March 11, 1932

?

An hon. MEMBER:

Was it done?

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink
LIB-PRO

John Livingstone Brown

Liberal Progressive

Mr. BROWN:

Yes, I must say I understand the result was satisfactory, but when cattle are starving time is the most important factor. I have had communication with the department, also with the officials in Winnipeg, but up to date I have had no satisfactory information as to exactly what took place in the correspondence between the two governments. I have called for the correspondence but it has not yet been brought down. I see it has been brought down in the Manitoba legislature, but so far we have had only newspaper reports and I have not had time to examine it. At present, therefore, we are in the dark. I do say that whatever the government does in the future it has been woefully negligent in the past in taking action at the opportune moment when, as I have said, time is one of the most important factors.

I shall not have time to go further into this question to-day. I may be able to do so on some future occasion, but reverting to the subject I was discussing in the first place, I would direct attention to the remarks made last night by the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor), who pointed out, in opposing this resolution, that we have been given no indication of the government's purpose. They ask us to grant them certain powers up to the first of May. But what after the first of May? Surely it is treating us without that consideration which is due to members of parliament who have been chosen by their constituents to represent them here. Our constituents may have been wrong in sending us here, but they have sent us and we wish to do the best we can to protect their interests. We wish to be treated with the dignity with which men who have been placed in this position should be treated. And it is not treating us with dignity when the Prime

Unemployment Continuance Act

Minister, representing the government, comes before us and says, "We wish to have these powers extended up to the first of May," giving us no indication of what is in his mind, of what he proposes to do after that date, but simply asking us to take a leap in the dark. His attitude reminds us of that rhyme we heard when we were children: "Open your mouth and shut your eyes and I'll give you something to make you wise."

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink
CON

Jean Louis Baribeau

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. L. BARIBEAU (Champlain) (Translation) :

Mr. Speaker, there is so much

obstruction, on the part of the opposition, to this measure aiming at amending chapter 58 of the Statutes of Canada, 1931, by striking out the word "March" in clause 8, to replace it by "May", a bill aiming at extending to May the operation of the Unemployment Relief Act, that I deem it my duty to rise and speak in favour of this resolution. I think that those opposing the bill would not feel so much at ease in discussing this measure in their respective constituencies, because the voting of this resolution introduced by the right hon. Prime Minister is anxiously sought 'by all citizens of Canada.

I am speaking on behalf of the great majority of my constituents, which I have the honour to represent, when I request the government to extend the period in which relief will be given to the unemployed. I received within the last days, a telephone message from the mayor of Grand'Mere, asking me to take the necessary steps to get the Act extended. The mayor of Grand'Mere who is highly thought of by his fellow citizens, does not share my political views. I am certain that he does not approve of the numerous speeches delivered by the representatives of his party, on this question.

I also had the occasion, in the course of last week of meeting the mayor of the town of Cap-de-la-Madeleine, and on behalf of his fellow citizens he asked me to do my very best to have the government continue the relief of the unemployed in his town.

May I, sir, point out that the towns of Grand'Mere and Cap-de-la-Madeleine are the most important centres in my county.

I also deem it my duty to state in the house that the Unemployment Relief Act has had 'beneficial results in the county of Champlain, a county particularly affected by the depression existing in the pulp and paper industries-a crisis for which no one holds the government responsible.

I shall close my remarks, sir, believing that I have done my duty in supporting a measure which is asked for by all my constituents, without party distinction. They are thankful for what the government has done to relieve the unemployed, who, for the most part, are strangers attracted to this country by the intensive immigration policy of the former regime; and if we find Canadians among these unemployed, it is because foreigners have taken from them the means of earning their living.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink
CON

Bernard Munroe Stitt

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. B. M. STITT (Nelson):

After sitting

in this house listening to the debate of the last week, if it can be called a debate, I have come to the conclusion that the chief objection on the part of hon. members opposite seems to lie in the thought that the resolution now before the house is too stringently Conservative. Well, I am quite sure that those who are in need, even though they may think that this legislation is ultraConservative, feel that it is a happy and wholesome fault.

A few days ago the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), in his speech said, as reported at page 705 of Hansard:

The women and children who are suffering in this country to-day have asked the Prime Minister for bread, they have asked him for work, but he has given them not even a stone. . . .

