Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the following letter:
92582-121	'	.	EEVii
Ottawa, March 21, 1935. Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Sir Lyman P. Duff, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day at 5 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
F. L. C. Pereira,
Assistant Secretary.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. R. S. WHITE (Mount Royal) moved:: That the petition of Mary Elizabeth Taylor Nicholson, presented on the 20th instant, pray-



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Questions
[Stage Direction]
ing for a bill of divorce from David George Nicholson, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing orders 92 and 93 (3) (a) and (c) in relation thereto.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton) moved:: That the petition of the Sarnia-Port Huron Vehicular Tunnel Company, presented on the 20th instant, praying for the passing of an act to extend the time for the commencement and' completion of a tunnel under the St. Clair river, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing orders 92 and 93 (3) (a) and (c) in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. TETREAULT:: 1.	How many postmasters were dismissed during the years 1921 to 1930, and from 1930 to 1935?
2.	How many postmasters were dismissed for political partisanship upon the recommendation of the member, from 1921 to 1930, and from 1930 to 1935?
3.	How many postmasters were dismissed' due to changes of sites of post offices from 1921 to 1930, and from 1930 to 1935?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	From 1921	to	1930	
1,147From 1930	to	1935	
8822.	From 1921	to	1930	
172From 1930	to	1935	
1403.	From 1921	to	1930	
187From 1930	to	1935	
119


DISMISSAL OF POSTMASTERS-QUEBEC PROVINCE
Mr. TETREAULT:: 1.	How many postmasters were dismissed for political partisanship in each county of the province of Quebec from December, 1921, to August 1, 1930?
2.	What are the names of each postmaster in the province of Quebec dismissed between December, 1921, and August, 1930?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1 and 2. See attached statements.
Argenteuil	 0
Bagot	 2
Beauce	 4
Beauharnois	  0
Bellehasse	 3
Berthier-Maskinonge	 2
Bonaventure	  20
Brome-Missisquoi..
Cartier	
Chambly-Vercheres. .
Champlain	
Charlevoix-Saguenay
Chateauguay-Huntingdon. .
Chicoutimi	
Compton	
Dorchester	
Drummond-Arthabaska..
Gaspe	
Hoehelaga	
Hull	
J acques-Cartier	
Joliette	
Kamouraska	
Labelle	
Lake Saint John	
Laprairie-Napierville.. .. L'Assomption-Montcalm..
Laurier-Outremont	
Laval-Deux Montagues..
Levis	
L'lslet	
Lotbiniere	
Maisonneuve	
Matane	
Megantic	
Montmagny	
Mount Royal	
Nicolet	
Pontiac	
Portneuf	
Quebee-Montmorency..	..
Quebec East	
Quebec South	
Quebec WTest	
Richelieu	
Richmond-Wolfe	
Rimouski	
St. Ann	
St. Antoine	
St. Denis	
St. Henri	
St. Hyacinthe-Rouville..
St. James	
St. Johns-Iberville....
St. Lawrence-St. George..
St. Marys	
Shefford	
Sherbrooke	
Sfanstead	
Temiscouata	
Terrebonne	
Three Rivers-St. Maurice Vaudreuil-Soulanges....
Wright	
Yamaska	
Post Office	Electoral District	PostmasterAbenakis	Dorchester	Treffle Laflamme.Ange Gardien de Rouville.. ..St. Hyacinthe-Rouville	P. Casgrain.Angouleme	Lake St.	John	Arthur Menard.Arseneault	Gaspe	Wm. Bertin.Barachois de Malbaie	Gaspe	Thos. Maloney.

WWOl^HOOOOOOOOMOOOOOOMOOOKlWHOlOaiOMOlOHlOOOHHWOHWOMOWMOOMWOHWOON)
	MARCH 21, 1935	1909 Questions
Statement-Con.		
Post Office	Electoral District	PostmasterBas de L'Anse	.. Charlevoix-Saguenay	. Hermenegilde Savard.Batiscan	.. Champlain	.. Olivier St. Cyr.Beauceville Ouest	.. Beauce	.. Cyprien Fortin.Belley	. . Charlevoix-Saguenay	. Arthur Tremblay.Bernier	.. Megantic	. . Pierre Gregoire.Black Lake	.. Megantic	. . Alfred Laroehelle.Bolduc	.. Beauce	.. Lueien Garneau.Bournival	. . Three Rivers-St. Maurice..	. . Wilfred Bourassa.Bryon Island	. . Gaspe	. . Edouard Richard.Bugeaud	. . Bonaventure	.. J. P. Boudreau.Cacouna South	. .Temiscouata	Cap Chat	.. Gaspe	. . Auguste Miville.Cap St. Ignaee	. . Montmagny	, . Jos. Bossinotte.Cap St. Ignaee Station.. ..	.. Montmagny	, . Mrs. V. L. Bergeron.Carleton	. . Bonaventure	. . Francis L. Cullen.Carleton Centre	.. Bonaventure	.. Ed. Martin.Chaleurs	. . Bonaventure	. . Angus McLean.Chambord	.. Lake St. John	.. Didyme Laforest.Charette	. .Three Rivers-St. Maurice..	. . Philippe Picard.Charette	. .Three Rivers-St. Maurice..	.. Osias Lafontaine.Clairvaux de Bagot	.. Bagot	Craig's Road Station	. . Levis	.. Isai'e Rousseau.Cullens Brook	. . Bonaventure	.. Phil. Henri.Drapeau	.. Bonaventure	.. Ed. Savoie.Dufour	.. Charlevoix-Saguenay	.. Mrs. Virginie B. Guay.Dunham	.. Brome-Missisquoi	Eboulements Centre	.. Charlevoix-Saguenay	. Pierre Tremblay.Escuminac Nord	.. Bonaventure	.. Wm. Carmichael.Fontenelle	.. Gaspe	. . Mrs. Arthur Stanley.Gagne	. .Bonaventure	.. Felix Cvr.Gascons	.. Bonaventure	. . A. Brotherton.Gauthier	. . Gaspe	. . Thos. Leblanc.Gironde	. . Temiscouata	Gobeil	. . Charlevoix-Saguenay	. Aime Neron.Grande Grove	.. Gaspe	Grande Riviere Ouest	. . Gaspe	. . Thos. Thibaudeau.Grande Vallee	. . Gaspe	. . Gilbert Caron.Grosses Roches	. . Matane	Hebertville Station	.. Lake St. John	. . Louis Asselin.Hemison	. . Dorchester	.. E. Gregoire.Hots de Newport	.. Gaspe	Isles aux Coudres	. . Charlevoix-Saguenay	Isles aux Grues	.. Montmagny	. . Hector Lavoie.Kamouraska..	. .Kamouraska	. . Louis Langlois.La Baleine	.. Charlevoix-Saguenay	. Jos. Pedneau.Labarre	.. Lake St. John	. . Oscar Gagnon.Labonneville	. . Compton	. . Geo. Vezina.La Butte	. . Bonaventure	Lac aux Sables	. . Portneuf	. . Chas. St. Amant.Langlais	..Lake St. John	.. Adelard Renaud.L'Anse a Fougere	.. Gaspe	.. Amedee Paradis.L'Anse a Valleau	. . L. Boulet.L'Anse aux Cousins	.. Gaspe	.. Chas. F. Coffin.La Patrie	.. Compton	.. S. Gobeil.Larouche	. . Chicoutimi	.. Jos. Larouche.La Tuque	.. Portneuf	.. W. Juneau.Laval	.. Ouebec-Montmorency.. ..	. . J. Auclair.La Visitation	.. Yamaska	. . Hilaire Boisvert.Leclercville	. . Lotbiniere	.. Philippe Parrot.Le R ocher	.. Beauce	. . Rerni Bolduc.Les Eboulements	.. Charlevoix-Saguenay	. . J. A. Tremblay.Little Cascapedia	.. Bonaventure	.. Pierre Poirier.Makamik	.. Pontiac	.. A. Bourbeau.Mascouche	.. L'Assomption-Montcalm. . ..	. Jos. I. Leblanc.Mathieu	.. Beauce. '	. . Johnnv Doyon.Metabetchouan	.. Lake St. John	.. G. E. Perron.Miguasha	.. Bonaventure	. . John Caissv.Misere	.. Charlevoix-Saguenay	. . Chas. Tremblay.Montmorency Village.. ..	. . Ouebec-Montmorency.. ..	. . Jean Mathieu.Morisset Station	.. Dorchester	. . P. Veuilleux.New Carlisle "Vest	.. Bonaventure	. . Alf. Gallon.Newport Centre	.. Gaspe	. . John Cronier.Normandin	.. Lake St. John	. . Thos. Berereron.JNotre-Dame de la Salette.. 92582-121 i	.. Hull	.. E. Lapointe.
Questions


DISMISSAL OF POSTMASTERS-MELPORT, SASK.
Mr. DONNELLY:: 1.	How many postmasters have been dismissed or requested to resign, for political reasons, since September, 1930, in the Melfort,, Saskatchewan constituency, as constituted prior to the recent redistribution?
2.	How many postmasters in the Melfort constituency have been changed on account of a change being made in the post office site?
3.	What post offices in the Melfort constituency are affected by these changes?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	(a) Dismissals, 5;	(b) forced resignations, 0.
2.	None.
3.	(a) Dismissals:	Meath Park, Strong
Pine, Teddington, Hudson Bay Junction; Ethelton; (b) forced resignations, nil; (c) changes in site, nil.


CROSS POINT, QUE., EXPENDITURES
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Is the sum of $14,200 which has been authorized for repairs and improvements at Cross Point, Quebec, to be expended by contract or day labour?
2.	What is the nature of the improvements, and will creosoted timber and steel sheet piling be utilized and to what extent?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	By contract.
2.	(a) Reconstructing west training pier, and raising and lengthening landing slip; (b) no; (c) answered by (b).


CARLETON, QUE., WHARF
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Will the work of reconstruction of the
wharf at Carleton, Quebec, be done by contract?	_	.
2.	How much of the $30,000 authorized is estimated to be used for creosoted timber and steel sheet piling?
3.	Where is this creosoted timber and steel sheet piling purchased?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes.
2.	121,000 for steel sheet piling and other iron in place in the work, including labour for placing; no creosoted timber.
3.	Steel sheet piling to be purchased in Canada.


LITTLE CASCAPEDIA, QUE., BRIDGE
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the government of Quebec or any of its departments applied to the Department of Public Works for authority to construct a highway bridge over the Little Cascapedia river in the county of Bonaventure, and if so, has such authority been granted?
2.	Has the river been declared to be a navigable river, and if so, by whom?
3.	Has the Quebec government concurred in this view, and if not, has it stated its views on this matter?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	The government of Quebec applied for approval of two jetties at the mouth of the Little Cascapedia river but stated no application would be made at present for the construction of a bridge connecting them. Approval of the jetties has not been granted because the government of Quebec has not complied with requirements of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) engineers of Department of Public Works report that the Little Cascapedia river is a navigable stream.
3.	No expression of opinion has been received from the Quebec government regarding the navigability of the river.


HOWATSONS' POINT, QUE., WHARF
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Is the sum of $38,800, which the Department of Public Works proposes to expend for a deep water wharf at Howatsons' Point, Bonaventure county, the total expenditure contemplated at that place?
2.	What depth of water is it proposed to attain at low tide?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes.
2.	15 feet.


NEW CARLISLE, QUE., WHARF
Mr. MARCIL:: 1. What work is proposed to be done at New Carlisle wharf, Bonaventure county, Quebec, for which $50,000 has been authorized11
C.N.R.-Merchant Marine

2.	Is this work to be done by contract?
3.	Will creosoted timber and steel sheet piling be used and to what extent?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Reconstruction of wharf for a length of 220 feet.
2.	Yes.
3.	Steel sheet piling on both sides for the full length of 220 feet; no creosoted timber.


PORT DANIEL, QUE., WHARF
Mr. MARCEL:: 1.	What is proposed to be done at Port Daniel wharf, Bonaventure county, for which $33,000 has been authorized?
2.	Will this work be done by contract, and will creosoted timber and steel sheet piling be used, and to what extent?
3.	How much has been expended on this wharf since August, 1930: (a) by day work; (b) by contract?
4.	Has a petition been received from the citizens of the locality asking that this work be done by day work; if not, that local contractors be given the preference?
5.	If petition was received what answer was given by the department?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Reinforce, reballast and surface landing-head of wharf, 214 feet long, and section 80 feet long towards shore.
2.	(a) Yes.
(b) Steel sheet piling on exposed faces; no creosoted timber.
3.	(a) S17,590.18.
(b) 820,144.58.
4.	A petition was received asking that the work be done by day labour and if not possible, that local contractors be given the preference.
5.	The petitioners were informed that as the expenditure involved is over and above the sum of 85,000 the department proposes to call for public tenders in connection with this work.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. P. QUINN (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Railways and Canals. My attention has been called to the fact that the steamer Canadian Highlander of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine has been dry-docked and repaired in an American shipyard, and it is also proposed to have similar work done on the steamer Canadian Britisher. My
fMr. Marcil.l
question is: Why is this work not being performed in the shipyards at Halifax or Saint John?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Or Quebec?
Hon. R. J. MANIOlN (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr. Speaker, this matter was drawn to my attention by the hon. member and also by telegrams from a couple of gentlemen interested in the question both from the standpoint of the Canadian dry-docks and the standpoint of the eastern section of Canada. I made inquiries, because I was rather shocked to receive the messages. However, I am informed by the management of the Canadian National Railways, who are also, of course, the management of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, that it has always been their practice to have these ships repaired in the Canadian dry docks. At the present time they state however that both the drydock at Saint John and that at Halifax are tied up; they are occupied until dates beyond those which would suit the sailings of these ships. Full cargoes for Australia and Neiw Zealand are ordered for these ships, and those sending the cargoes insist, of course, that they leave on the scheduled date.
Perhaps the best procedure would be to read the telegram sent me by Mr. Fullerton, but I have given in brief the answer made by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. I sent to Mr. Fullerton copies of the telegrams I had received, and I had asked him for an explanation. We felt, naturally, that in these days of unemployment the Canadian shipyards should be occupied, unless there was some very good reason to the contrary. His reply dated yesterday, from the city of Montreal, is as follows:
Your telegram of this date. Canadian Highlander was put into dry dock at New York which is port of call for this ship-
The Canadian Highlander is the first of the ships to which the hon. member referred. The telegram continues:
-for two days for survey and underwater painting on account of dry dock at Halifax which is her home port and the only Canadian port at which she calls being occupied until end! of April. Britisher will arrive new York-
This is the other ship to which reference was made-
-on 22nd and requires Canadian government survey, this voyage which will involve docking for twenty-four hours. Our Cornwallis goes in dock Saint John 25th for annual survey and repairs, and dry dock cannot take Britisher until 27th which is too late as she is scheduled

Waterloo, Qae., Post Office
to sail from Halifax on 28th and it is imperative that she leave earliest possible date. I am advised that this is first occasion in five years that any of our ships have been dry docked at an American port. This situation arises due to fact that eastern Canadian Atlantic dry docks filled to capacity. Owing to increased volume of exports to Australia and New Zealand and numerous requests from Canadian exporters for prompt dispatch, these vessels must remain as near to schedule dates as possible. It is of course our settled policy to give all of our repair work to Canadian dry docks.
C. P. Fullerton.


Mr. JACOBS:: Is that emergency work, or is it merely the painting of the ship?


Mr. MANION:: They are resurveys which are ordered by the insurance companies at certain times.


Mr. DUFF:: It is the annual inspection, is it not?


Robert James Manion: Yes, the annual inspection; I believe they sometimes call them resurveys. Since receiving these telegrams I have indicated to the management that it appears to me if at all possible they should so regulate the time1 of the resurveys, or what is termed by the hon. member-


William Duff: They must take place every twelve months; annual inspection.
Mr. MANIOlN: Yes, it is annual inspection. I have indicated; that they should endeavour to arrange the dates of the annual inspections so that they may always use our Canadian docks. The Canadian people are paying a pretty heavy subsidy, by way of deficit, on these boats.


Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I know of no reason why this inspection could not have taken place earlier. It is an outrage to have these ships going to American ports to be repaired. If the people in control of the fleet had had a little forethought that ship might have been put into order a month ago.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Cantley: Before her present voyage, or if application had been made to the classification society they would have granted the needed delay of a month or even three months.


BUTTER IMPORTATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called may I say that I have before me a bulletin of the federal bureau of statistics dated Wednesday, March 20, 1935, which indicates that in the last eleven months Canada imported 865,000 pounds of butter, of which quantity 530,000 were imported from Great Britain. In view of the fact that the United Kingdom generally imports butter I should like to know from the Minister of Agriculture why they are exporting to this country. Is it due to the fact that the butter is exported in transit, or are they producing more butter than they can consume? In view of the low price at which this commodity is selling this country is very much interested in these figures.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, I shall accept the hon. member's observations as notice of a question, and shall prepare an answer. It may be that the butter sent in is not for consumption.


GIFT OF APPLES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, although I have no desire to express any preference for any particular grade of apples, I think the thanks of this chamber should be expressed-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Eccles James Gott: I submit what I have said is more in order than the discussion which took place yesterday.


WATERLOO, QUE., POST OFFICE PRESS REFERENCES TO ELECTORAL STANDARDS AND POLITICAL METHODS BASED ON FINDINGS OF MR. JUSTICE FOREST
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called may I refer to three articles appearing in the press, to which my attention has been draiwn and which refer to the administration of the Department of Public Works.
One is in the Montreal Gazette of March 21, 1935, and the heading is "Public men flayed in judge's report-Commissioner finds electoral standards in Shefford county depraved-Deserve ban of opinion-Mr. Justice Forest raps former MP. and ML.A. in report on Waterloo post office."
Another appeared in the Montreal Star of March 20, .1935, headed as follows, "Federal and provincial politicians in scandal-Ernest
Post Office Department

Boivin, former M.P. for Shefford, and Robert Bachand, M.L.A. for riding, roundly castigated by Mr. Justice Forest."
The other is in the Ottawa Journal of this morning, and is headed, " Judge denounces acts in building new post office-Says electoral standards at Waterloo and Granby, Quebec, ' absolutely depraved.' "
Then follow quotations from the report of Mr. Justice Forest. I think I should make to the house at this time a brief statement in connection with this matter.
At the earnest request of the present member for Shefford (Mr. Tetreault) an order in council was passed authorizing Mr. Justice Forest to investigate certain charges or allegations in connection with the acquiring of a site and the building of a post office at Waterloo. Mr. Justice Forest was appointed a commissioner to investigate these matters under the provisions of chapter 99, RB.C., the Inquiries Act. His report is dated February 8, 1935. It was translated and forwarded to the Justice department for such action as might appear proper in view of the statements contained in the report.
The articles in the press give no indication as to the date when the post office was constructed or these sites acquired. The sites were acquired in September, 1925, and October, 1927, and the building was completed in the year 1929. I think it proper under the circumstances to table a copy of the report both in English and French.


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: May I ask the Minister of Public Works to state that the Waterloo of which he speaks is not Waterloo, Ontario?


William Duff: It was someone's Waterloo.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think that the articles in the press have sufficiently protected my hon. friend from North Waterloo.


