March 18, 1932

CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION


The house resumed from Thursday, March 17, consideration of the motion of the Prime Minister that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the following proposed resolution: Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor.


LIB

Pierre-François Casgrain (Whip of the Liberal Party)

Liberal

Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay):

Mr. Speaker, to any keen observer of politics it is apparent that the government is not on "easy street" to-day. It does not like the turn that this debate has taken, and hon. members opposite who have spoken in support of the resolution have tried to introduce political issues entirely apart from the subject matter and thus to becloud the real issue before the house. This is done in an endeavour to have- the country forget the two main points of this resolution, to wit, relief for farmers and the unemployed, and the constitutional aspect -of the powers sought by the government to carry out this relief.

By some hon. gentlemen on your right, Mr Speaker, we have been accused of playing politics, and we have been severely criticized for the course we took during the by-election in Three Rivers-St. Maurice, and throughout the late provincial election in Quebec. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) was severely taken to task by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) for some of his utterances during the campaign in Three Rivers-St. Maurice. The hon. member for

Unemployment Continuance Act

Dorchester attempted to make political capital out of the result of that by-election. Apparently to please his political chief, he told the house that the result of that byelection represented the unanimous opinion of the province of Quebec in favour of the Tory party. That is far from the fact. The hon. gentleman forgot to state that another byelection took place about the same time in the riding of East Hamilton in this province, always regarded as a safe Conservative seat, but the government candidate was overwhelmingly defeated, and to-day East Hamilton is represented in this house by a Labour member. The hon. member for Dorchester also told the house that the people of Quebec, and more especially the younger generation, were enthusiastic in their admiration of the right hon. leader of the Conservative party, that in fact he was the idol of the province. Many counties in my province, including the county which I have the honour to represent in this house, gave very large majorities to the supporters of the Liberal party at the election in 1930, and I affirm to the house and to the country that the majority of the electors of Quebec as well as the younger generation are not at all enthusiastic admirers of the right hon. leader of the government. Our young men do not regard him as their idol and they decline to follow him. Speaking for my own county, I am confident that our people both old and young are ardent supporters of the right hon. leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Mackenzie King) and our leader in Quebec, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe).

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that those hon. gentlemen who have followed the lead of the hon. member for Dorchester do not represent the real feeling of the people of my province. Those hon. members, it is true, were returned to this house at the election of 1930, but at the last provincial election they were not able to return any of their candidates for the local house. Last August the province of Quebec in the most unmistakable terms returned a verdict of confidence in the Liberal administration which has been controlling the affairs of the province for the last thirty-four years. On that occasion the electors of Quebec had a chance to choose between the Hon. Mr. Tasehereau and Mr. Houde, and by an overwhelming majority they showed their preference for the leader of the administration that had enjoyed the confidence of the province for the past thirty-four years rather than turn to a demagogue like the provincial leader of the Tory party. Let me remind hon. gentlemen to your right, and more especially the

hon. member for Dorchester, that although they may try to belittle our leader in Quebec, my hon. friend from Quebec East, they are playing a very poor game, and they may rest assured that long after they have gone into the valley of oblivion the name of the Hon. Ernest Lapointe will be held in honour and esteem by many generations yet unborn, for he will stand in history as one of the greatest men of our race both in the province of Quebec and in the dominion.

It is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, to hear our hon. friends opposite talking in such a reckless fashion. They were over-enthusiastic after the general election of 1930, and they thought they could repeat their success by fooling the people again in 1931 at the provincial election, but the electors of my province were wiser then than they were in 1930. Our friends opposite are bad losers, and having suffered a severe defeat in the provincial election, naturally they vent their disappointment upon our esteemed leader in Quebec, my hon. friend from Quebec East. At the next federal election I am convinced that the electors of Quebec will display the same sound judgment as they did at the recent provincial election, and that their example will be followed by the electors of the other provinces, and they will send back to their homes our friends opposite so that they may have an opportunity to meditate over their defeat.

We have been accused by some members on your right, Mr. Speaker, of unduly delaying the adoption of this resolution, and thereby becoming responsible for the suffering of the unemployed because this measure of relief is not enacted immediately. But the blame is not to be laid at our door; rather it is the fault of the government which waited for over a month after the opening of the session before introducing this resolution. On reference to the orders of the day it will be found that it was only after the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) had introduced his amendment on the motion to go into supply that the government decided to bring this resolution before the house. The debate has not been unduly long; to-day we are entering on the eighth day. I take issue with the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) who stated the other day that the debate had been in progress for over two weeks. Only thirty-seven members of the official opposition have spoken so far, and they have been joined in debate by fifteen of our hon. friends on the opposite side and by seven members representing various groups on this side of the house-fifty-nine all told.

Unemployment Continuance Act

In 1926 it will be- recalled that there were debates continuing for weeks and weeks, and in 1930 also, when this very question of unemployment was an issue the majority of hon. gentlemen who were then sitting on this side got up one after another and read to the house carefully prepared briefs that had been drafted for them by their party organization. Are there two kinds of justice, one for the Tories and one for the Liberals? If in the days of 1926 and- in 1930 it was right to appose the resolutions and motions proposed by the government of the day, Mr. Speaker, surely to-day we should be given the same freedom of speech and the same liberty of action enjoyed by the Tory party in those days: After all we are here to perform a duty. When we took our places in this house we took an oath of office, and we cannot let this resolution pass, after hearing speeches such as those delivered by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Railways and Canals, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, without entering our protest. I should like to refer especially to the speech delivered in this house the other day by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), in which he said:

It is true that at that time an appropriation might have been voted, and it was very largely the burden of the complaint of some hon. members that that was not done, but I invite hon. gentlemen to consider this, that when an appropriation is passed the purpose for which it is to be used must be specified, and the Auditor General and other officers of the crown in scrutinizing expenditures under such an appropriation, always keep the government very closely to the purpose specified in such a vote.

