March 22, 1932

CON

Charles Napoléon Dorion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DORION (Translation):

How wonderful!

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

Joseph-Fernand Fafard

Liberal

Mr. FAFARD (Translation):

Is that a

question?

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

Charles Napoléon Dorion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DORION (Translation):

No, it is a

find.

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

Joseph-Fernand Fafard

Liberal

Mr. FAFARD (Translation):

My, but

that fellow is dull!

Mr. Speaker, what are they doing to relieve unemployment? Well, the municipalities and cities are asked to spend money, and the government believes it can attain its objective by inducing them to spend $100,000, $200,000 or $500,000. We are willing to help you, they say, and to give you an equal amount. I would not be surprised if the Prime Minister before the close of this session were to offer a premium to the municipality or city that spent the most money. What would you think of a farmer who, at the end of the year, having no money to pay his taxes, his insurance premiums or his debts, would say to himself: "This has been a bad year, but I have found a way of restoring prosperity; I will borrow one thousand dollars to construct a large building. I do not need it, but it may be of some use to me fifty years hence." You would evidently agree, Mr. Speaker, that such a policy was foolish. Yet, that is what the present government is doing.

These enormous amounts granted for the relief of unemployment are nothing more than dope handed to the unemployed to put them asleep. The ailment remains uncured. If we seek a remedy that will be of some real benefit to the unemployed, let us develop our industries, let us reestablish the prosperity tariff, the Laurier tariff, and we will see our industries thriving again and our people resuming work by hundreds of thousands. In order to do away with unemployment one

must encourage agriculture. I will go so far as to tell the government: if you wish to end this unemployment crisis, you need do one thing only: first, help agriculture.

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

Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :

Mr. Speaker, I have sat here day

after day listening to the debate on this resolution hoping against hope to see it end, with the full appreciation that I have of the incalculable danger of suffering that is liable to occur if the debate should be prolonged to such an extent as to make it too late, especially for the farmers in western Canada, to receive the seed grain which they need so badly for this year. Moreover, the prolongation of this debate has held up the machinery to look after the problem of unemployment relief work throughout the dominion to such a degree that great distress has been caused, which perhaps few members of the opposition seem to realize.

I have hesitated to rise, but I feel that we have reached the stage when I cannot keep my seat any longer. I shall, however, be very brief. What are the questions that have been under discussion in this debate? First, why has this resolution been brought down in this particular form? Members of the government believed that by a continuation of the act the work that had been started could be carried on with the same machinery and with less disturbance than would otherwise be the case. We were also advised to this effect by the premiers of the western provinces. No one will accuse the government, in dealing with this whole problem, of not in every way cooperating with the provincial governments. Therefore, this being our opinion, and it being backed by that of the premiers who were in the field, we felt that the only logical course to pursue was to ask for a continuation of the act for a period of two months.

During the debate hon. gentlemen have asked: Why was the bill not brought down

earlier? At the time this resolution was put on the order paper, it was believed that the report which was to be 'brought down not later than March 15, setting forth the works that had been undertaken and the amounts spent under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, would be ready by March 1, and it was not deemed advisable or fair to ask for an extension of the act if the information was not before the house and especially before hon. gentlemen opposite so that they might have the facts available in order to discuss properly the resolution leading to the bill. As has been said, however, due to the illness of Senator Robertson, the former Minister of

Unemployment Continuance Act

Labour, it was impossible to have this report brought down at the time it was then thought certain it would be ready.

Hon. gentlemen opposite, in reply to the criticism that money will not be available for the purchase of seed wheat in western Canada and particularly in Saskatchewan, have said that this wheat should have been bought and delivered much earlier. That at first sight would seem to be an honest criticism, and I shall ask the indulgence of the house for a very few minutes in order to disclose to it the steps which were taken. I believe that hon. gentlemen, especially the farmers from the west, will agree when I have concluded that no precaution has been overlooked to place in the hands of the farmers in that great dried-out area in Saskatchewan the wheat that was felt to be most suitable to that particular soil and the conditions of farming in which they are engaged in that territory; and not only that, but placed in their hands at the lowest possible cost.

It was realized early in 1931 that seed wheat would have to be supplied to the extent of many millions of bushels. It was realized after June 1, 1931, that there would not be any considerable crop in a large area in Saskatchewan. The wheat best suited to this area is marquis wheat. The farmers from western Canada know that if the wheat held in the elevators in storage throughout this area had been allowed to be shipped out it would have been well nigh impossible to get pure marquis wheat from any other part of western Canada, and therefore steps were taken to hold the crop of 1929-1930 for the distribution of seed wheat if it were necessary. This crop has been held by the taking of options at the lowest price to which wheat went, and exchanging these options until finally we had options for the delivery of wheat on May 1, 1932. Hon. gentlemen opposite who have said that this wheat should have been bought a year ago will surely realize if they are western farmers what a great addition to the cost per bushel it would have meant to the western farmers had the wheat been bought a year ago, the cash paid, interest on the money paid, plus storage and insurance costs, and so forth. No precaution has been overlooked. We have to put into the hands of the farmers the wheat most suitable to their operations in the territory in which they farm, and also put that wheat into their hands at the lowest possible cost, and we have put it into their hands at a cost very much lower than even the most optimistic of these farmers felt was possible.

Hon. members of the opposition have discussed what they call the constitutional issue raised in the resolution leading to the bill. I am free to admit that there are hon. gentlemen opposite who were serious in their discussion of this question, but I do not think that anyone reading Hansard seriously, especially the farmers in the west who are in such dire need, could feel in reading the speeches of most hon. gentlemen opposite that the constitutional issue was taken very seriously by the great majority of members who have spoken on the other side of the house. Time does not permit me to go into the details of speech after speech, but in order to be as fair as I possibly can I shall take some of the speeches of the so-called backbenchers and then some of the speeches of those who sit nearer to the front benches on the opposition side.

