Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):

Will the hon. minister advise the house what all this has to do with the unemployment in Canada?

Mr. MANION:

I will come to unemployment in Canada in a few moments. The hon. gentleman has been sitting in this house for some time and I do not remember his offering any suggestive criticism to help unemployment. .

This is the same Russia that repudiated its debts to the other countries of the world; this is the Russia that is spreading propaganda throughout the world in an attempt to make all other governments of the same type. This is the autocracy such as my hon. friend describes us as being, but if he used the same forms of speech against the government of Russia they would soon send one of their

O.G.P.U, officers to him in the middle of the night and he would not be known any longer in Russia. This is the country which has wiped out absolutely freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of any kind -all forms of freedom of which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is in favour. The hon. gentleman has stated in this house, not once but many times, that he is no communist; he has stated that and I accept his statement, but I do say that if he were a communist he would talk exactly as he is talking.

I shall say a few words with regard to the remarks of the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson). He spoke this afternoon for forty minutes; he made many generalities but offered no constructive criticism. I have listened to many hon. members on the other side who have taken part in this debate but

I have heard nothing constructive. They have been absolutely barren so far as anything helpful to us is concerned. The hon. member for South Perth to my mind adopted a most unfair attitude towards the different commissions of the province of Ontario. He mentioned the hydro electric commission, the liquor commission, the mother's allowance commission, the old age pensions commission and practically every provincial commission of Ontario. He stated that the officers of these commissions were playing politics with the people of Ontario, that they were taking part in politics on behalf of the Conservative government of that province. I interrupted the hon. gentleman and invited him to give more details. I pointed out that he had said either too much or too little. I say in all fairness that without giving more details than he gave, and he gave none, the hon. gentleman should not brand the whole group of commissions of the province of Ontario as players of politics without offering some proof. Generalities will not get the hon. member anywhere; they probably do no damage to the province of Ontario, but they belittle the parliamentary life of our country.

Mr. SANDERSON:

I want to ask the hon. minister-

Order.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member for

South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) has spoken already.

Mr. MANION:

I have no objection to hearing anything of which the hon. member wishes to remind me.

Mr. SANDERSON:

In my remarks this afternoon I did not refer to the members of the commission. I said the officials, and I stand behind that statement.

Mr. MANION:

To make a general statement like that without giving any proof whatsoever only belittles the whole parliamentary life of our country.

Hon. members on the other side have criticized us severely because of what they call our lack of fair treatment of the unemployed. The number of unemployed has been given at 350,000 and other such figures, and the hon. gentleman himself I think, used the figure of 350,000. He mentioned also the name of a former organizer of the Liberal-Conservative party, General McRae. He criticized that gentleman for advocating the bringing in of people to the Peace river territory. General McRae was speaking for himself, and I will admit quite frankly that many of us spoke

970 COMMONS

Unemployment Continuance Act

in past years in favour of immigration. My hon. friends criticized General McRae and those others who spoke in favour of immigration, but during their years in office-they were in power from 1921 to 1930-they showed no signs of a wisdom greater than ours in that regard. I have the figures showing the immigration into this country from 1926. to 1930, during the regime of my hon. friends. They are as follows:

1926 136,000

1927 159.000

1928 167,000

1929.. 165,000

1930 104,000

730,000

During 1930 this government was in power for five months, but we had no control over the immigration which occurred during that year. Under the regime of the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) 730,000 immigrants were brought into this country. That is just double the highest figure given for unemployed in the Dominion of Canada to-day, in fact, it is about three times the highest figure given by anyone who is at all dependable. How many immigrants were permitted to come into this country during 1931? The figure is, 27,500, a small number as compared with the vast number brought in during the regime of the previous government.