That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, why the government to-day ccmes before this house asking permission to evade that scrutiny of every appropriation voted by parliament which is required by the laws of our country. It is our prerogative to see where our money goes, the money which comes from the taxpayers of this country, and to see that the government does not commit any abuses in the use of that money. That is the reason why this debate is going on. Further, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said:

We have certain commitments which have been made under the act; that is, agreements have been entered into with each of the provinces and various works of a different character are being carried on by the provinces with the aid of the dominion, and we ask for an extension of the act for two months, because the difficulties which then confronted the country have not been surmounted. . . .

If it were only to carry out such commitments and finish such works as have been undertaken under this act, speaking for myself and I think for all hon. members on this side of the house, there would be no objection to letting the bill pass, because it would be simply completing those works which have been undertaken for the benefit of the people. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce also said that further relief was required, and that is the point upon which we take issue. While parliament is sitting, and while we are here to decide these issues as representatives of the people, we do not want these powers given to the government. We are here to vote upon any amount of money required by this government to carry on its relief woi'k in the cities and throughout the country.

Since the government has been in power I think it is safe to say that it has been given by the country at large and by the opposition in this house fair play, a free hand and ample opportunity to inaugurate any policies it desired to bring into force; it has not been hampered unduly by the opposition. But discussion is necessary on the part of any opposition, though that is net synonymous with inaction or acquiescence. We are not here simply to listen to the government and abide by its dictates; we are not supposed to say "ditto" to everything the government may propose. The country expects that at all times the opposition shall be vigilant in the preservation of established rights and the liberties of the people, and do all in its power to prevent the usurpation of any rights or powers which do not belong to those entrusted with the government of the country. It is the duty of the opposition to stand by its own principles and policies, especially when there exists throughout the country to an appreciable extent a critical attitude towards the government. It is the duty of the opposition to express that attitude in this house and to present our criticism with regard to the measures brought forward by the government. In the province from which I come I may say there is a good deal of criticism directed against the government as to the manner in which this unemployment relief money has been administered, and also as to the way the government has put in force the policies it promised to bring forward during the election of 1930. That is why this debate has gone on for some days and the reason why it may go on for some time longer.

I think we are all in agreement with the object of this resolution; that is, we all desire to seek ways and means of relieving the farmers and the unemployed throughout the country. But as to the methods adopted in the past and proposed to be continued in the future we disagree. This proposal is too far

Unemployment Continuance Act

unemployment and farm relief, has had to go to the very source to which, as we pointed out before, it was necessary to go in order to settle the problem. We stated that cooperation was necessary among the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government.

We have been told of the wonderful success that has been achieved in Saskatchewan through the relief commission appointed there under the bill; yet a general relief unemployment commission, such as has been advocated by my leader, has been refused by the government. Notwithstanding the efforts of the government, the situation has been going from bad to worse, and to-day we have only to refer to the speeches of certain western members in order to see that in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta conditions to-day are worse than they have ever been. We find the members from those provinces asking for feed for cattle and for seed for the spring. We have also heard of the complaints that were made in British Columbia regarding the administration of the act. Owing to the maladministration of the act, it has been necessary to appoint a commission to investigate matters. I have in my hand an editorial which appeared in Le Soleil of Quebec on August 27 last. This editorial discloses the fact that certain hon. members who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker, attempted to play politics in the last provincial elections in Quebec. They tried to make use of the efforts put forth by the government to grant unemployment relief in order to force the electors to vote in their favour. This editorial quotes a letter which had been written by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin) dated August 22, 1931, addressed to the electors of Bienville and Lauzon. The editorial is in French and is as follows:

(Translation):

Sell Yourself Or Starve!

Such seems to have been the motto of certain Houdist electioneers in the last campaign. Sell yourself or starve! These words are actually embodied in certain documents that we have in our possession and which bring shame on those who had them circulated. It is impossible to close our eyes, in connection with this literature, to the blackmail directed against the liberty of citizens.

The following circular letter which Dr. Emile Fortin, member for Levis, at Ottawa, addressed to the electorate of his county to bribe them by promising bread in return for their vote in favour of Mr. Noel Belleau, the Houdist candidate, is an instance of the corruption carried on in this election:

[Mr. Casgrain.l

Do You Want Work?

Levis, August 22, 1931.

Electors of Bienville,

Electors of Lauzon.

Famine Is At Your Door!

There are signs that winter will be severe! Unemployment increases: Workmen of Lauzon, whatever may be your party attachment or feelings, do you want work? Do you want bread? Help me! and put your trust in the only government which can relieve you.

Heretofore, I have not spared my time or energy to help you. Shall you, by an unfavourable and thoughtless vote undo my twelve months of work and anxiety?

You need the Dominion government. Vote for it by voting for Noel Belleau, thus you will be endorsing the following contracts:

Fire-engine boat, $350,000.

Repairs to the Prince Edward Island, $270,000.

Repairs to the dry docks, $36,000.

Repairs to the forts, $150,000.

Repairs to government boats, $100,000.

Repairs at the engineers' camp-target range,

Think how advantageous it would be for Levis if I had to help me: Noel Belleau, K.C., minister of the crown, at Quebec; Hon. Maurice Duprd, a son of Levis, minister at Ottawa; Mr. Onesime Gagnon, member for Dorchester and future minister in the Bennett administration.

What help can Mr. Belanger be to you in contrast with what we can do for you?

The provincial government can do nothing without the support of the government, at Ottawa.

Mr. Bennett can give you prosperity. Three Rivers endorsed his policy and received $700,000.

Let Lauzon and Bienville do their share, they will be given in return work and prosperity.

Workmen of Lauzon if you disown the Conservative party what can you expect from it next winter ?

(Sgd.) Dr. Emdle Fortin,

Member at Ottawa.

Never has the Conservative party admitted more impudently to what means they resort to bribe the people.

"Three Rivers endorsed his policy and received $700,000." What a confession! So, when the country is in the throes of a critical economic crisis, the Conservative party, at Ottawa, in an endeavour to destroy the Liberal party, grant almost three-quarters of a million to the ratepayers in Three Rivers to purchase their votes and ease their conscience! A party which resorts to such means deserves to Be wiped out. It is what the Liberals did, last Monday, to the Houdists, and it is what they will do in four years to Mr. Bennett.