GIFT OF APPLES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. EGOLES J. GOTT (South Essex): On a question of privilege, may I ask the leader of the government to extendi the thanks of this chamber to the hon. members who have recently distributed apples to the members of this chamber?
Pierre Édouard Blondin: With very great deference to the hon. member for South Essex, I think he is quite out of order. I called him to order previously with respect to this matter, and I thought that had disposed of it. I do not think it adds to the dignity or decorum of the house to bring up the matter on a question of privilege.


AIR MAIL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) if it is true that the air mail service costs his department about $64 for each letter carried?


Arthur Sauvé: If the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville will kindly place his question in writing, I will answer it.


Vincent Dupuis: I move that my question be passed as an order for return.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arthur Sauvé: During the discussion of the estimates of the Post Office Department, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) asked for the following information:
1.	A list of the post offices closed since August 7, 19301.
2.	A list of the post offices opened since the same date.
3.	A list of the post offices the location of which was changed since August 7, 1930.
The hon. member also asked how many postmasters had been appointed sinee August 7, 1930, on a permanent or a temporary basis.
I now have pleasure in laying on the table of the house the information requested regarding post offices closed, post offices opened and changes of location, from August 7, 1930, to February 28, 1935.
As to the list of permanent and temporary postmasters appointed during that period, it cannot be completed before March 30, perhaps later, even by having the staff work at night. That will give the hon. member an idea of the enormous task he is putting us to, involving the examination of 4,300 files.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 20, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Gordon for the second reading of Bill No. 41, respecting relief measures.
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word before the question is put.

Unemployment Relief


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The reply of the Minister of Labour closed the debate on the second reading.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor). Had I voted. I would have voted for the motion.
Unemployment Relief


Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I was paired with the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. Munn). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Robert Weir: I was paired with
the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Robert James Manion: I was paired with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SPENCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BLAIR:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Peel (Mr. Charters). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MacLEAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I was paired
with the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). Had I voted, I would have voted against the . motion.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BUTCHER:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Burns). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BO YES:: I was paired with the hon.
member for West Elgin (Mr. Mills). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Eccles James Gott: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. PETTIT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BEYNON:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MALONEY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Young). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GORDON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). I did not notice that the hon. member was in his place and I refrained from voting. Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GIROUARD (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche); otherwise, I would have voted against the second reading of this bill.


Mr. HURTUBISE (Translation):: I was
(paired with the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam). Had I voted I would1 have voted against the second reading of this bill.


Mr. GOULET (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Garland); otherwise I would have voted against the second reading of this bill.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): I was paired with the hon. member for South Hastings! (Mr. Tummon); otherwise I would have voted against the second reading of this bill.


Mr. FOURNIER (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury); otherwise, I would have voted against the second reading of this bill.


George Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I move that
you do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee on the bill.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Morand in tire chair.
On section 1-Short title.

Unemployment Relief


Mr. POULIOT:: Can the minister answer
the question which was put to him yesterday with regard to the classification of the unemployed by trade and profession, and can he tell us what has been done in that regard . since 1930, in accordance with the statement made by the Prime Minister in April last year?


George Gordon: The question raised by
the hon. member receives the attention of the provinces, who send to the dominion returns monthly as to their unemployed, particularly of course with respect to those who receive relief. No body has been set up for the purpose of continuously keeping a classified index of people unemployed, as the hon. gentleman has suggested.


Jean-François Pouliot: How could the Prime
Minister arrive at the conclusion that something had been done if nothing was done?


Mr. HEAPS:: Can the minister give the
house figures showing the number of persons receiving relief at the first of January during the past five years? If he cannot give the figures as at January, the latest figures will do.


George Gordon: To answer that question
one would have to go into the details of the figures supplied by the provinces. However I will undertake to see that in so far as we have a return or information with respect to the question the hon. gentleman will be supplied with that information, or it will be put on the record without great delay.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That will foe satisfactory. I should like to have these figures because so many conflicting statements have been made With regard to the amount of relief given, that I think a definite statement should be made showing the number of persons on relief on the first of January each year for the last five years. It would be very useful. I wish to discuss briefly the question of relief from the standpoint of the municipalities. During yesterday's discussion on the second reading several hon. members appealed to the government to come to the assistance of the municipalities more generously than during the past twelve months. I do not think there is any doubt that the responsibility which is being undertaken by the municipalities throughout Canada to-day is bringing many of them and some of the provinces as well to the verge of bankruptcy, and they cannot any longer carry the load. We see what is taking place in the urban centres. Montreal is compelled to go to the legislature for power to impose new forms of taxation, which will no doulbt be onerous to a large section of the
poorer people in that city. In Winnipeg the municipal authority has gone to the legislature seeking methods of imposing taxation upon those who are capable, in their opinion, of bearing an additional burden, and the move is being met with strenuous opposition by people who would be the last to object to carrying a share of the load in maintaining the unemployed. In British Columbia we see the city of Vancouver compelled, through circumstances over which the municipalities have no control, to do something to curb expenditures, and they are reducing interest on bonded indebtedness. I believe that the burden created last year by the present government in reducing grants to the provincial governments has placed a most unfair load on the municipal authorities. I do not think there is excuse for the action of the government in giving a fixed sum to the provincial governments, who in turn must reduce their grants to the municipalities. So far as Winnipeg was concerned it meant one of two things; either they had to reduce the amount of assistance given to those out of work or they had to impose additional taxation. They chose both; they made a reduction in the way of relief and also imposed further taxation ou the people. Yesterday the Minister of Labour, in a very apologetic and moderate speech-except for one part, where he said he would like to hang a few dozen people if he had the opportunity-


George Gordon: I do not want to be
misunderstood. I said I would not mind seeing a few people hanged, but I did not specify who they were. I only referred to that class of people who were constantly spreading gloom.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Give some details.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Apart from that remark, the minister's speech was apologetic and moderate. However, he did say that the municipalities administering the funds would realize their responsibility as a result of the reduction of the grant given them by the federal- government. Now the minister himself admitted that the municipalities are faced, not with a civic but with a national emergency, and when the emergency is national I think the national exchequer ought to come to the assistance of the municipalities much more generously than is the case at the present time. It can be said truthfully that there is no municipality in Canada that is either directly or indirectly responsible for unemployment among its people. If that is so, if our municipalities are in no way responsible for unemployment, why should a tremendous burden be imposed upon
Unemployment Relief

them-municipalities that are almost on the verge of bankruptcy. I do not know whether the federal grant to the municipalities is at present equivalent to twenty-five per cent of the amount of relief given. If the federal government were to give a fair proportion of relief to all municipalities, I do not think that a federal grant of fifty per cent would be at all too much. In fact, as pointed out by my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland), in connection with the old age pensions the federal government grants seventy-five per cent. Yet if you want to argue the question of responsibility under the British North America Act, it might easily be argued that under that act the whole burden of old age pensions might be considered a provincial and local responsibility.
My purpose in rising at this time is to find out whether the government will not relax somewhat in their determination not to do anything on behalf of those nearly bankrupt municipalities and come to their assistance by giving a much larger contribution to the provincial authorities who in turn will thus be able to hand over a larger contribution to the municipalities and ease their burdens, so that they may be in a position to give a wider form of relief than is being given at the present time. I can assure the minister that the average municipality in this country is just as anxious to see that the funds of the dominion government are administered in an efficient manner as is the dominion government itself. In fact I have sat on several of those bodies that have been charged with the responsibility of handing out government relief, and when the relief is being administered representatives from the federal government have sat in on those bodies to see that the money is properly spent. There is no reason why under present circumstances the same representatives of the federal government should not sit in with these municipal and provincial bodies and see that the federal money is properly and wisely spent. I hope the Minister of Labour and those who are responsible for the Relief Act will at this time state that they are prepared to do something more than they have been doing so far to relieve the municipalities of an almost intolerable burden.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I want to lend some support to the contention put forward by the last speaker, the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). I have not changed my opinion since first coming to the House of Commons. The intolerable position that the municipalities find themselves in at the

moment is in my judgment a problem that should receive the earnest and careful consideration of both federal and provincial governments. The municipalities are living under a taxation system that was devised to deal with their problems as we saw them fifty or sixty years ago. Old age pensions, mothers' ' allowances, education and the many other ramifications of social services, including road building as an hon. member suggests, that have been set in motion have in my opinion had too mudh of the responsibility in connection with them placed upon the shoulders of the municipalities when one considers the system of taxation that is in vogue in those municipalities. Then we come along to the depression which is national in its character, and I have always felt that in a national emergency a problem of this description should be within the orbit largely of the federal government, because it has many avenues of raising money of such a character that the burden does not fall most heavily upon the shoulders of those least able to bear it. We must remember this-and this is an important problem that must be faced in the next few years-that all these added charges have rested squarely upon real estate or, in other words, upon the shelter that is necessary for one living within the confines of an urban centre. I believe we have just about reached the saturation point, when one views the question from what I consider the best interests of our people, of the enormous charges that are being placed upon our real estate. We find in Ontario many municipalities going into default because of the burdens brought about by the charges underlying the relief programs of the respective governments.
There is another more important phase of the question that should be taken into consideration. I have always held the opinion and I have not changed it that if you give a man a sense of ownership of a 'home it has a stabilizing effect upon the country. These enormous taxation charges upon real estate are absolutely crippling the building and construction industry, and producing a nation of renters instead of owners. Freezing the building trades and checking the normal expansion of housing facilities, must lead inevitably to slum conditions. Taking a long view of the problem I do not think there is any argument about that.
I listened yesterday with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) when he said that Quebec was willing, provided the federal government would do likewise, to assume fifty per cent of the relief obligations of the municipalities in that

Unemployment Relief
province. I have before me a resolution that I wish to read into the record and which was passed by my own city council, referring to a similar proposition from the Ontario government. This resolution, which is under the signature of J. F. Berry, city clerk of Hamilton, Ontario, reads:
Whereas the premier of Ontario has publicly stated that the Ontario government would be willing to assume half the relief costs of the province providing the dominion government would pay the other half.
And whereas the burden of relief now being imposed' upon the municipalities has reached the point where it has become a very grievous burden and cannot much longer be borne.
Therefore be it resolved that this council place itself on record as approving of the offer made by the premier of Ontario and as urging the dominion government to accept the Ontario premier's offer at the earliest possible date; and that this council join with other municipalities in making representations to this end to the dominion government without delay; and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the dominion members of parliament for the city of Hamilton and county of Wentworth.
It might be said that the representatives of these municipalities are endeavouring to get out of what is probably their definite responsibility when one analyses the provisions of the British North America Act. That may be argued with some soundness, but I think hon. members and the provincial governments will agree that in the provision of relief for our people we have reached a stage where an entirely different policy should be set in motion from the viewpoint of raising revenue to provide for those who through no fault of their own find themselves at the moment unemployed. I remember stating in this house three years ago that the proper policy to be followed in regard to this important matter would have been to pay as we go, to carry the whole relief burden out of income, to place the responsibility where in my judgment it rightfully belongs, that is upon the shoulders of those who are best able to bear it. I believe the federal and provincial governments have the machinery to carry out such a policy, whereas on the other hand in the case of the municipalities the whole weight of the burden of debt rests upon land itself with practically only one avenue of taxation. I would like the government, before this bill finally becomes law, to give very serious consideration to the position that the home owner finds himself in, to the position that the municipality finds itself in, to the inevitable consequences of increasing taxes on land and to the question of lending its cooperation to those provincial governments that have suggested cooperative proposals, with the end in
view that the load be taken off the municipalities and that the basis of taxation for the provision of relief be placed upon those people who are better able to bear the burden and in avenues of taxation where the responsibility and the weight do not rest too heavily upon the lower paid salaried group in the dominion.	*


Mr. DONNELLY:: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it this bill is being passed in order to provide money for unemployment and farm relief. Coming as I do from a farming community I wish to protest most strenuously against unemployment and farm relief being linked together. In my opinion farm relief has nothing whatever to do with unemployment relief. I believe the people on the farms in western Canada, for example, have been busy for three hundred and sixty-five days in the past year; the people on the farms are not unemployed, and so far as I can see there is no good reason why they should be so classified and why funds should be provided for unemployment and farm relief in order to enable those people to subsist. To my way of thinking unemployment alone should be dealt with throughout the whole dominion; a sum of money should be divided up between the provinces, according to population if you like. For example, if you give the province of Saskatchewan S100,000 a month probably the province of Ontario should receive four times as much and the province of Quebec three times as much because of their greater population. But after this money has been divided among the different provinces in that way another problem arises in connection with the people who are working hard three hundred and sixty-five days in the year but who are getting nothing for their work. These people have suffered a catastrophe, and that situation should be dealt with entirely apart from any other situation, just as we would do if some calamity such as a flood or a fire occurred or, as has happened, if a drought should occur. Money should be granted these people in .order to help them out of their difficulties. As it is these people in western Canada have been classified as unemployed, whereas they have been employed all through the year though because of the unkindness of providence they have received nothing for their work.
I have heard hon. members say in this house that in the past year this government offered to take over and pay for farm relief in the dried out areas of western Canada. I want to say that I do not think the government of Saskatchewan or of any western
Unemployment Relief

Unemployment Relief
thought the man who paid for the music called the tune but apparently the government are paying the money while the pools are doing the work and taking all the credit or blame. I fail to see the reason for that situation. If the government are paying the money they are responsible. I think we should have some statement from this government, before they ask us to vote money for this sort of thing, in regard to Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited and in regard to the money that has been granted them for speculation in the market, or to support the market or whatever they choose to call it. I repeat that to my way of thinking this is nothing more or less than a gamble. We have estimates with regard to wheat; I do not wish to go into that however, but wish simply to enter my protest with regard to granting money for this work without first having a report of what has been done in the past or where we stand ait the present time.


Mr. WILLIS:: Mr. Chairman, for a few
moments I should like to refer particularly to certain remarks which have been made by hon. members who have preceded me in this discussion. First I should like to refer to the observations of my good friend, the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). At the outset he indicated that this government had refused grants to the province of Manitoba for certain purposes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I never said anything of the kind.


Errick French Willis: All right; refusing grants,
if you like, to the municipalities.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I never said that at all.


James Houston Spence: Then you said nothing.


Errick French Willis: In any event the hon. member will probably admit this much, namely, that he was complaining sufficient money was not placed at the disposal of the province of Manitoba, or the city of Winnipeg, for purposes of relief.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If I may interrupt the hon.
member-


Errick French Willis: Yes, I should be glad to
listen.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What I did complain about,
and do complain about, is that the federal grants to the municipalities are totally insufficient.


Errick French Willis: That is quite the same thing. The hon. member states that the grants are
insufficient. I speak as one coming from the drought area of Manitoba, where in every year for the past while in order to carry on we have had to get grants from the federal treasury. While within the past few months I have not received a statement from the Minister of Finance, so far as the drought stricken area of Manitoba is concerned, I will say that that area has never to my knowledge requested money by way of advances from the federal government for these purposes which has been refused.
It is true that there are many who complain; it is true, also, that there are many who think the relief they are receiving is not sufficient, and there are those who are very happy to go around the country and state that the federal government is to blame. May I at this time mention something which in my own constituency I have had to point out thousands of times. The matter of administration of relief is entirely within the hands of the municipalities and the provinces. The amount of feed or the amount of relief of any kind which a man may receive is entirely in the discretion of the municipality in which he lives. They give him what relief they like; they have sole authority. The question of the money available is one which is arrived at through the municipality requesting the province for advances, and the province, in turn, requesting advances from the federal government. May I say that so far as the area with which I am connected is concerned, those advances have never been refused.
The hon. member for North Winnipeg states that the advances made by the federal government are equivalent only to 25 per cent of the total amount of relief. Again speaking only for my own area may I say, without making any mathematical calculation, that the advances are at least 75 per cent of the amount expended. This condition is due to the fact, first, that you have the direct advance made by the federal government, following which we have the federal government loaning one-third to the province, so that the province may pay its share of direct relief. Then, following that we have the federal government loaning to the province the remaining third, which in turn is handed on to the municipalities for purposes of covering the share payable by those municipalities.
In effect the federal government is, first, paying one-third outright, and then loaning the other two-thirds to the provinces for the purpose of paying the remainder of the relief moneys. The province, in turn, hands on one-half of the two-thirds to the municipality, and
Unemployment Relief

in consequence the federal government assumes the responsibility for the whole 100 per cent. It pays one-third direct; it loans the other two-thirds,-and if you think the federal government will ever get that two-thirds back I am not in agreement with you.


Mr. HANBURY:: Why do they not recognize that in their policy?


Errick French Willis: Their reason for not recognizing it is quite apparent. It is apparent that they should not, at this time, because if they recognized that policy they would be called upon every year for continuous writeoffs. Consequently the municipalities and provinces have not urged that it be done, because it would increase the amount of relief which would have to be paid.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the hon. member know whether interest charges have been met on these obligations?


Errick French Willis: They have been met on
these obligations according to the statement of the Minister of Natural Resources for the province of Manitoba.


Abraham Albert Heaps: They are paying their obligations?


Errick French Willis: Yes, but there is however
still outstanding at the present time, on which nothing has been paid, a principal amount of over S13,500,000.


Wilfred Hanbury: I should like to ask
whether the hon. member thinks any member of the government would subscribe to the statement he makes, namely, that the government do not expect to have returned to them the money that has been loaned to the municipalities.


Errick French Willis: Certainly not. Certainly
no member of the government would subscribe to that statement, and, further, that is not the exact statement which I made. My statement was my own personal opinion that eventually there will have to be a write-off, and that at the present time the government would be foolish to say that they were going to have such write-off, or even consider it. In addition to that, speaking of the contribution made by the federal government, may I say that that government pays one-half of the reduced freight on the live stock-cattle, horses and equipment- going out of the drought stricken area to the feeding grounds. Then, further, it pays 50 per cent of the reduced freight on those desiring to come back into the area. Then, further, it carries on a program of public
	.
works and pays 100 per cent. During the year 1931-32 there was a program of public works carried on for the cost of which the federal government paid 40, 50 or 60 per cent, the balance being paid by the provincial government or by the municipalities.
The hon. member for North Winnipeg points out that a number of municipalities are bankrupt. That is perfectly true. They must necessarily be bankrupt, due to the fact that no taxes are being received. The people who have had no crops cannot pay taxes; therefore the municipalities are bankrupt. May I point out to him however that the tax on the individual has not increased. It may be that the municipality has a greater debt, but it is also true that the taxation upon the individual farmer has not increased. The hon. member for North Winnipeg suggests that in this matter of loans the federal government might very well step in-


Abraham Albert Heaps: In the matter of administration.