Surely no farmer and no sane person would think, listening to the speech of the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee), and hearing him discuss his communion with the dairy cows away back in 1930, that he was very much concerned with the constitutional issue or with the distress in which his fellow-farmers find themselves in the province of Saskatchewan. Who would think it of the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Both-well), also from the province of Saskatchewan, who in dealing with a piece of highway built back in 1930 did, much as I regret to have to say it, misrepresent the facts of the case when he stated that the 2-68 miles of road that he was discussing was very similar to the highway that was built in the United States. I shall not dwell further on the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite from the back benches.

I shall now take a few minutes to deal with the speech of a member who has always stood high in the Liberal ranks, one therefore who must be considered pretty much as a standard of the present Liberalism in Canada, one who must be considered pretty much as the yardstick by which young Liberals would measure Liberalism, one whom the young Liberals of to-day, taking part for the first time in the discussion of great public questions and following the traditions of what has been a great Liberal party would hold before their mind's eye as their ideal. I will take his speech to see if he made any serious contribution in the way of a discussion of the constitutional issue or said anything of a serious nature suitable to -a crisis like that in which we find ourselves at the present time. I refer to the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell).

Unemployment Continuance Act

Take, for instance, that passage in which he stated that whenever a minister went to Regina the relief officers used to rush in to see what it was all about and who would be coming next. I think I am in a position to state, Mr. Speaker, having made visits to Regina, that that statement is absolutely without foundation in fact. Never at any time when I visited Regina were any of the relief officers called in for consultation. They had their work to do in the field, and they did it. I do not impute that the hon. member deliberately made a misstatement. I will be more charitable and say that I think it was rather a mental habit.

Secondly we had his statement, or rather imputation, that the men who are in charge of the branches of the various works of the relief commission had had no experience for their work. I think it is only fair to hon. members of this house and to the people at large to refute that imputation, and therefore I shall read in short the qualifications of the men who had charge of the branches engaged in the distribution of relief:

Charles Stevens, Accountant, nine years' experience; chartered accountant certificate; former secretary, Regina Trading Company; ex-service man.

Leslie Whitley, Clothing, twenty-five years in wholesale clothing business with Gault Brothers, Ames Holden and Commission Lines.

A. W. Snider, Fuel, seventeen years' experience wholesale and retail, fuel, lumber and hardware business.

Guy Hummel, Feed and Fodder, farmer, age forty-nine, eleven years on executive rural municipal association, now' president for sixth year, reeve of own municipality for eighteen years.

William McMullen, Foods, twelve years' experience wholesale groceries; ex-service man.

A. E. Wilson, Grain Purchasing Department, long experience as grain man and prominent farmer.

All with either high school or college education.

There is another statement in the speech of the hon. member for Melville, a rather prolonged and winding statement, to which I feel I must make reference on account of the part that I played in the matter, and that was his reference to Percy Gordon's connection with the relief commission in Saskatchewan.

Who is this Percy Gordon about whom statements, or rather imputations, are made that leave an impression that is absolutely unwarranted? He is an example, of which we have many in the west, of a boy who came out from the east and who with his brother rode as a little lad from farm to farm in western Canada to make a few cents here and a few cents there to support his early widowed

mother and themselves. He has overcome practically all obstacles until he finds himself now in a very enviable position at the bar. Percy Gordon will take second place to no man in this country for integrity, for public service and for everything that marks a man in the truest sense of the term. It was only after some considerable persuasion on my part, and I did not minimize the sacrifice of time that it would mean for him, that he undertook this work, but I was able to persuade him to give his time to the work, and he has discharged it with great credit. Let me read the inference of the hon. member for Melville with reference to Percy Gordon, and show the time that the hon. member took in leading up to that inference. I must refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Melville in using his notes for the statement appearing in Hansard. I wonder if any hon. member in the house would take a chance of saying what I am about to quote without first having made notes on the subject. The extract from Hansard is as follows:

Percy Gordon, Conservative, K.C.-that is the one I expect the Prime Minister was referring to. I am not going to report to the house what I have noted here in regard to him because I cannot prove it. But I know there was somebody around the Regina Star for two years before the provincial and federal elections conducting a violent anti-French

Campaign. I think we have heard that anti-French statement made before, from somewhere. Then the extract continues:

-and pro-K.K.K, campaign, and this gentleman was also associated with it in some way.

Percy Gordon has never been an instigator of propaganda for the Ku Klux Klan. He does not belong either to the Ku Klux Klan or to the Knights of Columbus; I have that from his own words. Neither has he conducted an anti-French campaign, but the very opposite to anti-French. I regret to have to refer to this incident, but I am sure hon. gentlemen will agree that I am responsible, perhaps more than any other hon. member, and it is is only fair I should say these few words in defence of the man who has been attacked. Surely no one would expect such reward to be given to a man who has devoted nine-tenths of his time, free of charge or remuneration of any kind, to this relief work.

I have endeavoured to show in a few words that the debates on this resolution have not been of a serious character. With a few exceptions speeches have not dealt even with the constitutional question. Then, why all this debate? There must be some reason other than what appears on the surface. The point that strikes hon. members from the

Unemployment Continuance Act

west is this, that in consequence of the delay in the passing of this resolution and the bill one province in Canada will suffer more than any of the others; I refer to the province of Saskatchewan. Two years ago the right hon. leader of the present opposition, so far as his party was concerned, declared a very definite financial policy in reference to the province of Saskatchewan. Hon. gentlemen behind him acquiesced by their silence. That policy was not declared in the heat of the moment, because it was finely calculated, carefully thought out; the calculation was perhaps finer than on any other financial policy or fiscal policy at any time in Canada. He stated that his policy towards the province of Saskatchewan was that he would not give a cent to that province, to a Tory government. The whole basis of such a policy was that there was a Tory government in Saskatchewan.

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

John Vallance

Liberal

Mr. VALLANCE:

There was not.

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

Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

That was the reason the right hon. gentleman gave, and that is the substance of my argument. The reason that statement was made is evident to everybody. It was made because the Liberal government, which had been in office in Saskatchewan for over twenty years, had been defeated, and another government had taken its place. The answer of the province of Saskatchewan to -that statement made by the right hon. gentleman lies in the fact that although in the previous federal parliament there was not one Conservative from that province, at the last election eight Conservatives were elected. I hate to think that any mind could conceive of anything so diabolical to vent further his vengeance upon the people of a province, but it would seem that the right hon. leader of the opposition wishes to continue this debate further to embarrass the people of Saskatchewan because they elected eight Conservative members.

In what condition is the country in which we find ourselves at the present time? So far as the west is concerned 50,000 farmers are waiting for seed wheat. They are looking as they never looked before, for the passing of the winter months and to a spring which holds for them either the possibility of retaining their homes, or of losing them if they do not get their seed and their crop. They may lose their homes representing the toil of a lifetime, losing not only something of financial value but also the memory of their successes and defeats. This is, however, not a problem for Saskatchewan alone, and the question as to whether or not there will be a good crop interests more than the province of Saskatchewan; it pertains to the whole of the 41761-85i

Dominion of Canada. No one could estimate the importance to Canada if in the year 1932 in western Canada there were another bumper crop of. say, 500.000,000 bushels of wheat. Who can estimate, even with wheat selling at 50 cents or 60 cents a bushel, the stimulating effect such a crop would have throughout this dominion, when again millions of dollars of wealth from the west would again flow through the channels of trade into the coffers of the east? Yet, with that position before us, and with disaster liable to ensue if succour and aid is not, given by the way of relief, what have we witnessed during the past ten days?

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

Thomas McMillan

Liberal

Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):

We have seen (he worst exhibition of autocracy on the part of this government that has ever been witnessed in Canada since confederation.

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Sit down.

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

Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

No hon. member

on this side of the house has in any way tried to hamper the debate. The situation is apparent to anyone who will look at Hansard. Only eighteen government members have spoken on this subject while fifty-two opposition members have spoken. The speeches of government members cover only 130 pages of Hansard, while those of opposition members cover 463 pages. At this point I should like to place on Hansard some figures in connection with this debate, showing the names of the different provinces, and the number of government and opposition members representing those provinces who have spoken:

Province- Government OppositionAlberta i 3British Columbia i 3Manitoba. . . . i 4New B r unswi ck. 0 1Nova Scotia. . 3 2Ontario 3 10Prince Edward Is 1 1Quebec 5 21Saskatchewan. . 3 7

I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that every opportunity has been given hon. members opposite for free and frank discussion. There has been a cry of autocracy, despotism and the like. However has any hon. gentleman in the opposition made one serious criticism of any abuse by this government, or by any member of it, of the powers given under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act? Not one. Therefore, why should there be such opposition, if it were not for political purposes, to an extension of this policy for two more months? The question, I take it, before the house at the present time is not so much the question of this resolution or of a constitutional issue in the resolution as two or three

Unemployment Continuance Act

hon. members have suggested; the question is greater and more fundamental in this supposedly democratic parliament.

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

An hon. MEMBER:

Supposedly.

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

Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

In view of what I

have said I maintain there is only one conclusion at which we can arrive, namely that hon. gentlemen opposite, a minority in this house, are deliberately obstructing, holding up, legislation at a time when there never was such a crisis.

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Order.

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

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

Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

Therefore, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I do move, seconded by Mr. Murphy that this question be now put.

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

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

Mr. Weir moves, seconded by Mr. Murphy, that the question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?

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

Albert Frederick Totzke

Liberal

Mr. A. F. TOTZKE (Humboldt):

Mr. Speaker, before the question is put I want to say a few words on the subject. When the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) rose in his place to-day I did hope I would have the opportunity of congratulating him on the remarks he was about to make. I want to tell hon. members that the Minister of Agriculture held in the minds of the people of Saskatchewan quite a high position; I have known of him for quite a number of years; he was more or less concerned with the affairs of my own constituency, and the people thought a lot of him. But I want to say that his maiden speech in this house did a lot to lower him in the estimation of the people of Saskatchewan. He has somewhat improved since then, Mr. Speaker, and I trust that as he goes along and gets more experience in the house he will improve still further and devote more of his time to the important affairs of the country and of his own department, rather than to these partisan issues with which he was dealing. The minister stated to-day that owing to the obstruction and delay caused by members on this side of the house the farmers of western Canada would suffer through not being able to get their seed wheat for spring seeding. Before I say anything else, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that if the government will come down with a bill or even amend the present measure, striking out the words "peace, order and good government" and putting in an amount for seed grain or relief of any other kind, we will have nothing more to say and will do everything we possibly can to expedite the passage of the measure.

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

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

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

Since when did minorities run governments?

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

Albert Frederick Totzke

Liberal

Mr. TOTZKE:

If I understood the question correctly, Mr. Speaker, it was "since when did minorities run governments." All I can say is that in Canadian history this is the first time that I have ever known any government to undertake to run the affairs of this country under the authority of only one man.

In making my contribution to this debate to-day, Mr. Speaker, I do so without fear of the accusation of hon. members opposite that we are deliberately blocking the legislation in regard to unemployment and farm relief. In my opinion the present situation which must be faced is the most important one to engage the attention of parliament since I have had the honour of sitting in this house. The question of whether the government should be given the dictatorial powers they are seeking, while parliament is in session, has been fully discussed and does not require any reiteration on my part. I want to say, however, that I am in entire accord with the attitude taken by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), and I am sure my constituents will expect me to support that position to the utmost. Conditions in my province have not improved, and cannot improve for some time. My constituency is perhaps in a little better position than many others in my province, but we have had sufficient distress even in my own constituency to enable us to realize the seriousness of the situation, and I want to say that I.am ready to do everything I possibly can to assist in bringing about a solution of the problem. When the Prime Minister said, during the campaign of 1930, that he would end unemployment and would find markets for our products, enough people believed him to enable him to be returned to power. Since then the people have been waiting for him to implement his promises, but the fact is that to-day there is more unemployment and more distress than there was at the time that promise was given. This government has been a complete failure; they have no scheme whatever for the relief of unemployment.