The same women and children are now asking for bread and the leader of the opposition has not given them even a speech. It seems to me that if all that this government has done for suffering humanity in this country can be called a stone, the people who have been given relief will very much prefer that stone to some of the idle chatter we have been forced to listen to in the last week. The people of Canada at this moment are wondering whether or not we are big enough Canadians to cast off this political leprosy that is threatening to destroy us in these times of danger and anxiety, and I suggest that if we are not big enough to do this we are not worthy to be called Canadians.

Some hon. gentlemen have said that what the government is looking for is suggestions. I would make one now, and it is constructive. I would suggest to hon. members opposite, who for the past week have been rehashing the speech made by the leader of the opposition last July, that they have it recorded on a series of gramophone records

1C36

Unemployment Continuance Act

and place the gramophone in the lobby and play it to their hearts' content. I can assure those hon. gentlemen that if they have any trouble financing this little deal we on this side will contribute quite generously to it in order that we may get about the business of the country. Surely there is no room for sectionalism in Canada, and by the same token there is no room for sectionalism here. Give and take is the essence of our federation. We are Canadians before we are provincials and should not forget that in promoting the general welfare of Canada as a whole we are promoting the best interests of our own particular sections. Canada is not merely made up of the sum of its provinces, it is even greater than that.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink
LIB

Harry Butcher

Liberal

Mr. HARRY BUTCHER (Last Mountain) :

Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few

words in regard to the resolution before the house but before doing so I desire to speak, as a Saskatchewan member, in connection with the relief afforded to the distressed inhabitants of my province. I should like to say a few words in regard to the nature and extent of that relief, with regard to its administration and then with the permission of the house I am going to have the temerity to accept the invitation of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) and offer some suggestions as to future relief.

Primarily, I desire to register my objection to the renewal for two months of the powers conferred on the government by the statute which it is now sought to revive. I have been examining the report of the dominion director of unemployment relief and have studied the methods employed in granting relief in the province of Saskatchewan. I join with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie) in saying that in my opinion the government has done its best to meet the difficulties which existed in that province. It has made mistakes-I think that has been admitted by hon. members opposite-but at the same time it has made a sincere effort to meet the difficulties. I note that the relief has taken some five or six forms. First, there was direct relief, and I notice that $4,275,991 was distributed before February 20, 1932, to give relief to approximately 53,727 families. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has stated that this amount has been considerably increased up to the present time and something like $5,250,000 has been distributed, which amount will suffice to aid the distressed people of southern Saskatchewan and other parts of the province at present in need.

Contributions have been made to the public works programs of cities, towns and villages. [Mr. B. M. Stitt.)

These works took the form of street improvements, the providing of water supply, the extension of existing water and sewage systems and other similar undertakings, which involved a large percentage of labour. Under this heading the dominion has expended something like $1,600,000.

An effort has been made to place men on farms, and in this connection the dominion expended $125,000. Single men experienced in farming were placed on the land over the winter. They received $5 per month and of course free board and lodging and the government granted a bonus to the employer farmer. This provided employment and at the same time it was a wise move to keep these men separated rather than to have them gather together in large numbers.

Contributions were made towards the cost of highways, and then there was the five-cent bonus on wheat. The people of Saskatchewan who were in distress are thankful to the people of Canada for the relief provided. They realize that this parliament voted practically an unlimited sum for the purpose of providing relief and I do not think they are unmindful of the fact that it was this government that conceived the legislation brought down in September last. However, having said that, I say now that with the knowledge gained during the past seven months no hon. member in this house should want to continue that type of relief. We have come to the conclusion that there are better ways of meeting the difficulty. I do not think we can blame the government for having taken the course it has, because it seemed the wisest thing to do, but I imagine that were it to set out to-day on a new course of relief it would find direct relief would be the cheapest, and that the payment to the farmers on an acreage basis would be more equitable.

I do not suppose the administration of relief is a federal matter and as far as I am concerned I can see no great reason to complain thereof. Many complaints have been made of the actions of some of the minor officials; there were some highly indefensible appointments made by over-zealous partisans, but taking into consideration the magnitude of the task and the enormous problem which confronted the government, the mistakes made were not more numerous than one might expect.

