to correct that situation and raise the amount of the loan from fifty to sixty per cent. I also understand that the five per cent capital subscribed by the province is to be returned. What the people who are writing me are anxious to know is this: if the provincial board is to be abolished, is the machinery provided under provincial agreement to disappear? Is the law as it exists at the present time in Quebec to become void? The minister is, I suppose, aware of the fact that over and above the one and one-half per cent that Quebec subscribes toward interest rate, the provincial government pays the entire cost of the legal work, that is the searching of titles as well as their establishment.


Mr. GOBEIL:: No.


Eugène Fiset: It is all very well
to say no, but I looked up the act a little while ago, and I am right. Anyhow I am asking the minister if what I have stated is the fact, and if so will the coming into force of this act destroy the machinery that at present exists in Quebec for the purpose of helping the farmers not only to search their titles, but to establish their titles and their claims toward securing a loan of some kind? What other machinery will be substituted and to what extent will it replace the machinery that at present exists in Quebec?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The provincial board will
disappear. The question as to what portion, if any, of the personnel is to be continued is
one rather for the farm loan board. They may or may not be; it depends entirely on the circumstances. So far as I am concerned there will be no decision on that question. The act will be available to the people of Quebec in its new form as fully as, we think more fully than it was in the old, because we are bringing in certain amendments which will widen its opportunity for use in that province. One of the cases in point was referred to by an hon. member. In communications I have had with the Premier of Quebec he has expressed every willingness to cooperate with us in our endeavour to make the act more widely operative in that province, and has met us very fairly in the matter of arranging machinery not so much under this act as under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and I am very glad to certify to that in this public way.
My hon. friend is in error in saying that the province bears the cost of expenses. It does not. What it has done is to make for a lower scale of fees than obtains in ordinary circumstances, but the cost in Quebec as in all other provinces has been borne by the borrower himself.


Eugène Fiset: Is it a fact that
an officer was appointed, I think the hon member for Bellechasse, to study the titles, to help the farmers to prepare their cases and so forth? But I am not concerned so much with that; now that the minister has assured me that the facilities will exist in the future as they have done in the past, I am satisfied.
The minister did not answer one of my questions. I .suppose there is in the act nothing that will prevent the province from advancing one and a half or two and a half or three and a half per cent in respect of interest if it wishes to do so.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I did not hear that question, but there is in the act nothing that will prevent that; we will welcome it. There is no reason why the provinces should not do that if they so desire. Whatever the cost of administration will be, it is borne by the taxpayers of Canada and it does not matter very much whether they pay it provincially or through the dominion. The hon. member perhaps did not hear me the other day when we were in committee on the resolution. I then referred to the fact that the hon. member for Bellechasse had been appointed by the provincial government to assist the farmers in clearing their titles, and, as I said, we shall be very happy to avail ourselves of his services and to cooperate with him to the fullest possible extent.
Farm Loan Act


Mr. COTNAM:: I am sure the farmers of Ontario will welcome this legislation of the dominion government. Those of us who are from Ontario will remember what happened during the summer that is just gone. During the provincial election campaign the present Premier of Ontario came into my constituency and went on the platforms of constituencies throughout the length and breadth of this province-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I know my hon. friends opposite do not like to hear this, but they are going to hear it. lie promised faithfully that if he were returned to power in Ontario, farm loans would be made under the provincial act to our fanners at an interest rate of five per cent.	#


An hon. MEMBER:: Who said that?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The Premier of Ontario said that. He said that Mr. Henry promised in that election campaign that if he were returned to power he would reduce the rate of interest on farm loans from five and a half to five per cent. The present premier of Ontario-


An hon. MEMBER:: What has that to do with the matter?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: What has that to do with it? Ask the farmers of Ontario what it has to do with it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
gave the answer.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The present premier of Ontario had said that if he were returned to power he would implement that promise and lend the farmers money at five per cent interest. My complaint is that from the time of the provincial election in Ontaio last July no loans of any kind have been made by the province to the farmers of Ontario.


Wilfred Hanbury: There was no money left in the treasury.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: There will not be by the time they are through with it. There was money in the treasury before they came into office.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: And the farmers of Ontario were receiving loans right up to the date of the election.


John Campbell Elliott: It was mostly in the shape of an overdraft.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Well, perhaps my hon. friend knows more about it than I do. I am

willing to accept his statement. But what I am protesting against is that there was an absolute breach of faith on the part of the Premier of Ontario when he made that promise to the farmers.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I rise to a point of order. We are discussing the Canadian Farm Loan Act.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: But I am speaking for the farmers of Ontario and of my constituency, men who, unable to get a loan from private sources, found themselves in the embarrassing position of being unable to get one under the Ontario farm loan act. I congratulate the Minister of Finance for bringing in this legislation, under which Ontario farmers will at least receive favourable consideration.


Wilfred Hanbury: During the election.


Milton Neil Campbell: On the motion for introduction of this bill I stated in the first speech I had the privilege of making in this house, that it was a matter of surprise to me that we should be discussing the dealings of the agricultural development board in Ontario and not the farm loan board as proposed under that motion. I am surprised that the hon. member for North Renfrew should again enter into a discussion of what has happened in Ontario. Unfortunately he was not in his place when I replied to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simeoe, who later said he was very good to me, in that he did not interrupt me in my maiden speech; but it is amusing to note that he was not in the house at that time. That is not one of the courtesies of the house, because the Minister of Finance interrupted me, which it was quite his right to do.
The hon. member for North Renfrew says that the present Premier of Ontario stated during the provincial election that the interest rate on farm loans would be cut to five per cent. Let me remind him that before that election and during its course the interest rate in Ontario was five and a half per cent. During the election the former attorney general of the province announced that the rate would be cut to five per cent, and several members of the legislature and other candidates at that time intimated that if they were elected the interest rate would be cut below five per cent. As to what the present premier of the province said I am not going to argue, but I remind the hon. member for North Renfrew that the Minister of Agriculture of Ontario, speaking for the provincial government, told the people of Ontario that they would lend money to the farmers at an interest rate of four per cent, and that the province would look after any difference be-
FEBRUARY 25, 1935	u
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Mackenzie
tween what they had to pay to the federal farm loan board and what they received from the farmers. In other words they were going to lend the money to the farmers at four per cent, borrowing it from this government at whatever rate was set. I am sorry I did not have a chance to ask the Minister of Finance what the position of the Ontario farm loan board is to be in view of the Statement in the speeech from the throne in Ontario that they are going to lend money at four per cent. We are asking this government, as some hon. members have already intimated, to lend the farmers of Canada money at four per cent.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The hon. gentleman apparently did not get the idea.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If you have one.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The difficulty is, he talks about four or four and a half or five or five and a half per cent, but that does not mean anything to the farmer if he cannot get the money. The fact is that the province of Ontario have broken faith; the farmers have not been able to borrow a dollar since last July, and cannot get a dollar to-day. Farmer after farmer come into my office when I am home over the week ends complaining as to this and in many cases beseeching me to find them a source from which they can borrow money to help liquidate some of their obligations; but I have to tell them that owing to the action of the Ontario government there is no money available for them at the present time.
Mr. CAMPBELL The hon. gentleman in his first utterance to-night intimated that the people of Ontario were not able to borrow money. I did not answer that, because I felt it was not relevant to the present discussion. But since he has brought it up again I need only reiterate what I said here a few days ago on the introduction of this bill, that during November and December last seventy-two loans were made by the Ontario agricultural development board, totalling a little less than $140,000. They were made to men who wanted to buy stock for their farms, to put up better buildings, or perhaps to start a son in business-purposes for which the board was originally started. I can assure my hon. friend that further loans have been made since then. The agricultural development board is still in business, but it does not wish at this time to operate in opposition to the federal loan board. At present we are dealing with something that relates to the whole dominion. No doubt the farmers of Ontario wish to have money loaned to them at as low an interest rate as possible. Will
the minister explain just what the position of the Ontario agricultural development board will foe if the Ontario legislature passes legislation enabling this act to become operative in Ontario?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall be very happy to do so, but perhaps my hon. friend did not know that it had been decided not to sit in committee after nine o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to correct a mistake I made this afternoon. I rose several times in an attempt to do so, for when I make a mistake I feel very sorry about it. I said the sum of $90,000,000, which is to be loaned by this government, represented one-half of one per cent of the decrease in the value of farm products during the last five years. My correction is that it may represent about five per cent of the losses sustained by the farmers in that period.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
Hon.E.N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
['Mr\nSpeaker, I appreciate the difficulty that faced the acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley) when he attempted to reply to the very brilliant speech of my colleague from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). In view of the fact that his leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has not announced any definite policy with respect to this important matter of unemployment, and that we have not been able to receive one from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), it is not difficult to understand why the acting Prime Minister should simply fall back on what has been the policy of the present government since its inception and say, as the right hon. gentleman did in his closing remarks, that "the question is being considered." I say to you, sir, that it has been considered. I have no doubt that from the very first day this government took office until this hour in the fifth year of their life, and the last I hope, they have been and are still considering this problem. We have no quarrel with the acting Prime Minister when he states that his leader has courage; we agree that he has. But one is reminded of the story of the engineer who, seeing a buffalo bull charging his engine, said " I admire your courage but I cannot admire your judgment." The right hon. gentleman points out to-night the situation that various other countries are facing and points to the fact that Canada has led in this respect. But I would remind him and other hon. members of this house of the fact that in 1930 in reply to members on this side the Prime Minister said that the concern of his party and of the people of Canada was Canada and not the United States or any other country.\nI offer no apologies for taking part in this debate. Here we are in 1935 waiting for some definite pronouncement on the part of the government as to how they propose to solve this problem. In 1931 and again in 1932 we were told, as we were told the other night by the Minister of Labour, that the government was waiting to see what the provinces would propose. That might have been all right in 1931 or even in the second session of 1932; but after five years, for the Minister of Labour to come into this house and say that he is waiting to see what the provinces will propose indicates a lack of judgment and of any particular program on the part of the government to solve the problem. In my opinion the time is opportune, indeed it is long overdue, to discuss this problem because during the years this government has been in office it has deliberately delayed the discussion of unemployment relief until the dying days of the\nsession. This is true of every session. In 1930 they held over our heads the fact that the Prime Minister would not go to the imperial conference unless we rushed the legislation. In 1931 the house began its sittings on March 12 and it was not until July 29, or four days before prorogation, that legislation was introduced in connection with unemployment. In 1931 the act was to expire on March 1, but on March 8 it was extended for two months. In 1933 the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act was introduced on March 21, leaving seven days in which to discuss it. In 1934 the act expired on March 31 and the new act was introduced on March 22, and the house adjourned on March 28 until after Easter, leaving only about four days to discuss the measure, including the time necessary for the Senate to pass it.\nI submit therefore that we have a right to bring this matter as forcibly as possibly to the attention of the government in the hope that they will appreciate the problem and take some definite action. I do not wish to weary the house by a repetition of what was promised in connection with unemployment, but it is necessary for one to go back to the election of 1930 in order to bring before the house and the country the steps or lack of steps taken by the government to solve the problem.\nOn July 10, 1930, speaking at Moncton, the present Prime Minister said:\nThe Conservative party is going to find work for all who are willing to work, or perish in the attempt. It is going to call parliament at the earliest possible date after July 28 and take such steps as will end this tragic condition of unemployment and bring prosperity to the country ag a whole. . . . Mr. King promises consideration of the problem of unemployment. I promise to end unemployment. Which plan do you like best?\nAt Victoria on June 17 he said:\nWe cannot tolerate the dole. Men and women of this country want work, not charity. ... Is there any excuse for Canada to have hard times if the government is discharging its duties as it should?\nThen he spoke in Quebec as follows:\nThere was no necessity for a conference on unemploylment, he continued. The solution was too apparent. "What you want is work," he exclaimed, "not conferences, and you are going to get work." Unless his 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 him out of office.\nLet me give a brief review of the legislation that has been passed. In 1930, at the special session, some tariff changes were introduced, and the Prime Minister and other speakers on the other side declared that these changes would result in increased employment in', u"Unemployment Relief-Mr. Gray\nCanada. Well, looking back over the years that have passed since that time, one cannot help thinking that the \xa720,000,000 then voted for relief at that particular session was but a smoke screen for the raising of the tariff to the height at which it was increased at that special session. Speaking at that time the Prime Minister told us that the numbers of unemployed in Canada were 117,000 as at that date and that it was possible that they might increase during the winter to 177,000. But he told us with all the force at his command that these tariff changes would bring about the employment of at least 25,000 men and thus reduce the number of unemployed. The ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) at that time an earnest admirer of his leader, in whom he said, in 1930, he had the greatest confidence-he has changed his mind somewhat in the intervening years, as a great many other people in this dominion have done-made the statement that there would be an even greater number employed than the estimate of the Prime Minister would indicate. On page 319 of Hansard of September 17, 1930, he said:\nThe right hon. gentleman says that the consumers will suffer. I will teli him and those around' him what will happen. When these measures, which are now in existence, if they are not defeated-and they certainly will not be-are in full effect, they will provide work for some 30,000 to 50,000 industrialists in this country.\nHow far this estimate of the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce was justified can be judged by the figures which I will subsequently submit. It is now common knowledge, I think, that the changes which were made in the tariff in 1930, again in 1931 and in subsequent years, aggravated if they did not create the sweatshop labour conditions which we have recently witnessed. We find in the speech from the throne in 1931 that these words are put into his excellency's mouth:\nMy government has explored the origins of our difficulties and is firmly of the belief that many of our problems do not arise out of world wide depression, but are antecedent to it; and that domestic factors have also largely determined the degree of economic distress from which this country is suffering.\nWhat were the antecedent conditions we find indicated by the next paragraph in which, true to Conservative policy, it is stated that what needed changing was the tariff; and we were assured that the changes brought about in 1930 and those that would be introduced in 1931 would be the cure-all for the evils from which the country was suffering. In the session of 1932, which opened on February 4, we find this statement:\n\nThe provisions made at the last session of parliament for unemployment and farm relief are proving effective.\nProving effective? Why, just three months prior to that the late Senator Gideon Robertson, at that time Minister of Labour, had given out the statement that in September, 1931, there were 530,000 out of work in Canada. In fairness one should point out that it was also stated at that time that of the 530,000, some 150,000 were agriculturists in the west, but even at that we have to start the winter of 1931 with the startling figure of some\n400,000\tsouls in Canada out of work. During the winter of 1931-32 there was put into operation a public works program in cooperation with the municipalities and the provinces. That this government recognized late in 1931 that this was a national problem is borne out by the fact that the order in council passed after the first unemployment relief act stated as follows:"]
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, before your honour
leaves the chair in order that this house may resolve itself into committee of supply, with the permission of the house I desire to bring to the attention of all hon. members, irrespective of party, some very grave problems which to my mind and in my judgment deserve the utmost attention and consideration at this time. I refer to the widespread and terrible unemployment situation prevailing at the present time in the Dominion of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
very sorry indeed, sir, that my remarks in regard to a great human problem in the Dominion of Canada should provoke laughter from the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall).