I shall translate a part of this editorial as it may prove interesting to the people at large. The letter says that Bennett alone can give prosperity, that Three Rivers has approved of his policy and has received $700,000 in the form of relief, and the electors of Bienville and Lauzon are advised to do likewise and they will see a return to pros-

Unemployment Continuance Act

perity. They are told that if they renounce the Conservative party they cannot expect to receive anything during next winter.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members who sit on your right have not used this act to play politics, I should like to know what they have done. They used it to appeal to the people in the province of Quebec during the last provincial election. Had there been appointed a relief commission, as advocated by my right hon. leader such things would not have occurred. I think I am safe in saying that this act has proved to be inadequate and futile, its administration has been wasteful and extravagant and the necessary relief has not reached the people. The hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) quoted last night an extract from the Financial Post which showed the cost of the administration of this act. The figures showed that the debt of the country has been increased because of the expenses of administration.

Has unemployment been relieved and work given to the people? I have before me figures which show that in September, 1931, one year after the government had taken office, 7,798 firms were employing 972,537 people. In January, 1932, the figures stood at 7,832 firms employing 835,960 people, a considerable decrease in the number employed. In February, 1932, the totals had declined further to 7,766 firms employing 819.175 people. These figures show that not very much work has been provided for the people of Canada. The index of employment in industry in Canada is at its lowest ebb since 1922. Who is responsible for this? The Prime Minister admitted that the government was responsible when he made the speeches to which I have alluded.

The hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) speaking in the house on February 23, 1932, said:

As time went on it was apparent that further measures would have to be adopted in order that those in want might be given such employment as would tide them over, and the result was the legislation of last session. Under that legislation 334,301 persons have been given employment up to January 31. 1932, the total number of man-days being 7,415,973. The total commitments necessary to carry on the work to February 22, 1932, amounted to $76,426,387. the federal government's share being $32,822,847. This work is still proceeding. The figures I have given will be subject to some slight variation when the report is tabled which I trust will be shortly.

The total cost was 876,426,387 to provide 7.415,973 man-days, or slightly more than $10 for every day's work provided. Where did the balance go? Is that the way to take care of unemployment? When the $20,000,000 was voted in 1930 we were given to understand

that many public works would be undertaken in order to provide unemployment relief. After the act had been passed the Minister of Labour wrote to various members of the government and of the opposition asking us to point out the various works which would be necessary in our constituency in order to assist the people. I replied to the hon. minister under date of August 15, 1931. He acknowledged receipt of my letter but he did not take cognizance of the requests which I had made and the suggestions which I had given.

I cannot see how we can abide by the dictates and requests of the government and pass this resolution without protest. We are being asked to extend for two months legislation which vests in the government all the powers which this house has over the control of public money. I have demonstrated the results which have been obtained from the administration of this act and I cannot conceive how we, representing our constituencies and having taken an oath to fulfil our mandates, can give to the government while parliament is sitting the rights granted under the constitution to this house. We are being asked to do away with the committees of supply and ways and means, the very bases of the parliamentary system.

Hon. members of the government have asked for cooperation but how can we cooperate when we do not know what amount will be expended and for what purpose? How can we cooperate with the leader of the government when he does as he pleases, even with his own supporters and refuses to accept counsel or advice from anyone? Most of the hon. members on this side who have spoken, and I think some on the other side, will agree that the gentleman who leads the government to-day wants to do it by himself alone. Hon. members have called him Nero and Mussolini, and the names of other absolute dictators in history. We have also called him Mussolini. For my part, last year I said what I thought of him and I do not want to say any more, because the people of the country know him well enough.

I protest against this resolution, and this is the reason I and other members have been carrying on this debate. We contend that if this resolution is passed, it means that we shall be giving up all the rights and privileges for which our forefathers fought in 1837 and for which a fight was carried on in England hundreds of years ago, in order that the representatives of the people might obtain control of the public money.

Topic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION
Permalink
LIB
LIB

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger

Liberal

Mr. BOULANGER (Translation):

The

Prime Minister should remember that this is no time for rash action, that this is no time for him to test the extent of his power, for "they who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind." Instead of encroaching upon our government system and of introducing reckless measures, the Prime Minister should endeavour, in these hard times, to proceed along regular lines and abstain from any novel departure likely to unduly magnify, in the public mind, the seriousness of the situation. Such was, during the war, the policy followed by statesmen who were well worth the present Prime Minister, and as was already pointed out, by this resolution, the Prime Minister is attempting to assume power a hundredfold larger than those enjoyed by Sir Robert Borden under the War Measures Act and the War Appropriation Act.

The Prime Minister should not, also, be unmindful of the lessons of history. One cannot, with impunity, offend public feeling, nor can one hurt with impunit>T that sense of justice and freedom so deeply rooted in the hearts of every Canadian. One cannot, with impunity, ignore the system of government we owe to the wisdom of our ancestors nor could one demolish such barriers as the people have seen fit to erect against the tendency to absolutism on the part of the executive. The Prime Minister should recollect that the movement which took place a hundred years ago in connection with the control of public expenditures by the peoples' representatives led to the rebellion of 1837-1838. And in support of this, I may cite the very words of Lord Gosford, governor general of Lower Canada in 1837, and therefore in a better position than anyone else to know the situation. In the debate that took place in the House of Lords on the union of the two Canadas, Lord Gosford stated that the chief responsibility for the rebellion was to be laid at the door of those who having, at the conquest,

Unemployment Continuance Act

monopolized all the money, all the power and all the important posts, persisted in governing the Canadians without their consent and participation. The following is an extract of the statement of Lord Gosford, as found in the history of Canada:

There are, specially in Montreal and in the vicinity, a number of English speaking citizens to whom every liberal-minded and independent man must be hostile, whose acts and behaviour have been characterized by a spirit of domination over the whole population of French origin; they have continuously aimed at acquiring power and exercising patronage in the country. They are the men who must be held chiefly responsible for the troubles that have recently occurred.

I earnestly urge upon the Prime Minister of Canada to ponder over the events that took place previous to the rebellion of 1837, and to seriously consider the statement of Lord Gosford, former governor general of Lower Canada.