Having said so much, I come now to the resolution and here I find something to which I object. On its face this resolution is quite innocent; in effect the government says that in the year 1930 we gave it certain extraordinary powers, which it wants extended for an addi-

Unemployment Continuance Act

tional two months. This resolution does not sound very serious until it is examined. Many of the elected representatives of the people object to a renewal of these powers. Having once made a mistake, they do not wish to make it again. It has been frequently pointed out that section 2 contains the authority to pay out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums as the governor in council may in his discretion deem expedient to expend for three purposes, the relief of distress, the providing of employment and the maintaining within the competence of parliament of peace, order and good government throughout Canada. It is to this last provision that we object and must continue to object. As stated more than once by my right hon. leader, with the acquiescence and support of every member of his following, the opposition is ready to grant in a few minutes all the supply necessary for the support of those who are in distress. I do not believe there would be a single speech from this side of the house if a bill were introduced to provide for the relief of distress and the supply of food and seed to the farmers. There would be no delay; we would cheerfully support such a bill but we fail to see either the wisdom or the necessity of renewing the powers to which I have referred; that of maintaining within the competence of parliament, peace, order and good government throughout Canada. Why should it be necessary for the governor in council to take these powers to itself? Why should the government want to have these powers conferred upon it? Are not the general powers conferred by sections 87 to 98 of the criminal code sufficient for all purposes, sufficient to cover every possibility? Is it necessary to give relief with one hand and at the same time to exhibit the other, heavily mailed, to the person to whom the relief is being given? I do not think it is. If we examine the provisions of the criminal code, we shall find that all the power necessary for parliament to maintain peace, order and good government, is already conferred by some sections of the code.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink
LIB

Harry Butcher

Liberal

Mr. BUTCHER:

When the house rose I had just referred to the fact that the criminal code in my opinion contains within the borders of sections 87 to 98 inclusive sufficient safeguards against any unlawful behaviour that might be anticipated and which it was probably intended to anticipate in the words to which I have taken exception in the bill before the house. I wish now to point out that the sections to which I have referred give us the law concerning unlawful actions of individuals, unlawful assemblies and unlawful associations. I do not desire to weary the house, but I want to read one or two of the sections to which I have just referred. Section 87 reads as follows:

An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of such assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that the persons so assembled will disturb the peace tumultuously or will by such assembly needlessly and without any reasonable occasion provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

The following sections of the code up to and including section 97 contain within their four corners all kinds of penalties to discourage men from unlawful behaviour, the unlawful behaviour of the kind which is specified in the section which I have just read. I ,do not propose to read all these sections, but I should like to outline the provisions of each one.

Subsection two of section 87 which I have just read provides that an assembly lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly. That can be easily understood no doubt by every hon. member of this house. We can readily conceive of occasions when men might meet together with a lawful purpose in mind; perhaps one or two individuals among them might have an unlawful purpose in mind, and, by using inciting words, be the means of causing a hitherto lawful assembly to become inspired with unlawful motives and to do unlawful acts.

Section 88 defines a riot:

A riot is an unlawful assembly which has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously.

Section 89 prescribes the penalty for taking part in an unlawful assembly, the penalty being one year's imprisonment.

The next section prescribes the penalty for taking part in a riot-two years' imprisonment with hard labour.

Then in section 91, in order that the assembly unlawfully assembled and which may have developed into a riot may be dispersed, certain officials are charged with that duty- the sheriff, the deputy sheriff, the mayor or other head officer, and justice of the county, city or town affected, and later on I think that the word magistrate is used. They are

Unemployment Continuance Act

charged with the duty of reading a proclamation in the following terms:

Our sovereign lord the king charges and commands all persons being assembled immediately to disperse and peaceably to depart to their habitations or to their lawful business, upon the pain of being guilty of an offence on conviction of which they may be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

That is a severe penalty, one that should deter even the most hardened, unless their minds are absolutely set upon breaking the peace.

The next section, 92, provides imprisonment for life for persons who:

(a) with force and arms wilfully oppose, hinder or hurt any person who begins or is about to make the said proclamation, whereby such proclamation is not made; or,

fb) continue together to the number of twelve for thirty minutes after such proclamation has been made, or if they know that its making was hindered as aforesaid, within thirty minutes after such hindrance.

Section 93 provides for the arrest of persons who fail to obey the command to disperse within thirty minutes, and provides also that bystanders may be called to assist the officers that I have just enumerated. It goes further. It indemnifies those officers against any harm that may be occasioned those who resist them, even should the resistance lead to the death of the resister. ,

The next section provides one year's imprisonment for the bystander or other person who refuses to assist without reasonable cause and after reasonable notice the officer or officers who have proceeded to try to disperse the assembly.

The next section provides imprisonment for life for riotous destruction of property, and the next section, seven years' imprisonment for riotous damage to property.

Then we come to the much talked of section 98, which defines an unlawful association, and I shall read that subsection one of that section in full:

Any association, organization or corporation, whose professed purpose or one of whose professed purposes is to bring about any governmental, industrial or economic change within Canada by use of force, violence or physical injury to person or property, or by threats of such injury, or which teaches, advocates, advises or defends the use of force, violence, terrorism or physical injury to person or property, or threats of such injury, in order to accomplish such change, or for any other purpose, or which shall by any means prosecute or pursue such purpose or professed purpose, or shall so teach, advocate, advise or defend, shall be an unlawful association.

I ask, could anything be more comprehensive?

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink
CON

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but nothing concerning the criminal code is dealt with by the motion before the house.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink
LIB

Harry Butcher

Liberal

Mr. BUTCHER:

What I was trying to

prove, Mr. Speaker, was that it was really unnecessary to include in the bill the words "for the peace, order and good government of Canada." I have been trying to demonstrate that the criminal code contains all the protection for the public and the crown that is necessary, and I hope that you will rule, sir, that I am in order and that it is permissible for me to proceed to prove that the provisions of the criminal code render unnecessary the provisions in this bill for a similar purpose. Am I in order?

Finally, as to the punishment:

Its officers-[DOT]

That is, the officers of an unlawful association :

[DOT]-may be arrested if they sell, speak, write or publish anything as the representatives or professed representatives of such association, or if they wear or carry about on the person any badge, insignia, emblem, banner, motto, pennant, card, button or other device whatsoever indicating membership or indirect connection with such association.

A sentence of twenty years is provided for that offence. Again I would ask, are not these provisions of the criminal code all comprehensive? Are not the penalties sufficient to meet any occasion that could possibly arise of the kind that it is sought to avoid? If not I think it is reasonable to ask what is it that the government anticipates that these provisions do not cover? It may be said that it was never in the mind of the government that this section was to deal with seditious utterances or unlawful assemblies. In that connection I might refer to the words of the right hon. the Prime Minister who, at page 4279 of Hansard of July 29, 1931, said:

In that regard the measure provides for the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada. It is not for a moment to be thought that an insignificant number of strongly vocal persons shall be able so to affect the populace of this country as to make it impossible for us, in cooperation together as Canadians, to work out our destiny. I say that class happily, is few in number. But in this present situation they now see an opportunity propitious to the presecution of their pernicious political doctrines.

I find myself very much in accord with the Prime Minister in the sentiments he expressed therein. I contend however it is not necessary to revive an act containing the words:

. . . maintaining within the competence of parliament, peace, order and good government throughout Canada.

Unemployment Continuance Act

I wish to say a few words concerning the speech delivered the other evening by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Man-ion) in which he complained rather bitterly about the lack of commendation of government policies by hon. members opposite, and in which he made the somewhat unreasonable comment that the opposition had offered no constructive criticism. For many years I have been a reader of Hansard, and I have derived great pleasure from reading the speeches of the present Minister of Railways and Canals.

I have regarded him as an able and determined critic; sometimes I may have thought his language vitriolic. Now that I know him personally, however, I do not think that. I do say however that I have found no occasion upon which, when in opposition, he devoted any part whatsoever of his forty minutes to commendation of the government of the day.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink
CON

Robert James Manion (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

My hon. friend's memory

is very short.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink
LIB

Harry Butcher

Liberal

Mr. BUTCHER:

Possibly it is.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

It is faulty.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink
LIB

Harry Butcher

Liberal

Mr. BUTCHER:

However, I do not now

think he is so bad. Hansard is very expert in recording words, but it does not portray tones of voice or gestures, nor can it reproduce the pleasant smiles which often accompany my hon. friend's harsh words.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

That is very fortunate.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink
LIB

Harry Butcher

Liberal

Mr. BUTCHER:

Having said so much I

am sure the Minister of Railways and Canals will know I do not bear him any ill will because of his speeches made when in opposition. I have sometimes thought he must have been a close student of Todd's Parliamentary Government in England, because at page 415 of volume 2 I find the following:

The opposition exercise a wholesome influence upon parliamentary debate, and upon the conduct of the business of the crown in parliament, for they are the constitutional critics of all public affairs: and whatever course the government may pursue, they naturally endeavour to find some ground for attack. It is the function of an opposition to state the case against the administration: to say everything which may plausibly be said against every measure, act, or word of every member of the ministry: in short to constitute a standing

censorship of the government, subjecting all its acts and measures to a close and jealous scrutiny.

I do not think the Minister of Railways and Canals is quite correct when he says there has been on the part of the opposition no commendation of government policies. On more

than one occasion during this session I have heard such commendations. Perhaps the commendations were guarded, the praise was faint, but even my hon. friend will agree that faint praise is better than utter condemnation.

I hope I am not doing the Prime Minister an injustice by assuming that when he inserted this particular clause in the bill he had it in mind that there might be some land of disorder in the country, disorders which I believe are covered by the provisions of the criminal code, to which I referred.

I notice, however, that the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) held other views. Referring to the same passage in the bill, he is quoted at page 4439 of Hansard, July 31, 1931, as follows:

First and foremost, starting -with my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor), my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) and one or two others, have uttered the same criticism in regard to the appearance in this bill of the words, "peace, order and good government." There seems to be an idea that these words have been placed in this enactment for a sinster purpose. If the house wall reflect for a moment I think that it will realize that these words are the foundation of the authority of this parliament to pass such a measure. If the bill is not founded upon the theory that it is necessary to maintain peace, order and good government in Canada, then parliament would have no authority to pass it. Without these words the bill in tile form in which it is enacted into law might be set aside or challenged in the courts. The judgments of the privy council during recent years have established most clearly that unless there is something in the nature of a national disaster, of plague, famine, or some national emergency, then parliament has no authority to legislate upon the subjects set out in this bill.

I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the two significant points in this comment of the Minister of Justice. First, he doubts whether parliament would have authority to pass such a measure as the one contemplated at that time, unless the words in question were inserted. Then he points out that if the bill were not founded upon the theory that it is necessary to maintain peace, order and good government in Canada, parliament would have no authority to pass it. I would not presume to question the validity of that argument. I do not know anything about the law, but I have an idea that even if the words to which we are referring were not inserted the parliament of Canada could pass a law granting assistance to the distressed and relief to the hungry and ill clad, and also could provide assistance for farmers.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):

Mr. Speaker,

I should like in the beginning to direct the attention of the house to a remark made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) the other day in introducing this resolution. He referred to the fact that in the dried-out districts of Saskatchewan some 300,000 people are wholly dependent on relief for food, clothing and fuel for themselves and their families and feed for their stock during the present winter. He boasted, with some pardonable pride, that the Saskatchewan Relief Commission had looked after the needs of these people at a cost to the treasury iof five and a quarter million dollars. This sum divided among 300,000 people amounts to $17.50 apiece. That does not mean that a man in Saskatchewan can live all winter and feed his stock on $17.50. What it does mean is that in spite of the fact that those people have lost three successive crops, they have been able to come within $17.50 per capita of supporting themselves throughout the winter. I doubt if there is another class of people in Canada who if afflicted in the same way would have been able to show so good a record.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

The 300,000 of course,

would cover families of farmers as well-men, women and children, which makes quite a difference.

Unemployment Continuance Act

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG:

Yes. But what family in the city of Ottawa could live all winter on $17.50 per capita?

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

I may add there are a

number of unpaid accounts. I instanced only those that were paid.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG:

Yes. My right hon. friend has so many sins to answer for that common humanity demands whenever he does anything well and deserving of credit we should give him that credit in full and generous measure.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OP RESOLUTION
Permalink

March 11, 1932