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: I am thinking of
your record.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I trust
that this is not indicative of his real spirit of helpfulness in connection with the solution of this great problem confronting the Canadian people.
1182	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Mackenzie
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that during the present session this house has been considering important measures of social reform, and I think it only fair and just to say that in the consideration of these reform measures there has been evinced a most commendable degree of cooperation by all sections of the house. At this time I am not permitted to discuss the measure of unemployment insurance which the house has been discussing both on second reading and in committee of che whole; neither am I permitted by the rules of the house to discuss in detail the legislation with regard to the eight hour day, that concerning minimum wages or the legislation concerning the general situation with regard to wages and hours. But I think I am permitted under the rules to say-and I think this was admitted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) himself only the other day-that the measures of reform we have had before us so far, and the measures of reform which have been brought to our attention by means of resolutions placed on the order paper, do not touch this vital, challenging problem of unemployment relief as we have that problem in Canada at the present time.
I should like to quote some figures, which I am sure will startle every hon. member of this house. This afternoon in response to a question which I had the honour to ask the administration opposite, I received some statistics dealing with the unemployment relief situation as it exists, practically at the present moment, throughout Canada. I intend to give the figures to the house, though I am sure it is not necessary in order that the house may be seized of the tremendous importance of this problem. The reply of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs (Mr. Murphy) was that there were 23,187 on relief under the jurisdiction of that department. The reply from the Department of Pensions and National Health indicated that there were in receipt of relief administered by that department-which I may say is a great and merciful work, because it renders valuable assistance to pensioners and their dependents throughout the dominion, and at the present time I am only endeavouring to emphasize the magnitude of the problem which must be driven home with all possible force to every member of this house-some 8,912 pensioners, 6,684 wives of pensioners and 15,858 children. Then I come to the last department, the Department of Labour, and I find that at the present time there are on direct relief under the administration of that department 235,467 heads of families and

832,931 dependents of such heads of families, in addition to 38,927 individual relief cases covering one person only. That makes a total of 1,107,325 persons receiving direct relief under the Department of Labour, and if we add the number receiving other than direct relief the total is swelled to the appalling and astounding figure of 1,207,345. I think, sir, this reply to the question I asked is ample justification for bringing the matter to the attention of the ministry at the present time.
Now I wish to direct the attention of the house to a question I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) on the evening of February 19. When the house was in committee of supply, discussing the labour vote, I asked the minister a question, and in reading it now I am not being critical; I am putting this on the record so that we may have the record clear and may know exactly what is the attitude of the administration with respect to this all important and transcendent national problem. I asked:
Is the Minister of Labour prepared to give any information in regard to his policy this year with reference to the unemployment situation or does he intend to discuss the matter under some other item?
Mr. Gordon: That will be taken up under another item later.
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver): Under which item of the estimates? We are passing now the labour vote, No. 14.
Mr. Gordon: Yes, civil government.
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver): Under which item shall we have an opportunity of discussing the government policy with respect to unemployment relief?
Mr. Gordon: With respect to unemployment relief, the whole problem is under consideration by the government and has been and is constantly under consideration, and is more likely to be brought before parliament in the form of specific legislation than by w'ay of items in the supply of the labour department.
Then my hon. friend from West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) asked this further question:
When is the unemployment policy likely to come before the house? A good many hon. members are very anxious to know *what it is and when we may expect it.
The Minister of Labour replied:
The policy or plan of immediate relief will be largely determined by the position in which the provinces find themselves and' by the representations that they may make to the dominion government for help. Upon their representations will largely depend the course of the government with respect to assistance to them. With regard to works that are purely federal, the plans are under consideration by the government and are not yet in such shape that they can be submitted to the house.