Errick French Willis: In the matter of administration, yes. May I say that at the present time there are employed in the area from which I come some three so-called administrators of the province of Manitoba. These three men go throughout the constituency administering relief and making decisions in regard to amounts of relief to be given. If the hon. member's suggestion were carried out the work would be exactly duplicated, because in each case the federal man would have to go with the provincial man and check and double check. But that is not possible. If it were it would double the cost of administration of relief. Therefore it could not properly be done. The question of the administration of relief should be placed where it properly belongs, namely, with the provinces and municipalities themselves.' To place it elsewhere would be to upset the whole system of government in this country.
The municipalities have their councils, their administrations which are familiar with the individual farms and localities. They are elected for that purpose. That is why it is necessary that they carry on administration, as they have done in the past. The question as to whether or not the municipality should be responsible for the administration of relief is well indicated by the fact that it has always been responsible for that administration when it has been necessary from year to year. As the relief has increased the jurisdiction of the municipality has not changed. The additional amount has merely

Unemployment Relief
increased the work the. municipality must do. The provinces, again, must have a responsibility in regard to administration, because the municipalities are the creatures of the provinces, and in each case get their authority from the provincial legislatures, Only the provincial legislatures have control over the municipalities; the federal government could not interfere with them because it has no jurisdiction. Further, it has no method of control.
The hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) spoke particularly regarding relief for the drought area. If I understood him correctly I believe he suggested that we should divide relief by population. He suggested, if I heard him correctly, that we should divide it by population. No system I think could foe worse than that. In the province of Saskatchewan, for instance, from which he comes, how would he like to have the same amount of relief administered there as might be administered in one of the maritime provinces where relief was not necessary at all? Relief must necessarily be measured by need, and by nothing else. It must be measured by the needs of the people who are there.
The hon. member also spoke in regard to the classification of the farmer population as unemployed. I think I am correct in saying that that classification is not used. I have seen the documents coming into my municipalities, and they state on the bottom of each document, "For the drought area only." The advance of $135,000 had nothing to do with the drought area. The administration of relief in the drought area is an entirely separate matter, and if the hon. member for Willow Bunch will look up the administration in his own municipalities I have no doubt he will find that that is true.
The hon. member for Willow Bunch says that it is impossible to draw a dividing line to indicate where the drought areas are. But in the province of Manitoba that is precisely what has been done. He says it is impossible, but it has been done there for three years. Also, for his own province of Saskatchewan I have seen the map with the red marks on it indicating drought areas A, B and C, and the present government in the province of Saskatchewan has agreed to that map just as its predecessor did. In the province of Manitoba the lines marking the drought areas were drawn by the provincial government. I had the good fortune to come down with the provincial treasurer and in conference with him the drought areas in the 92582-122
province of Manitoba were defined by municipal boundaries. Drought area A is that in which for five years there has 'been no crop, and drought area B is the area which has not been afflicted so badly. Therefore the question of division is a very simple one which has been tackled and conquered in my hon. friend's own province, as well as in the province of Manitoba.
Finally the hon. member for Willow Bunch says that this government has been gambling in wheat. There was never a government in Canada which did so much for the wheat grower in Canada as this one has done in supporting the wheat market. I was much interested in seeing John I. McFarland before the banking and commerce committee and in hearing some of the hon. gentlemen opposite cross-examine him in regard to gambling in wheat. It was most amusing. I should rather see that again than go to any funny show I ever saw. My good friend Admiral Duff was one of those who cross-examined Mr. McFarland in regard to puts and calls, options and hedging. That is the difficulty with many people; they cannot distinguish between supporting the wheat market and gambling in wheat. It is true the process is technical. It is difficult to understand unless you have grown up with it at your table every morning. The wheat situation is difficult to understand unless you have lived in western Canada where every day on the street you must be prepared to talk about the price of wheat that day, what it opened at, what it was at twelve o'clock, what it closed at, and what the prospects are. So far as the question of supporting the wheat market is concerned I do not suppose that outside the hon. member for Willow Bunch there is any farmer in western Canada who would not say that the greatest help the wheat growers of western Canada have received from any government was the support given to the wheat market by Mr. McFarland in the way he did. Undouibtedly it is true that if that support had not been given, wheat would have gone down twenty or twenty-five or thirty cents a bushel more than it did. And let hon. gentlemen realize this, that where you have a man with only a few bushels on which he depends for his living, and when as a result of the government's support of the wheat market he receives from ten to twenty-five cents a bushel more than he otherwise would have done, that makes all * the difference between him being selfsupporting and becoming a charge on the Dominion of Canada. That is the difference,

Unemployment Relief

and that is the way it operates. On the other hand, if he is a big operator he is even worse off, because his losses will be greater.
It was interesting to note too that the hon. member for Willow Bunch pointed out in his remarks that Saskatchewan has not received proper treatment in the matter of relief. The actual relief which has been advanced to Saskatchewan is some $20,740,000, and loans have been granted amounting to $38,000,000, which gives us a grand total advanced to Saskatchewan, from which the hon. member comes, of $58,743,000. Those are the advances that have been made by this government since 1930. If you will look at it carefully that seems to be a very large sum of money. But in addition to that, there is the amount which was given to the province of Saskatchewan under the wheat bonus. Saskatchewan grows more wheat than any other province or any other area of similar size probably in the world, and on that account Saskatchewan received a larger share of the bonus. That is important to consider in view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Willow Bunch, who if I remember correctly voted against that bill, which makes it all the worse.
The question of relief, and the question of federal government assistance in the matter of relief, is one which most of the municipalities and most of the provinces and a large number of individuals would like to shoulder upon this dominion government, but may I point this out to the house and the country, that every individual, every municipality, every province and every dominion has its limit of credit beyond which it cannot go, and if we are to continue to play Santa Claus to the municipalities and the provinces, not based on the question of need, then sooner or later we are going to face in this country a situation similar to that with which other countries are now faced. Canada has perhaps the unique record of having paid all its debt according to the letter of the contract, with the result that we have been able to borrow money at as low a rate as two per cent, resulting largely from that splendid record. Some people point to Great Britain as having done well in regard to its contracts. May I point out that Canada has done much better. Great Britain herself has not honoured all her debts to foreign countries in the way that Canada has, and that is one reason why the credit of this country stands so high. The dominion government, due to the fact that the municipalities are spread from one end of this country to the other, is not in the same position to defend itself as the municipalities and the provinces, and I am kept
TMr. Willis.]
busy going around the country refuting statements that the dominion government has not done this or won't do that, and in ninety-nine per cent of these cases the charge is quite unfounded. The dominion government itself is partly to blame for that because it has been too silent on these matters. It should come out openly and blazon forth what it has done and is doing rather than stand back and receive the criticism which comes upon the individual member who must go around and defend the position of the government.
The advances made by the federal government to Manitoba have been satisfactory, and its advances for the drought area in the province from which I come have been satisfactory. It is not dealing with the administration of relief, and I do not think it should. While I myself have complained in regard to certain small matters of relief by the federal government, I think that by and large the handling of the relief situation in the drought areas on behalf of this government has been nothing less than excellent.
Mr. VALLAN'CE: Mr. Chairman, when the house met at three o'clock I had no intention of taking part in a discussion on this bill but I have been forced into it. I had hoped that a discussion on wheat would not take place at this time. There is on the order paper a resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) which reads:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to establish a board to be known as the Canadian grain board-
When that board is established the functions now performed by Mr. John I. McFarland will have to be done away with. I should like to know whether the government is in a position to give to the house and to the country a full statement of the operations of Mr. McFarland in the wheat market. The resolution to which I have referred may be only a red herring drawn across the trail in an effort to prevent a discussion of this very important question, but whether or not that is so I think the house and the country should have a statement of these operations. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) referred to the tactics or antics of some hon. members on this side of the house in the banking and commerce committee when John I. McFarland was before that body. Ever since this gentleman started his operations I have stood out boldly in support of the contentions of the government. I did not believe then that it was in the interests of the grower that the position of Mr. McFarland in the wheat market should be divulged and I maintained

Unemployment Relief
that position, both in the committee and in the house. However, I think the time has now come when this should be done. We are nearing a general election and I do not think this house should be asked to pass this bill before it receives a statement either by the Prime Minister or the minister now piloting this bill through the house.
I say quite frankly but kindly that I do not think the gentlemen sitting before the minister or the minister are in a position to give this statement. John I. McFarland should be sitting in front of the minister. There are only two men in this country who can give satisfaction in this matter, John I. McFarland and the Prime Minister. It is regrettable that the Prime Minister is not in his place and it seems impossible to have Mr. McFarland occupy a seat in front of the minister. I was hoping that when we reached the resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister we would have the assurance of the government that the bill which would be based upon it would be sent either to the agriculture committee or to a special committee. That would enable all hon. members, all growers and all marketers to appear before the committee to give evidence. In my opinion the government would be well advised to give us some assurance that this resolution will actually be brought before the house. If the resolution is not	to be proceeded with, then the
government should immediately make known their position in the wheat market. I believe the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) will admit that I am reasonable in asking him whether he can give us an assurance that this resolution will be dealt with before the house prorogues.
I realize that the bill passed last year expires on the last day of this month and, therefore, this bill must be passed before that time in order to provide funds for Mr. McFarland to operate.	When I saw the
nature of the resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister I did not expect any discussion of this matter under the present bill. I should like the minister to state if it is the intention of the government to give us the information for which we are asking. Up until the present I did not think it was in the interests of the grower-he is the individual in whom I am interested- to make known the position of the government. As the hon. member for Souris has said I think the government should feel that they should make a statement to the country.
Can the minister tell us how much has been spent for unemployment relief and how much for farm relief? It was rather annoying to hear the hon. member for Souris say that the government did not expect that much of this money would be paid back. I have heard the Prime Minister say the same thing.	,


Errick French Willis: I never made any such
statement.


John Vallance: If the hon. member
did not, the Prime Minister did. He made that statement in reply to a question asked by myself. When the first relief measure was before the house the Prime Minister was confronted with the statement that a note was attached to the application for relief. The Prime Minister said that no>
such thing existed but he admitted his mistake when he saw the actual form. As I have stated many times on the floor of this chamber, if we do not expect to collect this money, why have those receiving relief carry the burden of worry? There are still some Canadians who worry over their inability to meet their obligations. In conclusion, I hope that the minister is in position to state that he or someone else will give to the committee the true position occupied by John I. McFarland in the wheat market.


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Chairman, even
though I am a member from one of the larger municipalities in Ontario, one which is probably more interested in this particular bill than other municipalities, I would not have spoken had it not been for the fact that economic liberalism has failed to give us any constructive ideas or offer a policy to take our people off the dole and restore Canada to the Canada of Sir John A. Macdonald's day. At that time Canada was a country of property owners, both large and small; it was not divided as now into a country of those who have and those who have not. At that time the entire means of production of the country was not in the hands of five or six people. I want to pay tribute to the government for what they have done since the great disaster which occurred in 1930. If this parliament had followed the example of the British parliament we would have had a united legislature on social matters like this, which would have acted to try to keep our people from relief. We have a war in Canada to-day against unemployment and famine, great masses of the population being on relief. Surely no one will deny that this is as dangerous as any enemy in warfare. When an enemy is at our gates we mobilize our whole military organization and repel the
Unemployment Reliej

invader; we are united; we present a united front to the enemy. But when we have what is as great a menace to the country, hundreds of thousands of the population on the verge of starvation or in poorhouses through unemployment, we are divided, playing politics, the polities of the ins and outs, as we have witnessed this afternoon. I am . surprised especially at my hon. friend from East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell), who is more or less a sportsman. I spoke in his ridihg for the late Colonel Rennie. The constituency of East Hamilton is a large industrial one and this government has done a good deal for the people there. I am therefore surprised that my hon. friend should have voted against the second reading of the bill, because industrial society in the country was entirely built up by the Conservative party's policy of protection from 1878 down. What is that policy? It is a protection policy which if brought up to date will remove the working population from the dole, the pension and all that sort of thing. But what have my hon. friends opposite done, : those of the official opposition and those to the left of them? Some voted for the second reading and others did net. I had expected that the hon. member for East Hamilton would vote for it, because if there is a riding that owes something to the present government for what it has done in the way of relief it is that riding.
I congratulate the minister on what he has done in connection with relief and unemployment. I know no man who has shouldered a greater responsibility than he has taken on in the last five years, with the exception of our great leader who is not with us to-day, a martyr to overwork. As a former president of the Union of Canadian Municipalities, I can say that the municipalities are having a hard struggle. The minister is doing the best he can to cope with a very difficult situation and I congratulate him. He is a very able minister as well as an able lawyer, and more than that he is a man with a warm human heart. In the past four years he has done a good deal for relief in this country. I remember sitting in this house and hearing the former Prime Minister make statements declining aid to the municipalities with regard to relief which disappointed me at the time. I do not see him here to-day. I was glad to see that he received yesterday such a tribute from his supporters, and it is better for a man to have such tributes paid him when he is living. He is a man who has given a great deal of study to these particular social matters, but
	,
I regret that when he was head of the government from 1921 to 1930 he did nothing to deal with the situation. I constantly brought this matter to the attention of parliament. The other day I read various resolutions, which I will not read again, all bearing on this subject, but the right hon. gentleman said that he would not give a five cent piece to the people of Ontario, and that included the riding of East Hamilton. I put certain questions to his Minister of Labour, Mr. Heenan, as late as February 25, 1929. I asked him questions in regard to relief, not only on behalf of the municipality I represented but as one of the former officers of the union to which I have already referred. In 1929 I asked this question:
1.	Has the government any plans for providing employment for the great body of the unemployed?	_
2.	If so, what are they and what action will be taken, and when?
Mr. Heenan:
1.	The question of unemployment is one for the provincial governments.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
On March 5, 1930, after deputations had been here from the provinces and the municipalities, following two years of relief, and having made a request for assistance, this was the question I asked:
1.	Has the government any plans for providing useful employment for the great body of the unemployed?
2.	If so, what relief will be afforded?
3.	Will the government accept the offer of the province of Ontario to provide one-third of the cost of certain forms of relief in connection with the federal and municipal authority; if not, why not?
What happened then? The leader of the government of that day rose in his place and objected to the question; a page of Hansard was taken up with an effort to have my question ruled out of order. There was in South Toronto at one or two missions and in other places a line-up of the unemployed begging for meals, but we were told that that unemployment was a matter for the provinces and the municipalities to deal with. Even Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier never had to face the conditions with which this government has had to contend since 1930. In 1928 I brought the matter to the attention of the house and asked the government to appoint a commission similar to the one that had been appointed in the United States, under the chairmanship of Senator Couzens, who was mayor of Detroit. This committee sat many months at Washington and they summoned to Washington some of the greatest men in engineering, agriculture and the banking system. They studied the question of

Unemployment Reliej
seasonal unemployment, casual unemployment and technological unemployment growing out of the inroads of science and the machine. When it was proposed in this house that we should have a commission of that kind, what did the government of that day do? They not only refused to accede to the request, but Mr. Heenan actually informed me that there was no unemployment on the index findings, and if any it was a matter for the municipalities. Mr. Willard, president of the Baltimore & Ohio Railway, at that time made this statement before the Senate committee at Washington:
It is a dangerous thing to have a large number of unemployed men and women

dangerous to society as a whole-dangerous to the individuals who constitute society. When men who are willing and able to work and want to work are unable to obtain work, we need not be surprised if they steal before they starve. Certainly I do not approve of stealing, but if I had to make the choice between stealing and starving, I would surely not choose to starve- and in that respect I do not think I am much unlike the average individual.
The commission in the United States took evidence from all sources, the railways and other organizations, the municipalities, boards of trade and chambers of commerce, for the purpose of evolving a policy, three years before the depression started.
I wish now to say a word or two with regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) in connection with the municipalities. The municipalities have only a limited number of ways of raising revenue, though they render to the federal government many invaluable municipal services in connection with police protection, fire protection and so on. In the case of Ottawa they get a subvention, and the state legislatures of the United States also give the capital cities a subvention. The same is true in Australia. Yet in the industrial centres large numbers of people are out of work, and a considerable proportion of them who own their own homes cannot pay their taxes. The municipalities are finding it very difficult to balance their budgets. I plead with the government now as I have pleaded with them on many occasions to come to the support of the municipalities. The government have many ways of raising revenue directly and indirectly which the municipalities do not have, and I plead with the government of the day to do something along those lines. The government that preceded this one declined to do anything for the municipalities, but the present government decided to give one-third in cooperation with the provincial and municipal authorities.
Hon. gentlemen in the extreme left comer think they are the only labour party in this house. I represent a labour constituency. With my friend the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Spence) and others in the city council I helped to put through an eight hour day, pensions and many other things. Some of this was done in 1909, twenty-six years ago. Hon. gentlemen who sit in the extreme left corner do not constitute the only labour party in the house. The Conservative party in this chamber has done more for labour than has any other party. There is for instance the Workman's Compensation Act, the national policy and public ownership. This party has built up industrial society by its policy of protection, of giving our own work to our own workmen, of maintaining our own markets for our own products. This has been a consistent policy of the Conservative party; it has been applied consistently from 1878 down to the present day to ninety-eight per cent of the people. Where would the agricultural workers who constitute fifty per cent of the population be to-day if we had free trade or semi-free trade as preached on the prairies by some hon. gentlemen in the official opposition and some in the extreme left corner? In those days when Mr. Crerar was in the house, we heard about the plight of the poor grain growers and we heard charges about the elevator combines, and middlemen, grain exchanges, and the transportation combines. The poor grain grower had more to fear from these big interests west of the great lakes than they had from the manufacturers east of the great lakes through the middlemen, the elevator combines, the transportation combines and the grain exchanges. Where was official liberalism at that time? It was lined up with the free traders, the semi-free traders and some of the Progressives who proclaimed that the grain-growing industry was a north south industry and not an east and west industry to the markets of the world. There should be some honour among politicians as among sportsmen, but there does not seem to be as much. You can please nobody; you get no credit for anything. The government receives no credit for what it has done, but I admit that is only human nature. However, if ever there were a government that honestly endeavoured to do something for the working people of this country in this emergency, it is the one that now sits on this side of the house.
We are asked by the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who is very fond of dealing with the constitution if our legislation war
The Royal Assent

constitutional. What did the government do in the fall of 1930? They were faced with the British North America Act, that comedy of errors; they could do very little or nothing, but they very fortunately found three or four words "peace, order and good government." It was very fortunate for the working people and for the municipalities that those words were found by a very able lawyer, the Prime Minister, and another able lawyer [DOT] with him, the Minister of Labour. Many municipalities will agree that they would have been bankrupt had it not been for the clause "peace, order and good government" and the blank cheque. The blank cheque is really not a blank cheque at all. Hon. gentlemen opposite refused to give a five-cent piece for relief. I have before me some fifteen or sixteen pages taken from Hansard of those years, but I shall not read them here. Hon. members can read those statements in Hansard of the questions and answers. Where would the municipalities be; where under those conditions would be the city of Hamilton from which the hon. member for East Hamilton comes? They would not have had one cent for industry or relief in that city had it not been for the money they got through the present Minister of Labour carrying out the policy of this party. At that time it was contended in the house by the ex-Minister of Labour that I was always talking about unemployment; I was told on one occasion that I was preaching blue ruin by persisting in bringing up the question. One hon. gentleman, I think it was Sir Henry Drayton, said that I had need to. I was one of the heads of a municipality for many years and I know a municipality, irrespective of politics, must appreciate what this government has done. As a follower of municipal institutions in this country, I believe that was only a start in the right direction. The government should go over the books and see whether something cannot be done further for our struggling municipalities.
In this particular case I was hoping that we would hear some constructive ideas about handling this problem of unemployment from economic liberalism and from hon. gentlemen in the extreme left corner. I appeal to' the opposition and through them to the provinces, to the churches and boards of trade to help the government pull the country out of the mire in regard to this particular problem of relief. Let us not depend upon the British North America Act, the constitution; the people cannot buy bread by depending on the British North America Act; the butchers and grocers will not give them food because of it.