The Prime Minister was most prolific in his promises during the campaign of 1930; they have been placed on Hansard a number of times and every hon. member of the house is familiar with them. The other day the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) enumerated some of those promises which he said had been implemented, and I should like to take just one or two of them and see to what extent they have been ful-

Unemployment Continuance Act

filled. At page 24 of Hansard for the special session of 1930 I find that the Prime Minister speaking in Calgary on June 12, said:

There are great national works that may be undertaken in times of stress and strain. They will be undertaken, and I propose that parliament shall formulate a definite plan for permanent relief, and that parliament shall deal with this national problem and provide amelioration for the conditions in order that next winter the Canadian people may not he facing the crisis that is upon us, without having a remedy at hand.

Let us admit, Mr. Speaker, that some national projects were undertaken, and that they did ameliorate the distress to some extent. But where is the definite plan for permanent relief which the Prime Minister promised at that time? At Victoria on June 17 he said:

You have my promise that if the Conservative party is returned to power, that as soon after July 28 as possible parliament will be called together to deal with the problem of unemployment by providing not doles, hut work, and that legislative action will he taken to bring about the future security of our country and the well-being of its people. We cannot tolerate the dole. Men and women of this country want work, not charity. Is there any excuse for Canada to have hard times if the government is discharging its duties as it should?

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party was returned to power and the special session was called. To some extent work was provided, but where is the legislative action which was to bring about -the future security of our country and the well-being of its people? And let me recall the last sentence of that quotation:

Is there any excuse for Canada to have hard times if the government is discharging its duties as it should?

I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of my horn, friend from Regina (Mr. Turnbull) the other night. He introduced an entirely new line of thought in this debate. He pleaded with the hon. members of the opposition to forego their obstruction and to allow the resolution to pass. He said that because of our tactics a large number of farmers of Saskatchewan would be unable to obtain seed wheat, and to-day that argument was supported by the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Further, the hon. member from Regina said it would require an immense amount of grain, and that the distribution of that grain would entail a large cost. Then, at page 1270 of Hansard the hon. member went on to say:

I think it is beyond the powers of the province at the present moment to finance this undertaking unless they receive assistance from

the federal government. Should this assistance not be forthcoming immediately the farmers of Saskatchewan will he without seed for their crops.

An hon. Member: Bring in a supply bill.

Mr. Turnbull: I thought some bright hon. member would raise that question. I am no.t trying to deal with this question in any controversial sense, and I do not intend to discuss whether action should be taken by means of a supply bill or otherwise. I am not going to say that the government is or is not to blame for the course it has pursued, and I am not going to argue that the opposition is right or wrong in the stand it has taken. I do not intend to be brought into any partisan discussion as to whether or not this matter should be handled by means of a supply bill.

It sounds very well, does it not? The hon. member takes a lofty attitude and asks members of the opposition to let the government-help Saskatchewan farmers secure seed grain -and this in face of the fact that every member on this side of the house has assured the government that if they will bring down a supply bill for the amount required we will do everything we can to facilitate its passing. Why did not the hon. member address his appeal to his leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) ? The hon. gentleman said he would not discuss the question of the right or wrong of the attitude taken by the opposition. Knowing him as I do, I would say it is an admission on his part that the stand taken by the government is wrong. The hon. member is a lawyer; surely, therefore, he realizes that there can be no justification for the continuance of these unheard of dictatorial powers given to the government while parliament is in session. He is sitting in this house as a supporter . of the government, and he and hi3 colleagues from Saskatchewan will be held responsible if there are farmers who do not obtain seed grain this spring. Perhaps he has tried his persuasive powers on the Prime Minister and has failed. It is just another illustration of the vanity and stubbornness of the Prime Minister. He has made another mistake but he cannot admit it.

Let me discuss for a moment the importance of this question of seed grain to the Saskatchewan farmers. I wish to quote a Canadian Press despatch dated Swift Current, March 12. It was quoted in part the other day but I wish to put the whole of it on record:

Drought Areas In Saskatchewan To Get Seed March 15

Distribution To Be Made Simultaneously At All Points, C. B. Daniel Announces

Swift Current, Sask., March 12.-Distribution of seed grain will start simultaneously at all points in the drought area on March 15, C. B.

Unemployment Continuance Act

Daniel, general manager of the Saskatchewan relief commission, announced in an address here Friday before a meeting of relief officers repre-centing the southwestern section of the province.

The object of the meeting was to discuss relief matters with the relief officers and representatives of the various municipalities.

On and after March 15, farmers holding allotment tickets from the commission will be at liberty to take delivery of their seed grain from the elevators.

"The commission will insist upon the repayment from the 1932 crop of all advances of grain for seed purposes, fuel oi'l, greases, formalin and machinery and harness repairs," Mr. Daniel said.

Mr. Daniel also announced that a million and a quarter bushels of oats for seed purposes have been purchased and ordered out, and that distribution is proceeding at the present time.

There is another news item which was referred to by the hon. member for Regina but which was not quoted. It reads:

Sask. Seed Plans Awaiting Passage Of Federal Bill

' Regina, Sask., March 15.-The $6,000,000 seed plans of Saskatchewan are hanging fire until the passage through the federal house at Ottawa of a bill now' under debate there, said Premier J. T. M. Anderson in the legislature, Monday. The premier was replying to a question put by John Gryde (C., Cypress.)

The premier suggested that the leader of the opposition might use his influence, if any, with the federal opposition to facilitate the passage at Ottawa of the amendment to the relief act, 1931. The amendment referred to, proposed to extend the "blank cheque" to Premier R. B. Bennett's government and is encountering heavy opposition.

Here we have on March 12, four days after the introduction of the resolution and the position of the opposition definitely stated by its leader, a statement made by the general manager of the Saskatchewan relief commission that on and after March 15 farmers holding allotment tickets from the commission will be at liberty to take delivery of seed grain from the elevators; and in the last sentence of that despatch Mr. Daniel states that a million and a quarter bushels of oats for seed purposes have been purchased and ordered out and that distribution is proceeding at the present time.

Then on March 15, after this resolution had been debated for almost a week, we find the premier of Saskatchewan saying that the distribution of seed grain was being held up until the passage of the bill under discussion. What happened between March 12 and March 15? Perhaps the hon. member for Regina can tell us that. Perhaps he can tell us whether or not seed grain is being distributed in accordance with the statement of Mr. Daniel. So far as I know, no member on this side of the house has had any word protesting our

action in this matter; and so far as we know distribution of seed grain is now going on. Perhaps that last statement of mine is not strictly correct because we have had a wire from Premier Anderson of Saskatchewan. I had better read it for the information of the house. It is dated Regina, Saskatchewan, March 21, and is addressed to myself:

In interests of thousands Saskatchewan farmers victims of national disaster through drought respectfully urge your sanction relief bill before Easter recess as indications early spring and provision seed dependent upon passing bill.

My reply to that telegram is dated March 21, addressed to Premier J. T. M. Anderson, Regina, Saskatchewan:

Strongly urge you wire Premier Bennett that he bring down supply bill for amount required for seed grain and relief before Easter recess. If this is done opposition will facilitate passage in every way.

Perhaps I am wrong there too; perhaps Premier Anderson did wire to the Prime Minister without success. Perhaps the suggestion for the wire from the Saskatchewan premier came from Ottawa. Let me quote what the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said when he introduced this resolution on March 8. At page 906 of Hansard he is reported as follows:

The federal authorities feel that they are not in as good a position as the provincial authorities to arrive at a proper judgment. Therefore w'e have concluded that instead of doing what has been done in days gone by, merely undertaking the responsibility for seed and feed as a national or dominion obligation, we will advance the necessary moneys by way of loans to the three provinces on their treasury bills, to enable them to provide seed and feed to fulfil the requirements of their agrarian populations. It may interest this house to know that we took steps last year to acquire through the aid of Mr. McFarland

who has so generously and freely without salary or compensation given of his time in the management of the wheat pools-sufficient quantities of wheat to take care of that situation at a price which I should say is at least ten cents lower than the rate to-day prevailing.

What does that mean? It means, if I am ' any judge of the English language, that the wheat has been purchased, and there is, in my opinion, no necessity for the holding-up of seed wheat for the farmers of Saskatchewan. The Prime Minister, in his statement, said that it was being advanced to the provinces by way of loan and that the security was to be their treasury bills. I submit that the issuing of provincial treasury bills is not dependent upon the passage of this legislation in this house. It is just another method of using the big stick to coerce us into acquiescence in the passage of this legislation.

Unemployment Continuance Act

May I say to the Prime Minister that however much he may be able to dictate to his own followers, we on this side of the house will resist coercion to the utmost. Let me repeat that if Saskatchewan seed grain distribution is being held up until this dead bill is revived, and if the Prime Minister has the interests of Saskatchewan farmers at heart, as he says he has; he should bring down a proper supply bill to take care of the situation. Let him do that and we will give him every support.

May I discuss for a few moments the statements made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Beynon). As appears on page 1156 of Hansard, he said:

There were municipal councils that were wholly non-political, but they were few in number, and while the municipal organizations were administering relief, the dissatisfaction was very, very pronounced, as the relief was administered inequitably. That was one of the reasons for discontinuing their services. Another reason was that even where the municipal councils were non-political and did their utmost to administer relief-

Mr. Totzke: Did the hon. member say the municipal councils were political?

Mr. Beynon: Oh, yes.

An hon. Member: They were Grits.

Mr. Beynon: I do not think anyone coming from Saskatchewan seriously disputes it. In fact, I might just tell the house that for the last twenty-five years there was very little, if anything, in the province that had not had politics in it.

I resent the allegation that the municipal councils are political. In so far as my own constituency is concerned there has never been any question of politics in the election of municipal officers. What strikes me as peculiar in the remarks of my hon. friend, and which illustrates his ingenious mind, is the statement that these municipalities should not be used in the work of the distribution of relief because they are political, and then his government proceeds to appoint its own political friends for this purpose. The hon. member then went on to discuss the personnel of the commission, and on page 1259 he is reported as saying:

He could not choose men and women trained in that particular work; he had to go out among the unemployed and the needy and choose his staff and form his organization.

As an illustration of how these men were chosen from among the unemployed and the needy, I shall give the particulars of the appointment of three men in my own immediate home vicinity. The first man chosen was more than an ordinary relief officer, he was a sort of superintendent over a number of relief districts. I have nothing to say against this gentleman personally; he is a friend of mine and I have known him for many years

and I believe him to be a man of the highest integrity and ability. However, this man was a hardware merchant and did not come from the ranks of the unemployed and needy. He was not chosen because he had no political affiliation; in fact, during the last two elections he appeared on a number of platforms throughout the constituency and made speeches on behalf of my opponent, the Conservative candidate.

The second man chosen was carrying on the business of blacksmithing and could not be termed as being unemployed or needy. He was a man who had worked as hard as possible on behalf of the Conservative candidate in both the provincial and federal elections, and his political affiliations were well known. I have nothing to say against this man as to his integrity; he will do the best he can, and I will not say anything as to his ability.

The third man chosen was employed and could not be classed as one of the needy. It may not be creditable, but the fact is he was a postmaster-he was one of those whom this government has said must keep their fingers clean of political partisanship. A number of postmasters in my constituency have been wrongfully dismissed on charges of political partisanship, and I will have something to say about this later on. This third man was noted for his political activities. During the elections of 1926 he went through my constituency and appointed scrutineers for the Conservative candidate.

The hon. member for Moose Jaw has stated that the officers of the rural municipal councils could not be used because of their political activities, and yet I am able to give illustrations of three men who were appointed in my own community, each of whom was very active politically. From experience I know that 95 per cent, I might almost say 100 per cent of the relief officers are supporters of the government.

The hon. member did instance one constituency in Saskatchewan where no Conservatives were appointed. I took the trouble to inquire into this and I found that no Conservatives had been appointed as relief officers but everyone who had been appointed was a supporter of the Saskatchewan government.

I do not make these remarks as a complaint against the carrying out of the duties of these officers, but I contend that if the relief commission and the government had used the municipal organizations for the distribution of relief, the cost would have been much smaller.

Unemployment Continuance Act

In conclusion I say that I believe that the only way in which this country can be brought back to a position of prosperity, the only way in which we can get away from this serious problem of unemployment is for the government to make a complete reversal on its fiscal policies-restore trade in the country and unemployment will cease. I think that the government should introduce at the earliest possible moment some form of unemployment insurance. I do not know in just what way this can be done, but the government should introduce some measure to show the people that they are trying to do something to help the unemployed.

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

William Gilbert Weir

Liberal Progressive

Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that anyone in this house or in the country can deny this feature of the debate. An attempt is being made to reinstate a measure which has been in operation for a year and a half and I think we are entitled to the fullest opportunity to discuss and consider the details thereof and the progress which has been made under this particular legislation. The resolution reads:

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.

Of course that is an innocent looking change, but when one reviews the act to be amended he gathers the true significance of what is being asked. By the way, this act has been dead now, for twenty-two days. Section 4 of the act which we are being asked to amend reads as follows:

The governor in council shall have full power to make all such orders and regulations as may be deemed necessary or desirable for relieving distress, providing employment and, within the competence of parliament, maintaining peace, order and good government throughout Canada.

I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the constitutionality of this procedure except to point out that we on this side of the house take the position, and I believe rightly so, that the government by its action in this regard is taking from parliament control which rightly belongs to parliament and vesting that control in the hands of the cabinet. To this procedure we conscientiously protest, particularly when parliament is in session and in a position to do the very thing the government is trying to do under this legislation. It seems passing strange that when the original bill was introduced last summer, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) himself on his own initiative changed the date upon which this measure should expire from March 31 to March 1. The argument used on

(Mr. Totzke.l

that occasion was that there was every likelihood that parliament would be in session during the month of March and the money could be voted in the regular way. At that time the right hon. gentleman took the position, and I believe properly so, that parliament had a right to know how the money is going to be expended and that the purpose of the act as passed last July was to provide for a period when parliament would not be in session. When the Prime Minister changed the date from March 31 to March 1, he admitted by his own action the desirability of parliamentary control over expenditures.

In addition to that hon. members on this side of the house have pointed out several instances where the authority secured under this legislation has been used for purposes far from having any connection with unemployment or farm relief. I should like to indicate a few of the orders in council that have been passed under this legislation, under the supposed authority of maintaining peace, order and good government, the legislation having been passed in the interests of unemployment and farm relief. Under this legislation there was passed first an order in council guaranteeing the advances made by the banks to the wheat pools; second, an order in council prohibiting the export of gold; third, an order in council increasing the strength of the mounted police by over 300 men; and, fourth, an order in council virtually amending the Insurance Act and thereby allowing the insurance companies to arbitrarily value certain of their securities. I cannot see how measures of this kind have anything to do with unemployment relief; they are totally foreign to it. and why they should be connected with this legislation, I fail to see. These actions may have been good or they may have been bad; I do not propose to discuss that. The point is that they are totally foreign to the measure which we understood we were passing nearly one year ago.

In this country there are several very controversial problems on which public opinion is probably quite evenly divided. Under this legislation those problems could be dealt with by the government, the measure decided and the subject closed for all time to come without parliament or the people of Canada having had an opportunity to express themselves. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), during his remarks this afternoon, indicated that there must be behind the actions of the opposition in prolonging this debate, something which could not be seen on the surface. I would venture the same assertion to him, that the introduction of this legislation in the

Unemployment Continuance Act

way in which they have brought it iu, in the expectation of maintaining it in force, indicates something below the surface which the government are not prepared to bring into the open. I believe there is grave danger in this legislation. There is danger to the government of the day. I cannot see wliy a government should want to take to itself power of this nature. Why not share the responsibility of the making of laws? It is dangerous for a government to possess such power and authority as this and it will sooner or later undoubtedly run them into difficulties.

A few days ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), in discussing this legislation, said in effect that the principle of this measure had been established last year when we passed the measure at the last regular session of parliament. If that is the position of hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to this legislation, we have every right to prolong this debate as long as we possibly can. I for one certainly was not voting in support of that principle, and if it is going to establish a precedent for parliaments yet to come we have an absolute right to fight it just as hard as we can. The government argue that the reason they want to resurrect this legislation is that they are not in a position to know what their actual requirements are. To me that shows weakness on their part. They have had full control and power since 1930 and they now by their actions admit that they are not in a position to know what their requirements will be for sixty days in advance. That is the situation. They have had full control in this regard, being able to gather all the reports, and from their experience they should be in a position to know exactly, or very nearly so, what they will require to carry on their undertakings for sixty days. Their argument in this regard is, however, further shattered by the Prime Minister's remarks of a few days ago. When he was speaking to this resolution earlier in the debate he said that calculations had already been made as to the feed and seed requirements of the three western provinces. He stated the amounts of money that each of the provinces had asked for, that is the amount of money required for that purpose is definitely known to-day by the government. The applications of the three western provinces have been made to the government, and I understand from despatches from Winnipeg that the Dominion government has agreed to the amounts suggested. Therefore the amount of money for seed and feed purposes and the cost of putting in the crop in

these three provinces has been determined so far as it is possible to do so. For instance, the Prime Minister said that Alberta had asked for $140,000, Manitoba for $650,000 and Saskatchewan for some $6,000,000. Therefore the government's argument in that regard is not sound. They already have the information they need.

I wish to make a few observations with respect to seed and feed relief, particularly as it applies to Manitoba. I do this because of an interjection made by the Prime Minister some days ago when the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) attempted to adjourn the house to discuss a matter of grave national importance. On that occasion, the right hon. gentleman interjected: "What is your Manitoba government doing?" That would indicate to those of us who heard the remark that there was an implication that the Manitoba government was not fulfilling its duty in this regard. The Manitoba government has requested that the federal government in respect of seed and feed relief share with it certain of the obligations. It has asked that the Dominion government assume one-third of the cost of feed and seed and also one-third of the freight cost of bringing in those materials, the provincial government agreeing to assume a similar responsibility. I think that is a very reasonable request and one which if the Dominion government is going to assist in the matter of relief they might very well act upon. That there will be loss with respect to feed and seed there is no doubt. Any municipal man who has had experience in this matter in years gone by knows that there will be loss in that regard, but I will let that pass for the moment because the Prime Minister in his remarks on that same day did state that whereas these advances to which I have referred were loans to the provinces, and that the dominion was assuming no responsibility for losses in connection with them, but that when the losses were actually determined and known the matter might be opened up for further consideration. Those remarks of his will be found at page 906 of Hansard, and I hope that the Prime Minister will keep them in mind when this matter comes up for consideration after we have found out what the losses actually are in this regard.

Coming back to the inference that the Manitoba government was asking for something unreasonable, I really got the impression that the Manitoba government had been asking for something that no other government had been asking for, and therefore I was very much surprised to learn from the remarks

Unemployment Continuance Act

of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) the other day that the government of Alberta had asked for exactly the same thing. So why pick on Manitoba?

A return was brought down in the house some days ago which showed the amount of money which had been advanced by this government to the three prairie provinces and British Columbia. This return shows that Alberta has received advances of S4.624.000; Manitoba, $3,205,537, and that figure has since been raised to S3,775,000; Saskatchewan, $16,302,496, and that figure has since been raised to $16,800,000. In addition to that, may I point out that the province of Saskatchewan has had advanced to it, for the drought area of seventy-six municipalities, $5,250,000 as a straight gift. I am finding no fault with that whatever. In addition Saskatchewan has received for purely provincial purposes $6,500,000; in other words, Saskatchewan has received $6,500,000 for carrying on purely provincial undertakings.

Coming back to the matter of seed and feed relief so far as it affects the province of Manitoba, the Prime Minister stated in his remarks that the three western provinces were being treated in exactly the same manner, that these moneys that were being advanced were being advanced as loans pure and simple and it was intended that they would be paid back. I think there has been some misunderstanding in this regard. I take the Prime Minister's word, of course, but I should like to put it in this way: Is this government advancing that money to Saskatchewan as a loan, or is it giving some money directly and assuming responsibility for some of the losses in the drought area? I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) is not in his seat because I have under my hand a letter signed by him dealing with the matter, in which he says:

This government is providing the funds to purchase food, clothing, fuel, feed and seed which is being distributed by a relief commission.

I do not propose to deal with that further, but hon. gentlemen can easily see how differences of opinion might arise in that regard. So I think that the inference of the Prime Minister and it was merely an inference- with respect to Manitoba was quite unfair and quite uncalled for.

May I point this out, that up until January 26 last the Dominion government actually had no policy with respect to this very matter of farm and unemployment relief, because I have under my hand a letter from the Min-

ister of Agriculture, dated January 26, 1932, in which he says:

I hope to be able to get in touch with the Ministers of Agriculture within the next week, and set out the extent to which we will be able to help or not help.

That shows that the Dominion government actually had no definite policy on the date of January 26 last in spite of the fact that the matter was brought to their attention in a conference as early as August 31 last, correspondence respecting which I have under my hand. Now the Dominion government comes along and says that we are holding this matter up, that seed and feed are wanted badly by the farmers of the western provinces and that the government is not in a position to provide it. In spite of the fact that the Dominion government was able to provide bombs and other paraphernalia for the police force, they were not far enough advanced in their program to have the seed wheat ready for the farmers of western Canada.

We have heard from several members on the other side of the house indicating that they would like members on this side to cooperate with them in dealing with this vexed problem of unemployment and farm relief. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that cooperation works both ways. For example, last summer when we were discussing this question the Prime Minister indicated that the members of the house would be communicated with and asked to submit to the director of unemployment relief federal projects that might be undertaken in their respective constituencies. That letter was received in due course and I presume that most of the members acted upon it. I know that I spent considerable time in getting in touch with the reeves of municipalities and the mayors of various towns and the local provincial representatives, of whom there are five in my constituency, two of them good Conservatives, and I submitted their suggestions to the dominion director of unemployment relief, but of all the projects I suggested, and there were several, I was informed that only one project could be classed as a federal undertaking, namely, the building of a small post office in a rural town in my constituency.

Further, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy)-I am sorry he is not in his seat- visited my constituency last fall in the interests of unemployment and farm relief. He visited the largest town in my constituency, a town of some twelve hundred people. I live only some ten or twelve miles out of that town; in fact, it is my business town. Of course, I did not expect that the minister

Unemployment Continuance Act

*would get in touch with me, because that would be expecting too much, but I became curious after I knew that he was there and I began to make inquiries as to who he dia see. Mark you, Mr. Speaker, it was pub- [DOT] lished in the paper that he was out there in the interests of unemployment and farm relief. On checking up on his activities I found that the hon. minister did not even see the provincial representative, who lives in that town, that he did not even see the mayor of that town, who lives right in the town, that he did not see the reeve of the municipality, who lives a few miles out of the town; in fact, he did not officially see a single representative of the town or rural municipal council, and he was there in the interests of farm and unemployment relief. But he did see some people, Mr. Speaker. I see the minister coming into the house now. Strange as it may seem, about a week or so after the hon. gentleman's departure, a Conservative nomination convention was held for that provincial constituency. That is the way the hon. gentleman proposes to cooperate with us in dealing with this vexed problem of unemployment and farm relief.

I wish, Mr. Speaker, to refer to another feature of this legislation which I think is very unfair and unjust. I call it the big stick feature. When we met at the special session of 1930 the request was made for $20,000,000, and at that time we were told that we had to vote the amount asked for or the Prime Minister would not go to the Imperial conference. That was the big stick held over us at that time. Then we come along to the regular session of 1930, and we find that no legislative program was brought forward with respect to unemployment until the dying days of the session when everyone was fatigued and anxious to get home. In other words the government waited until everybody was wearied of attending parliamentary sittings, knowing all the time that the government's majority would carry the measure through the house. That was the big stick used on that occasion.

Now, at this session of parliament, we find another big stick being used when, in effect, we are told, "If you do not pass this legislation the farmers in western Canada will not get their seed and feed grain." So, we are being coerced into the adoption of this measure. I think the government is going altogether too far. If hon. gentlemen opposite maintain the position taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) that the principle of this legislation was endorsed last year, hon. members on this side of the house would be

making a very serious mistake if they were to let this measure go through the house without finding out definitely the government's policy in connection with relief.

I wish to touch upon the government's policy with respect to unemployment and farm relief from a little different angle. To my mind the government's difficulty in handling the present situation is one of its own making, and I make that statement for three reasons. First, there were the election campaign promises made by hon. members opposite. Every man was promised a job. According to hon. members opposite the reason men did not have jobs in 1930 was the failure of the previous government. I ask hon. members to think of the psychological effect created by that kind of campaigning. A good many people took the Prime Minister and his followers at their word; they accepted the statements made by hon. members opposite at their face value.

Then we come to the $20,000,000 voted for the relief of the unemployed. The voting of that money was another very definite factor in creating the attitude of mind among the unemployed. .Then we come to the blank cheque, whereby unlimited money was placed in the hands of the government. People are still looking for the government to carry out its promises. They accepted in good faith the utterances of hon. members opposite, believing that they would be carried out. I ask, Mr. Speaker, if it is any wonder we have delegations at Ottawa who place their views very forcibly before the Prime Minister. He created the attitude of mind in the people of this country that there were jobs for everybody. Probably they think he is a machine, that he can turn a wheel and kick out a job whenever he likes. The problem with which the government is faced is of their own making.

There is another feature of this legislation to which I think reference should be made. I think we should give very serious consideration to the continuation of a policy of spending money to create employment. Up to the present time that is all we have been doing. Have we obtained results justifying the amount of money which has been spent? We have adopted a policy forcing municipalities and provinces to go further into debt so that jobs may be created. I am not so sure the country is prepared to continue with that policy. By this legislation we have already increased the debts of the provinces and municipalities by about $100,000,000. How much actual employment has been supplied? I think those are questions the people of

Unemployment Continuance Act

Canada are anxious to know. Lack of time prevents me discussing further this phase of the question. I say again, however, that the feature to which I have referred is one which should be given the greatest possible consideration by hon. members in this house. Has the government's policy of spending money produced the results expected when the legislation was originally introduced and passed at the various sessions of parliament?

Summarizing the remarks I have made, the situation presents itself to me from three distinct points of view. First, the constitutionality of the procedure adopted. In other words, will this house reinstate a blank cheque policy for another sixty days, or shall we follow the procedure of voting supply in the ordinary way? The government has taken the position that they have not sufficient information, that they do not know the actual conditions they might run into, that their information does not enable them to name a definite amount of money, and bring in a supply bill. I think hon. members on this side of the house, knowing the circumstances surrounding this legislation, are quite justified in pressing for a money bill which could be brought in in the ordinary, proper parliamentary way. Is a precedent being established for years to come? I sincerely think that hon. members must view the proposed legislation with real seriousness, because it would seem that the government is establishing a precedent whereby they may have control of the spending of money, the making of policies, the placing of law making in the hands of a few cabinet ministers and probably the hands of only the Prime Minister. Such policies are going much too far in the creation of an absolute dictatorship in Canada.

Then, I should like again to refer to the policy of obliging provincial and municipal governments to go further into debt, so that work may be created for the unemployed. Is that a policy which this government will continue to follow? I think that that is a feature of the proposed legislation which should receive the most careful consideration from all parties concerned, if our municipal and provincial governments-and particularly those in western Canada-are to remain solvent. To my mind this is a very important matter, and one -which this house cannot afford lightly to pass over. I feel that the government should be in a position to state the amount of money it requires to carry on business for a period of sixty days. For the life of me I cannot conceive of any board of directors while they are in session, saying (Mr. W. G. Weir.l

to their general manager, "Go ahead and do what you like; you do not need to consult us." I do not think we would find any board of directors which would give their management such unlimited powers. Why should we be obliged to do that so far as this government is concerned? We have a right to know the amount of money required to carry out the proposed program, and should proceed in the regular way by bringing in a supply bill, thereby eliminating further discussion.

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

March 22, 1932