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Mackenzie
Again, in reply to a further question, the minister said:
When that is made apparent, then I assume, if the dominion has to come to the aid of the provinces again for the coming year, appropriate legislation will, if it is found necessary, be submitted to the house for discussion and approval.
I asked a further question:
Do I understand the minister to suggest that the policy of this government is to be based entirely on the nature of the requests received from the various provincial governments in regard to the next fiscal year?
The answer was:
Largely, yes.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think I am justified in stating to the house at this time that the policy of the administration in regard to this all important question of national unemployment relief is a policy of waiting until they receive certain indefinite requests from the various provinces. As a government charged with the tremendous, comprehensive responsibility of administering the affairs of this dominion, at the present moment they have no policy whatever in dealing with these
1,207,000	people throughout the dominion who are on relief. As I mentioned before they admit it, using as their mouthpiece the Minister of Labour who is charged with the responsibility of administering this department.
During the course of the debate on the unemployment insurance bill the Prime Minister said he had some plans and some policies with respect to unemployment relief. This was in the nature of an obiter dictum, an aside, with respect to the question of unemployment insurance. All parties are here, all members of this House of Commons, in a humble endeavour and desire to assist our constituents and to assist in the general interests of the Dominion of Canada. If the Prime Minister has a plan or policy for dealing with this tremendous problem of unemployment, why does he not frankly promulgate it so that hon. members may discuss it? My personal view is that this is a matter which compels and challenges our attention The advocacy of the Liberal party in connection with this problem is that we are prepared to shelve the consideration of all other matters already before parliament or to be brought before parliament, and to discuss immediately this tremendous and emergent problem of unemployment.
In the time at my disposal I desire to discuss the matter from two viewpoints, first from the viewpoint of the policies which have been pursued by the administration opposite since the year 1930, and in the second place, if I
may be permitted, from a constructive viewpoint I shall endeavour to deal with the magnitude and severity of our most compelling national problem.
The most astounding fact I have ever noted during my experience in this chamber is that in the very actuarial report submitted by the government opposite and written by the man who was their technical expert in connection with the preparation of the unemployment insurance bill now before this House of Commons there is the most scathing condemnation I have ever read of this administration and its policy since 1930. First I should like to read from a book written by the same gentleman, Mr. Hugh H. Wolfenden, entitled The Real Meaning of Social Insurance. Under the heading Trade Restrictions at pages 109 and 110 I find the following:
Under this heading, as contributory if not primary causes of unemployment, particularly in exporting countries, may be listed tariffs, immigration restrictions and other impediments to the free interchange of goods and workers. Probably more than in the case of any other cause of unemployment are these factors possible of amelioration only through the actions of enlightened statesmen.
Then I read, from the actuarial report, tables, if you please, Mr. Speaker, presented by the Prime Minister himself only a few days ago, said to be the actuarial basis for the legislation he gave us and submitted for the approval of the house and the country. Here is what the same actuarial expert states, Mr. Hugh H. Wolfenden, at page 10, paragraph 24:
There can be little doubt that the unprecedented rate of unemployment recently experienced is attributable largely to international impediments to the free and natural interchange of goods, services and workers by means of tariffs, quotas, embargoes, special duties, nationalistic legislation, subsidies, manipulation of exchange rates, and migration obstacles, and that the situation is being aggravated by the increasing tendencies within each country to abandon the doctrine of caveat emptor to proscribe selling prices (and so create artificial rather than free markets). to proscribe natural correctives, and to regulate earnings, prices, hours, production and markets and so render them unnatural and inflexible. These innumerable artificial devices have resulted in the v-idespread obstruction of distribution and exchange; they have produced in many countries an appearance of overproduction and in others a state of want which is still unrelieved; and it is now frequently suggested that this situation should be dealt with by restricting production as well as distribution, rather than by freeing the channels of distribution and thus encouraging exchange and trade.
That is indeed a most complete history of Toryism in Canada since 1930. May I just for a few moments recapitulate under the
1184	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Mackenzie
proper headings this scathing and complete condemnation of the Tory policy from 1930 to 1935. What does he say?


An hon. MEMBER:: Platform speech.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is a House of Commons speech, giving a record of your maladministration. It would be advisable for all of us to maintain our good humour, because the record will go on in any case.


Jean-François Pouliot: The old order has gone; the old man will go.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who has offered the greatest impediment to the free and natural exchange of goods and services? Who has been one of the greatest sinners in world politics? The Conservative party of Canada, under the narrow self-centred nationalistic policy of "Canada first," have led the march of the world for higher tariffs. Let me just quote-


Alfred Duranleau: Pretty fair.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not like the indifferent, nasal, inaudible remarks of the Minister of Marine. What has the Conservative party done by means of party legislation? They are a marvellous example of an administration which has set up the most artificial barricades in the history of the Dominion of Canada. They have raised ramparts of ruin all around our Canadian land. Yes, they have set the greatest example of tariff raising in our history. I have seen an article valued at $183 which was charged tariffs and excise taxes amounting to $141, or 77i per cent. I have seen invoices of cheaper suitings carrying tariff charges of 87 per cent. I have seen invoices of silk from Great Britain carrying tariff charges of 73 per cent. I have seen invoices for blankets with charges of 50 per cent; silks from France with charges of 66 per cent, and silks from Japan with charges of 244 per cent. All this has happened in the past four and a half years.
Now we come to quotas. One of the bad features about this administration has been the quota system. Under the empire agreements our exportations are to a great extent regulated by quotas existing on some products in the British Isles. Then what about embargoes? I wonder how many hon. members remember the holy days of 1930 and 1931 when the Prime Minister rose in righteous wrath and indignation and condemned that ungodly country known as Russia. In sympathy he placed embargoes on certain articles of importation from Russia. Now, in an excess of oleaginous hypocrisy, he allows certain goods to be imported from Russia and

he even supports-this great enthusiast of 1931-he even supports the entry of unholy Russia to the league of nations. As a matter of fact, I believe she takes our seat on the international labour conference.
And subsidies, Mr. Speaker, the bonusing of wheat and other iniquitous policies of the kind, were promulgated and pursued by this administration. Subsidies on wheat were largely withdrawn. Then, there was the manipulation of exchange rates. Yes, we remember the dumping duty against the British pound. Then, after promoting a system of bonusing wheat production this government the next year, with its customary inconsistency, enforced not a bonus but a restriction on the acreage of wheat in Canada.
With regard to all these policies so strongly condemned by Mr. Wolfenden in his memorable pamphlet, the Prime Minister of Canada and the then Tory party-heaven only knows what it could be called now-sowed the wind and the Canadian nation is now reaping the whirlwind.
Let us lay the basis clearly and concisely by referring to the promises made. I hope I am not transgressing the rules of the house which forbid useless or vain reiteration in debate. Undoubtedly these promises have on many occasions been placed on Hansard. But they are so remarkable, Mr. Speaker, so all embracing, so comprehensive, they illustrate so splendidly what the Prime Minister promised to the Dominion of Canada, that I think I might be permitted to place upon the record once more just a meagre percentage of those promises so that the house can recall the fact that in 1930 the present Prime Minister made most definite and emphatic declarations with regard to his unemployment policy. Speaking in Calgary in June, 1930, he said:
I will not permit this country with my voice or vote to ever become committed to the dole system. I will not permit those to share in any benefit unless they are willing to work and my duty is to provide work to do.
No doles in 1930, but in this year of our Lord, 1935, 1207,000 on the dolel In the same campaign, later on the Prime Minister said:
It must be remembered that promises with respect to policies are matters of profound importance to the Canadian pepole, and the policies we promised to put into effect we propose to put into effect immediately.
At Edmonton, another splendid city of the west, in June, 1930, he said this:
I say again that I will call parliament together at the earliest possible moment to provide at once the remedy-employment for all who can and will work.

Unemployment Reliej-Mr. Mackenzie
At Victoria, the beautiful capital of the most beautiful province of Canada, British Columbia, speaking on June 17, 1930, he said:
Is there any excuse for Canada to have hard times if the government is discharging its duties as it should?
If that statement was appropriate in 1930, with 100,000 unemployed in Canada at that time, I ask this house is it not equally true in 1935 when we have over 600,000 unemployed, with unemployment increased sixfold after an expenditure, including all government agencies of public operations, of over $400,000,000 to meet the terrible challenge of that situation? In Calgary, his own city, in June, 1930, the Prime Minister said:
But this is a new country and there is no excuse for unemployment in Canada if a government does its duty.
In Calgary again:
This problem has ceased to be local but has become national in its importance.
In Montreal during the same election:
Unemployment has become a national problem in Canada.
I want hon. members to remember that word "national," because in 1932 he went once again to Calgary and there we witnessed a most tremendous conversion, almost as remarkable as the conversion we witnessed in the Prime Minister's radio broadcasts last January. It has been said by a great Canadian that Saul was converted on the way to Damascus and Bennett was converted on the way to defeat.
Let me very briefly give the record of the Tory measures commencing with the special session which met here on September 8, 1930. Speaking on September 9, 1930, the Prime Minister said-and this was after we had met in this house, after he had been elected and after we were here in opposition:
It must be remembered that promises with respect to policies are matters of profound importance to the Canadian people, and the policies we promised to put into effect we propose to put into effect immediately.
Not in 1931, not in 1932, not in 1933 or 1934 or 1935, but "immediately," and that was the Prime Minister's promise made on the floor of this house on the second day after the house met in the special session of 1930. Again, at page 39 of Hansard of that special session, the Prime Minister said this:
I shall content myself with saying to the right hon. leader of the opposition and his friends that we will keep the promises we made.
Then again, introducing his resolution on unemployment in this house on September 10, he said:
We do believe that this resolution which I am now submitting ... combined with the measures which will be subsequently submitted-
And what were those measures? Raising the tariff on over two hundred articles, and mostly against the motherland, on the eve of the imperial economic conference of 1930.
We do believe that this resolution which I am now submitting ... combined with the measures which will be subsequently submitted to this house ... will go far to relieve the situation.
Again:
It will be observed that the present number-
He was speaking of the number of the unemployed:
-is something over 117,000, and it is believed that that number will approximate 177,000 during the winter.
It will be within the recollection of the house that at that special session a bill was introduced and passed voting $20,000,000 for works and undertakings of a supposedly useful nature under the supervision of the federal government. I want to lay down four observations made from this side of the house at that time so that I can prove that from session to session there has been a complete consistency in the attitude which we took on all the unemployment measures since 1930.
We asked in the first place for a national audit by the auditor general of the funds expended; second, for detailed estimates of the expenditures to be laid before the house; third, for the appropriate procedure by the committee of supply; fourth, for a national relief commission, representing all the great interests in the state, to administer the whole system of unemployment relief in the Dominion of Canada.
I come now to the regular session of 1931, and I look at the words contained in the speech from the throne in that year. The Prime Minister put these words into the mouth of His Excellency:
The operation of the Unemployment Relief Act of 1930 has proved equally beneficial.
Then, sir, during the session of 1931 we witnessed repeated and emphatic requests from all the opposition, from members to my far left and from ourselves, that the government deal with this question of unemployment, and I wish to place on Hansard once again what took place. Three days before the session prorogued, on July 29,
1186	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Mackenzie
1931, the Prime Minister took up the last government order upon the order paper for 1931, and moved this resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to confer certain powers upon the governor in council in respect to unemployment and farm relief; and for the maintenance of peace, order and good government in all parts of Canada; and to authorize the governor in council to expend for the said purposes out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums as may from time to time be necessary.
May I recapitulate what took place during that session? On March 20 the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) asked the Minister of Labour if any special measures were contemplated to cope with the unemployment situation. The Prime Minister refused to answer that question. On March 23 the then member for Kenora-Rainy River, Hon. Peter Heenan, asked what the government intended to do with respect to the relief of unemployment. The Prime Minister said:
The question can stand.
On March 31 the hon. member for North Winnipeg moved the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the acute distress arising from unemployment.
I am just reminded, Mr. Speaker, that according to the rule I have only ten minutes left, and I shall therefore give notice of my amendment so that I shall be quite in order. I intend to move the following amendment:
That all the words after the word "That" in the motion be struck out, and the following substituted therefor:
This house regrets that, notwithstanding the specific promises made prior to the election of 1930. and many times since reiterated, and despite the fact that extraordinary powers to deal with unemployment have been repeatedly secured from parliament, the present administration, after nearly five years of office, has not yet submitted to parliament any definite or effective policy to deal with widespread actual unemployment or distress which continues to be Canada's most urgent national problem.
I proceed now with the record. The hon. member for North Winnipeg on March 31, as I say, moved the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the acute distress arising from unemployment. After a lengthy discussion the motion was ruled out of order.
On April 17 the then member for Kenora-Rainy River, Hon. Peter Heenan, brought up the question again, and failing to get an answer moved the adjournment of the house. That motion was defeated by a vote 82 to 56. On April 24 the hon. member for Bow River

(Mr. Garland) asked whether the government intended to call a dominion unemployment conference, and the Prime Minister answered:
The hon. member will be advised when the event happens, if it does happen.
On May 25 the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (M. Neill) brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour the desperate unemployment situation prevailing in the city of Nanaimo. The Minister of Labour said the question was purely provincial. On May 26, on a motion to go into supply, the house discussed the urgent necessity of holding a conference with the provinces. No member of the government took part in that debate. On June 16 the leader of the opposition, in the budget debate, urged a conference with the provinces to deal with unemployment. No attention whatever was paid by the government to that suggestion. On June 29 Hon. Peter Heenan asked for a statement of government policy on unemployment, and the Prime Minister replied:
At an appropriate time a statement will be made. The primary duty with respect to unemployment does not rest with the federal government.
On June 30 after three or four days' discussion, the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) directed attention to the appalling conditions prevailing in rural Saskatchewan, and the Prime Minister said:
The primary responsibility rests with the municipalities and with the provinces.
On July 9 the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) asked when the government would introduce legislation on unemployment, and the Prime Minister said that legislation would be introduced when the business of the house had been practically disposed of. That resolution, moved by the Prime Minister on behalf of the government three days before parliament was prorogued in 1931, consisted of three parts: In the first place, that it was expedient to bring in a measure to confer certain powers on the governor in council in respect of unemployment relief; second, some measures with respect to farm relief; and third, a measure to confer certain powers on the governor in council for the maintenance of peace, order and good government throughout the dominion. Our position in regard to this matter was made abundantly clear. We proposed in the first place that he should ask the house to vote a certain sum for unemployment relief, a certain sum for farm relief, and to indicate what he thought necessary for the preservation of peace, order and good government in Canada. We refused at that time, as

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Mackenzie
we have done every session since, to surrender the rights of parliament with respect to control over expenditures; we would not dispense at one fell swoop with the entire authority of this house and give to the government a blanket authority to deal with this trinity of measures which I have mentioned, namely, the unemployment situation, the farm relief situation and the preservation of peace, order and good government in the dominion.
That brings me to the first session of 1932, opened on February 4 of that year. The speech from the throne contained these words:
Conditions are gradually improving-
They were still improving in 1932.
This period of trial has shown the Canadian situation to be fundamentaly sound.
We moved an amendment on going into supply on February 23, 1932. It was moved by Mr. Heenan that the measures introduced by the government were inadequate and ineffective to deal with unemployment. By that time it had become quite manifest that the legislation of 1931 was a complete and dismal failure, and while debate was in progress the following resolution appeared on the order paper:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" and substituting the word "May" therefor.
This was much worse than the legislation of 1931. I want to make it clear to the members of this house that whereas the peace, order and good government provisions were contained in the legislation of 1931, they were only suggested by the administration to come into effect after parliament had risen and the members had gone home. But when they introduced the legislation of 1932, when they attempted to revive the dead statute embodied in that resolution, they asked for complete authority and jurisdiction to deal with all questions involving peace, order and good government, while this parliament was sitting and while the members of this house were seated supinely here, not knowing what the cabinet council were doing with respect to peace, order and good government. That I characterize as the most audacious, the most amazing, the most barefaced piece of legislation introduced by the Prime Minister in a free parliament. It was a complete, a pro-'ound and a convincing demonstration of the impotence, the incompetence and the incapacity of the administration to deal with this great question of unemployment in the dominion.
And now we come to the legislation of March 8, 1932. We again stated our position 92582-76
in clear and unmistakable terms. We expressed our willingness to vote the sums necessary, and in committee we made our position once more abundantly clear. We objected to the powers of parliament and the resources of the treasury being handed over to the keeping of any cabinet in the dominion. It was a virtual dictatorship, despotism of the rankest kind set up in Canada. Let me now remind the house what was done under these despotic powers which this cabinet assumed under the authority of peace, order and good government.
First, the government prohibited the exportation of gold except under licence and by the chartered banks. That was October 19, 1931. In the second place, on new year's eve, December 31, the government in a great hurry put through another order in council enabling the life insurance companies in Canada to place a false valuation on their investments; they were enabled to take the valuation of June 30, 1931 instead of December 31, 1931. Thirdly, on October 27, 1931 there was passed an order in council, P.C. 2693, which virtually amended the Bank Act, authorizing the banks to make all government returns with regard to securities in a way other than that prescribed by the Bank Act. In other respects the procedure for amending the Bank Act is clearly laid down and any amendments are considered by a committee of this house every ten years; but this cabinet, this cabal, amended the Bank Act by this order in council, making a revaluation of banking securities. In the fourth place, on December 16 an order in council was passed, P.C. 3087, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) increasing the strength of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by 300 men, with an added expenditure of $274,135. The government increased the armed forces of the crown, even though they were a police force, without a single reference to the authority of parliament. Never had there been such a flouting of the supremacy of parliament as took place in that order in council increasing the numbers of the mounted police by 300 and imposing on the taxpayers of the country, without consulting parliament, an additional obligation of $274,000.
On September 12, 1931, the government passed order in council P.C. 2238, guaranteeing repayment to the chartered banks of amounts of money advanced the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, and this house and the country do not yet know to what extent the taxpayers of Canada are obligated by this venture in gambling, which was authorized, subsidized and supported by the government. Again, there was another guarantee

1188	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Mackenzie
of 160,000,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway and, if you please, during the session of 1933, while this house was actually sitting, these secret negotiations went on between the banks of this dominion and the government. And we were never apprised of one single iota of the negotiations. Worse than that, three days before parliament prorogued, a letter was written by the Prime Minister guaranteeing $60,000,000 of the taxpayers' money to support a private corporation. In the committee on banking and commerce a year ago, as will be found in the sworn evidence which appears in the bluebooks, we asked the general manager of the Bank of Montreal whether that bank would have renewed a loan of $20,000,000 for another year, and the answer was in the affirmative. We asked the same gentlemen whether the other banks of Canada would have looked after the remaining $17,519,000 odd for the period of another year, the money which this corporation required to take care of its immediate obligations, and the answer was again in the affirmative. There was therefore no immediate financial necessity for the guarantee, and yet this government, without consulting parliament, without consulting a single member guaranteed $60,000,000 of the people's money to the Canadian Pacific Railway under the guise of unemployment relief, while hundreds of thousands of people were on the verge of starvation throughout the dominion and the municipalities and provinces were nearing bankruptcy.
I come now to the second session of 1932. We met on October 6 of that year and the speech from the throne contained the following :
The problem of unemployment continues to receive the anxious attention of my ministers. Under the powers granted them at the last session of parliament, they have been able to develop further, in cooperation with the provinces and municipalities, a scheme of direct relief to be put into operation during the autumn and winter months to the extent required by prevailing conditions. Plans for the reestablishment of the unemployed in various parts of the country are in preparation and will become operative as soon as, in the opinion of my ministers, the public expenditure incident thereto will be productive of commensurate benefits.
This was a complete abandonment of the policies theretofore pursued, and an open avowal of the dole system by way of unemployment relief. "Plans for the reestablishment of the unemployed"-what did that mean? In the light of subsequent events, it meant absolutely nothing.
Then the Prime Minister went to Calgary, his own constituency, and he spoke there on

September 6 of the same year. Let us recall the promises. He said repeatedly in 1930 that this was no longer a local or provincial question; that it was a national one. Listen to what he said in Calgary on September 6, 1932:
So far as I am concerned the administration of relief does not lie with the dominion government. I am not prepared to scrap the constitution-
What a remarkable change between 1932 and 1935!
-and say the primary responsibility can be shifted to the dominion government.
I have not yet reached the point where I think the dominion government is better equipped to deal with these matters than either the provinces or the municipalities.
The problem was national in 1930! It was provincial and local in 1932. The Canadian Pacific had received their guarantee of $60,000,000.
I now come to November 21, 1932, when the hon. member for North Winnipeg asked for a committee or commission to study this question, stating that at that time the number of unemployed was 750,000. The only encouragement he received was to be ruled out of order.
On the house meeting again after the Christmas recess on February 22, 1933, the Minister of Labour, whose legislation was expiring on March 31, introduced the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to continue in force the provisions of the Relief Act, 1932, until the 31st of March, 1934.
In other words, the only policy of this administration was one of repeating and repeating the same old legislation from year to year. In the first place public works were mixed up with relief; then there was the straight dole, and now one year continuing the doleful legislation of another. On March 3, 1933, a further amendment was moved by one of the ministers after the resolution was in committee, as follows:
Provided, however, that the amount to be paid for direct relief for the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 1934, shall not exceed the sum of $20,000,000.
During the debate we discovered that the amount expended under the 1930 legislation was $17,987,000; on public works, around $14,000,000, and in direct relief, about $3,500,000. Under the legislation of 1931 and 1932 the dominion government had subscribed the sum of $41,000,000. Then the government, still wobbling, pursuing with faltering footsteps their erratic course, had to move even a second
FEBRUARY 25, 1935	11S9
Unemployment Reliej-Mr. Mackenzie
amendment to their own resolution in committee. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Man-ion) on March 20, 1933, moved:
And that provision be made for accepting securities from the provinces for such loans, advances, guarantees, etc., as may be advanced by the government, and that provision also be made for the maintenance of peace, order and good government throughout Canada.
In other words, the clause with respect to peace, order and good government which, after the opposition by those on this side of the house, had been abandoned by the administration in the previous year, was reinserted in the legislation of 1933 on a resolution moved by the Minister of Railways on March 23 of that year.
May I be pardoned by the house for quoting some of the observations I made in that debate? Speaking on this resolution on March 20, 1933, I said:
Considering the emergent conditions that prevail in many of our Canadian cities, surely the time has arrived for the government of the day, in a large national and constructive way, to envision and comprehend their entire problem as a nation-wide problem, a Canadian problem, in its very essence, and as far as I personally am concerned, if the government deals with it as a national problem I shall be only too glad to render any assistance I can. It is a national problem, Mr. Chairman, because our municipalities are practically all bankrupt. They are out of resources, and I am afraid that the policies of the administration during the last few years have very largely been driving them to that condition because they have been compelled to live beyond their resources to face the present emergent situation. So I am appealing to the Minister of Labour, particularly in view of the very grave conditions that exist in the province of British Columbia and all through the Canadian west, both in the industrial centres and on many of the farms in western Canada, to deal with this question in a national way, not in any piecemeal fashion, providing one scale of relief nere and anpther there, not with the present lack of coordination and uniformity throughout the dominion; but let us have a large national constructive scheme with federal control and direction of the unemployment situation, and then with cooperation between all parties in this house who want to see real remedies applied and real relief obtained, I believe that we shall be able to do something to meet the unemployment situation in this dominion.
The speech from the throne in 1934 contained only two paragraphs dealing with the situation, as follows:
Improved world conditions-
Improvement every year-improvement in 1930; improving still more in 1931; improving still further in 1933, and then in 1934:
. Improved world conditions are reflected in Canada by expanding trade, improving revenues, and a more confident outlook upon the future.
92582-764	.
My government propose further to promote employment by expenditures on essential public works throughout the dominion.
I wish to mention nine specific points which were emphasized by us at the time in regard to the resolution moved by the Minister of Labour and in regard to the policy pursued by this administration:
1.	A dominion-provincial conference to consider the financial relations of the provinces and the dominion.
2.	That unemployment was Canada's most urgent national problem, and strongly advocated a representative national commission to coordinate all national effort and to cooperate with the provinces and municipalities in the administration of unemployment relief.
3.	That there should be an audit by the federal government of all expenditure of public moneys.
4.	That all moneys for relief purposes should be voted for specific purposes and voted by parliament.
5.	We opposed voting public moneys in lump sums and we opposed the blank cheque -a government policy which subsequently resulted in a colossal wastage of public money.
6.	We opposed giving to the executive the power of legislating by order in council with respect to peace, order and good government
7.	We advocated as the only real basis on which recovery could be hoped for, the introduction of policies which would serve to provide employment by reviving industry and trade and which would make for the liberation of trade both external and internal.
8.	We advocated the development of the basic industries as a way of furnishing employment.
9.	We advocated measures for the control of credits and the democratization of industry.
On February 5, 1934, the hon. member for North Winnipeg moved a further resolution emphasizing the importance of the question of purchasing power, the necessity of a reduction in the hours of labour and the necessity for the more equitable distribution of wealth. That resolution was carried by the house, but no concrete action was taken with respect thereto.
The Minister of Labour on March 22, 1934, moved the following:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting relief measures generally similar in terms to the Relief Act, 1933, but which also makes provision for payment of federal proportion of delayed relief accounts, if any, which may be received subsequent to the date of the expiration of said act.
1190	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Mackenzie
In other words the dole was continued On March 26, 1934, during the debate on the second reading of the bill, very grave irregularities were brought to light as the result of the first report of the auditor general respecting the administration of relief funds in the provinces. We moved an amendment on the third reading of the bill again protesting against taking away from parliament its complete control over public expenditures.
That brings me to the 1935 session. Since then we have had the Prime Minister's broadcasts, and what has happened so far during the present session. May I be permitted to refer in the meantime to just one sentence used by the Prime Minister in his broadcast, when he said, "The world is in tragic circumstances; the signs of recovery are few and doubtful." Yet when I go back and look at the expressions of opinion by hon. ministers since 1930, I find the following. Speaking on October 1, 1930, the Prime Minister said, "that the old order of things had passed.' In western Canada on new year's eve-December 31, 1930-at Regina, he said:
I am satisfied we will he able to look back on the year 1931 with satisfaction

I want you to believe that we are on the highroad to success....
Our minister to Japan is at this hour on his way to China to discuss with the government of that great country the purchase of millions of bushels of our wheat.
Then he came back to Ottawa, and on April 28, 1931, he is reported as having said:
We can look forward to the future with confidence, convinced that the great pathway of peace and prosperity has never appeared so attractive ... so attractive that no words of mine can describe it.


Wilfred Hanbury: Humbug!


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Two
weeks later, on May 11, 1931, speaking in Montreal, he said:
I think there are some evidences that we have reached the dead level of depression and that the movement from now on will be upward.
Five months later, in Montreal, on October 15, 1931, he said:
The storm may not have spent itself, but the worst is over.
They are very fond of storms. At Ottawa on new year's day, January 1, 1932, he said:
In my belief the worst is over. Canada has survived the crisis.
In Ottawa, on dominion day, 1932:
We face the future with confidence.

In Toronto, in August, 1932:
I think there are signs of improvement on the horizon, evidences that we have reached the dead level of this depression.
Once again the dear old dead level. In London, England, on December 21, 1932:
Next year will be the beginning of a new era of prosperity.
Then at sea, on board the Empress of Britain, August 28, 1933:
I trust all may enjoy happiness, opportunity to work as we return to prosperity, and contentment under a kindly providence in this great land we call our home.
And again in Montreal, on September 1, 1933:
In the dominion, particularly, I note that conditions are becoming better.
And my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), on September 3, 1933, expressed his satisfaction in Canada's leadership. He said:
With our Prime Minister once more at the helm-
Once again the ship and the storm.

after his strenuous efforts in London, we can go forward in confidence that all will soon be well again.
Then the Prime Minister, speaking before the Canadian Gas Association-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: -on September 19, 1933, said:
Some people look and wonder whither we are moving. I have never had the slightest doubt as to where we were going. I am one of those sturdy individualists who believe we are moving upward and onward.
Again in Winnipeg on October 10, 1933:
We may, I think, confidently look forward to better days. Slow, yes, but none the less sure.
And then in Manitoba on the same day:
Canada is standing on the threshold ol recovery.
At Lethbridge on October 17, 1933:
Throughout the world there is sound reason for the belief the great depression is ended and the slow move back to normal conditions is a tangible fact, with Canada well in the forefront.
And then again in Ottawa on November 8, 1933:
In all the factors that go to make up prosperity there are distinct signs of upward improvement, that we have passed the worst, of this great crisis and we are steadily climbing* the hill to ultimate prosperity.

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Mackenzie
At Montreal on June 8, 1934, from the
Canadian Press:
Expressing his belief that Canada was stand- * ing on the threshold of a prosperity greater than she had ever known, Prime Minister R. B. Bennett told an audience here that at least one out of every twelve Canadian men, women and children were on a payroll on May 1st.
Yet when the time came for the broadcast the right hon. gentleman said the world was in tragic circumstances, although year after year from 1930 until 1935 we had nothing but prosperity around the corner, even in the utterances of my good friend the Minister of Railways.
Now, sir, I come to one or two other paragraphs in these radio addresses which brought such wonderful confidence and satisfaction to my esteemed and venerable friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan):
I promised I would end unemployment. That was a definite undertaking. By it I stand.
This is five years afterwards:
Unemployment in Canada is one of the consequences of the awful and unprecedented depression.
Yet every year from 1930 prosperity was just around the comer. Again he said:
When the system is reformed and in full operation again there will be work for all.
That is much worse than the former promises. In 1930 he said he would end unemployment immediately or perish in the attempt. But now, five years later, he is going to end it-when? When the system is reformed. Something mythical and nebulous and uncertain and vague.
When the system is reformed and in full operation again there will be work for all.
Then again he said:
If a man is able and willing to work but can get no work, provision for his security must be made in a decent way.
I completely agree with that sentiment, but why then is no policy brought down by this administration? He said:
We are to put in a permanent system of sound and scientific insurance against unemployment.
I am in favour of that, but I venture this prediction, that not only will the unemployment insurance legislation do nothing for the unemployed in Canada, but it will be many weary months before it will do anything whatever even for the limited number of the employed who will come under its provisions. So that for the problem which I am discussing to-night this measure is entirely inadequate and useless.
Then the Prime Minister said, " the present Old Age Pensions Act is unscientific and obsolete." Was it so in 1930 when the Prime Minister went all across Canada saying he would nationalize the old age pensions scheme and pay one hundred per cent of the cost, as he said in New Brunswick and all through the maritime provinces? Now after five years of his own administration as a result of further broken promises he finds it unscientific and obsolete. I am proud to say that in regard to old age pensions the Liberal party led the way in England and in Canada. In England under Lloyd George in 1911 -I happened to be in the old land at that time-we pioneered in old age pensions legislation. Again in Canada the Liberal party pioneered in old age pensions, and I am proud to say that my province of British Columbia under the Liberal government of good old John Oliver was the first province of Canada to place government old age pensions in operation.
Then he said, " Health, accident and sickness insurance must be developed in the same way." Again I know that under the rules of order I cannot discuss it in detail, but I refer the house to part IV of the unemployment insurance bill of this year.
I come now to this session and1 the speech from the throne, in which we have these words:
I welcome you at a time when our country stands upon the threshold of a new era of prosperity.
It is the same story year after year. In every year from 1930 right up to 1935; " our country upon the threshold of a new era of prosperity"!-and 1,207,000 people on relief to-day out of a population of 10,500,000. Again:
Employment is increasing. Our trade is expanding. The national revenues are higher. These evidences of recovery attest the wisdom and efficacy of the measures you have taken.
My honoured leader, speaking in the debate on the address on January 21, said as reported at page 59 of Hansard:
Let us therefore, between now and that time, take as first measures those dealing with the problem of unemployment and social reform and give them our undivided attention from day to day so that, working together, we may, if at all possible produce something in the way of a solution. I suggest that to that end this debate be permitted to end very speedily after the Prime Minister and the leader of the third party have spoken, unless there is something controversial in what they say. At any rate, so far as the members of the Liberal opposition are concerned, we are prepared in order to deal with the question of unemployment to end this discussion at once.
1192	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Mackenzie
And on January 28, as reported at page 263 of Hansard, the right hon. leader of the opposition moved the following amendment to the motion to go into supply:
That all the words in the motion after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This house is of the opinion that the immediate consideration of present conditions of unemployment and the introduction of measures of social and industrial reform should not be delayed or postponed by a consideration of supply in advance of the consideration of government policies with respect to unemployment and the introduction of measures with respect to social and industrial reform."
Again on February 5, on the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) to go into supply, the leader of the opposition moved,
as reported on page 496 of Hansard:
That all the words after the word "that" in the motion be struck out, and the following substituted therefor:
"That this house is of the opinion that when it is moved into committee of supply priority should be given consideration of the estimates of the Department of Labour in order that opportunity may be afforded for an immediate discussion and consideration of conditions of unemployment and distress at present existing in all parts of Canada, and of the measures required to cope therewith."
That amendment was ruled out of order by Your Honour. But I want to put on Hansard another quotation from the address of my right hon. leader on that occasion:
We feel very strongly that any program of social and industrial reform should not be permitted to sidetrack an immediate consideration of present problems in our country.
That is the attitude of the official opposition. It is in that spirit and in furtherance of the remarks contained in the address of my leader on that occasion that I offer the amendment which it is my intention to submit be-for I resume my seat.
Then we come to the questions which we asked of the Minister of Labour the other evening in this house. With these questions I began my survey of what has taken place in this house during the last five years, when the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) asked questions and I asked questions myself as to what the policy of this administration is. When I asked him in regard to what was the policy of this administration with respect to these 1.207,000 people on relief in Canada to-night, the only reply I received was that the policy would have to await the requests received from the provinces with respect to this great national emergency.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal rather briefly with the world aspect of this question, and I should like to place on Hansard one or