The welfare of man in such days of universal want as these transcends the future of any political party, and it is too bad all parties do not unite on common ground to solve our problems free of partisanship. This course has been followed in England. On a social measure private members there were allowed hv the government the other day to give their views freely and they were invited to do so. One or two of the ministers got up in the British house and opposed the government oill. The whips were called off and the members were allowed to express themselves freely. Here we are to-day, two hundred and forty-five members sitting in a committee presided over by our very popular deputy speaker, and I say that we as a committee should forego politics and do as they did in England regarding this problem-get down to brass tacks and see what should be done. Every time I hear the opposition talk, they plead the constitution; dissertations on the British North America Act are made by the ex-Minister of Justice and others.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate,
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His. Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Interpretation Act.
An act to amend the Representation Act, 1933.
An act to amend the Pension Act.
An act to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act, 1928.
An act to amend the Electricity Inspection Act, 1926 (French version).
An act respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for the refunding of maturing and callable financial obligations.
An act respecting the appointment of auditors for National Railways.
An act to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the Corporation of the City of Ottawa.
An act to amend the Fisheries Act, 1932.
An act respecting the additional protocol of 1935 to the Canada-Franee Trade Agreement of 1933.

Unemployment Relief


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill, No. 41, respecting relief measures-Mr. Morand in the chair.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: The very unsatisfactory nature of an omnibus 'bill such as the one before us has been well illustrated by the nature of the debate, if one may so dignify it, that has taken place.


Thomas Langton Church: May I say that I had not concluded my observations. Hon. members opposite have been very fond of quoting the British North America Act, but they have not suggested any constructive policy whereby our people could be taken off the dole and put back to work. They put me in mind of Mr. Boythorn in Bleak House, and the canary which he fondled on his finger all the time he was shouting his most lurid denunciations. Hon. members opposite are content to sit back and talk about the constitution all the time at a time when people are starving and in a position where some have to go to the poor house. After all is said and done, the duty of the hour is to get the people off the dole and back to work. The reconstruction of our country and a higher standard of living is the object before the party on this side of the house. Industry in Canada, in short, must re-adapt itself to the home market, and this is a most complicated process. It cannot be done by individual effort
We know that in England to-day they are developing their land to the point where they will not have to depend on a foreign food supply. W e know that in this country national trade is decreasing, and it would seem that a revival of industry could come only from a greater consumption in the home market. We must push the country forward by planning for a higher economic and social standard, and in this effort we want a united country and the support of every part of it. This is a national work and must have the support of all people. The situation calls for national sacrifices instead of parliamentary repartee and playing the game of the ins and the outs. Church, state, the press and individuals will have to unite and no class or function should be left out. Every person should be in it.
I should like to say a word or two as to what should be done to bring our men off the dole, and place them in a position whereby they may have homes. A short time ago in his budget message the President of the United States said that their people would have to be taken off the dole. He said the policy followed was uneconomic and foreign to their constitution. I believe in this country we could do very much by way of reconstruction. We could do such work as Italy is now doing -reforestation, river improvements, drainage, irrigation, sewers, roads, work on river banks, provision for domestic water supply, harbour work, schools, municipal services, water supply for farmers, house building and work of other kinds. A similar program of work could be adapted to this country and to our circumstances on a third basis, with municipal and provincial authority on a large construction policy, which would be better than the dole.
The dole is only temporary; it is not a final remedy. People want work and that is the only lasting cure. Franchises from the people giving charters to corporations involving the assumption by such corporations of corresponding debts and obligations. These corporations owe a debt to their creator, the public. They should repay this debt to the public from whom they have derived their powers. If they fail in their duty, the community which created them would be justified in stepping in and exercising some control over their future actions.
The Conservative party has always been constructive. It has to its credit reform legislation such as the eight hour day bill and legislation for a minimum wage. This party is equipped by position and temperament to bring better order into Canadian life and industry, and to check the abuses which affect the consumer and the labourer. We should remove some of the unethical business practices, and bring protection up to date, eliminate the abuses to protect consumer and labour, and prevent further burdens and artificial barriers being placed on business. The main problem to be solved in Canada is unemployment. That is the main problem because no scheme of pensions and no scheme of unemployment insurance is a substitute for work and wages and the desire of people to work. Employment is the only real agency by which the nation's wealth can be distributed. Without consumption, production is a mere waste, and work and wages for all is the main agency of distribution. This party was the founder of protection, and it should dedicate itself to solving this problem of distributism and of getting people off the dole and back to work
Unemployment Relief

Agriculture has always been traditionally associated with the Conservative party. As a party we stand for the further development and preservation of the home market for agriculture. Our own markets for our own products, and our own work for our own workmen is our policy. Agriculture is the oldest of our industries from the point of view of employment. It has been content to choose order instead of anarchy, and industry can be made amenable to similar treatment.
The solution of our economic problems calls for large sacrifices. The war made a great difference. The vast amount of voluntary work done and the great outburst of patriotism in times of danger are sure signs in Canada of a national spirit which will help the government to cope with the present dangers. Are we as a people, equal to our problems? For thirty years we have neglected to notice the inroads upon unemployment of science and the machine. A manufacturer puts in a machine for the specific purpose of lowering costs and to enable him to undercut his competitors at home and aboard. The item which is reduced by the machine is labour alone. That is the very purpose of the machine, to put people out of work, and it has succeeded admirably in its purpose. The machine has meant a large increase of female employment and a decrease of male employment. Formerly it was assumed that the labour displayed by the machine would be absorbed in other forms of work, but that is an absurd position for industry to be in because the welfare of man is the first duty of the government and of civilization. I belieye. that the Conservative party and the opposition should unite to solve the problem of distributism.
The Liberal party of this country to-day represents the last stand of economic liberalism in Canada. It relies on these social measures being declared unconstitutional. It is the party that for nine years had a chance to do something along these lines, but only dillydallied. It is the same party which in England opposed the factory acts and free schools, and the liberation of the trade unions. To-day it concentrates its attention in Canada on the tariff and on wider markets, when wider markets are not available. The Liberal party in Canada is an advocate of social reform, pensions, doles, social insurance-all these are in its platform for the higher life, but they refuse to give to this house a plan or platform to grapple with the cause and effects of the social revolution and with those economic factors which deprive men of the bread of their own production and the fruits of their

own toil. I believe' that free trade and the error of the Liberal party's policies have been to the detriment of agriculture and of industry in Canada. Many children are in factories to-day who should be in school, and most of the young offenders who come before our courts are underprivileged children many of them from poverty stricken homes, who from birth have never had a proper chance.
I believe we should give some credit to the gentlemen who sit in the far corner of the house because in 1928, 1929 and 1930 they did bring to the attention of the government the question of unemployment and they supported a policy of direct relief. But some of them are not consistent and do not vote with the government of the day. I would ask them to remember that the government has done the best it could, faced with that comedy of errors called the British North America Act, a relic of the ox-cart days. Faced with that act I do not see what further they could have done. We are told that we have to suffer all these social evils because of the British North America Act, because certain wise men away back in 1867, whose vision was poor and shortsighted, unloaded the provincial system on us as opposed to the federal system as they have it in England and the United States. A lot of the things we have to-day were unheard of in 1867. There were no joint stock companies in 1867, no telephones, no power development, no NRA., no air lines, no radios, no old age pensions, no social insurance, no eight hour day; nor had many of the great discoveries been made in science, physics and biology, with which we are familiar to-day. Are we to assume that the fathers who lived in the past have left us adequate machinery to deal with the problems that these new discoveries have brought us? As I said the other day, one of the most important things we must do before we can solve any of these problems in a practical way is to have constitutional and parliamentary reform in this country. The greatest problem they have in England to-day is constitutional and parliamentary reform, and they cannot make social progress without it. The authors of the British North America Act did not play bridge or squash or badminton, but they left us this relic, the British North America Act, and as a result the unemployed have to suffer and we can solve no economic or social question. It would be far better for us to face the fact that that act is in need of reform. Unemployment and relief have now reached their peak, and the tide is receding very rapidly. I believe that before

Unemployment Relief
spring is over, with a housing and reconstruction policy, the peak of relief will have been passed, and I hope that men will be getting back to work.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I say to my
hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Church) that when he did not rise after we suspended our sitting for royal assent, I assumed he had finished his speech. What I began to say was that the unsatisfactory nature of an omnibus measure of this kind has been very clearly illustrated b/ the kind of debate, if it may be so dignified, which has taken place upon it. My colleague from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) began by speaking of unemployment relief, stressing particularly the plight of the industrial worker and the difficulties that confront the municipalities. Next we had two hon. members referring to the troubles in the dried out areas, this having nothing whatever to do with city problems. The next speaker referred to the wheat arrangement, thus introducing a new topic. In this connection I think we might very easily refer to the loans to the Canadian Pacific Railway which were made several years ago under a measure of this kind. We could refer also to the writing up of the assets of the insurance companies, and we could make mention of the peace, order and good government provisions. Reference might also be made to the financial position of the various provinces. In these circumstances I submit it becomes almost impossible to focus attention upon any one measure and to secure the opinion of the house in that regard. The hon. member for East Toronto has expressed himself as being disappointed with the labour members not voting in favour of the measure. I did not speak on the second reading of the bill, but I think I can say that we voted against the motion for second reading for three reasons. First of all, we voted against the motion because of the inadequacy of the measure to meet the actual needs of the people. No indication is given that there is to be adequate relief, and no mention is made of what the relief works, if any are contemplated, are to be. Next, the bill provides for the exercise by the government of very wide powers, much wider than should be granted by a measure of this kind. These questions have been threshed out in the discussion of similar measures during the past two or three years and I do not intend to repeat the arguments then advanced. Still further, we voted against this motion as a protest against the lack of assumption by the
government of anything like responsibility for the national emergency which now confronts the country.
The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) stated that the administration of relief should be placed where it belongs, with the municipalities and provinces. As I understood him, he implied that the responsibilities for relief lay essentially with the municipalities and the provinces, and that certainly is implied by the preamble of the bill now before us. Under these circumstances I should like to read once more what has been read into the record again and again. I would not do this were it not for the fact that the hon. member for Souris has sought to condone the inaction of the government. I should like to quote from a speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in Calgary on June 12, 1930, as follows:
But this is a new country, and there is no excuse for unemployment in Canada if a government does its duty.
Is that true or is it not true? If it was true when the Prime Minister spoke in Calgary in 1930, surely it is true in 1935. The Prime Minister was then asking to be entrusted with authority to carry on the affairs of the country, and he said:
I say to you, my fellow citizens, my fellow Canadians, speaking to the larger audience, I am convinced this problem has now ceased to be local and provincial and has become national in its importance.
I contend that if that were true in 1930 it is just as true in 1935, and perhaps more so. The Prime Minister was then seeking a mandate from the people. He said:
I propose that parliament shall formulate a definite plan for permanent relief, and that parliament, as representing the people, shall deal with this national problem and provide amelioration for the condition in order that next winter the Canadian people may not be facing the crisis that is upon us without having a remedy at hand.
After five years in public office he brings forward a measure of this kind, a measure which is inadequate and which we should not be asked to support. In voting as I did, I did not repudiate the action of the dominion government in offering relief. If that were the question before us I would hold up both hands for the motion. What I tried to do with my vote was to protest-I think this is true also of my colleagues-against the inadequate manner in which the government is providing for the needs of the unemployed, and the fact that after five years they have gone back on the solemn pledges made to the electorate in 1930. It is only
Unemployment Relief

within the last few months that the Prime Minister in his radio speeches repudiated in the very strongest language the idea of the dole. I agree with the hon. member for East Toronto that we should endeavour to place all our people in constructive work of some kind. That has not been done, and the minister sits silent when we speak of the necessity of a further extension of public works. We cannot get any action from the government, and il contend that we were justified in voting against the motion as a protest against the lack of a policy on the part of the government.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer; it comes under the heading of peace, order and good government. A couple of nights ago we were discussing the estimates of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Stirling). In giving a reason for the maintenance of an army in this country, the minister said:
In addition it fulfils another day, that the force should be distributed throughout Canada in the military districts in such a way that if called upon by the provincial governments in time of stress and strain, through civil disturbances within their own boundaries, they can render such assistance as may be necessary to support the police forces of the country.
We spend something like $20,000,000 upon the military forces of this country and the mounted police, which is a semi-military force. My contention is that if a fraction of this sum were spent upon setting in motion certain constructive forces which would take care of the unemployed we would be much further advanced. Under peace, order and good government we are giving to the government the power to protect and maintain the credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof. I say again that if the unemployed were absorbed into industry, that if a greater purchasing power were given to the people, it would provide the best means of maintaining and protecting the financial position of the dominion and the provinces. It seems to some of us that the government is more solicitous in protecting the credit of the country than it is in protecting the welfare of the people. Only the other day I had a letter from a friend living in the constituency of Souris. He referred to a district which I knew very intimately thirty or forty years ago. He spoke of the run-down condition of the houses, the outbuildings, the machinery and the interior of the homes, he spoke of the despair and the demoralization of people who a few years ago were prosperous farmers; and his concluding sentence, if I remember rightly, 
was, "and the young people have nearly all moved away." Now how can we have a prosperous country with conditions of that kind? Someone might very well say that drought is a dispensation of Providence, and that we cannot be held responsible for the climatic changes in the drought area. That is true, but we are responsible for the morale of the people, to see that it is maintained; and the morale of the people can be maintained only as they are given some hope for the future. But so far we have had no clear-cut plan which indicates that the people in these vast areas may have any immediate hope.
I submit that of much greater importance than providing for military and police protection or providing for the maintenance of the credit of this country is provision for the people to live decently. To-day we are in practice trying so to arrange matters that no one will starve. There are occasional instances of actual starvation, and there are more instances of suicide caused by anxiety. But on the whole we are trying to see to it that no one actually starves. But we are keeping tens of thousands of our people on the bare subsistence line and allowing them this subsistence only at the expense of what we have considered a part of their manhood and) womanhood'-their self-respect. We degrade them by giving them charity. I would ask why it could not be arranged that every unemployed citizen should have a pension as a matter of right, not of charity but as a matter of right. In recent times we have been rather inclined to laugh at the Townsend plan in the United States, where an individual has come out and urged that a very large pension should- be paid to everyone over the age of sixty. Probably Doctor Townsend has altogether overdone his proposals along this line, but the fact that he has such a large following is the result not merely of a demagogic appeal but of the realization by the people that the ordinary citizen has certain rights to a decent living.
I am not advocating what has come to be known as the " national dividend " as a part of the social oredit scheme, as put forward by Major Douglas. I confess that I do not understand the theories of Major Douglas, but I do say that that phase of it contains a real measure of truth, and because it does it is appealing to tens of thousands of people. Why should the people who have helped to build up this country and are now thrown out of work through no fault of their own not obtain a reasonable pension, if you like to call it that, as a matter of right? Even

Unemployment Relief
this afternoon I heard someone refer in rather disparaging terms to the unemployed as if they belonged to an inferior class. I protest against that way of viewing unemployment; I protest against our thinking that anything given in the way of unemployment relief is a form of charity. It should not be so regarded. I quite admit that in the old days under normal conditions when a man was out of work it was usually through some fault of his own; he was shiftless or a drunkard or something of that kind, and naturally the municipality was required to take care of him. But that is not the situation to-day with regard to the great majority of those who are unemployed, and for that reason the burden should not be loaded on to the municipalities. It is not a local matter. The municipalities have had nothing to say with regard to the vast immigration to this country. They have had nothing to say with regard to trade conditions in this country, with regard to the war and its consequences, with regard to the financial arrangements of the country. The dominion government is responsible for these general policies, and that being so I take it that the dominion government should assume responsibility for the effects of these policies. It is not fair now to load the responsibility on the provinces or the municipalities.
It may be thought that in advocating something in the form of a general pension I am simply making an appeal to the gallery. I hope that those who know me will not think so; I hope they will not think, either, that I am guilty of a kind of impossible idealism. Not at all. I say that we are actually giving food, clothing and shelter and in some instances medical assistance, besides light, heat, and requirements of that kind, to large numbers of these people, but we are giving this assistance grudgingly in the form of charity, and that policy is having the effect of creating all sorts of friction between the municipality and the province and the dominion and at the same time demoralizing the people who receive the assistance.
Someone may claim that those receiving relief ought to have contributed to some unemployment pension scheme. Well, we have had no such scheme to which they could have contributed and you cannot initiate such a scheme that will at once meet the existing situation. On the other hand the great majority of those people who are now unemployed and in need of relief have contributed in the past to the welfare of the country, working in our factories, our shops
and offices, in our railways and other constructive work. These are the people who are unemployed to-day. Why should we load the whole burden of the depression upon this one group of people? I do not think that anyone in Canada has a right to even a comfortable income so long as these people are on the dole, and much less do I think that any man has a right to enjoy a large income so long as large numbers of our people can subsist only by asking for charity. This question goes deep; it is fundamental in our national life. Is the whole machinery of Canadian government being maintained in order to maintain the status quo, in order that we may preserve a condition under which a few are deriving great benefits while equally worthy Canadians are being not only thrown out of work but thrown upon charity? I submit that after five years in office the government should be held responsible for making provision for the situation which confronts us.
The hon. member for East Toronto rather deprecated the fact that measures of this kind immediately become party measures. We all feel sorry that this is so, and in the newspapers in the last few weeks there has been a good deal of talk of a national government as a way out. Personally I am strongly opposed to a national government such as is contemplated by those who advocate it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Undoubtedly at the present moment that proposition would be repudiated, as the applause would indicate, by both the present government and the official opposition. Certainly it would be repudiated by the group in this corner. But behind the urge for a national government there lies a genuine desire to meet real need. It is felt by many that the present parliamentary system is failing to function properly in providing for the needs of the people. I see the ex-Minister of Justice shaking his head.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree with my hon. friend so far as the present government is concerned.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, and thereby he brings this right back to party lines. I am trying to get away from party considerations. At the present time the government says that it is responsible and it will not permit us to offer much in the way of suggestions or real cooperation. If we cooperate, we must cooperate on the government's own terms, they having all the sweets and emoluments
Unemployment Relief

of office and all the rest. At present, with an election in sight, the Liberals are of course feeling very cocky and self-confident, and they would refuse to cooperate because in a very short time they have bright hopes, especially after last night-


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: They are not so bright this morning.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, perhaps they are not so bright the day after, but they have bright hopes that before so very long they will have the exclusive responsibility for the government of the country and they again will enjoy all the sweets and emoluments of office to the exclusion of any other party. In this way we saw backwards and forwards, and for this no blame can be attached to any member of the house individually. I think most of the members are concerned about such a problem as this, but as we are lined up in two or three, if not antagonistic, then rival parties, it becomes almost impossible for us to discuss a question of this kind on its merits. It was only the other day I was re-reading a most interesting report presented to the British house in 1928 by the Right Hon. the Earl of Donoughmore, chairman of a special committee on a constitution for Ceylon. In that report they advocated that the parliament should adopt more or less of the county council plan or that carried out by the League of Nations; that is, that they meet together on common ground and discuss matters in departmental committees; the committee takes the responsibility for action and in that way they overcome the necessity for anything like purely party decisions. In view of the present emergency we might very well consider some modification of the organization and rules of this house so that we might get down to real business. The emergency, as the hon. member for East Toronto has said, is comparable to that which arose at the time of the war, and it ought to be met in some such spirit as was then manifest.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, we are now considering bill 41 for the relief of unemployed throughout the country. The preamble of this bill is as follows:
Whereas the provinces may require further assistance in carrying out necessary relief measures and in meeting financial conditions
[Mr. Woodsworth.l
as the same may arise; and whereas in such event it is in the national interest that parliament should support and supplement the relief measures of the provinces and grant them financial assistance in such manner and to such extent as the governor in council may deem expedient.	.
Do you not think, Mr. Chairman, that we should take this opportunity to avail ourselves of the benefits offered by this bill, in order to support an institution that is truly national by its nature: I am referring to the great French university, of this beautiful university which we have in this country, the University of Montreal.
Some years ago, full of confidence in the future of our race and of our province, a few courageous men decided to enrich our metropolis with as perfect a . university as could be justified by the place that we occupy in the world, as the second largest French city.
It was a grand undertaking, but it was also a plan that sprang from the purest patriotism, from the legitimate pride of our race and from our desire to give the intellectual elite of our province the means of improving their university training and teaching, in order bo produce a greater number of highly qualified men, so that the people of our race may take their rightful place in the intellectual and economic spheres, and also to rouse dormant talents, to bring them to light and make them contribute to a larger extent to the intellectual and material progress of Canada.
Seven million dollars have been spent on that building and since three years all work has been stopped for lack of funds; seven millions engulfed in that undertaking; seven millions which remain unproductive. The future of our race is linked with the development of our higher studies. If we suffer from a marked inferiority wherever education counts, in the industrial field as well as in the technical departments of the Dominion or even provincial government, it is because we always lacked the financial means to properly develop our higher studies and produce capable men which among our people are ever present in a latent state.
I do not wish to establish as a principle that only educated men may succeed in the material sphere. That would mean that all our business men and all those who acquired wealth owe their success to their higher education. No, that is not true, but it is a fact that all those who succeeded owe it mostly to their ability in surrounding themselves with educated and competent men whose efforts they directed for their own benefit. Well, our

Unemployment Relief
English speaking fellow citizens had among their own, people a larger number of competent men whose services they utilized to build up their fortune; and we unfortunately realize that among our own people, those who succeeded owe it to their association with another race than their own, not because we are less intelligent, but because we are not as well prepared for the acquisition of wealth.
The distinguished rector of Laval University of Quebec, Mgr. Camille Roy, sounded the alarm in his last lecture before the Canadian Club in Quebec. He attributed our inferiority in industry and the civil service to the insufficient development of our higher education, due to a lack of funds among our universities. When such a distinguished man, who has devoted all his life to education and who is perhaps the highest authority among our educational leaders, points out so clearly what our educational system lacks; when he mentions what is probably the greatest cause of our inferiority in this Dominion, can we possibly fold our arms and witness the falling off of our educational system without raising our voice?
We are a race of individualists, ordinarily incapable of voluntarily sacrificing ourselves to allow others to build with our money, although, in times of crisis, we are ready to sacrifice ourselves enthusiastically for the common salvation. So great is our respect for civil and religious authority, so strong is our belief in the strength and power of the church and of the state that we never seriously entertain the idea that they may really need our help. We are accustomed to leave our educational problem to our clergy and our religious institutions with never a thought of helping them. And our clergy perform each year the miracle of providing us with an education as nearly perfect as possible with a budget five times smaller than that of the English schools and universities.
Compare, for instance, the resources of our university with those of McGill. McGill university, with endowments and investments amounting to $18,566,463 and grounds, buildings and equipment valued at $12,826,845, has total assets of $31,393,308 and enjoyed, in 1931, a revenue of $2,480,914. For the same year, the University of Montreal owned in endowments and investments the sum of $221,366, compared with McGill's 18 millions, and grounds and buildings valued at $7,898,010, making total assets of $8,119,376, against McGill's 31 millions. Our university's revenue amounted to $253,644, against McGills' two and a half millions. I shall spare you further
statistics for the moment, but these figures alone show the miracle which our university accomplishes each year in giving us so complete an education with such limited resources. There is one thing, howetver, that makes us hope to possess some day a university as complete as McGill. Our university buildings are valued at 8 millions, compared with McGill's 12 millions. About three million dollars more are required to complete the work undertaken, so that when these three millions have been spent We will have a university fully as well equipped as McGill.
The question now arises of where to get these three millions. In the face of the present world-disrupting crisis, we do not know what to do. It is clear that, had the prosperity of 1927 continued, we would have no university problem; the public would have subscribed all the money required.: But prosperity is no longer with us. Why? To a certain extent, we do not know. However, the condition exists and we have to fight it. But it is useless to recriminate and to attribute the responsibility to others, as each one is probably responsible to some extent for the present state of affairs. The crisis seems to be largely due to a lack of general orientation. Every man and every government knows something about it, but the policy followed with the greatest conviction by every one is to do nothing. Feeling ourselves isolated and not knowing which way to turn, we have so to speak organized a strike of our resources and capital.
To put an end to this intolerable situation, there is need of a practical policy founded on order, logic and method. What solution have we so far found for this problem? Direct relief. It is generally admitted that the direct relief system is demoralizing our population and leading us inevitably to ruin. We cannot much longer continue maintaining in idleness a portion of our population, for that is the surest way to bring about communism. All our governments admit it, and the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) stated on the radio that he wished to abandon as soon as possible the system of direct relief, in order to undertake public works that would provide our working population with remunerative employment. It is following this speech that I conceived the idea of suggesting to the Prime Minister of my country that he contribute one million dollars towards the completion of the University of Montreal. This million dollars would be used entirely to pay wages to workers wfio
Unemployment Relief

would be taken from the ranks of the unemployed. For a few dollars more per week, we could provide our working people with employment, instead of, as at present, doling them out, thus humiliating and demoralizing charity. Direct relief is already costing millions to the federal government.
It must not be forgotten that the number of assisted persons would be doubled if every man out of work applied for relief. Fortunately for the federal treasury, our people are proud, and so long as some member of a family has some resources he uses them to assist his relatives and sometimes his friends. That is why I insist so strongly on doing away with the system of direct relief that tends to demoralize our workers and destroy their willingness to work and their initiative. It is work that we want for our labouring classes. And we want useful works that will be a credit to the country as a whole.
Is it possible to find a nobler institution to build up than a great university that could impart to our population the education necessary to the formation of competent men in all fields of our national life? The development of our higher educational system is of prime necessity to the prestige and success of our race. Consequently, we must give it all the encouragement possible. Our individual means may not be great, but our moral power is enormous and we have a right to our fair share of the national resources.
We have a right to demand that our share of these resources be applied in such a way as to do us the greatest good. If the people of Montreal and all the organized bodies in the city would unite with me in an effort to ask the Dominion government to devote a million of the relief money to the completion of the University of Montreal buildings, I am sure the government would grant that request. The more so that, if the Dominion government would grant us that money, the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal would do likewise, and we would have three millions to complete this undertaking.
Every country is proud of its universities and I am sure that, in all those who are listening to me, a patriotic chord is vibrating when I ask for a Catholic and French university that would proudly stand on the slopes of Mount Royal, for a magnificent

monument that would be an attraction for all visitors and a source of pride for all French -Canadians. But there is also the practical side: the establishment of a centre of learning that will properly develop the natural gifts of our race in all spheres of national life. I think our duty is to enrich the city of Montreal, the second largest French city in the world, with a university worthy of its high standing; and I would like to see those buildings entirely completed by the unemployed of the city, with the hope that the completion of the work will coincide with the end of the depression. And I firmly believe that, if the Dominion government decides on a rational policy of public works, it will bring peace to the minds of our people and will give to the rest of the country the confidence that is essential to put back to productive use nonactive assets, as are those of our university at the present time.
Mr. Chairman, I earnestly invite you to heed the voice of our members of parliament; I appeal to all French speaking members of my province and of the country; I urgently ask them to unite on this question, which I consider a national one, and to take the steps to have the necessary amount voted for the University of Montreal. It is an enterprise of which you all want to see the completion, and the only influence I ask for is your outspoken support. You may rest assured that my voice will then be heard in this parliament with all the more strength that I shall be speaking on behalf of three million French Canadians.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I have not very much to say in connection with this bill. I find myself in complete agreement with what was stated yesterday by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). Much as I respect him it is not very often I can agree with him on matters of policy. I must say however that I am quite in accord with everything he said about this measure. The party at present in office were elected in 1930 on a policy of ending unemployment; they gave the people of this dominion to understand that they had a solution for the problem. Generally speaking hon. members in this corner of the chamber have been very patient; as a matter of fact I believe we have been too patient. We have given the government every opportunity to fulfil its promises, and on many occasions we have offered every assistance to put into effect a program which would end unemployment.

Unemployment Reliej
Not only in 1930 but again, immediately before calling this session of parliament, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) told the people of Canada he was going to start the machinery moving which would improve conditions. Some hon. members have said they have been disappointed but I have not been disappointed because I did not expect anything. I knew very well the Prime Minister could not improve conditions without laying hands on the sacred rights of private property, and I am quite convinced he has not yet reached the point where he is willing to do that. In his last radio speech he said:
In the main I have really tried to make these business talks. To tell you the truth I am so gripped by the necessity for action, I am so anxious about the development of these reforms that I have little time to think of politics.
After giving us that very strong statement we now have dished out to us this warmed-over bill, one which we have had placed before us for the last four years. It has been warmed over each year. Some of the ingredients may be left out in the present instance, or some others may be included, but on the w:hole it is the same bill. I notice the preamble begins with the usual statement that- -the provinces may require further assistance in carrying out necessary relief measures and in meeting financial conditions as the same may arise.
There is no "may" in the matter, at all. The provinces do need assistance. The western provinces are practically bankrupt and cannot meet the obligations confronting them without the assistance of this government; and carrying on as we do I am quite convinced that even this government cannot continue much longer to carry the burden. However, until that time comes I think the government should do everything that is necessary to improve the living conditions of the people.
My colleague from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) for comparative figures of unemployment and those on relief during the last year, and the minister replied that he did not have the figures with him at the time. However, a parliamentary return was brought down a few days ago showing the number on relief month by month from January, 1934 to January, 1935, and despite the apparent improvement which the minister told us of yesterday, according to the figures given in that return there is little dirriinution in the number of those receiving direct relief.
In the parliamentary return which I have before me I find that in January, 1934 there were 1,292,065 persons receiving direct relief, and in January of this year the number was 1,183,690, a drop of a little over 100,000. Now if you take the figures in the return you will find that since April of last year the number receiving relief decreased until the month of October, 1934, and then the number began to increase and it has increased ever since. If we take the amount of the increase in 1934 and assume that there has been a similar increase in 1935 there would have been at the end of February over 1,200,000 on direct relief. That is besides those who have been receiving relief in an indirect way, in the National Defence camps, for instance, and working on various government projects.


George Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
if the hon. member would permit me to interject so that the members will not be misled by the calculations and assumptions made by the hon. member? I may say to him that the preliminary figures for February, 1935, which have just come to hand in the last day or two, disclose that there were across Canada on direct relief only 1,054,821. Always bear in mind that these figures are received by us from the provinces, and they are compiled showing the number of persons, men, women and children, who receive direct relief, not thirty days in the month, but if they receive only partial relief they are included in this figure. It is most difficult, and in fact every country in the world recognizes the difficulty, of trying to set up figures that reflect certainties with respect to matters like unemployment. The mobility of the individual and the very nature of the thing itself renders it impossible to have authentic figures which will show at a given time those who may be unemployed or on relief, and information of that kind.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Arising out of the figures
which the minister has just given, may I ask if the 1,054,821 was not the actual number of men, women and children, in receipt of government relief in February last?


George Gordon: Direct relief, yes, for
varying periods of time.


Angus MacInnis: I am pleased that the
minister has been able to give to the house the correct number of people on direct relief during the month of February last. I am glad also to note that seemingly there has been a drop since January. However, the
193S	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief
drop is a very small one, and after five years of solving the unemployment problem, and after five radio speeches, as one of my colleagues suggests, it is not a very good record. It does not show any substantial improvement in industrial conditions in this country.
In the figures that were given yesterday it was overlooked altogether that, though there may have been some increase in the number of those employed, the population of the country has been increasing, and . this would be reflected, in the number of those who were unemployed.


George Gordon: May I interject again?
The hon. member says that there is no appreciable improvement, but if we go back to the low point of the depression we find that in April, 1933, the figure was almost
1.600.000,	and to-day it is just slightly over
1.000.	000. So do not let us be too pessimistic and gloomy. Try and cheer up a little.
Mr. MaeINNIS:	It is exceedingly easy
for the minister to be cheerful in the matter.


George Gordon: No, it is not. All I want to be is correct, and cheerful.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) is not cheerful because he may lose his job.
Mr. MaeINNIS:	I am not the only one
who is likely to lose his job, and I am afraid my hon. friend would find it more difficult to do hard work than I would. I have done it before and am quite willing to do it again, and that is more than can be said of some others. I say it is quite easy for the minister to be cheerful in the matter, but the record is not a cheerful one, and until we have a much more cheerful record and a much greater improvement I do not think there need be much crowing from the other side of the house. But even if conditions are improving, and let us say they are, the condition of the provinces and the municipalities is daily getting worse. Anyone who has been reading the papers from western Canada, from British Columbia, for instance, during the last few months, must realize the situation there. The city of Vancouver is practically bankrupt, and if it defaults I do not think there is any possibility of the province of British Columbia saving itself. It will be involved in the default of the city of Vancouver, and the same is true of the other western provinces as well.
I think it was the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) who said this afternoon that some people think that governments are a
[Mr. Maclnnis.1
kind of Santa Claus, who should provide for everybody. As a matter of fact, if the people of Canada have the idea that the government is a sort of Santa Claus, it is the political parties of this country who have given them the idea, 'because in every election they come before the people and tell them, "Elect us and everything will be fine; we will see that you will have work and wages; unemployment will be ended; business will improve," and, all that sort of thing, without any help from the people themselves;, it is all going to be done by Santa Claus-the government. I have never led the people to believe that the government should be a Santa Claus. As a matter of fact, governments have nothing to give unless they first take it away from the people. Whatever they have they must first get in taxes, and taxes come out of produced wealth. Let us follow this a bit further.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, Hear.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I am glad my hon. friends are in agreement. Taxes come out of produced wealth. There are only two classes which produce wealth, the working class in the city and the farmers in the country. During the past few years the production of wealth has decreased to a very great extent, and you cannot increase taxation when the production of wealth is decreasing. The production of wealth will continue to decrease as long as markets continue to decrease. Production to-day is dependent upon the making of a profit. Markets will continue to decrease, consequently, the wealth out of which taxes are paid will also continue to decrease because the produced goods cannot be sold. No matter how much hon. friends opposite may try to improve conditions, they cannot do it under these circumstances. There is only one way in which the lot of the working class can be improved and that is by releasing production from the restrictions placed upon it by the profit motive. That is the only way in which we can get over our difficulties, but it is not likely that it wil lbe done. This government has forfeited any right which it may have had to consideration in connection with this or any other matter, and any hon. member who opposes this measure is well within his rights. The people are asking for bread and the government is offering them a stone.


Mr. COOTE:: Mr. Chairman, could the
minister give us the total expenditures which have been made for relief by the various governments? If we are to deal effectively with unemployment in Canada we should

Unemployment Relief
give some thought to the causes of unemployment. We seem to overlook the fact that agriculture is the basic industry of Canada, and when the purchasing power of the farm people has been as low as it has been during the past four years we cannot expect anything but unemployment in the cities. We have permitted economic conditions to get out of balance. Hon. members are apt to forget the terrific drop which has occurred in the prices of farm products with the consequent decrease in the income of people living on the farms. The revenue received by the farmers of Canada represents the greatest source of purchasing power in this country. I think it is worth while to draw to the attention of the committee the fact that the nbt farm income of Canada for the years 1931 to 1934 was only $1,744,000,000, as compared wih a revenue of $4,012,000,000 for the period 1926 to 1929. In four years there was a drop in purchasing power of $2,268,000,000 or fifty-seven per cent. The net revenue received by the farmers in the latter period was only forty-three per cent of what it had been in the four years preceding 1930. There was an average yearly drop of $560,000,000 in the purchasing power of the farmers of Canada. In my humble opinion this decrease in purchasing power is the chief cause of the unemployment which exists to-day. It is also the cause of the municipal debt situation. It is not that this debt has increased so much since 1929 but that we are trying to carry on with less purchasing power circulating in the hands of the people. If the government wants to deal effectively with unemployment and the situation on the farms which makes it necessary for some farmers to seek relief, they must deal directly with farm prices. These prices must be raised, and the best way of doing this is to devalue the Canadian dollar outside of Canada and bring it down until it reaches sixty-five or seventy cents in United States currency. This would bring about a rise in the level of farm prices and would prove a worth while step towards restoring prosperity on the farms, which in turn will mean more prosperity in the cities and less unemployment. Again I ask the minister if he has the total contributions made by the dominion, provincial and municipal governments to as late a date as possible?


George Gordon: I have not the figures
for the provinces and the municipalities, but during the five year period the dominion has spent $170,000,000 in relief of various forms. This includes the relief granted to the dried out areas, the wheat bonus and other forms of relief. If comparisons are helpful, it may be 92582-123
interesting to note that this is less than was spent in 1930 on our railroads, hotels, golf courses and things of that kind.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would like these figures
in a more detailed form. Can the minister give us the amount spent in urban and in rural centres? I should like the capital account items for public works to be separated from the current expenditures.


George Gordon: Under the terms of the
relief act a report is required to be tabled within fifteen days after the end of the fiscal year. Such a report is now in course of preparation and as soon as the books are closed at the end of the month it will be brought in without delay. This report will disclose the figures to which reference has been made. It would take some time to make the breakdown of figures suggested by the hon. member, and if there is no immediate need I would suggest his waiting until the report is tabled.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is all right so far as
the present fiscal year is concerned, but I should like to get these figures for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1934. I want to know how much was spent in the way of relief in the rural sections and how much in the urban sections.
Mr. 'GORDON:	I direct the attention of
the hon. member to the report which was tabled in the first week :n April of last year. This will give him the information he desires.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I should like to have it as soon as possible.


George Gordon: I have not an extra copy of the report here but I can easily get it for the hon. member.


Abraham Albert Heaps: My question arises out of
the discussion that took place this afternoon with reference to the question of relief so far as it affects both rural and urban areas. There has been some complaint about the amount of relief given the cities, and I am anxious to know how it compares with the relief given in rural areas.


George Gordon: The report was never designed to disclose the difference between the urban and rural sections; no such thought was in my mind nor do I think it was in any one else's as to the break-down of the figures along those lines. The report contains a great amount of detail as to what has been done under the various relief acts. I will do my utmost to get any special information

Unemployment Relief

the hon. member wants, but it is obviously impossible for me to pick out the figures from the reports I have.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The problem of relief is
entirely different in the city from the problem in rural areas. Farm relief is given to farmers in these dried out areas for different reasons from those that govern the distribution of relief in the cities. In the city relief is given because of unemployment and of the inability of the recipient to obtain the necessaries of life, but the same thing hardly applies to relief given to farmers.


George Gordon: Under the agreements
entered into with the provinces in 1934 and up to the end of this month, instead of dealing in percentages an arrangement was made with each province whereby a specific grant in aid was made. We found by experience that if every dollar had to be earmarked for a particular situation that might arise in a province great delay occurred in attending to necessitous cases and in relieving acute need in various sections of the provinces. Therefore a grant in aid of a lump sum was made to the provinces on the distinct understanding, reflected in the agreements themselves, that this grant in aid might be applied in any way that the province considered most desirable so long as it was applied to relief purposes. In Saskatchewan a slightly different situation arises by reason of the great dried out areas, and that is administered on an entirely different basis. That is the only place where it is administered differently. Whether or not I can prepare figures which will separate the rural from the urban sections I do not know; I do not believe we can do it without having recourse to the various provinces to get statements from them. However, I will get whatever I can.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not want to have any
special work devolve upon the department, and if they have not made the tabulations I will not ask that this be done. But perhaps the minister can give the amounts which the department expects to have spent in all forms of relief for the fiscal year ending this month together with the same figures for 1934.


George Gordon: For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1935, the total amount which the dominion will have distributed will be around $32,000,000; I do not think that will be found to be far out. For the previous year it was about $41,000,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does that include the dried out areas?


George Gordon: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Any capital expenditures?


George Gordon: No, that is under the Public Works Construction Act.


George Gibson Coote: The minister mentioned
$170,000,000 as the amount spent, I think, for the last five years.


George Gordon: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: By the federal government alone?


George Gordon: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: Has the minister the figures showing the amount spent by the different governments and municipalities?


George Gordon: No.


George Gibson Coote: These figures are not known to the department?


George Gordon: Not accurately. We could estimate them but we do not know them.


George Gibson Coote: What is the basis on which the advances to the provinces were figured out for the year 1935?


George Gordon: Up to the end of July, 1934, a percentage of all relief in municipalities was assumed by the dominion-one-third. In unorganized territories the percentage assumed by the dominion was fifty per cent, with the provinces. After July 31, and after the conference was held between the dominion and the provincial premiers, for the reasons I have already stated amongst others a lump sum grant in aid was given to each province. There were discussions with the representatives of the provinces and the amounts were arrived at after a review of what the situation had been in the years prior to 1934 and what the provinces thought they needed and the dominion considered it could give to them. I do not think that in any instance there was at first unanimity of opinion because it does not need much argument to show that that could scarcely happen, having regard to what had taken place in the years before the grants in aid to the provinces were determined. I will frankly admit that some of the provinces were not satisfied, and with equal frankness I admit that they never would be satisfied no matter what the grant was.


George Gibson Coote: It was simply a matter of negotiation?


George Gordon: Quite.

Unemployment Relief


George Gibson Coote: There was no basis of so much per family?


George Gordon: No, that is entirely in the hands of the provinces, as to administration and how much should be given per family.


George Gibson Coote: Then the allotment to rural and urban areas would be a matter of negotiation between the province and the municipality?


George Gordon: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: It would be correct to say that the dominion government had nothing to say with regard to that particular part of it, that is to say, the share of the province and that of the municipality?


George Gordon: No, the agreement does not cover that. The grant in aid was given to the province to be applied by them in any way their best judgment suggested. Administration has always been and is now entirely in the hands of the provinces. Of course, discussions take place and have taken place constantly between myself and the various representatives from the provinces. I have many times urged the provinces to organize this relief administration, so that on the one hand people who cannot support themselves will not suffer and on the other there will be no waste of public money. Further than that the dominion has had nothing to do with the settlement of the amount each family will get.


Mr. RINFRET:: There are two questions that I want to put to the minister and that I think can come under this clause. I had the impression yesterday that the minister had not concluded his speech when we reached six o'clock-


George Gordon: I thought hon. members were tired listening to me.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: -and I thought he would give us more information regarding this bill. He chose to-day, apparently with good judgment, to let the vote be taken on the second reading, but I suppose he reserved for this stage further information on the matter. The first question I want to put to him is this: His department has adopted for the last few months a policy of paying a fixed amount to some of the provinces, at least to Quebec. Is it the intention under this bill to carry on the payment of a fixed amount, or will the department resort to the former policy of a proportionate payment according to the needs of the particular province? The trouble with the bill, as I pointed out on second reading, is that it is too elastic; the government may do
92582-123J
more or may do less than the house expects, and we do not know. Perhaps the minister will reply to that question and another one I am going to put to him at this moment. The minister gave us to understand during his curtailed speech that before the session is over other measures will be brought down covering unemployment. Is he in a position now to indicate to a certain extent what those measures will be?


George Gordon: My view is that arrangements with the provinces after the end of this month will probably follow the line of a fixed grant to them, on a descending scale I hope, because there are not as many on relief as there have been heretofore. However that is a matter I or the government will have to determine after consultation with the provinces. At the moment I cannot say anything more than that.
Other measures which I hope will be brought down later in the session are now under consideration by the government. It is not an easy task to outline sound plans to provide work for the unemployed in a country such as Canada, but there are under consideration plans which the government hopes will provide at least a considerable amount of employment to those out of work. With respect to those who are unable to work as well as to those who will not work, who do not want to work, they will I assume be taken care of as has been done in the past. I do not think I can go further than that.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: To go back to the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Yallance) and the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) with respect to clause 2 of the bill, the marginal note of this clause reads:
Loans to provinces, and Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited.
Everyone knows that under number 20 on the order paper provision is made for the creation of a Canadian grain board. When we see this item included in this bill, we are naturally anxious to know whether this means the elimination of number 20 on the order paper, or just what is the position of the government with respect to it? The house has waited now since 1960 for some statement of policy with respect to the marketing of wheat. Hon. members will remember that in that year the Prime Minister went to the imperial conference in the old country and took with him the late A. J. McPhail, and upon his return to this country, Mr. J. I. McFarland was appointed manager of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited-
Unemployment Relief

to dispose of the balance of the 1928-29 wheat crop of some 76,000,000 bushels. From that day .until now the house and the country have had really no statement of policy and no details of: the position of the organization or of the. responsibility of the government with respect thereto. A dominion election is approaching, and I certainly think the government should provide the house and the country with the fullest possible details with regard to the operations that have been carried on by Mr. McFarland under this legislation. To do so would 'be only right and proper so far as all those who are interested in the matter are concerned-the dominion government, the public at large, and the pool organizations themselves.
Further, in recent months there has been a good deal of discussion in the papers with respect to Mr. McFarland's operations, and no one knows definitely whether the charges, if I may use that word, in this regard are correct or not. Consequently it is all the more desirable that a clear statement of policy be made without further delay. We on this side have been tolerant of the government in not pressing for information. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) referred this afternoon to Mr. McFarland having been called before the banking and commerce committee last year. No attempt was then made io force him to disclose information which he felt it would not be in the interest of the public to reveal. But the time has now arrived when the house is entitled to some statement. Moreover, with all respect to the stabilization operations, the farmers are complaining of the uncertainty in connection with any policy involved. They intend to put in a new crop this year. What is going to be the policy o-f the government with respect to marketing in the future? I think we are entitled to a clear statement with respect to the policy that has been pursued so far and what the policy will be from now on. I can quite conceive that the farmers have been in a state of uncertainty in regard to this whole policy; no one knows what is going to happen or what the policy of the government will be or anything else. I would therefore respectfully request that the minister advise the committee just what is going to be done with respect to the wheat situation and when we may have an opportunity of securing information regarding the operations of Mr. McFarland, his stabilization scheme and its relationship to Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited.


George Gordon: The question of the desirability of disclosing the position of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited in the wheat market I do not think has changed since the matter was before the banking and commerce committee. I am not as fortunate as the western farmer members, who are apparently gamblers and who know a great deal about gambling in wheat and matters of that kind. I am not a gambler; in this business of hedging, selling short and selling long and things of that kind I must say I am a bit beyond my depth, so the farmer members from western Canada on the other side of the house have me at a great disadvantage. I should think, though, that if one is in the market, whether on the short or on the long side, it would be a most undesirable thing to advertise to others in the market and the world in general the exact position of any considerable trader. That is only a suggestion, coming from one who is unacquainted with stock market trading.
What the dominion government endeavoured to do, and I think largely succeeded in doing, was to make these guarantees to Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited in order that they would be able to stabilize the wheat market for western farmers. Whether they accomplished the Object sought may be sulbject to differences of opinion. I have heard many people say that by reason of the guarantees and the operations of Mr. McFarland through the agency of this company a stabilized market prevailed. Personally I am of opinion that it would be highly undesirable to have the market position of this company made known to other traders.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Do you
think they can keep it from the traders?


George Gordon: They might not be able to keep other traders from guessing at it, but if I understand anything at all about the market you are doing pretty well when you keep the other fellow guessing a bit.


Charles A. Stewart: I am afraid it has been the other way round.


George Gordon: It may have been; again we have the suggestion of the. dark clouds hanging low in the sky, but I cannot help that. At any rate the objective of the government in making guarantees was just as I have indicated. My hon. friend from Macdonald says no policy has been announced in regard to selling the wheat of western Canada. Well, we inherited a tremendous carry over and prior to 1930 I never saw any great activity on the part of, the late dominion

Unemployment Relief
government in outlining a policy in connection with the selling of the wheat of western Canada. It may be that on the return of the Prime Minister, which I trust will not be too long delayed, what I have given as an answer to the question of my hon. friend may be amplified, and perhaps more information may be given. My own view, however, is that it would be highly undesirable to disclose to the other wheat traders the position of this company in the wheat market. I do not believe Canada will suffer any loss in the grain market. That is only my belief. I may be wrong; others may know better than I.


William Gilbert Weir: With all due respect to the minister, and without wishing to disclose any information with regard to the position of Mr. McFarland and Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited in the wheat market, I should think that for the protection of the institution itself and of the government the time has come when the statements that are being made in the public press, and supported by responsible grain men and others who are conversant with the grain trade, should be corrected otherwise, those impressions are going to continue to spread.


Robert James Manion: Some of them were corrected at Moose Jaw very recently by Mr. McFarland.


William Gilbert Weir: I am not so sure that he gave a complete answer in any sense; I thought he was more interested in the continuation in power of the Prime Minister and the Conservative party.
Mr. MAN-ION: Some of his critics merely took the other side.


George Gordon: Well, that is synonymous
with the survival of western Canada.


William Gilbert Weir: I am afraid the minister did not get my point or the point the hon. member for South Battleford really had in mind when he brought up the matter this afternoon. I should like to know just what is intended by this provision in view of the fact that the order paper contains notice of legislation to create a wheat board. Is this bill going to continue the present scheme for another year, or when is it going to end? Is the present bill merely to continue the arrangement now in force until the legislation creating a wheat board can be enacted? That is the first point I should like answered. Then what is the wheat board, or whatever agency is created, going to do? Is it merely going
to take over the present obligations with respect to wheat and withdraw from the market, or is it going to continue the policy that has been carried on in the past?
May I say to the minister that I am not addressing the committee in any critical sense at all; as a matter of fact I can quite conceive that at the time Mr. McFarland was appointed it was inevitable that something of this kind should be done. Nor am I making any particular complaint with regard to the creation of a wheat board. I am quite prepared to concede that the situation that existed at the time Mr. McFarland was appointed made such an appointment, or the creation of some such agency, quite necessary, and I support the idea that a board would be an even better arrangement than having one man direct an institution such as we have had for the last four and a half years. Nevertheless the fact remains that the country as a whole has become involved to a very substantial degree through these operations, and we have had little or no information with regard to the policy -that has been followed. Beyond doubt a dead line must be established some time, and with all deference to the-minister I submit that we should have some-information with regard to this policy. The real point I have in mind at the moment with respect to this legislation, however, is whether it is to continue the present policy just until a wheat board is created, or whether this policy is to be continued for another year and probably reenacted next year.


George Gordon: Mr. Chairman, I think
the hon. member need have no great fear for the future in connection with this matter. The bill under discussion is the same bill that has given the government power to make guarantees to this company. That power ceases by passage of time on March 31 next. Surely it is obvious to every hon. member, whether the government was right or wrong in taking the course it did to support the grain market in western Canada, that having done what it did it -must continue after March 31. It is quite true that on the order paper there appears a resolution with respect to a grain board. All I can say-and the hon. member knows this very well-is that when that legislation -comes down its intent will be made clear, and the extent to which it will supersede the present policy or whether the board will be entirely separate from that policy. I can say no more about it; the legislation when it is brought down will speak for itself.
Unemployment Relief


William Gilbert Weir: The minister is
quite prepared to say that the passing of this legislation does not prevent the bringing of other legislation before the house?


George Gordon: Quite so.


Abraham Albert Heaps: This afternoon there was a
discussion as to the assistance the government had given to the provinces and, in turn, the provinces had given to the municipalities. I made the plea that the government should at least make some attempt to make provision whereby the municipalities might be relieved of some of the burden they are now carrying. Evidently my plea and that of other hon. members has not fallen on receptive^ ears, because only a few moments ago the minister informed the committee he hoped that when in the near future his department met with the provincial premiers there might be provision whereby the amount allotted by the government to the provinces for relief would be lower in the coming year than it has been in the past. I believe I am not far from the mark, and if I am wrong I hope the minister will correct me, when I say that the amount the government has given to the provinces and,: in turn, the provinces have remitted to the municipalities for direct relief, would amount to approximately twenty-five per cent of the expenditures. I believe I am fairly close to the mark when I say the amount would be about twenty-five per cent. In previous years the amount given by the government was one-third of the total, the provinces contributing one-third and the municipalities the remaining third. I say the additional eight and one third per cent has been carried by the municipalities, and in most cases the load is too heavy for them. I believe it is admitted on all sides that unemplojrment is not primarily a municipal problem. It is a national problem arising as a result of national conditions for which the municipalities are in no degree responsible.
Years ago, before we suffered from an acute unemployment problem, or one similar to that with which we are now faced, it was within the purview of the municipalities to grant relief to indigent cases which came under municipal control. Those indigent cases were due primarily not to problems of unemployment but rather to conditions arising out of sickness, invalidity or old age, or circumstances under which people were physically unable to find employment. However, since we have been troubled with an acute unemployment problem we find a completely new difficulty facing our municipalities, and I say we should

not expect them to carry a load ranging between thirty-five per cent and forty per cent of the cost of maintaining the unemployed. It is quite true that the problem may adjust itself; with the advent of public works and with improved economic conditions the difficulty may be lessened, but even then I say the federal government should assume its just share of the responsibility in meeting the difficulty. I am wondering whether or not the government would return to its former basis of granting relief rather than follow the practice of granting a lump sum to the provinces, not knowing whether such sum would be sufficient or insufficient to meet the necessities of the situation. I am wondering whether they would go back to the method employed prior to 1934, that of giving relief on the basis of a percentage of the cost of unemployment relief within the boundaries of the municipalities.
I am informed the province of Quebec made an offer to the government to the effect that it would asume half of the responsibility of unemployment if the federal government would assume the other half. I do not know whether any other provinces have made similar offers, but as unemployment is a national problem I do think the federal government ought to assume a much larger share of the cost than it now assumes. A few momenta ago I asked the minister if he could give the figures showing how much had been spent by way of relief to rural and urban municipalities. He was unable to give the figures, but made the statement that for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1935, approximately $32,000,000 had been spent. That figure does not convey all the information I should like to have, because some of the money was spent in the drought areas and could not be said to have been spent for the relief of the unemployed. If we had more detailed figures showing the amount actually spent we might then have some idea of what the added burden to the federal exchequer would be if the federal government assumed a larger share than it assumes at the present time. I stated earlier in my observations that the amount assumed by the federal government was approximately 25 per cent, as compared with 33j per cent in previous years. Perhaps the minister would give us the correct figures in that respect. I should also like to know if at this time he is prepared to state on behalf of the government whether or not it would grant to the municipalities more relief than they have been able to obtain from the government during the past twelve months.

Unemployment Relief


George Gordon: I can add nothing to what I have already said. The figures have not been prepared in the manner the hon. member has suggested, and I doubt very much whether they could be broken up to disclose the difference between the urban and rural contributions. However I give the hon. member the assurance that we will endeavour to comply with his request. I cannot say that we will be successful in an attempt to set up figures which would be accurate and dependable, but we will do the best we can.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I know the amount paid by the federal government to the government of Manitoba resulted in the city of Winnipeg being compelled to spend far more per head for municipal relief than it had to pay when they were receiving a grant of one-third of the cost. The amount received to-day by urban centres for municipal relief would amount to approximately 25 per cent. I do not believe I am in any way underestimating the amount granted by the federal government for this purpose. The minister may not be able to rake up those figures, but I am informed that in 1934 the figure was about $40,000,000, and that this year it will be about $32,000,000. The difference represents a drop of about $8,000,000, or 20 per cent. Across the country there has been a diminution to the extent of 10 or 11 per cent in the number of those receiving relief this year as compared with the number in previous years. Consequently there has been a greater drop in the amount of money granted than there has been in the number drawing relief, a circumstance which would seem to bear out my contention.


Mr. VENIOT:: I should like to get some information which the minister may not be able to provide to-night but which he may furnish later. I should like to get from him the amount of money the federal government paid per month as its share for each county in New Brunswick. May I repeat that I want to have the dominion's share, paid to the provincial government, for each county of New Brunswick for each month of 1933. If the minister cannot give the information offhand he might prepare a statement and let me have it within a few days.


George Gordon: It would be difficult to comply with the request of the hon. member for Gloucester, because the dominion has contact only with the provincial government. We make our grants to the provincial governments. If the report that was tabled last year does not give the information the hon.
member has asked for I shall endeavour as soon as I can to get a compilation of figures that will reflect the information sought by the hon. gentleman.


Peter John Veniot: That will be quite satisfactory. The information is important in view of something that is to take place in the very near future in consequence of statements that I have made on the floor of this house, which statements in regard to relief are quite correct, but I wish to have them substantiated by official figures from the department. While I am on my feet I would ask the minister if he can make any statement to-night as to the agreement between the provincial government and the federal department of Labour in connection with the trans-Canada highway in the province of New Brunswick. Have the arrangements been concluded between the provincial and federal governments as to the share the federal government is going to pay, and the route to be followed, on which the payment will be based?


George Gordon: The trans-Canada highway in New Brunswick has been designated so far as our contribution to the work is concerned, from Hartland to Woodstock in the county of Carleton. The work is the laying of a three-inch asphaltic and concrete base, wth one-inch sheet asphalt surface for about a mile. The amount is $3,905 for the dominion contribution.


Peter John Veniot: It is not necessary to give all those details. Can the minister say what route is to be followed?


George Gordon: From Fredericton to Mc-Ginley Ferry; from Saint John city, Westfield Corner to King's and Saint John; from Sussex to Penobsquis, King's county; from Moncton east and west, county of Westmoreland. Those are all the approvals that we have made of suggested work on the trans-Canada highway in New Brunswick.


Peter John Veniot: Has the minister any information as to the route of the trans-Canada highway as defined by the provincial government? Is it from Moncton to Sackville by way of Shediac, cape Bald, and Port Elgin?


George Gordon: The only order in council that has been forwarded to the dominion government by the province of New Brunswick designating the route of the trans-Canada highway covers only a portion I believe of the route. Perhaps it would be best if I read the description:
Beginning at a point from the boundary line between the province of Quebec and the province of New Brunswick where the main trunk
Unemployment Reliej

highway route No. - 2 intersects the said boundary line of the western side of the Madawaska river; thence following the main trunk highway on the west side of Madawaska river to Edmundston; thence along the eastern side of the Saint John river to Grand Falls; thence along the western side of the Saint John river to, Andover crossing Saint John river to Perth; thence down the east side of Saint John river to Hartland; thence down west side of Saint John river through Woodstock, Fredericton, Oromocto, Gagetown, Westfield to Saint John; thence from Saint John through Sussex, Moncton and Sackville to the Nova Scotia boundary near Aulac.


Peter John Veniot: That is quite satisfactory;
thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Agreements with provinces.
Mr. COOTE; It seems to me it is quite evident that, whether a grain board ia set up or not, clause 2 is necessary. The wheat that is held under government guarantee, whatever form that guarantee may take, must be carried for some time, and I may say frankly that that is one of the main reasons why I voted for this bill, which contains many features I do not approve of. I would ask the minister how long the present arrangement with the provinces is to continue and whether a conference has been arranged with the provinces in connection with the grants that are mentioned in clause 2.
George Gordon: The agreements with the
provinces expire by the effluxion of time on the 31st of this month. Arrangements will have to be made without delay with a view to determining what assistance the provinces may need. It seems to be the judgment of some hon. members that of necessity the dominion taxpayer must give more to the provinces than has been the case in the past. I am not at all prepared to acknowledge that to be the situation. I wonder if we in this chamber remember that we have only one set of taxpayers in this country. I sometimes wonder if we are not forgetting that. These matters are in a measure determined by the capacity of the various taxing authorities to raise the money that is thought to be necessary. Arrangements with the provinces will be carried on temporarily after the end of this month until a conference with all the provinces, or with some of them where the arrangements will have to be changed, can be brought about. I cannot give the hon. member the day when such a conference will be convened. It would be utterly impossible for me to do it.


George Gibson Coote: One reason why I asked
the minister the question I did was that in my constituency three large coal mines have been shut down for some time. The last word I had was that they were shut down due to the fact that the railway company had not placed any orders for this year. I do not know just what developments may have occurred during last week. I have taken up this matter with the government and with the railway company in an effort to see if some orders cannot be given to these mines. The whole population of three towns is dependent upon the mines, there being about 900 miners involved. When I received this telegram two weeks ago two of the mines, employing 600 miners, had not worked for three weeks. I understand that the other mine has since stopped operations. The total population of these towns is between three and four thousand, and as the municipalities are wholly dependent upon the operations of the mines they are unable to make any worth while provision for relief. I suppose all they can do is to appeal to the province, and I was wondering if the minister could give us some assurance that when the province makes application to the government, as I suppose it must, there will be as little delay as possible in making some provision for these towns. It is generally agreed that the financial position of the western provinces is not such as to enable them to take care of any considerable addition to their unemployment relief bills. I have no intention of bothering the minister about the matter in connection with this bill, but I do want to impress upon him the seriousness of the situation. I am sure these municipalities have not the resources with which to meet a situation of this kind, even for a period of a few weeks. I do not know to what extent the province will be able to take care of it without some assistance from this government. I urge upon the minister that he hold himself in readiness to give what help he can to these cases. Perhaps the government could persuade the Canadian Pacific Railway to spread its coal orders to take in the three towns involved.


George Gordon: Mr. Chairman, it must
be remembered that this government has been and is now assisting coal production by means of subventions, with the result that Saskatchewan coal has practically displaced competitive foreign fuels in the province of Manitoba. But the paradox is that instead of any control being exercised over coal mines in Alberta, about fifty new mines have been opened in the last few years. All mines in

Unemployment Relief
the province are under the control and jurisdiction of the provincial government. These small mines used to be called waggon mines, but they are now known as truck mines. The result is that the large employers of labour have been eliminated from the home market. I believe the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) is well acquainted with this situation. While the dominion taxpayer is contributing to these coal mines by way of subventions, the Alberta government is charging a royalty on the coal mined.


Charles A. Stewart: I have some sympathy with the minister in this connection. My hon. friends over there who talk so glibly about cooperation, about marketing and over-production might well take a hand in their own province to see what they can do about coal mining. This simply demonstrates how difficult it is to do anything like this. I have been intimately acquainted with the Alberta coal mines for at least twenty-five years. Coal is so plentiful and so easily produced that it is very difficult to control. I remember at one time we had 350 mines operating when fifty would have been sufficient to supply the market. May I say to the minister that I also have some sympathy with the Alberta government. It is very difficult to regulate things of that sort.


George Gordon: From a political standpoint, yes.
Mr. -STEWART (Edmonton): If this government is going to regulate business, if it is going to control everybody and everything produced, it has a very good example in Alberta coal mining of how far it will get. The theory is good but the difficulty is that it does not work out in practice. These people are anxious to sell their coal in eastern Canada and they could sell it if it could be brought down. The difficulty is that there is over-production. There is no question in the world that we have not solved the problem of over-production of coal. This brings me to the question of wheat. This afternoon the minister gave a new angle on wheat marketing as carried out by the government. I did not know that they were gambling in wheat.


George Gordon: I said I was not a
gambler.


Charles A. Stewart: I thought they were buying wheat and holding it.


Robert James Manion: He was referring to your
critics.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
understand it in that way. From the very meagre information which the government has let out from time to time I understood that the wheat was being purchased outright through the agency of Mr. McFarland and that the government now owned such wheat as might be in their possession. Other countries having wheat boards give out statistics which are published by our statistical department, but we are denied any information as to the year after year straight purchasing by this government. I do not understand why the government wants to keep this a secret. If they think the grain trade is not aware of what wheat they are holding they are greatly mistaken, because these gentlemen have ways and means of telling exactly the amount of wheat being held. Any western member knows this. These gentlemen are able to ascertain fairly accurately the amounts held in the farmer's bins. To me the thing is a huge joke, but I suppose as long as this government is in power the joke will be perpetuated. I hope the government gets out of it with a profit, as we would like to see the government clean up this mess before we have anything to do with it.
Some hon. member on the other side remarked that when this government took office there was a vast amount of wheat being held. The Liberal government never embarked on the purchase of wheat. It did not need to do that, as in those days the wheat pools were doing all the marketing of the wheat of western Canada. But they finally found themselves in difficulty and appealed to the provincial governments. Later on this government got into wheat marketing, and I am not going to say whether they were right or wrong. As a western farmer there is one thing I do know: Since the government has been operating I have taken the lowest prices for my wheat in all the years I have been raising wheat in western Canada. I do not say that this condition was brought about because the government engaged in the marketing of wheat, but that has been my personal experience. The Prime Minister has once or twice said, "If we had not purchased the wheat you would not have got anything for it." I have some doubts about that and I will reserve my remarks in regard to the wheat situation until the bill comes down, when we can discuss every aspect of it.
Although I realize how useless it is, I must protest against the wide powers contained in this -bill. Ever since it has been in office this government has repeatedly come here, year
Unemployment Relief

after year, and said, "All the information we can give you is with regard to what happened last year, but we will spend any amount of money we like, in any way we like, in any place we like, when this bill is passed." In the Department of the Interior, over which I had the honour to preside, hon. gentlemen opposite when they sat over here made meticulous demands to know where every dollar would be spent, and now when the estimates for that department come down no one knows how much will be spent, in the parks, for instance. That is a right the government has taken away from parliament. My hon. friends opposite can spend any amount anywhere in the construction of roads, public buildings and so on, and parliament has no voice whatever in the matter. I cannot help thinking that hon. gentlemen opposite know just as much as we do over here about what will be done; they have not a particle more knowledge than we have. The men who constitute the government sit around a table and make these allocations as they please. I protest now, as I have protested before and will continue to protest, against this method. It may be necessary to have unidentified sums voted for the purpose of assisting the provinces, but there is certainly no excuse on earth that I can think of for the expenditure of public money in the parks under the guise of relief without having that money voted, as it has always been voted in the past, thereby preserving the rights of parliament in .the matter. And the same applies to every other expenditure of public money on undertakings which the government itself is carrying out; they should be separated from this act. If there is any excuse on earth for this bill it can only be the fact that my hon. friends do not know how much they will spend in conjunction with the provinces, but there is no excuse whatever for including in the bill the right of the government to make expenditures over which they have complete control, without the money being voted. There is not much use protesting, however. Our good friends say it is remarkable that the Liberal party should be agreeing with the Conservative party in all these matters of social reform now being passed. What is the use of protesting? My hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) has just remarked that he voted for the bill this afternoon-I was not here-on the ground that it contained a provision for continuing cooperative marketing. Well, he need not have worried because the government own the wheat and will have to sell it. They are bringing down a bill under 
which they will operate next year-I fancy that will be the effect of it-and if he objects to the rest of the bill I do not see that there was much necessity for his voting for the bill to continue the wheat operations seeing that the government of Canada practically speaking own all the wheat now. However I want to make it quite plain that I am. protesting as strongly as I can against the practice that has been followed by this government, without letting us know the details as to. place or anything else, or spending public money in the way that has been done. Possibly they do not know themselves, though they should know. All we know is that the returns come in as provided for under the act and we are so informed when parliament meets. Talk about autocracy: we have it in the fullest measure year by year, and again this year in the particular bill which we are now discussing.


George Gibson Coote: I want to refer briefly again to the coal mines I have already mentioned. These mines are producing bituminous coal, not domestic coal, eighty-five per cent of which is used by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and they were all operated almost to capacity during the war. They are still there, but unfortunately there is not now as great a demand for coal as there was at that time. A community has settled around each one of these mines, with municipalities dependent on the operation of the mines, and that is why I take the liberty of bringing the matter to the attention of the minister. I should like to be assured that in passing this bill we are making provision whereby, if the government are appealed to, they will be able to deal with a situation which someone should look after if these mines are closed for any considerable period.


Vincent Dupuis: How much has been spent during the last year in connection with each province by way of grant, loan, advances or guarantees, public works or direct relief? I think it would be interesting to know these details by provinces.


George Gordon: It would be very difficult to give the exact amounts. Of course, we could not give them up to the end of this fiscal year but I would point out that in the province of Quebec-there may be reasons for it-we cannot determine how much we have yet to pay because the accounts are very slow in coming in. I am not saying this in any spirit of criticism of that province, but I do know that we get the accounts six months and even as long as eighteen months after the work has been done and the money

Unemployment Relief
expended. I have in mind now some instances of accounts coming in from the province of Quebec two years old, so that it is extremely difficult for me to give an accurate picture to show what is spent in each of the provinces. Ontario is exceedingly prompt in sending in accounts, and so is Manitoba; others are not so prompt.


Vincent Dupuis: Which?


George Gordon: The tables themselves will disclose that. If the hon. member will be patient the report will be tabled in the course of a few days and will disclose all these accounts as between the dominion and the provinces. I could not put on the record at the moment the figures he has asked for, but they will appear in the report.


Vincent Dupuis: In section 2 of the bill I see that the government is coming to the relief of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited. I have nothing to do with and I do not intend to go into the intricacies of the operations of the wheat producers, but I represent producers of other agricultural commodities who are very much interested in this matter. For instance, in my riding the production of vegetables on a very large scale is carried on, among them being potatoes, tomatoes and so forth. I have also in my constituency many dairy producers. This afternoon I heard some hon. members asking the Minister of Railways whether he could not reduce freight rates for I believe the potato producers of New Brunswick. That minister replied that if he had nothing to do *but to answer all those requests favourably, the railways of Canada would have to run without making any charge. Perhaps the Minister of Railways cannot do anything; but just to equalize grants among the provinces in a spirit of equity and justice, would it not be possible for the Minister of Labour, in this very clause in which he is providing something in favour of the wheat producers, to which I have no objection, to provide something by way of a premium for instance to the butter producers? Could he not give a premium which would cover the freight rate reductions that were sought by the members who spoke on the subject this aftemon, or make a grant to the potato producers of that province? I am inclined to think this would be an excellent way of demonstrating the desire of this government to help our farmers, whatever they may produce.
Another aspect of the question which I should like to bring before the committee is the financial situation of the municipalities. I heard many members this afternoon and
evening speaking of municipalities being on the verge of bankruptcy. I do not think such statements constitute a very good advertisement for our municipalities, nevertheless I am sure the minister will admit that this state of affairs cannot continue very long before the municipalities in general will be unable to bear their share of direct relief or contribute toward the construction of public works. I know in my riding at least one municipality which is unable to pay a single cent for the purpose of relieving the unemployed. This municipality, a small one, was living by the taxes of workers in the brick industry. Since 1930 those brick plants have been idle and at least a hundred families are practically in a State of starvation. They are all small, humble proprietors and consequently unable to pay their taxes, and the municipality is- I hate to use the word "bankrupt"-really unable to provide the money to come to their rescue. The minister is in a better position than I am to know how many municipalities throughout Canada are in a similar situation. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) a few minutes ago spoke of one municipality being unable to provide its share of relief expenditures. How can the government undertake to carry on this new policy of giving a fixed amount to each province, when already in each province, municipality after municipality is becoming unable to provide a single cent of its share of relief? I should be glad to see this government give evidence that there is less unemployment to-day than there was last year, but the figures that have been given so far prove the contrary; there are more unemployed this year than there were last.


Mr. DUPRE:: No. Why does the hon. member say that?


Vincent Dupuis: The last figure given was 1,300,000.


Maurice Dupré: No.


Vincent Dupuis: Maytbe not unemployed, but on relief. As regards the question of unemployment we have had from the government side many figures starting from the Prime Minister's statement at first that there were about five hundred thousand. Then another minister stated that there were about twice as many. We do not know yet what the facts are.


Maurice Dupré: What other minister said
so?


Vincent Dupuis: The Solicitor General should follow these debates every day. I do not
Unemployment Relief

blame him for not following them as closely as he should because he is a very busy man, but if he will look in Hansard he will find out that several statements were made that were entirely at variance.


Maurice Dupré: Will the hon. member give
the name?


Vincent Dupuis: I do not want to start an
argument about the matter, but the question is sufficiently serious this year and the signs of improvement are so scarce that we should expect from the government a policy not so rigid, one rather in the spirit of the promises made before the last election, one that would be more in accord with the situation at the beginning of the present administration in 1930 when they were ready to end unemployment, to give work to everybody, to develop industries, to transform raw materials into finished products to be sold in this country, and to prevent importations. That was the policy of this government. What has occurred? Nothing has been done. Day by day we see statistics showing that every month raw materials are being exported to the value of hundreds of thousands of dollars to foreign countries to be manufactured there, though the present government made specific promises that if they ever came to power they would try to encourage industries in Canada to carry on this work of manufacture. That has not been done as yet, after five years of tergiversation. I am convinced that it is high time this government came to a decision in line with their policy of 1930. This is not a farce; we have a serious state of affairs in this country. The eyes of the people are on this parliament, and the people are hoping that before a general election this government will come to their rescue. The purpose of this bill is to relieve the unemployed and needy. The people of this country are not looking for direct relief; they are looking for work, but if this government are unable to give them work at least they should give them relief according to the needs of the municipalities and provinces.


George Gordon: Before the section carries, Mr. Chairman, I notice that there is a slight typographical omission. The clause should read, "upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon." The word "be" is left out, and I would move that it be inserted.


Thomas Reid: I should like to direct a
question to the attention of the minister. Last year a report was presented to the house

by the auditor general, having to do I believe with a survey ordered by the government covering the whole dominion in connection with the administration of relief and the expenditure of money by the various provincial governments. In that report an item appeared in connection with the province of British Columbia, amounting to some $62,000 expended on stores, which remained unaccounted for. I wonder if the minister has any statement to make as to whether that matter has been looked into, where the money was spent and who got it.


George Gordon: The item to which reference is made, together with other items that are in the course of adjustment, is still the subject of correspondence. between this government and the government of British Columbia. Representatives of that government and the auditor general's office still have that and other items under advisement.


Thomas Reid: I would urge upon the minister that this item, at any rate, should be pursued.


George Gordon: They will all be pursued.


Thomas Reid: Because $62,000 of stores disappeared.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: Shall the section as amended carry?


Vincent Dupuis: In the course of my remarks I directed some questions to the minister, and I should like to have him answer them. I want to know particularly if under the bill this government intend to help other producers than wheat producers.


George Gordon: This government have
already helped vegetable and fruit producers in Canada by committing what I assume hon. gentlemen opposite would call another great crime, that is, by establishing a very high seasonal tariff against the importation of competitive fruits, and vegetables. They have also passed and made available to those engaged in the growing of such produce as that to which the hon. member has made reference, the marketing act, though I believe up to the present the producers in the province of Quebec have not availed themselves of it. I have no doubt that they will do so, and I believe that if they do so they will be benefited very materially. So far as my information goes and I believe it to be accurate, already the market gardeners have received great benefits where the act has been applied. I do not think I can say more.

Unemployment Reliej


Vincent Dupuis: The minister says the province of Quebec has not availed itself of the provisions of the marketing act. If I am correctly informed in the western provinces a vote was taken as to the advisability of taking advardage of the marketing act and a great majoruy of the producers refused to do so because of the results that have been obtained so far. I should like to know from the minister how and when the farmers of this country derived any benefit from that act.


Eccles James Gott: What about the price of tobacco?


Vincent Dupuis: I am not speaking of onions now.


Eccles James Gott: I am speaking of tobacco.


Vincent Dupuis: The minister mentioned a seasonal tariff. That was imposed in the Dunning budget, but the Dunning tariff was far better than the tariff imposed by this government. I might just cite an instance in which this government raised the tariff. In 1931 the tariff on potatoes was increased to 75 cents per hundred pounds. I mentioned this fact a week or two ago and some hon. member opposite denied it. I have looked up the record since then, and I find that I was correct. What was the result? After this government raised the tariff from 50 cents to 75 cents per hundred pounds our neighbour to the south raised the tariff to the same level. In that country the tariff was 50 cents; it was increased to 75 cents, and although the consumers of the United States required our potatoes and came to buy them, they could not afford to pay the freight and the customs duty, so our producers were deprived of that market. That is the only result of the action of this government, though they come here and say they did so much for the farmers of this country by raising the tariff in 1930. If this is the only thing they have to their credit I should be afraid if I were to your right, Mr. Chairman, to face the electors at the next election.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-'Maintain peace, order and good government.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Shall the section carry?
Mr. RIN!FRET: On division.
Section agreed to on division.
Sections 4 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
On the preamble.


Mr. SPENCER:: Before the preamble
carries ll should like to refer to a statement made a few moments ago by the hon. member sitting to my right. He referred to a vote taken in connection with the marketing act, and stated that a great majority had voted against the act. If I am correctly informed a majority in the three provinces, taken together, voted for the act.


Vincent Dupuis: In one province, for one product, they voted against the act.


Mr. HACKETT:: Chickens only.