We are told, Mr. Speaker, that this measure must be passed in the shortest possible time, it being a matter of life and death for the unemployed and the farmers, and that any opposition to it means a delay in granting relief. I take the strongest exception to a threat of that sort, to that intimidation and duplicity to which recourse has been had so frequently during the last two years in connection with unemployment. It has been said, on this side of the house, that the government had organized the unemployed into a regular profession; more than that, they have used unemployment as a pretext and a justification for all their misdeeds. Every time the government wishes to camouflage any of their arbitrary acts, every time they want to work in the dark and frame some plot against our parliamentary institutions, they plead the same old excuse, the same old motive, that is the necessity of giving relief to the unemployed, to the farmers, and of rendering assistance to the needy in this country. I protest against that procedure on the part of the government and against such an exploitation of public distress, which is simply used to play politics.

It is needless to repeat, in the course of this debate, the offer so many times made by us to the Prime Minister to the effect that we are willing to vote any amount of money. We have offered, and still offer to him to vote supplies, provided he can give sufficient cause therefor. We are entitled to know from him the reason for the expenditures to be incurred by the government. We would feel remiss to our duty and, for my part, I would feel unworthy of the mandate I hold from my electors, should I not raise my voice against 41761-79i

that mode of procedure on the part of the government and should I not, after the other hon. members who spoke before me, insist upon the government for a statement of their reasons and motives for the contemplated expenditures.

We have heard our hon. friends on the government side, the butter-makers of 1930, not to say the "buttery" promise makers of 1930, speak in laudatory, but senseless and ludicrous terms, of the Prime Minister and of "Bennettism." Instead of wasting such a torrent of praise, our friends, specially the government followers in the province of Quebec group, should have called upon the government to take action. I do not say that they should have appealed to the liberality of government, as they were in duty bound to do, but it would have been better for them to secure the aid of the government in behalf of the farming community of Eastern Canada, particularly of the province of Quebec represented by us in this house. I charge the government with having completely failed to do anything for the relief of agriculture in Quebec. The farmers in that province may not lament as loudly as those in some other parts of the country,-they are not in the habit of taking such political action,-but the fact remains that they keenly feel the hardships of the present depression, which has been made worse through the folly of high protection. If it be in order to give relief to other classes of the community, if it be fair to erect exceedingly high tariff walls for the protection of the manufacturing interests, for instance, it is equally fair and proper to afford the same measure of protection to agriculture.

The legislation we are now asked to revive is entitled: "The Unemployment and Farm Relief Act". I fear no contradiction when I say that the farmers in the province of Quebec have benefited in no way from the legislation we are asked to extend. Should it be revived, I am quite sure that it would not be more beneficial to the farming class in Quebec than afforded them the old act that expired on the first of March last.

Instead of entitling the act: "The Unemployment and Farm Relief Aot" the government should, abstaining themselves from any camouflage and deceit, call it: "An Act for the relief of financiers at bay." In the course of this debate, it has developed that the act; was used to come to the help of the bankers,, insurance companies, financiers and bondholders in certain western provinces, rather than to actually give relief to the unemployed and to the farmers.

Unemployment Continuance Act

Topic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

(Translation,) For the

relief of cement dealers.

Topic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger

Liberal

Mr. BOULANGER (Translation):

And for the relief of railway ties manufacturers.

If the government had been sincere in its effort to improve the conditions of the farming community, they would have done more than the small works undertaken, and they would have adopted means other than the makeshift measures carried out since the unemployment act is in existence. A few moments ago, I said that no benefits had accrued to the farmers of the province of Quebec from the enforcement of that legislation. I might perhaps qualify this statement to a certain extent, for some works have been attempted in winter time, such as, for instance, the hauling of gravel or other unimportant work in connection with road building. But such works, which are mere incidents, simple make shifts and palliatives, have not altered the conditions. At the most, a dozen of men in a parish, have been enabled to earn $10 or $12 working at these jobs in this time of depression. And yet that money was not earned by those who were in the greatest need, but by farmers in easy circumstances; and the reason why those who needed relief the most were unable to secure it was that, having no homes nor rigs of their own, they wene ineligible to employment in connection with the hauling of gravel or other road work, all of which was undertaken in midwinter for the *purpose of relieving unemployment.

I charge the government with having no comprehensive plan, no definite policy for the relief of unemployment, and particularly of agriculture. We have been criticized for our lack of suggestions to the government. If the government had listened to what has been said in this house last session, and during the special session of 1930, as well as to what has been proclaimed almost everywhere, on' the hustings and in the public press, they would have realized that constructive suggestions have been made to them. For my part,

I would humbly suggest to the. government, -and that, obviously, after many others for *the idea is not mine,-that the best way to bring relief to the farmers of Quebec would be to grant a bounty for the clearing and breaking of the soil, which premium would enable the farmers to live with the income from their holdings. In a section of my constituency, as is also the case in the southern part of Montmagny, Dorchester and LTslet, the farmers' lands are not in a sufficiently advanced state of cultivation to support their owners. Until recently, the farmers in that [Mr. Boulanger. I

district mostly earned their living in the bush; but for a year or two, the lumbering activities have ceased, on account of the depression, and the farmers, no longer able to work in the lumber camps and enjoying but a1 soant income from their farm, are now in' the direst need. Last year, I raised that' *question in the house and I also discussed it both in public and in the press. But up to this time the government have not trouhled themselves about that suggestion and did not draw any plan to carry it into effect. Instead of pledging the credit of this country for the security of the bondholders of the western .provinces, instead of spending enormous sums of money in railroad ties or to increase the strength of the police force, for instance, the government would be well advised to appropriate a certain amount in order to carry through the suggestion I have already made and which I am repeating now after many others. The government should cooperate with the provinces with a view to granting a clearing bonus to farmers whose lands are not sufficiently cleared to keep them alive. With such a bonus a farmer could clear let us say thirty or forty acres of his land, and when a farmer has enough land cleared, then all he has to do is to cultivate it, and he is assured of a livelihood1. That is one permanent means of relieving distress among farmers. It woulld be far better than the contrivances and palliatives hitherto used. That would be a good investment, the capital would not be wasted, it would be effective and' profitable, whereas, up to this time, we have simply thrown money away. The government thus could keep a great many farmers permanently on the land, who otherwise, unless we give them some assistance, will have to leave their farms and go to the cities where they will add to the number of unemployed and those who are a public charge. Some will say: "What is the use of having the farmers rooted in their lands? What is the use of promoting a back to the land movement? What is the use of encouraging former farmers who live in the cities to take to agriculture again, since the prices of farm products are so low and the products so hard to sell?" This is my answer: "Even though farm products are cheap, even though farming is not profitable, at least a man can earn his livelihood more easily on the land than in the cities and towns; a farmer is in a better position than the poor laborer who has no work or the mechanic who is unemployed. The latter have to pay for everything they need, even for the water that they drink. In the countryside, they get all that from the soil. The farmer can get enough to eat, he is