two figures with respect to the volume of industrial production in the world, which in 1933 was 12Jt per cent greater than in 1932, while the production of foodstuffs remained the same. In the same period the production of raw materials increased by ten per cent, while the same rate prevailed in 1934. The importance of these figures lies in the fact that in 1933 there were three times as many unemployed as in 1929, but by the summer of 1934 there were only twice as many in all the world while in Canada we had six times as many in 1934 under the policies pursued by the administration opposite. Yet, according to Sir Arthur Salter, one of the world's greatest authorities on this question, in the last issue of the Yale Review, the world figures were only twice as great in 1934 as in 1929. International trade has increased only slightly since 1933, and while we may be coming slowly up the slope we are by no means half way up so far, and I think for many weary months to come we must continue to pursue the toilsome ascent from the depths.
Seen in the large the problem of relief transcends the care of our present relief load. It involves the question of whether to-day's relief cases are to become semi-permanent, and whether their numbers are to be augmented by new recruits who cannot find opportunity for self support. It involves something else, the absorption of our unemployed into the ranks of private industry. If our industrial organization cannot provide a living for these men by giving them jobs then it must support them, and ultimately that cost will come back on industry in taxes. The government may be able to stimulate absorption by an extensive construction program, but I am somewhat in doubt' as to the value of construction programs when they are carried on entirely by governmental agencies. We have to develop a new type of public service for the unemployed ; we may have to organize those whom industry cannot now absorb into production for use units. I am sure my hon. friends in the corner will welcome this suggestion. When ordinary industry cannot absorb labour for ordinary production for profit then the nation may have to step in and take up the gap between the efforts of private enterprise and direct relief for those unemployable, and subsidize industries where the wages would not be such as would compete with private enterprise, in order to do two things, first to afford a decent subsistence, and second to develop work of substantial use to the state which will employ these men.
There are four reasons in the main for this problem, because after all, even with this

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Mackenzie
depression the problem may be a semi-permanent one, in spite of the fact that Canada is a new country. First there are the unemployable, who are not able to render effective service in our industrial order, through misfortunes of their own or misfortunes of the system. They present a 'special problem of their own. Then in our industrial order, with its rapidly changing adjustments, workers may find themselves attached to inefficient or decaying industries, and may have to look for other jobs. Seasonal unemployment adds to this total. Third, the codes of many organizations to-day in Canada, as in other nations, make it almost impossible to provide gainful occupations for many of our youth, and to my mind that is one of the greatest problems. Fourth, business cycles of unemployment are inevitable due to several causes, and plans should be laid in advance for periods of depression.
To combat these factors what can one advocate? In the first place there is unemployment and social insurance, with which we have been wrestling during the present session. Second, to meet unemployment and to look after those who cannot be absorbed by an insurance scheme, other measures must be devised combining useful results with continued subsistence. Third, there are the programs of public construction. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, the main thing is that new employment and new purchasing power can be created by encouraging business enterprise in an expanding production and distribution of goods and services. Business itself must be willing to outlaw those forms of competition which are socially destructive, and it must give due shares to labour, the consumer, to management and to capital. It must be content with business profits and must not search unduly after illusory and unsocial speculative gains. It must be willing to endure that minimum of government control which the general interest requires. In short, shall I say, there must be a new partnership between business and politics in Canada for the sake of the common man. Governments need the assistance of constructive and productive business, and I think business needs the guidance and cooperation of governments, not bludgeoning, not dragooning, not. conscripting, but in a real alliance responsive to the promptings of the social conscience.
May I therefore, Mr. Speaker, summarize the situation in Canada as it exists at the present moment. First, after an expenditure of about $400,000,000 in five years we have some 600,000 unemployed and over 1,000,000
on relief. Second, we have over 20,000 single homeless men in the national defence camps scattered throughout the Dominion of Canada. Third, the amounts expended under the special public works appropriation of 1934 have not materially improved the situation. Fourth, very largely as a result of the burdens imposed upon them by relief legislation, many of our municipalities are actually bankrupt and some of our provincial governments are on the verge of bankruptcy, especially in western Canada. Fifth, with such a situation confronting us, one month before the close of the present fiscal year the government says through its Minister of Labour that it has no policy at present with which to meet the situation.
My hon. friends may ask what I advocate, and in the remainder of what I have to say I wish to make it very clear that I am giving my personal views only, and not necessarily the views of any party or group. First, in addition to a national relief commission representative of all interests to administer relief in Canada, which we have advocated for the last four or five years, I suggest that we should have immediately at our disposal a complete census and registration of those now unemployed, with a view to ascertaining the numbers permanently unemployable, and special measures for their care. Second, I want to advocate the handling of this entire problem as one of national emergency, even if only for a limited time, until this depression is over. Third, I advocate the undertaking by the government of public works on a limited scale in which the greater proportion of the appropriation shall go to labour rather than to supplies or equipment. Fourth, I advocate cooperation with the construction industry and other business for privately directed works and undertakings, their financing to be assisted by the government, which shall be completely reimbursed for any advances made. Fifth, I suggest adequate, immediate and effective measures to increase our domestic and foreign trade. Sixth, I suggest the reduction of rates of interest on all outstanding obligations in the Dominion of Canada. Seventh, I suggest a national conversion scheme reducing the interest on all internal debt to two and a half per cent. Eighth, I advocate immediate negotiations with outside nations where our external bonds are held, for a mutually satisfactory scheme for the reduction of interest on external bonds. Ninth, I suggest the increase of our currenc>
by $430,000,000, which is scientifically justifiable by the appreciation of gold values, tc be used for the reduction of our national debt;
1194	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Mackenzie
not to be used under any pretence in the financing of temporary schemes by the administration during the current year, but to be used for the reduction of our public debt so that thereafter we may finance at low rates of interest any public works or undertakings that we may desire to carry on. Tenth, I advocate that the national budget be strictly balanced. Eleventh, I suggest a financial conference with the provinces to consider the advisability of establishing a national loan board to coordinate, if possible, the investment activities of governments without commingling their financial responsibilities and to consider the exact and precise financial situation of all governmental agencies in Canada.
My last recommendation is in regard to exservice men. For the permanently unemployable I suggest the extension of the principle of the War Veterans' Allowance Act, reducing the age to fifty-five, if only for a limited period. For the partially unemployable I suggest physical reestablishment for a limited period and land settlement on small holdings. For the employable I advocate the scientific placement of men in industry.
Such then, Mr. Speaker, is the problem and such are some of the suggested remedies. No matter what attention this house has given during this session to the so called reform measures; no matter what attention we have given unemployment insurance; no matter what attention we have given or may give hours of work legislation, I say that we shall be recreant to our trust if during this session we do not take steps to meet this urgent national situation. I say the eight hour day bill will do nothing to lessen unemployment in the Dominion of Canada. You must reduce the total hours of labour in one complete week before you can tackle what is essentially the problem of unemployment. So far as I am concerned I am in favour of reducing the hours of labour substantially below the forty-eight hour week. In certain industries, both from the national and the provincial viewpoint, there must be certain exemptions from the hours of labour brought about by mutual consent of the employers and employees. This provision exists in the legislation in British Columbia, and once again may I say that I believe the British Columbia legislation respecting hours of labour is the best in Canada.
I have reviewed the entire situation from 1930 to 1935. Once again I should like to impress upon the government the necessity for enunciating to this House of Commons without further delay its policy with respect to unemployment, distress and prevailing hardship. In that spirit, seconded by the hon.

member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray) I beg to move the following amendment:
That all the words after the word "That" in the motion be struck out, and the following substituted therefor:
This house regrets that, notwithstanding the specific promises made prior to the election of 1930, and many times since reiterated, and despite the fact that extraordinary powers to deal with unemployment have been repeatedly secured from parliament, the present administration, after nearly five years of office, has not yet submitted to parliament any definite or effective policy to deal with widespread actual unemployment or distress which continues to be Canada's most urgent national problem.
I should like to conclude my observations by quoting the final words of a great book, Industry and Humanity-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Well, hon. members opposite may laugh. I wonder if they will laugh at the concluding words of that great book. This is not Andrew MacLean's book at all. The man who wrote this book does not announce his social insurance program over the radio or his public works program in the movies, between The Iron Duke and Mickey Mouse. I want to see if there is any man across the way, any Tory-I do not know what they are called now-any follower of the new deal who will not support the sentiments expressed in these concluding words in the book Industry and Humanity to which I have referred:
Is it too much to believe that-
And this is the spirit of those who are distressed and in poverty throughout Canada.
Is it too much to believe that having witnessed humanity pass through its Geth-semane, having seen its agony in its garden of fears, having beheld its crucifixion upon the cross of militarism, labour and capital will yet bring to a disconsolate and brokenhearted world the one hope that is theirs alone to bring, and that in the acceptance of the principles which hold deliverance from the scourges that beset mankind they will roll back the stone from the door of tire world's sepulchre to-day and give to humanity the promise of its resurrection to a more abundant life.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate1 this Lochinvar from the west who comes here as the new leader of the Liberal party. I have listened with much interest to what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) has had to say. He has made an omnibus speech in which he talked about everything; he has gone through the events of the last few years and given his views upon them. Then, finally, he puts forward the platform upon which he as the leader

