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