Unemployment Continuance Act

sure to have some bread on the shelf and pork in the salting-tub. He is sure of getting vegetables and also wood to warm his house, and that requires but labour on his part. Thus it would intensify the clearing of land and the government would secure a permanent livelihood for a great many .people. By cooperating with the provinces for the granting of a clearing bonus to farmers, that would induce them to cultivate a greater acreage; they would become real farmers thinking only of improving their land and living on what it may yield, and that would keep them awey from the shanties; because, after all, a farmer has nothing to earn by going there. Cultivating the soil is the traditional .mission of our people in the province of Quebec. They are not shantymen, they are not manufacturers, nor mechanics; the only avocation in which they will succeed and for which .they are qualified and competent, is farming.

Mr. Speaker, not only could t'he government cooperate with the provinces for the granting of clearing bonuses in order to expand the land under cultivation, but they could also grant ploughing bonuses for the purpose of inducing the farmers to cultivate more and to improve their lands and thus add to the productive wealth of Canada.

I was speaking a moment ago about the back to the land movement. It is a good way of relieving decidedly and permanently the unemployment situation, and the government ought to foster that movement. The faon. Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) has already commented upon this policy for the return of former farmers to the land, and I congratulate him for it. It is a good move on the part of the government, we give them credit for it, and we appreciate what they have done along these lines. But it is not enough, and the government should intensify that movement and cooperate with the provinces, more especially with the province of Quebec which has done wonderful work in that direction. The province of Quebec has reinstated on the land about five or six thousand families of former farmers who were merely existing or starving in the towns; the government of the province of Quebec helped them to return to their farms where they have become an asset for their country, instead of remaining idle or being a public charge in the cities. Such is the bold suggestion that I am making to the government for the purpose of curing unemployment. I have another suggestion to offer.

I would like the government to try and stop the centralizing of money in the hands of a few individuals.

Topic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION
Permalink
LIB
LIB

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger

Liberal

Mr. BOULANGER (Translation):

That

practice has completely changed our rural life. Money has been drawn from the rural districts to the cities, where it has been centralized in the hands of a few. In the past, in every rural locality there were small local industries: one was building carriages, another was making furniture or spinning wheels; there were makers of agricultural implements and of many binds of household tools, and all these small rural industries were drawing their livelihood from the rural population. But the withdrawing and centralizing of money have completely ruined that rural industry. The centralizing of money in the hands of a few has enabled them to set up trusts and monopolies that are ruining the small rural industries. So much so that the people in the rural districts now buy their bread from the bread trust, and their meat from the grocery trusts in the cities; and the same may be said of shoes and clothes. The trusts and monopolies of the large centres, the establishment of which was promoted by the banks and the financial institutions, have ruined the small rural industry and rural trade as well. It is a bad thing for a country -to have all the money and all its inherent power thus centralized.

I was just saying that this centralization had fostered trusts and monopolies which have smothered rural trade and industry. For instance, everybody knows that most of our banks have trust companies as subsidiaries with the same directors or almost the same. The funds of these subsidiary companies belong to the banks or rather to the banks' depositors. When a man wants some money, or when a company wants to issue bonds, the bank refers them to this trust company which is in a position to impose its own terms, and often drastic terms. It is through these trust companies that the banks, by using the money of their depositors, establish the monopolies I was complaining about a moment ago.

I remember when the Prime Minister, last year, denounced speculation. He said that speculation was one of the principal causes of distress in the western provinces. He stated that the western farmers had speculated too much on their grain and they had bought too many implements, pianos, radios and other similar articles, on the instalment plan. That is the cause of the present distress in the western provinces. Speculation has been the misfortune of the rural population, according to the Prime Minister. When a poor farmer gambles on his crop or buys a radio on the instalment plan, they call it blamable speculation; but when it is suggested to inquire

Unemployment Continuance Act

as to the way the banks, the trust companies or the insurance companies use the people's money for the purpose of stock-jobbing and speculation, it is altogether different, and the Prime Minister then says that we are hurting the credit of the dominion, and that we should not talk about these things in this house.

Mr. Speaker, I took the opportunity, a moment ago, to congratulate the hon. Minister of Immigration; but I am afraid that I shall have to find fault with him now on another point. If it is necessary to give a blank cheque to the government, and, without any explanation, to let them free to spend all the money they want without accounting for it, for the purpose of assisting the unemployed and relieving a supposedly terrible and urgent situation, it seems to me that this is not the time to open our doors to the immigrants and further to increase the number of unemployed that we have to feed. That is why I am bound to blame, to a certain extent, my friend the hon. Minister of Immigration for the statement he made in this house some time ago, and also for another statement which he made earlier in the session.

Topic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT (Translation):

Do not hesitate to blame him.

Topic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger

Liberal

Mr. BOULANGER (Translation):

The hon. minister probably wanted to echo the words of Mr. J. H. Thomas, Secretary for the Dominions in the British government, when the latter asserted that if Canada wanted to sell its wheat to Great Britain, it would have to accept, in exchange for it, a large number of British unemployed whom Great Britain is obliged to feed. The hon. minister, returning the statement of Mr. Thomas, declared in this house, in the early days of this session, that he would never close the door to British immigration. I beg to differ completely with the hon. minister on that point. Undoubtedly I have nothing against British immigration and I am not adverse to people from overseas, but, in my opinion, if it is necessary to adopt extraordinary, bold and mischievous measures such as this one, this is not the time to have our doors wide open to the unemployed of Great Britain and to bring them out here only to increase the number of those whom we have to feed.