Unemployment Relief-Sir George Perley
of the Liberal party will run in the next election. I am not finding any fault, but I would say to the hon. member that the amendment he has moved was placed in my hands only after he had half completed his speech. No notice was given, although undoubtedly if we are to judge from all the papers in front of him he has been incubating this speech for the last week or two. Evidently he thought it wiser not to give notice of his motion to hon. members on this side, hoping that we could not make any reply to his extraordinary observations.
The hon. gentleman has moved an amendment respecting unemployment measures, but he has offered no constructive suggestion. Although he has made certain statements, surely he will realize that the condition of unemployment is world wide and known to all. I take it that the amendment was moved in the present instance so that the hon. member would have the opportunity to speak more than forty minutes. Possibly we would have given him that opportunity anyway, even if he had not made the motion he did. In his observations he has indicated his views with regard to the record of the Conservative party for the last five years. The whole world has been going through very trying times. What have the party opposite done to try to help the government? Nothing whatever. They have criticized, found fault and blocked -well, I shall not use the term "blocked," because it may not be parliamentary. I will repeat, however, that they have criticized measures which afterwards they supported. Why can the Liberal party not be frank and support the measures brought before this chamber, if they believe such measures to be in the best interests of the country? Why do they not offer their wholehearted support of the measures instead of in the first instance finding fault and offering nothing but criticism, and in the end approving them?
In his amendment the hon. member has offered no constructive suggestions. All people in all parts of the world recognize that unemployment is a world wide condition, and if the hon. member has in his mind any method by which he believes it could be solved I should like him to make his motion accordingly. Let us have some concrete motion from the hon. member stating what he believes should be done. Instead of that he offers an amendment in which he states that-
Despite the fact that extraordinary powers to deal with unemployment have been repeatedly secured from parliament the present administration after nearly five years of office has not yet submitted to parliament any definite or effective policy-
I submit that no country in the world has come through the depression better than Canada, and the truth of that statement has been recognized in other countries. The delegates to the great world gathering which met in London last year considered Canada one of the countries which had come through the depression better than any other, and they did not know how we had accomplished it. The hon. member should get information about the conditions in other countries before he begins to gloat over the number receiving relief in Canada.
I notice the hon. member has taken great pains to exaggerate the figures as to unemployment, having included people who may have received only an odd meal or two. The unemployment statistics include the unemployed, their families, and those who receive only a certain amount of relief, some of them only a very small amount. But no; that would not suit his purpose-he tries to make the numbers as great as possible. It may be all right for him to try to hammer the Conservative government without reason, but is it a good thing for Canada that he should put forward those figures in as exaggerated a manner as possible?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was quoting the figures I received from the government this afternoon.


George Halsey Perley: I have already
explained that there are families of unemployed and there are those receiving partial relief, perhaps only a meal or two, and they are all included in the figures given by the hon. member.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I presented all the figures fairly.


George Halsey Perley: Then he says
his party has suggested that we should have had a national relief commission. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can hardly visualize how such a commission could have worked throughout the country except through the local authorities. I do not think a commission here in Ottawa or in any city in Canada could handle the relief problems in the various sections of the country as well as the people of the provinces and of the municipalities themselves. The hon. gentleman says they should be under federal control and direction. He knows, as everyone in the house knows, that this question of relief is in the first instance one for the- provincial governments, and it has been so agreed by everyone.
I may tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this year the dominion government made a definite
1196	COMMONS
Unemployment Relie/-Sir George Perley
suggestion to the government of Saskatchewan that the drought area in southern Saskatchewan be taken over by the dominion government and administered without any expense to the province, but the Saskatchewan government did not see fit to accept the suggestion. I mention this to indicate to the hon. gentleman that he would have to get the provinces to change their minds before we could make any arrangement for a national relief commission, even if it were feasible to do so. My own opinion is that a national relief commission could not successfully administer relief all over this country, because the matter is, in any event, a local one which has to be dealt with by the provinces and the municipalities.
The hon. gentleman also says that we led the world in higher tariffs. Did he never hear of a country called the United States of America, I wonder? As I understand it, that is the country that has led in higher tariffs and has done so for the last forty or fifty years. All we did was to protect ourselves and our workmen against the competition of the United States with their high tariff, and I may say to my hon. friend that had we not done that we should have had a great many more unemployed in this country than we have had. Any action we have taken in that respect has all been to the good.
In the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) who unfortunately has a cold today, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether there is any member of the house who does not admire the courage of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett? I do not care whether he be Liberal or Conservative, on which side of the house he may sit, whether he agrees with the Prime Minister's policies or not, hon. members must admire his courage and the fortitude with which he has carried on during these four or five years. I wonder whether during the time the Liberals were in power the Prime Minister of that day showed any courage in dealing with various problems, or whether he simply drifted with the tide, and in the years of plenty, with abounding revenues, and everything prosperous-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hurrah!


George Halsey Perley: I agree, but the Liberals had no more to do with it than anybody else. It was due to world conditions, and instead of taking advantage of those prosperous times and laying aside some of the abounding revenues and making preparations for a rainy day, they spent all the money they had and left us with a lot of obligations to fulfil which had been arranged 'or before the election.

The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has quoted some remarks of the Liberal leader and others to the effect that the government should go on with their reform legislation and their relief legislation without letting anything else interfere with it. I ask in all fairness whether there has ever been a session of this house when the business of the country has been as well prepared and gone on with as expeditiously as it has this session. We have been sitting here for only five or six weeks, and much of the legislation promised by the Prime Minister has already been put on the order paper. Some of these measures it is impossible to bring forward until a report has been made by the mass buying commission, which I understand is now in course of preparation and will be presented before long. So, Mr. Speaker, I say that any suggestion from the hon. gentleman or anyone else that this government has not been ready with its legislation or has not gone on as fast as possible with the program promised by the Prime Minister is making a statement which is not based upon fact. The Prime Minister promised measures of reform. Some of them are already before the house, and others will be brought down as soon as possible, but some of them, as I have just said, must await the report of the mass buying commission. I say to the hon. gentleman with all humility that as far as this government is concerned there has been no delay whatever, and I repeat that there has been no session when the business of the house was better prepared or was proceeded with more expeditiously than has been the case during the present session.
The amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman on a motion to go into supply was framed, I take it, largely for the purpose of giving him an opportunity to speak more than forty minutes. It is a motion that it is impossible for the gove'mment to accept, because it is not based on any facts that he has brought forward this evening, nor has the hon. gentleman submitted to the house any proposal or suggestion for a better solution of the unemployment problem than has been afforded by this government in its legislation of the last four years. The problem of unemployment has received and is receiving consideration every day from the government, and must do so as anyone can understand; and any measures which are to be submitted to parliament in connection with unemployment relief will be brought down in due course. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the house to reject the motion of the hon. gentleman.

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Gray


Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton):: Mr
Speaker, I appreciate the difficulty that faced the acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley) when he attempted to reply to the very brilliant speech of my colleague from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). In view of the fact that his leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has not announced any definite policy with respect to this important matter of unemployment, and that we have not been able to receive one from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), it is not difficult to understand why the acting Prime Minister should simply fall back on what has been the policy of the present government since its inception and say, as the right hon. gentleman did in his closing remarks, that "the question is being considered." I say to you, sir, that it has been considered. I have no doubt that from the very first day this government took office until this hour in the fifth year of their life, and the last I hope, they have been and are still considering this problem. We have no quarrel with the acting Prime Minister when he states that his leader has courage; we agree that he has. But one is reminded of the story of the engineer who, seeing a buffalo bull charging his engine, said " I admire your courage but I cannot admire your judgment." The right hon. gentleman points out to-night the situation that various other countries are facing and points to the fact that Canada has led in this respect. But I would remind him and other hon. members of this house of the fact that in 1930 in reply to members on this side the Prime Minister said that the concern of his party and of the people of Canada was Canada and not the United States or any other country.
I offer no apologies for taking part in this debate. Here we are in 1935 waiting for some definite pronouncement on the part of the government as to how they propose to solve this problem. In 1931 and again in 1932 we were told, as we were told the other night by the Minister of Labour, that the government was waiting to see what the provinces would propose. That might have been all right in 1931 or even in the second session of 1932; but after five years, for the Minister of Labour to come into this house and say that he is waiting to see what the provinces will propose indicates a lack of judgment and of any particular program on the part of the government to solve the problem. In my opinion the time is opportune, indeed it is long overdue, to discuss this problem because during the years this government has been in office it has deliberately delayed the discussion of unemployment relief until the dying days of the
session. This is true of every session. In 1930 they held over our heads the fact that the Prime Minister would not go to the imperial conference unless we rushed the legislation. In 1931 the house began its sittings on March 12 and it was not until July 29, or four days before prorogation, that legislation was introduced in connection with unemployment. In 1931 the act was to expire on March 1, but on March 8 it was extended for two months. In 1933 the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act was introduced on March 21, leaving seven days in which to discuss it. In 1934 the act expired on March 31 and the new act was introduced on March 22, and the house adjourned on March 28 until after Easter, leaving only about four days to discuss the measure, including the time necessary for the Senate to pass it.
I submit therefore that we have a right to bring this matter as forcibly as possibly to the attention of the government in the hope that they will appreciate the problem and take some definite action. I do not wish to weary the house by a repetition of what was promised in connection with unemployment, but it is necessary for one to go back to the election of 1930 in order to bring before the house and the country the steps or lack of steps taken by the government to solve the problem.
On July 10, 1930, speaking at Moncton, the present Prime Minister said:
The Conservative party is going to find work for all who are willing to work, or perish in the attempt. It is going to call parliament at the earliest possible date after July 28 and take such steps as will end this tragic condition of unemployment and bring prosperity to the country ag a whole. . . . Mr. King promises consideration of the problem of unemployment. I promise to end unemployment. Which plan do you like best?
At Victoria on June 17 he said:
We cannot tolerate the dole. Men and women of this country want work, not charity. ... Is there any excuse for Canada to have hard times if the government is discharging its duties as it should?
Then he spoke in Quebec as follows:
There was no necessity for a conference on unemploylment, he continued. The solution was too apparent. "What you want is work," he exclaimed, "not conferences, and you are going to get work." Unless his 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 him out of office.
Let me give a brief review of the legislation that has been passed. In 1930, at the special session, some tariff changes were introduced, and the Prime Minister and other speakers on the other side declared that these changes would result in increased employment in



[Stage Direction]
Whereas unemployment is primarily a municipal and provincial responsibility, it has been so general throughout Canada as to constitute a national concern.
I ask hon. members to note that, because as we trace the years down, we shall find a decided change on the part of the government. Encouraged by the dominion government, without guidance and without the relief commission suggested by my right hon. leader at the time and at subsequent sessions in order that there might be cooperation not only between the dominion and the provinces but among the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities, the municipalities, seeing what seemed to them at that time to be easy money, launched into an orgy of spending which in many cases has left them almost bankrupt. During the session of 1931-32, municipalities built everything from the town pump at $200 right up to one project on which the city of Toronto spent some $2,500,000. Some two hundred and thirty-six municipalities in Ontario alone took advantage of what appeared to them to be easy money. They were paying only fifty per cent of the cost, but they forgot that even if it was only fifty per cent, there would be a day of reckoning. In Ontario, under the encouragement of the government of the day and without any guidance, as I have said, we spent some $20,000,000 of which the municipalities paid fifty per cent. In spite of that, in spite of these public expenditures the total number taking direct relief in January, 1932, was
741,000,	and in May of that year there were still 569.000 on direct relief. Too late the government recognized that this particular
FEBRUARY 25, 1935	[DOT]
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Gray
scheme of giving money to the provinces and through them to the municipalities was a mistake, and we find for the first and perhaps the only time that even the present Prime Minister, speaking in London immediately after the session of 1932, was just a little pessimistic, when one considers the character of the right hon. gentleman. Speaking in London on June 1, 1932, as reported in the press of the following day, the right hon. gentleman had this to say:
It has been said that during the election campaign I promised to cure unemployment Under normal conditions I think I would have done so.
Does this sound like the man who was prepared to blast his way through all our troubles and difficulties? There was a doubt in his mind. Were the Prime Minister and his government called upon to cure the unemployment situation in normal times? Yet we find him stating in June, 1932, that he thought he might have cured unemployment had normal times returned. Did the right hon. gentleman at that moment have any constructive suggestion to make with respect to the cure of unemployment? No; instead he delivered one of his famous lectures, of which he is so fond, to the Canadian people. He told us that the Canadian people stood in need of the discipline which the depression was bringing. These were his words:
The amazing prosperity of the years before 1930 cost the people of Canada much in the loss of discipline. Luxuries became necessities. Men and women yielded' to the mad caprices of the moment. Every man had to have every luxury. People would buy nothing made in Canada if they could buy from some place else. To-day self-reliance and restraint are needed to meet the crisis in the nation's life.
I am sure the house will agree with me that the average farmer, workingman or citizen did not spend his money in riotous living and does not deserve the punishment he has been taking during these years from 1930 to 1935. What nonsense to say that the people of Canada would not buy in this country if they could buy somewhere else when we find that between 1923 and 1930 industrial production mounted more than double. Yet the Prime Minister continues to give these lectures to the people of Canada. Does it lighten the load, does it help the people to bear the burden under which they are suffering to-day to be told, as we were on Thursday last, that our children are healthier because of the food that the authorities buy for them? Does it help to lighten the load to know that the food for which people have to line up, taking not even cash but voucher tickets to some grocer
or butcher, is going to make their children a little healthier, or that the lives of the wives who are wearing dresses that have 'been turned into tire relief quarters will foe lengthened a little by the clothes they are wearing? Those were the remarks the Prime Minister made as late as Thursday of last week.
The session of 1932-33 was opened on October 7, 1932, with a direct admission on the part of the Prime Minister that the scheme of public works in this country had been abandoned and we were to go upon this dole which he abhorred, which shocked the national conscience, and in fact an unorganized dole at that. Unemployment was mounting by leaps and bounds, those on direct relief at that particular time, February, 1933, numbering 1,395,961. Yet at the opening of the session of 1934, we find in the speech from the throne these words:
Since prorogation, my government, under the authority of the Relief Act, 1933, have continued to assist financially the provinces in the discharge of their constitutional obligations.
What those obligations are, we find when we read Hansard of April 10, 1934. On that day the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) was recalling to the Prime Minister his famous speech in Calgary on June 13, 1930, in which he stated-and I shall read not more than a line or two:
I will not permit this country with my voice or vote to ever become committed to the dole system
Then the hon. member completed the paragraph in which the Prime Minister stated that he would give work to all. The hon. member for West Edmonton continued:
I do not think I need to read any more, but I have here a great many statements of a similar character that were made by the right hon. gentleman. I say, as I have said on former occasions, that T assumed the right hon. gentleman meant what he said when he used those words.
Mr. Bennett: So he did. I said it was a national problem, and so it was.
Mr. Stewart (Edmonton):	A national
problem, and you were going to provide work.
Mr. Bennett: Certainly.
Mr. Stewart (Edmonton): And not doles.
Mr. Bennett: We did not provide the doles. The provinces provide the doles.
What an amazing answer! What an amazing admission by the Prime Minister of this country!
We are assisting the provinces to discharge their constitutional obligations. We do not provide the doles, the provinces provide the doles.
Let me tell you the situation as we have had it in Ontario during 1934. Immediately following the interprovincial conference in
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Reliej-Mr. Gray
January of last year the then, Premier of Ontario, returning to Toronto, announced the substitution of a big public works program for direct relief, to be put into effect as rapidly as possible. That is the report in the Mail and Empire of Saturday, January 20, 1934-
. .. We in Ontario will carry on as before with the assurance that the dominion government will cooperate to the fullest extent.
With the assurance that the dominion would cooperate with the Ontario government during 1934, an assurance which has not yet been denied by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour (Mr. 'Gordon), the Premier of Ontario launched into a tremendous road building program in May, 1934. New roads were opened, old roads were widened, ditches were filled, in a frantic effort to win the election in Ontario; and now after some $8,000,000 has been spent throughout the counties of Ontario the dominion government refuse to contribute its share and the province and the municipalities of Ontario are left holding the bag.
I say further in connection with Ontario, and I assume the situation is similar in other provinces, that they have been left in a state of uncertainty during these years in view of the fact that the Prime Minister and the government have frequently threatened to cut off relief at any moment. There has been no set program, nothing to enable the provinces to say:	This is the program; this is the
policy of the dominion government, and we are prepared to march forward in cooperation with it. Yet during all these years, as pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, enormous sums have been spent by this government; as of March 28,	1934,
guarantees of some $96,000,000, loans to the provinces of some $52,000,000, and cash under relief measures amounting to $115,000,000. Having spent these enormous sums I claim that my right hon. leader was correct when he urged even at the very first session that there should be an audit of these various expenditures. One has only to look at the report of the auditor general, not only of last year but of this year, in which he complains that he has been understaffed, that the scope of his examinations has been limited because he has not been given the required assistance, and that large sums of money had been over-contributed by the dominion, as indicated on page 25 of his report. From the report of unemployment commissioner Hereford, we find that he has a staff of only some thirty-five to administer this huge matter, and when one considers that only a few days ago in the course of discussion on
rMr. Gray.]
the unemployment insurance measure we heard that there might be a commission with a staff of three or four thousand people, one realizes exactly how little the government have really studied this situation. They are prepared now, and I am not finding any fault with it, to set up an economic council; yet when we urged them repeatedly to set up an unemployment commission they steadfastly refused.
In spite of all that has been said with respect to these figures-and I have shown how they have mounted-what has happened? As the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has shown, in spite of all these things the Prime Minister has been going up and down this country and from one end to the other telling the people of Canada that we are on the road to prosperity. I propose to give only one or two quotations. Speaking at Montreal on May 11, 1931, he said:
I think there are some evidences that we have reached the dead level of depression and that the movement from now on will be upward.
At Ottawa on January 31, 1932, in a new year's message, he said:
In my belief the worst is over. Canada has survived the crisis, and the same spirit and the same strength which have withstood the stress and strain of the past year will carry us over all intervening difficulties into an era of prosperity hitherto unknown.
In December, 1932, at London, he said:
Next year will see the beginning of an era of prosperity.
At Winnipeg on October 10, 1933, he said'
Canada is standing on the threshold of
recovery.
On December 3, 1933, he told an audience at Sherbrooke, Quebec:
There are distinct evidences the catastrophe has ended. The dead rock bottom of the depression has been reached.
Then as late as the summer of 1934 we find him telling a Montreal audience:
I believe we have passed and left behind us the great depression we encountered in 1929
and 1930____ We are standing on the threshold
of a greater progress and a greater prosperity than we have ever known.
All during these years we have been at the dead rock bottom, climbing the hill, turning the corner, weathering the storm, seeing the light, and in all that time the Prime Minister, to whom we looked for leadership in connection with this all important problem, was giving us this bright picture as he saw it. It culminated on January 2 of this year-that is an important date-with the new Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) publishing a full page advertisement entitled Cana-

Public Works Program,
dian Cavalcade. In the background we see boats lying at the piers, the smokfi belching from the factories, the wheat fields being reaped with combines, and we read these lines, amazing in view of what took place that very evening:
As the year 1934 passes into history, Canada can look back upon a period of unimpaired progress so definitely sustained that it has brought us to the pathway that leads to a sound, sensible, and stable prosperity. The advance that we, as a country, have made during the past year has demonstrated anew the inherent strength and stability of the dominion. We have seen the faith to which we held so firmly in the darker days abundantly fulfilled-the confidence to which we clung in gloomier years triumphantly vindicated. With clearer skies above us, and firmer ground beneath our feet, we have advanced with unimpaired progress along the road of national reconstruction and economic recuperation.
How was the new Minister of Trade and Commerce to know that his leader, who had been recognized as-
At once the cook and the captain bold And the mate of the Nancy brig.
And the bo'sun tight and the midshipmite, And the crew of the Nancy brig-
-was that very evening to sail this ship, that has been referred to so often during the various addresses of the Prime Minister, into a sea uncharted and unknown; that he would within a few hours jettison the whole Tory policy in an attempt to save the ship; that he would nail to the masthead not the flag of progress but the flag of Tory despair?
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 26, 1935