March 21, 1933

LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I think the Prime Minister sees what will follow as a result; we will be told that trade with Great Britain in these products has increased as a result of the United Kingdom^Canada agreement, while as a matter of fact if that trade does increase it will be because we have voted for the relief of unemployment money which is being used to subsidize the export of certain commodities to Britain. To me that does not seem a fair way to deal with the appropriations which this house is asked to make. I would ask the minister if there are any other objects or services, for which the Minister of Finance has indicated provision is to be made, payment for which will come out of money we are now voting for relief purposes.

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:

I know of no others at the present time, but I can easily understand that occasions might arise when the provisions of this act might be resorted to for other purposes, and I think very properly so.

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

Alfred Speakman

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. SPEAKMAN:

This information may have been given, but if so I did not catch it. I should like to ask the minister just how much was expended last year on that kind of direct relief which is covered now by the $20,000,000 limitation.

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:

The expenditure this year which I estimate will not be more than $20,000,000 covers all that sort of relief that was given during this fiscal year.

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

Alfred Speakman

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. SPEAKMAN:

That is hardly the information I wanted. How much was expended last year on that sort of direct relief which will be covered this year by this $20,000,000?

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:

Nothing was paid out this year except money for direct relief, and the amount actually paid out in that way up to February 28, 1933, amounted to $11,898,291.76. There are other commitments which will come in and which will be shown in the report which will be tabled under the act. As my hon. friend understands, sometimes the accounts are delayed; in fact quite recently we paid small accounts coming in under the 1930 legislation. However, that is substantially the position.

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

Alfred Speakman

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. SPEAKMAN:

I wanted to ascertain whether the limitation of $20,000,000 inserted in the act this year will prove adequate as compared with the expenditures of last year for the same purposes. I understand that we did not spend $20,000,000 last year on direct relief.

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:

I estimate, and I am certain that I am right, that the $20,000,000 named in the present legislation will be sufficient to take care of direct relief for the coming year. Last year, of course, the amount was greater, but with better organization, a better system, and I think with some improvement in general conditions-it is slow but I think it is noticeable-I believe the expenditure will be cut down.

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

Abraham Albert Heaps

Labour

Mr. HEAPS:

If this amount of $20,000,000 is not sufficient to cover the cost of relief what course of action will be open to the government?

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:

I do not think that difficulty will arise, but unquestionably if it does present itself it will come about when parliament is in session, and the government can apply to the house for assistance.

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

Thomas Reid

Liberal

Mr. REID:

I wonder if the minister has the information at hand with regard to the number of families that have been put on the land in British Columbia, and if he could say where they have been located.

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:

I believe the government of British Columbia have placed a small number-probably less than one hundred-of families on the land under their agreement. I am not disappointed, however, because it is essential that a rigid selection be made if any permanent colonization is to result. The actual number has not been reported to us by the province of British Columbia as yet.

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

Henry Elvins Spencer

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. SPENCER:

I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to the unemployed who are placed on the land. Is the land selected iby the federal government or by the provincial government? What sort of land is it? Is the land improved; is it government land, or is it land that has been abandoned by other people? Could the minister give us some particulars along this line?

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:

Committees are set up in each province of Canada to deal with the matters to which the hon. gentleman has referred. It is obvious that the purchase of land must be discouraged. In many municipalities throughout Canada there are abandoned farms belonging to those municipalities, and generally we have found the municipal authorities anxious to cooperate in placing these farms at the disposal of the various committees. The purchase of farms is discouraged for the reasons I indicated last night and during the course of the debate a week or so ago; families starting on the land have

very little hope of paying a large purchase price for their farms. I am of course not a farmer, as is no doubt obvious to most of the farmer members of the house, but it is quite apparent that one of the outstanding causes of so many failures is the fact that people go on land with a burden of debt which in too many cases spells their ultimate disaster. Therefore the attention and the efforts of the committees throughout Canada are directed towards placing these people on lands which have fallen to and are now owned by the municipalities, and in a larger measure upon crown lands owned by the provinces, the purchase price of which is practically negligible.

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

Henry Elvins Spencer

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. SPENCER:

Will these people be on

a rental basis in relation to the municipalities?

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:

No; that has not been the experience of the committees. The municipalities in some instances donate land without reference to arrears of taxes; and with respect to crown lands, although I have not the exact details, I do know that the purchase price in Ontario-and I believe it is about the same if not more favourable in Quebec-is 50 cents an acre, and the lOoatee has ample time in which to pay. In fact, it is spread over five or six years.

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

Henry Elvins Spencer

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. SPENCER:

Is any of the money

given by the government allowed to be used in part payment or as a down payment?

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:

None of the money which the Dominion government subscribes is permitted to be used as a down payment on land. In fact, the committees throughout the country have insisted that none of the $600 subscribed through the three-way agreement shall be used for that purpose. The agreement with the various provinces provides that. The whole of the $600, which is given in progressive payments 'to the locatee, is therefore devoted to establishing him on the land on which he is located.

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

Henry Elvins Spencer

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. SPENCER:

If men who have been

farming for years have found it necessary to throw up their lands because they cannot make a success, does the minister think that men who do not know as much about agriculture, and who are under-financed can possibly be successful on land so poor that it has a value of only fifty cents an acre? As one who has hod a great deal of experience in agriculture, I cannot see how these people can have the ghost of a chance under the circumstances.

Relief Act, 1933

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

James J. Donnelly

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DONNELLY:

With regard to the

seventy municipalities that suffered three crop failures, I understand that one hundred per cent of the relief was given by this government; that is to say, this government furnished these people with their seed grain and so forth and feed for horses and cattle, and all the moneys for this purpose were put up by the dominion and not by the province. Am I correct in that assumption?

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

March 21, 1933