As the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) said the other day, 27,500 immigrants came to Canada during the last year, while we have already over 500,000 people out of work. It is 27,500 people too many. The government should have barred them out, more especially when you think that at the present time we have to send back every day

hundreds of emigrants who came here andwere unable to live in this country. I personally can testify to it, as I have seen it when returning home on Fridays on theOcean Limited, the great Canadian National train going from Montreal to Halifax and Saint John. There are always one or two cars hooked to the rear of the train, full of emigrants that the Dominion government is obliged to send back at the expense of this country. However the statements of the hon. Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) are no surprise to us who have been in this house for a certain number of years. During the election of 1930, our friends tried, particularly in the province of Quebec, to take

advantage of the question of immigration, and endeavoured to show that the Liberal party was responsible for the great number of immigrants that came into this country under their administration. But we, who were in this house when hon. gentlemen opposite were sitting on this side, know that the Conservative party, in 1928, had a committee of inquiry appointed by this house with a view to finding means of accelerating the immigration to this country. We know that the Conservative party was censuring at that time Hon. Mr. Forke, because he was not bringing in as many immigrants as in 1912, for instance, when the Conservatives were in power. The year 1912 was always the record year, the standard year which our friends were describing as the ideal goal. They were always reproaching us with doing too little or not as much as the Conservatives did in 1912, and they insisted so much that they secured an inquiry before a committee of this house for the purpose of finding means to increase immigration to this country. They very severely censured Hon. Mr. Forke and I remember the very harsh and very offensive words which the present Prime Minister directed against Hon. Mr. Forke when he accused him of lacking competence because he did not equal the immigration record set by the Conservatives in 1912.

An hon. MEMBER (Translation): It is true.

Topic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger

Liberal

Mr. BOULANGER (Translation):

Regarding the immigration of these young boys which the hon. Minister of Immigration mentioned the other day, may I be allowed to read a letter of protest from the Anglican bishop of Montreal. This is what Bishop Farthing said:

When one has seen hundreds of these boys in the bread line in Montreal during the past year, when one knows that a good number of them have been sent back to England to their own families by the generosity of private

Unemployment Continuance Act

citizens, to say nothing of those who have been deported by the government; and when one sees now a large number of these boys are depending upon public charity, one feels indignant indeed that 500 more should be brought out to share the fate of those who have come in the last few years. No doubt some of the boys brought out have been comfortable on farms, but there is no doubt either that many of those who have been brought out have left the farms in the west and in Ontario, and even some in Quebec, and that they have been drifting from place to place, depending on the charity of the people. I cannot imagine a worse moral influence to which a boy could be subjected than to lead the life of a tramp, stealing rides on the railways from place to place, having no home, no one to be responsible for him, often times falling in the worst elements of our community.

One is thankful for the efforts which are made in many cities to try to help these boys. If there are situations for 500 boys from the old country, why not give these places to our own Canadian boys and those old country boys who are out of employment here now? Why bring 500 boys between 14 and 18 years of age to face the conditions of Canada as they exist to-day? Many of them will gravitate into our large cities and share the experiences of those drifters who have passed through the past two or three years.

It seems to me criminal to bring these boys out. I am told that it is necessary to bring them in order to avoid the danger of various immigration organizations becoming disbanded. These boys are then to be offered as sacrifices to keep together immigration organizations of various kinds. Surely it would be better to disband every organization rather than to keep [DOT] them together at the expense of 500 old country lads.

There will be no difficulty in reorganizing immigration societies when the country revives and the time comes to encourage immigration; I appeal to Canadians of all classes to unite and enter an emphatic protest against what seems to me to be a most unwise and unjust action, and one which under existing circumstances will do a great wrong to defenceless lads.

I add that to encourage the immigration of these young men would be unjust not only to the young men themselves, brought here when things are at a low ebb, but to our own young Canadians. If the government have money to help these young immigrants let them spend it first of a.1'1 to give employment to our own youth, to help them finish their studies in our colleges and universities and to aoquire a genuinely Canadian education.

Mr. Speaker, I have another suggestion to offer the government looking towards the betterment of farming conditions. We are to have an Imperial conference this coming summer. Trade between the different countries of the empire is an excellent thing, and I hope the Prime Minister gets what he wants; but, permit me, I have my doubts on that score. Are we to 'believe for instance that the

Irish farmer will readily give way before the Canadian producer on the British market? Can we expect the British -consumer to buy our Canadian products in preference to Denmark's butter and bacon, Holland's cheese, and the early vegetables and fruits from Britanny and Normandy? You cannot go on endlessly fighting against geographical -conditions and no matter what artificial arrangements may be made in the way of customs duties, Denmark, Holland, Britanny and Normandy will still be close to the British market and Canada will still be at a great distance. The suggestion I make to the government is this: While developing empire trade let them give a thought to Pan-American -commerce. Although we may make much of belonging to the British Empire it must still be borne in mind that we are on the American continent, the natural outlet for our -products, in preference to Europe and the other continents. I ask the government to bend their efforts first of all towards finding markets for our Canadian products on the American continent.

The other day I noticed in the leaflet that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) has handed to us each morning, and which I find very interesting, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce complains that the high United States tariff prevents Canadians from disposing of their products in the neighbouring country. Here is one way in which the government could improve Pan-American trade: Instead of raising the customs tariff against the United States why -not conclude with them a treaty based on reciprocity? We should strive to develop commerce with United States before reaching out for more distant markets.

Topic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION
Permalink
CON

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member has

spoken forty minutes.

Topic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION
Permalink
CON

Winfield Chester Scott McLure

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. C. S. McLURE (Queens):

Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak on this resolution, but according to Hansard the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) in the course of his speech last night said:

I see my friends from Prince Edward Island on the other side and I know they will agree with every word I say.

I think the hon. member was taking a lot for granted in making that statement. While I do not know how many members on this side of the house will agree with him-and I am not interested in how many on the other side may share his views-in his attempt to justify the blocking of this resolution and consequent interference with the government in its endeavour to relieve unemployment, I say emphatically that I do not agree with his

Unemployment Continuance Act

remarks with respect to several matters relating to Prince Edward Island. Later on I shall give my reasons for this disagreement.

The debate on this resolution has partaken of a character quite different from what I had anticipated. At first I thought the resolution would be discussed from the constitutional point of view, and that the great legal minds from both sides of the house would enlighten us on this issue; but the debate soon became divested of all its legal robes and in a short time became clothed in a distinctly political garb. This has resulted in the debate covering a wide field, and several hon. members, especially on the opposite side, have seized the opportunity to put political propaganda on Hansard for the benefit of their constituents. Whether I choose to follow the constitutional line or the political, or whether I discuss the resolution strictly on its merits, I expect that the latitude accorded to other members will be accorded to me also.

I have listened to this debate for hours and hours, yes, for days and days, and now almost for weeks, and the more speeches I listen to from the other side of the house the more I am impressed with the sincerity of our hon. friends opposite in their stubborn adherence to their traditional attitude towards relief of the unemployed and the unfortunate of this country. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) led off with a severe criticism of the manner in which the relief has been administered under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, and each of his supporters who followed him carried on the same line of attack. All seem to be imbued with the one idea-to stop the passing of any measure for further relief. Their whole object seems to be to obstruct the government in its endeavour to enact further legislation for the benefit of those of our fellow countrymen who are out of employment and in need as a result of this worldwide depression. Even admitting the sincerity of our hon. friends opposite-and they certainly demonstrated it as each one took up the cudgels for his party-I cannot understand their uncompromising opposition except on the ground that they are determined to adhere to their time-honoured policy of "not a nickel for the Canadian unemployed." That is their policy, apparently, and their stick-at-it-iveness dates back many years. I have been in this house only since 1930, but during that session the Liberal party argued strongly against any form of relief, they adopted the same course in the session of 1931, and now in this session they are still running true to form and proclaiming their favourite policy,

namely, "not a nickel for the Canadian unemployed or those in distress."

Several hon. members have informed the house how the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act has worked out in their constituencies. Last night the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) touched on this subject very gingerly with reference to the province of Prince Edward Island. He made a few remarks about unemployment in that province and said some complaints had been made with reference to the work carried on, but he said he did not know whether or not the complaints were well founded. I believe the hon. member knew very well that the unemployment relief work in his constituency, and in the island in general, was carried out solely in the interests of the unemployed and the deserving, and that it was absolutely satisfactory. With reference to the constituency of Queens, which I have the honour to represent, the relief work and the resulting benefits to the unemployed were simply godsends dn a time of distress.

The proportion of federal funds allocated to Prince Edward Island was small in comparison with that allotted the other provinces, but possibly this was due to the fact that ours is an agricultural province and did not have so many unemployed as the industrial provinces had. But we did have unemployment; when we did get our allotment it was a great help to those people who were anxious to work, and we had very satisfactory results indeed. The people in my constituency and throughout the entire province as well were loud in their praises of the Department of Labour and the federal government with regard to the way in which the relief measures were carried out; every dollar of money coming from the federal government, the provincial government and the municipalities was spent entirely in the best interests of those who were unemployed, and there was no question of creed, class or politics when a man was looking for work. If he was out of work and in need the local government and the committee in charge asked no questions as to whether the man was a Grit or a Tory; they simply gave him what work was available, and everyone seemed quite satisfied with the way this work was carried out.

Some hon. member speaking in this house the other day made the statement that this money was wasted. I do not believe the hon. gentleman really meant that, because I claim that any money spent for the benefit of the poor and needy is not money wasted but is a gracious act on the part of whatever government granted that money. In 1931 we had a

Topic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION
Permalink

IS, 1932


Unemployment Continuance Act Conservative government in Prince Edward Island and certainly they fully cooperated with the federal government, but in 1930 there was a Liberal government in power in that province. I want to be just as fair to the Liberals as I am to the Conservatives; I believe that in the expenditure of unemployment relief moneys in 1930-and I will speak for my own county in particular-the Liberal government did the very best they could and were absolutely fair in the distribution of work. I think it ill behooves anyone from Prince Edward Island to say that a man had to be of the proper political complexion in order to get work, because the facts show that any man seeking labour found it if work was available at all, irrespective of politics. Last night the hon. member for Prince also placed on Hansard some remarks with reference to local conditions in Prince Edward Island. There was one statement I have heard him make time and time again; it is with reference to the generosity of the late Liberal government so far as the province of Prince Edward Island was concerned. I think the hon. member brought out that old chestnut last year, and in case he repeats it so often that he begins to believe it himself I should like to make a little comparison in this connection. I am sure when we compare the grants made to Prince Edward Island by different governments we will see that the generosity of the Liberal government was not so great as the hon. member for Prince would endeavour to have us believe. I should like briefly to compare the federal grants to my province in the year 1922-23 and the year 1929-30. The statutory subsidy was $381,931.8S in both years; it is fixed by the British North America Act and will remain the same until that act is changed. In 1922-23 the highway grant amounted to $106,277.01, but in 1929-30 this grant was discontinued by the Liberal government. In 1922-23 the grant for agricultural instruction and technical education amounted to $37,607.68, while in 1929-30 that grant was cut to $22,117.30. So we see that in 1922-23, as a result of legislation passed by a Conservative government, Prince Edward Island received a total grant of $525,-S16.57, while in 1929-30 the total grant was $404,049.1S. Even if we include the interim payment of $125,000, granted in lieu of the fulfilment of the recommendations of the Duncan report, we find that under a Liberal government in Ottawa the province was very little better off than it was in 1922-23. During the course of his remarks the hon. member stated that the Duncan report had not been implemented by the Prince Edward Island government, and he intimated that the Conservative government of that province should have come to Ottawa in order to see that the recommendations of the report were carried out. During the election campaign of 1930, the candidates of the Liberal party in our province went from one end of the country to the other, declaring that the Duncan report had been implemented one hundred per cent. Now the hon. member for Prince goes back on that statement, for he is urging upon the government of Prince Edward Island that they come to Ottawa and have the report implemented. That was their campaign policy in 1930, and I repeat emphatically that nothing has ever been done for Prince Edward Island from a political point of view', nor have any grants ever been made to that province, except through legislation put upon the statute books of the country by the Conservative party in power in Ottawa. I W'ill admit that the Liberal government gave us an interim grant of $125,000 in lieu of the Duncan commission's report, but that was made to our province as a political gesture prior to the election. We were told during the election campaign that the liberal government at Ottawa had a large audit committee figuring out the great grant that was to be given to Prince Edward Island. We heard this all through the campaign of 1930, and one would have thought listening to the Liberal candidates on that occasion, that half of the civil servants of Ottawa were employed on this audit committee. One night I challenged one of the candidates on the platform; I told him the facts regarding the matter and I said to him on that occasion that it was only Liberal political bunk they were handing out for election purposes. I was told then that it would be my fault if no further grant came from Ottawa, because I had described this audit committee as bunk. However, we do not expect at the present time any further implementing of the report under the conditions that exist, but as soon as any signs of improvement are noticeable we shall expect, and we know that we shall receive the fullest implementing of the Duncan report not only with respect to the maritimes generally but so far as our own province in particular is concerned. The unemployment problem is one of the most serious that the world has ever known. In this house we have heard many speeches on the unemployment situation, but we should all take into consideration one thing, and apart from politics it should be the endeavour