Vincent Dupuis: Chickens are very important.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the Minister of Labour when I may expect to have some information about the classification of the unemployed, and if it will take long to get it? No answer? Well, you see, we have the same performance in the present instance as we had when the post office estimates were before us. The minister wants his bill to pass, and the Postmaster General wants his estimates to pass, but neither wishes to give any information. "Wait and see." "Wait until this has passed, and then I will give you some information"-which no one will be able to discuss. This is most extraordinary. How can the minister say he will bring relief to the unemployed if he has no information concerning the trades or professions of these unemployed people? The only answer I have received was from the Prime Minister when on one occasion last year he said they were doing their best. I wonder if the best the government can do is nothing, or if it is something. How can the minister do anything for any person, or for any of the unemployed, if he does not know the trade or profession of each unemployed person? How can he bring relief to the unemployed without having due information? This is basic information. The Minister of Railways and Canals, who is now in his seat, is always complaining that the opposition does not offer constructive suggestions. This is a constructive suggestion, and he will not deny it because it has the sanction of his chief.
Hon. gentlemen opposite say that by voting such and such an amount we will bring relief to the unemployed, and there has been blank cheque legislation by virtue of which the government has lent money to Newfoundland, lent money to the Canadian Pacific Railway, increased the value of the stock held by the Sun Life Assurance Company, and so on. The reason the government come again with blank cheque legislation is that they have no policy. They bring it to
Unemployment Belief

cover up their ignorance of facts, and I am sorry for them. I am sorry, too, for those who are suffering on account of this government's action. The unemployed are not only those who get relief but they are those who had positions in the towns and who because of a decrease in trade have not been able to continue and have had to return to their fathers for their livings. I am sorry for them.
When I ask the minister for information, fundamental and basic information, he cannot answer because he has not the information. Did the Prime Minister tell the truth when he said he was doing his best in that regard? He was speaking on behalf of the government, on behalf of the Minister of Labour as well as the other ministers. What did the Prime Minister mean when he said, "We are doing our best with regard to the classification of unemployed "? Is the minister willing to answer this pertinent question? No answer yet. As Shakespeare has said, silence is the answer.


Mr. LOUCKS:: Everything comes to him who waits.
Mr. POUiLIOT:	It is a very sad performance. Here we have the Minister of Labour who gives lectures to all the provincial governments about the way they should deal with the unemployed, and yet he has not the basic facte. He has no more basic facts than the Postmaster General had, nor has he more than most of his colleagues have. I am sorry for one thing only, and it is that some of the ministers are able men, but they will look after only the immediate business of their departments. That procedure is a credit to them, but they take very little interest in the general policy of the government. They leave that to the other ministers. So far as general policy is concerned they lean on the shoulders of others. That is why a member cannot get an answer when he asks a pertinent question. Sir, on behalf of those whom I have the honour bo represent and on behalf of the Canadian people as a whole I have the right to ask the minister please to answer this question:	What did the Prime Minister
mean when a year ago he said, " We are doing our best with regard to the classification of the unemployed "? May I ask this question of the minister?


Eccles James Gott: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: Nio, sir; I want an answer. I want to know what the Prime Minister meant, because he is the superhead of the Department of Labour; he is the superhead of any department of the government, and fMr. Pouliot.]
the information he had is the information the minister should now have. Therefore if the Prime Minister had it the Minister of Labour should have it, and especially when he has in front of him not only his deputy but also the gentleman in charge of ^relief. If he does not know, his deputy should Know, and if his deputy does not know, the head of the relief branch should know. If no one of the trinity knows, then let us dispense with them.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Carried?


Jean-François Pouliot: No. I shall give due time to the minister to answer, but I want an answer and the country wants an answer.


William John Loucks: How do you like the way you are getting it?


Eccles James Gott: There is no answer.


Jean-François Pouliot: No answer.


Eccles James Gott: No.
Mr. POUiLIOT:	I have more to say to
you. Hansard is recording the fact that several times the minister has not answered this very pertinent and legitimate question.


George Gordon: I am waiting until the
hon. member gets through.


Jean-François Pouliot: I sat down four times.


George Gordon: The hon. member for
Temiscouata wants me to state whether or not on an occasion in the past the Prime Minister was telling the truth. I believe in substance I have stated his question. All I can say is that I have known the Prime Minister for about thirty years, and my relations with him in the past five years have been rather intimate. From my acquaintanceship with him I would say he is a man who sticks religiously to the truth in all matters. I have no objection to making any possible explanation with respect to the matter of registration, about which the hon. member has quite properly asked. In 1931 even before the census was completed the provinces were asked by the dominion to make a registration such as the hon. member for Temiscouata has suggested. Ontario made a registration, and it was disclosed that in the registration made by that province school children and everybody went on the registration list. People came in from the country and registered in the city purely for the purpose of getting on relief. When that was made abundantly plain the province notified the dominion that the registration made was of little value. I think they said we could safely divide it in half.

Supply-Railways-Tourists
The province of Quebec would not make a registration because the premier of that province said that in his judgment it would only be an open invitation-I think I am not overstating the case-to make the registration that was suggested. I do not think a registration ever was made in that province. One or two of the smaller provinces made a registration, not a complete but a partial one, and they give us the benefit of the information they obtained. That is the situation. We rely, and must of necessity rely, upon the provincial machinery for information of that kind other than the information which is collected by the Labour department through the agency of the trade unions.


Vincent Dupuis: Is there any registration in Ontario?


George Gordon: Not at the present time.
I have just been explaining that they tried to make a registration that would be helpful but it was found to be entirely inaccurate for the reasons I have indicated. That is the situation so far as registration is concerned. I think that what the hon. member for Temis-couata has suggested is quite a sound thing if it could be done, and we have repeatedly asked the provinces, being constantly in contact with their people, particularly in connection with the administration of relief, if they could devise some scheme whereby a continuous registration could be available. They say they cannot, and I can well understand that there would be grave and serious difficulties in the way of doing it. That is what has been attempted, and that is what has been the result.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman, but first I wish to tell him that I did not say that the Prime Minister did not tell the truth. Otherwise I would not have asked him that question. It was because I believed the Prime Minister was telling the trutih that I asked the question, and again I thank the hon. gentleman for the explanation he has just given to the house and the country. The minister says that my suggestion, although good, is not practical from a certain point of view because the federal government can get that information only through the provinces.


George Gordon: Except the information
we get from the census.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh yes, but that is an old story. To come down to modem history, to the number of unemployed at the present time and their classification by trade or profession, it is very easy to gather that information, and
if there is to be an interprovincial conference this important question should be brought before the provinces in order that the country may be well posted on it. May I say to the minister that prominent members of the St. Vincent de Paul Society have told me that the information could be secured within twenty-four hours, that it was there and had only to be compiled. That information could also be secured, not through trades unions, but by charitable organizations like the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and the St. Vincent de Paul Society which I have already mentioned. Therefore in the interests of the country I now ask the Minister of Labour to take due steps to have the unemployed classified. It would serve the government well because as soon as that classification is made the governments, whether federal or provincial does not matter, and I use the plural intentionally, will be able to distinguish between those who are really unemployed and those who take advantage of relief in order to get assistance to which they are not entitled. The saving of money thus made would compensate for any expense that might be incurred in making such a classification. I cannot close my brief remarks without thanking the minister for his answer. It has taken me a long time, five years, to get that answer from him, but at last to-night I have got it, and I am satisfied he is now on the right path and I hope he will continue in it.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, on division, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Miscellaneous-
To assist in promoting tourist business in Canada, $200,000.
Mr. THOMPSON (Simcoe):: Before this vote is carried I should like to say a few words, and first of all I should like to congratulate the Minister of Railways upon his very able presentation of the case for Canada as a country offering many attractions to the outside tourist. I think the whole country owes a debt of gratitude to Hon. Mr Dennis, Senator from Halifax, because it was upon his initiative that the Senate appointed a special committee last session to inquire into the possibilities of the tourist traffic and to ascertain what steps could be taken to encourage and develop this traffic. As a result
Supply-Railways-Tourists

of the work of that committee a publicity department was established, from which excellent results are to be expected.
Among the facts brought out by the committee was that in 1929, the last year in which good times prevailed in the United States, Canada received a revenue of $310,000,000 from the outside tourist trade. Those who have made a study of this matter anticipate that when times once more become normal the trade will provide a revenue of $500,000,000. I think that this is the opportune time to make a special drive for this trade. It is said that 20,000/300 people visited the Chicago fair in 1933, with possibly a like number in 1934. It is natural to expect that many of these people will be looking for a new place in which to spend their vacation this year, and there is no country with the attractions of Canada. If a special drive is made immediately we could expect a large share of this trade. The whole dominion is interested in this question, but Ontario is particularly interested because of its proximity to the more populous centres of the United States. In addition our province has the added advantage of good roads and easy access by rail and water.
There is no trade or industry-I think we can call it that-which provides such general and in some cases generous benefits. Practically all classes of the community receive benefits from this trade. The hotel keeper, the boarding house keeper, the merchant, the garage man, the mechanic, the cook, the guide, the boat livery man, the farmer and the market gardener all receive direct benefits from this trade, and through them the benefits are spread to all classes in the community. Large sums of money have been spent upon our railroads and highways, and if this tourist traffic is encouraged we will be able to obtain some return on our investment. Those who have spoken before me on this question have laid before the house some of the special attractions which their particular province or constituency possesses, and perhaps I may be allowed to do the same thing.
I consider that my riding of East Simcoe possesses unique advantages because of its history and scenery. The history of this riding goes back to 1615 when Champlain, that great adventurer from France, journeyed up the Ottawa river, passed into lake Nipis-sing, came out into Georgian bay, then down to Penetanguishene, finally landing at Orillia. He wintered there in anticipation of joining the Huron Indians on a warlike expedition against the Iroquois. Through the public spirit which is characteristic of them, the

citizens of Orillia have erected a monument to the memory of Champlain which is said to be the finest of its kind in Canada. This was made possible only after a considerable expenditure of time and money, aided by contributions from the dominion, Ontario and Quebec governments. Every year thousands of tourists from Canada and the United States visit Orillia in order to view this monument.
I suggest to the minister that in any publicity issued in connection with the tourist traffic particular mention should be made of this monument.
Adjacent to the town of Midland is a martyr's shrine erected to the memory of those heroic Jesuit missionaries, Fathers Brebeuf and Lallemant, who were taken captive by the Iroquois and so cruelly tortured to death. This shrine is a most attractive spot for tourists from Ontario, Quebec and the United States, and I think it should be emphasized in any publicity which is issued.
Penetanguishene celebrated its tercentenary in 1919, a delay of four years having occurred because of the war. The chiefs of the Huron and Iroquois tribes were invited to be present, and they met and smoked the pipe of peace and entered into what is hoped will be a lasting treaty. During the war of 1812 Penetanguishene was selected as the proper place for the establishment of a naval and military station. At the conclusion of the war the American war vessels Tigress and Scorpion, which were captured from the Americans at Mackinaw, were sunk. Recently one of them has been brought to the surface and provides an object of great interest to American tourists. So much for the historic points in my riding.
I shall deal now with the points of special scenic beauty. My riding lies at the gateway of the thirty thousand islands of the Georgian bay. This area has recently been made a national park by the dominion government. The trip from Midland to Parry Sound through the inside channel is said to be the finest trip of its kind in Canada. I suggest to hon. members that if they want to see something of the beauties of Ontario they should take that trip. In addition to the wonderful trip among the thirty thousand islands we have the Severn river which forms the northern link of the Trent waterways connecting Georgian bay with lake Couchiching. Thousands of tourists spend the summer there and there is room for thousands more. I have mentioned briefly a few of the attractive points in my riding and I am sure I voice the views of my constituency when I say that we are heartily in favour of this vote.

Supply-Railways-Tourists


Mr. PECK:: I would not consider it necessary to speak but for the fact that the people I represent are very much interested in the tourist traffic. The county of Peterborough offers a great deal of attraction to tourists who come by thousands to enjoy the scenery. We are able to give them and we do give them a very pleasant time and they come again. I agree with my hon. friend from East Simcoe as to the attractiveness of that general system that runs from Georgian bay to the Trent, known as the Kawartha system, comprising islands, lakes, rivers and canals. It attracts many thousands of people to its shores every year and those whom I represent are particularly interested in promoting the traffic. Other places in Canada are similarly situated and are looking for tourists. I am quite sure therefore that the government is doing the wise thing in setting aside a sum of money to advertise the traffic and to make provision for tourists to see that they are properly guarded against exorbitant charges. The bureau can do a great deal in furnishing information to the prospective tourist. After all, the best advertisement that Canada can have is the good will of those who visit the country and report favourably upon its advantages. That is the first essential. Further, the bureau should be in a position to give information to those who are ignorant of the country and are anxious to know where they can spend a happy and profitable holiday at reasonable cost. It will be the function of the bureau to collect all this information and to check it over, and it can do many things to smooth the way for the tourist. The tourist wants a reasonable means of approaching the particular point on which he has set his mind; he wants to know that he will be comfortably looked after at moderate cost; he wants to know that fishing is provided for, and he wants to know particularly that he will be able to get into ready communication with his own home by mail, telegraph or telephone. A good many inquiries are made respecting the district I come from with regard to these points particularly which I have enumerated, and the officer in charge of the bureau can do a good deal in cooperation with the various departments to clear up such points. Every man coming to visit us wants to know, as I have said, that he will be able to get into ready communication with his home in case of emergency. From every point of view therefore we can commend this appropriation and I congratulate the government. I assure them it will do a great deal to improve the tourist traffic and increase the numbers of those who visit us.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Before the house rose a few days ago I mentioned the great buffalo park situated between Wainwright and Har-disty in Alberta. There are a few particulars which I wish to put on record with regard to this park, which has the reputation of being the largest buffalo park with the largest herd of buffalo in the world. The park is situated on the main line of the Canadian National railways, 127 miles east of Edmonton and 199 miles west of Saskatoon. It has an area of 125,000 acres. The buffalo were first introduced into the park in 1910, and the locality being exceedingly good for them, and great care having been taken of them, they have increased enormously; from 748 they have increased to 24,000. Various means have been taken to keep the herd within reasonable numbers owing to the limited pasture. In the years from 1925 to 1928 no less than 6,673 were moved north to the Wood Buffalo park in the Great Slave lake region, and during recent years a great number of the older animals have been slaughtered-to be exact, 10,545. We still have approximately 5,000 in t)he park. Besides buffalo we have 1,000 head of elk, 2,500 mule deer, 95 moose and a small herd of yak. There are many interesting crosses between the buffalo, the yak and the domestic, which are of considerable interest to visitors. Last year visitors to the park numbered 12,631. The park is surrounded by a high wire fence, nine feet high, stretching for over one hundred miles. I am glad to say that we have at Wainwright Park a very able administrator in Mr. Smith, who goes to a great deal of trouble to give every consideration to visitors. I want to put these facts on record because I think the parks should be advertised more extensively. I believe that the money being spent by the government in advertising these different parks is all to the good. Apart from the park there is another attraction in the Wainwright area, where we have the second largest oil field in Canada, so that if people get tired looking at the buffalo they can look at possible investments in this important oil field.


Finlay MacDonald: There has been such unanimity with regard to this appropriation that I hesitate to take up the time of the committee, but it would be most unusual and neglectful if on such a discussion as this the province of Nova Scotia were 'overlooked. That province is the playground of the Atlantic, and the constituency which I have the honour to represent is from the tourist standpoint the chief asset of that province. In addition to the attractions that should be held out to tourists

Supply-Railways-Tourists

and that have been mentioned by the minister and also by the hon. member for East Simcoe; in addition to the courtesy, kindness and hospitality that should be shown to tourists, there should be attractions in the shape of good roads, hotels and tourist camps which also should be developed.
The hon. member for East Simcoe in his very worthy address referred to the historic aspects of his constituency. Well, the tourist that comes to Nova Scotia in nine cases out of ten wishes to see the one historic point in Canada that is probably more important than any other, and that is the old town of Louisburg. They read about it in their schoolbooks many years ago, and as the years went on their interest no doubt grew. Perhaps as they took a deeper interest in Canadian history they got a better view and a keener realization of the importance of the fall of Louisburg in 1758. At that time Louisburg was the key to the gulf of St. Lawrence; the taking of that town meant the taking of the French citadel on the Atlantic coast. The following year the British were enabled to make Louisburg a strategic point from which to take Quebec. Had it not been for the capture of Louisburg in 1758, it would have been very difficult if not impossible to take Quebec the following year, and thus students of history recognize that in that old town was fought out and probably settled the destiny of Canada and probably of the whole North American continent for all time to come.
I admire the efforts of hon. members who have already spoken in praise of the beauties of their various constituencies, but I wonder what would happen to them and to their point of view if they visited the province of Nova Scotia and the county of Cape Breton There is where the east begins; there is where the sun first kisses the eastern shore of Canada, and I venture to say that in the course of its long journey until it sets in the waters of the Pacific it does not look upon a more beautiful scene than that which greets it at dawn in Nova Scotia.
I wish I could induce some hon. members to visit the island of Cape Breton and take just a short trip around it. The first spot I would take them to would be the village of Margaree, where is possibly the most fertile valley in the eastern provinces. There is to be found the celebrated Margaree river, the paradise of the angler, where salmon and trout abound and where the greatest hospitality is extended to the tourist. The tourist after a few days' visit there goes home
{Mr. F. MacDonald.]
satisfied with the treatment he has received, with the fish he has caught and probably with material enough to furnish conversation for many a long evening. From there I would take him along the celebrated Cabot trail over the tip of Cape North, up the side of a mountain the size of which is such that it makes even the Alps and the Rocky mountains dwindle, and on which cars go in low gear until they reach the top. From that point of vantage you can see in the distance Prince Edward Island, the garden of the gulf, so described by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Myers) the other day'. Turning your gaze to the right you see the distant shores of Newfoundland, then down the Atlantic coast over the mountain of Smoky is the village of Baddeck, made prominent many years ago by Charles W. Warner, and now the resting place of Alexander Graham Bell, the great inventor, who having travelled over the world picked this spot as one of the most beautiful he had ever seen. It was there that the first aeroplanes flew in the Dominion of Canada, and there opens to the eyes of the public the beauty of the great Bras d'Or lakes. A little further on we come to the village of St. Ann's, the birthplace and resting place of the celebrated giant McAskill.
When hon. members who speak of the attractions of their constituencies refer to fishing such as is afforded by the lakes of Ontario and other small spots, they are speaking simply of minor league fish. If they want to have big league fish they have to come down to Cape Breton island. There we have a fish called the tuna, a member of the horse mackerel family. I might read just one short description of it:
In no other waters of the world are there found so many world champion heavyweight deep sea fighters and few with so abundant a variety of lightweight sport fish. They range along the south shore and off Cape Breton. Nova Scotia tuna-the battling giants of the sea! The biggest thrill awaiting those who find their sport with rod and line! The gamest and most enduring fighters in the ocean are the tuna found in Nova Scotian waters.
Progress reported.



KINGSTON PENITENTIARY

Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: I
would] like to ask the government a question in regard to a rather important matter. Have they any information regarding a rumoured revolt and fire at Kingston penitentiary?

Privilege

Mr. Mackenzie King
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Acting Prime Minister)' Revolt and what?


John Power Howden: There is a reported rebellion and fire at the Kingston penitentiary, I understand.
Sir GEORiGE PERLEY: I have heard nothing about it, and the Minister of Justice is not here to-night. He will take note of the question.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 22, 1935