March 3, 1933

LIB

James Layton Ralston

Liberal

Mr. RALSTON:

May I speak to the point of order. We must remember that the Unemployment Relief Act contains many provisions other than the payment of money. Section 4 of the act which it is proposed by this resolution to continue is that 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 th-e competence of parliament, maintaining peace, order and good government throughout Canada.

I submit that we are in order in discussing any measure which the governor in council might possibly take having in view the relief of distress, the provision of employment, or

Relief Act. 1933

the maintenance of peace, order and good government. Section 2 is very much in the same words but deals particularly with the payment of moneys out of the consolidated revenue fund for any of the purposes indicated. I submit therefore that this debate is a good deal wider than most debates on ordinary resolutions. This resolution precedes a bill which is intended to extend an act permitting action in any form, and any hon. member can suggest anything that relates to any of the objects contemplated.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink
CON

George Gordon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GORDON:

My hon. friend has been

reading from the 1931 legislation, but that is not the legislation we contemplate extending for a year. The legislation with which this legislation has to do is that of 1932.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

The only difference is that the clause with regard to peace, order and good government is dropped.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink
CON

George Gordon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GORDON:

At one time that was

quite an important subject.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Yes, it was.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink
CON

Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury

Conservative (1867-1942)

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bury):

The hon. member who has the floor frankly admitted that he was wandering from the subject and I ask him in fairness to the committee to keep as close to the subject as he can.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink
CON

Leslie Gordon Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL (Hamilton):

And that will be

far enough away.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink
LIB

John Knox Blair

Liberal

Mr. BLAIR:

I was referring to deflation.

Mr. Austen Chamberlain, I would point out, set his heart upon deflating and asked the bankers to assist him in 1920. What were the consequences? The people bought less; interest increased; scarcity of money followed with depressed industry; debts increased as money became dearer; and there was an increase in taxes. The banks at any time can restrict credits till wages fall. Lord Rother-mere pointed out that the gold standard benefited the bankers by restoring the prestige of currency, but it put an unbearable handicap on industry and farming.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink
LIB

John Vallance

Liberal

Mr. VALLANCE:

they have only thought of to-day and thinking only of it the result has been that now we have unemployment, people walking our streets, men and women hungry,-we have all these things in this great rich country.

Are the people less hungry to-day than they were in 1930? I ask the committee to consider this question in the light of the statement made by the minister. Speaking at Vancouver on June 18 and referring to the then Prime Minister of Canada, the present leader of the opposition, he said-

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink
CON

Leslie Gordon Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL (Hamilton):

That is all past.

Relief Act, 1933

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink
LIB

John Vallance

Liberal

Mr. VALLANCE:

It is all past and you

do not like to hear of it. He said:

However blind he may be to your future and deaf to your present needs, surely he cannot stop his ears with smug complacence and selfesteem to the cry that carries across the nation

the cry of the destitute and hungry, the cry of mothers and fathers and little children who cal) to us as Christians and as Canadians to heal their pain. I would have welcomed his cooperation in this time of national distress.

He is just about to ask for it again. He continues:

It transcends the realm of politics, it appeals to the heart of man, not to the imagination of the politician.

He was not talking to a bible class at that time. This afternoon when questioned about a certain statement which he had made he drew attention to the environment in which his statement had been made, before a bible class. I think that a man occupying the position of Prime Minister of 'Canada, no matter where he makes his statement, whether it be before a bible class, whether it be on the floor of the hoarse, whether it be in Vancouver, Regina, Winnipeg or Hamilton-

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink
CON

Leslie Gordon Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL (Hamilton):

Or Battleford.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink
LIB

John Vallance

Liberal

Mr. VALLANCE:

Or in Battleford, if you like. I will make a statement in the most kindly way-if he does not mend his ways, he may be in Battleford. Then at Renfrew on July 16 he said:

There is no excuse for unemployment in our country. There is no excuse for poverty. We have the people and the resources. We have the capital, but capital will not allow itself to be used unless there is stability and certainty It must not be wiped out by factories being closed down by unfair competition from abroad.

He made that statement and used the words "unfair competition." The Prime Minister's policies have been in existence since 1930 and to-day we have only twenty-five per cent of both our external and internal trade as compared with that time. I could go on and give many more quotations from the speeches made by the Prime Minister relative to the position of the unemployed but-

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Make your own.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink
CON

Leslie Gordon Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL (Hamilton):

Go on, your's are better than his.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink
LIB

John Vallance

Liberal

Mr. VALLANCE:

"Was you there, Charlie?"

Unemployment was not the only problem with which the Prime Minister was going to deal; he was going to solve all the problems of Canada overnight; he was going to give relief to everything, but he has ended up by relieving the people of all they ever had.

He made the statement this afternoon that forty-nine per oent of the farms of Saskatchewan were without mortgages. I challenged that statement this afternoon and I do so again to-night. It may be that forty-nine per cent of the land in the province is not at present under mortgage, but that land is not held by the farmers who are actively clutivating it. With the exception of a very small percentage of farms, the only farms without mortgages are those which have been wrested from the farmers by the mortgage companies. If this government is in power much longer it will be ninety-nine per cent, not forty-nine. I make this prediction: If the Prime Minister will take the statistics one year from now, that is if he goes to the country in one year, or, say, two years from now, he will find that the figure will be nearer to ninety-nine per cent than to forty-nine.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink
LIB

William Duff

Liberal

Mr. DUFF:

The whole country is mortgaged under this government.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink
LIB

John Vallance

Liberal

Mr. VALLANCE:

What did he propose to do for the farmers and what has he done for the farmers? I would be just as bold in making my statements if the right hon. gentleman was present, or perhaps a little bolder.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

You could not be.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink
LIB

John Vallance

Liberal

Mr. VALLANCE:

He stated that when he backed the provincial bank of Manitoba to the extent of 812,000,000. he did so in order to save the deposits of the farmers. I doubt if over three per cent of the farmers of western Canada have deposits in the banks. They owe much more to the banks than they have in the way of deposits. He talked of sound money and about conditions as they are today, but let me give an illustration-and I hope the chairman will not rule me out of order because I believe it has some bearing upon the subject under discussion. We think each individual in Canada is entitled to fair and just consideration. We also believe we should make equal sacrifice in the condition which we find in this country. Before I left home I was speaking to some of the farmers in my constituency. Let me take the house back to 1917 and 1918 and show it a statement given to a bank in order that credit might be extended to a farmer. Let me show the house another statement given in January, 1933, which indicated the visible assets of that farmer to be 100 per cent more than they were in 1917, yet in spite of that fact he has not to-day a statement one-third as good as he had in 1917. If that same farmer had in 1917 taken that amount of money and invested it in government bonds, he would still have the

Relief Act, 1933

same amount of money and the interest on it would have a greater purchasing power to-day than it had in 1917. Hon. members ask: Why have you so much distress among the farmers? That is one of the reasons. The primary producer is bearing the burden. The $115,000,000 spent by this government in unemployment relief has to be paid, not by the factories, but from the great natural resources of Canada, and agriculture makes the largest contribution to it. The government has attempted to give some measure of relief to agriculture, and I hope that before the bill to be founded on this resolution is passed, the minister will be in a position to tell us just where the government stands in relation to the farmers, and especially the wheat growers of western Canada.

What did the Prime Minister promise the farmer? We know what he has done. I want to read a few of the promises he made.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION FOR ONE YEAR OF PROVISIONS OF RELIEF ACT, 1932
Permalink

March 3, 1933