Unemployment Continuance Act of every hon. member to work out some solution whereby the problem may be met in this fair Canada of ours. The other day, speaking in this house, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) said a great many things with reference to unemployment and labour, condemning the Conservative party and the policy of the present government with regard to this question. As reported at page 435 of Hansard, he said: I know that my hon. friends on the other side are all recently converted to the idea of doing something for the working man. We will take that for what it is worth, but I regret to say that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and his followers have a long way yet to go on the road to Damascus before the scales will fall from their eyes and their conversion will take place in connection with the unemployment situation in Canada. It is all very well to criticize the government and their policy on unemployment, but it would be worth while, if we had time, to study the attitude of the present opposition towards this problem. It is not necessary, however, to go over all this ancient history; suffice it to say that, through the press and Hansard, future generations will know just what attitude the Liberal government took towards the unemployment situation and those who were in distress in this country. Their policy with regard to the unemployed was simply this-not a nickel of aid to those in distress. Canada has always had a certain amount of seasonal unemployment, but from 1924 down to the year 1930 the unemployment problem had been going from bad to worse throughout the length and breadth of this country. We recall the climax that was reached in February, 1930, when the mayors of the leading towns, from Sydney on the Atlantic to Vancouver on the Pacific, and especially in midwestern Canada, came to Ottawa. These chief magistrates were supported by labour organizations, churches and various societies engaged in relief work. They could not cope with the situation and therefore came to Ottawa and pleaded the cause of the unemployed. They tried to get some relief from the then government. What happened? The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, who was then Minister of Labour, and the government of which he was a member, turned a deaf ear to the pleadings on behalf of the unemployed and the needy. The government of that day preferred to go on with their bungling trade policies and so did not lend any aid to the unemployed in 1930. I mention this climax to show that unemployment has been a growing problem in Canada over a number of years; it is a problem which was bequeathed to this government by the late administration after the election of 1930. Besides world conditions which have been a cause of unemployment, the factors next in importance, contributing to the present situation, have been, so far as Canada is concerned, the trade policies of the late government. Let us consider the immigration policy of the late administration, especially as it affected unemployment. During the nine years they were in power they brought into this country over 1,250,000 people to replace the labour of almost the same number of our own people. While we have no objection to immigrants entering our country, we do object to their coming in when there is not sufficient work for our own people. Why bring in other people at such tremendous cost to the country? During those years about 826,000,000 was spent on immigration. What effect did it have? It had the effect of driving out of Canada over one million people; these men and women left Canada to seek employment in other countries. When conditions got bad in the United States and the other countries to which these people had gone, many of them were forced to return to Canada and they are being included in our unemployment lists. The trade policy of the former administration proved to have a very bad effect upon the employment situation. Their policy was one of flirting with free trade, and they paid no attention to what effect it might have on home conditions. Because of this policy hundreds of factories have been closed during the past ten years, and thousands of workmen thrown out of employment. We are proud to say that the immigration and trade policies of the present administration have proven to be most statisfactory. The hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) has made the statement that the influx into this country practically had ceased and it would not be allowed to commence until such times as Canada could take care of her own unemployed. Hon. members of the opposition should give credit to this government for the inauguration of new policies with reference to immigration and trade. Under these policies industry is again starting to develop and we are looking to the time in the very near future when it will be able to take care of all who are unemployed at present. Canada has had to face problems before but she has always endeavoured to work them out to the best possible advantage. One must have faith in a country with great natural resources, and I have faith in Canada. I have the greatest faith in the government of the day because this country is fortunate in having an administration which can take care of the problems facing the country and solve them to the advantage of the unemployed. I was interested in an editorial which appeared the other evening in the Ottawa Citizen, and from which I shall quote in part. This paper, apparently having sensed public opinion with regard to this debate which has been continuing for so long, says: It is safe to say that the majority of Canadian people are more concerned with Mr. Bennett's efforts to find the way out for Canada than with the Liberal party's protests about the rights of parliament as the controlling authority of government. And again: Without worrying too much about the opposition's constitutional criticism, they may well look to Premier Bennett to go on trying to carry out the mandate given to him to abolish the evil condition of unemployment in Canada. The opposition to this legislation is causing the greatest distress to the unemployed and needy throughout the country. As far as I am concerned, this opposition can continue for weeks, but it would be better for those who oppose and for the country generally if they would say what their stand is with reference to unemployment. From the speeches which have been made from the other side, we know that they are opposed to the granting of any relief at the present time.


LIB
CON
LIB

March 18, 1932