My hon. friend and his friends have abused us for what they say is our lack of policy in connection with unemployment, but I know of no sound policy carried out by them during the time they were in power. Unemployment was observable to everyone in 1929, but my hon. friend's leader denied at that time that there was any unemployment. In fact, he did not admit it until the elections were half over, and then he had to admit it because he had been nearly howled down by the unemployed in various sections of western Canada. I have no desire to hark back, but at that time the right hon. gentleman took the attitude that he would not give a five-cent piece towards the unemployed in any province governed by a Conservative administration. That was the attitude taken by his leader, and yet my hon. friend stands up in the house and belittles us because we have not solved a condition which is world-wide in extent. Neither he nor those in the cabinet of his leader at that time showed any particular foresight; they had no plan of any kind, and the only thing they did during their five years' regime was to boast of conditions over which they had absolutely no control. My hon. friends opposite have said that they

rMr. Manion.]

are ready to cooperate with us. Has anybody in the house seen any signs on their part of cooperation at any stage? They find fault with every move we make. The leader of the opposition yesterday, when he was criticizing my right hon. leader stood in his place and asked my right hon. leader: Did

you not warn the western provinces they must economize? If my right hon. leader had said yes, the leader of the opposition was ready to berate him for that. But my right hon. leader said that he had not warned them at all. Then my right hon. friend went round three sides of the house and criticized my right hon. leader for not having warned them. That is the kind of cooperation we are receiving from my hon. friends opposite.

Even in regard to the loan that was raised, which was partly for use in connection with unemployment relief, the leader of the opposition, when he spoke in Halifax or some other maritime city, did not cooperate in the raising of that loan. Indeed, in the maritime provinces he spoke against the loan.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

He did not.

Mr. MANION:

I am sorry I have not

under my hand the right hon. gentleman's speech, but I remember very distinctly the right hon, gentleman's attitude at that time, and it was certainly not encouraging the people of this country to lend any money to the government.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I supported the loan very strongly. I took exception to the particular designation that was given to it.

Mr. MANION:

My right hon. friend must have supported it under his breath, because none of us heard him doing so.

As regards the economic conference, when the leader of the opposition was Prime Minister, he and his Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) used to ask in a shocked manner: If the Conservatives were elected, whom could they possibly send to the economic conference? That was one of their stock arguments: "If this Bennett crowd should be elected, who can possibly go to the economic conference?" Not only did we send the present Prime Minister of Canada and his confreres to the conference, but they arranged matters so that another economic conference is to be held in this country, and in bringing that economic conference to Canada they achieved a success which has never before been equalled by anybody at such a conference.

Why, when the wheat bonus was given to the western farmers, not one of my hon.

Unemployment Continuance Act

friends opposite praised us; they have been finding fault with us ever since for giving the five cent bonus on wheat. They have been talking again and again not only about our failing to relieve unemployment, but our failing to do anything that my right hon. leader promised when he went throughout the country.

Mr. BOUCHARD:

Mr. BRADETTE:

The hon. member is

calling us disloyal again.

Mr. MANION:

Who used the word "disloyal"?

Mr. BRADETTE:

The hon. member is

mentioning the word now. It is the same old cry as before.

Mr. MANION:

Why is my' hon. friend

bringing in the question of loyalty now?

Mr. BRADETTE:

The hon. member mentioned it.

Mr. MANION:

I never mentioned loyalty at all. If the question of loyalty were at issue, I could discuss it quite readily with the hon. gentleman. I made no mention of loyalty except in passing, in implying that it would be a loyal attitude to take. I do not question the loyalty of my hon. friends opposite. I presume they are as good Canadians as we are. But I say they would be taking an attitude better for this country and for the world if, instead of this captious criticism in which they are and have been indulging during the whole session, they came forward and helped us during these trying times, leaving their able criticism-because they can give able criticism-to things which should be criticized. I have no doubt the government has performed some acts which are open to criticism, some acts which have nothing to do with the trial through which we are passing. My hon. friends opposite will find chances to criticize us as they always do, but at the present time they should stand shoulder to shoulder with us in an endeavour to help us solve this problem instead of doing everything they can to block us.

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE:

Mr. Speaker,

I am grateful to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) for his friendly advice as to the attitude that I in common with my friends on this side of the house should take. Let me assure him that in the remarks which I shall make I shall try, first, to speak to the question before the chair, and secondly, to avoid the spirit of bitterness which he has displayed in the few words with which he has favoured us. Indeed the hon. gentleman has done very

well for one who said at the beginning of his remarks that he did not intend to address the house. I noticed, however, that he came well prepared with full quotations to give to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth).