The law known under the name of the Unemployment Assistance Act covers not only those unemployed who have exhausted their unemployment insurance stamps, but, as well, all cases of want not already covered by existing social security laws.
This law which came into force under the St. Laurent government in 1955, makes an offer to all the provinces by which Ottawa will make a financial contribution equal to that raised by the province.
All provinces today are profiting from this offer. But the amounts set aside to help the poor are not the same in all provinces. In Quebec, for example, a family comprised of a father, a mother and five children may receive, under the terms of the agreement concluded, the sum of $130. On the other hand, the same family in the province of New Brunswick will receive, at the most, $25 a week, or $100 for a month of four weeks. And where the number of children is greater, so too the difference is greater.
Why this difference in rates? because the revenues from taxes in a poor province like New Brunswick cannot be as great at those in a richer province like Quebec or Ontario. It cannot then, give as much to its poor. And because it provides less, the federal government's share is smaller.
Which is to say that the poorer a government is the less aid it receives from Ottawa. This aspect of the law is certainly lacking in humaneness.
What makes the situation worse in New Brunswick, the provincial government at Frede-ricton obliges the municipalities to provide a certain percentage of the amount which the province must put up for the aid of its poor, if the municipality is to poor to provide the percentage stipulated for it, the provincial government cuts off all aid and, in consequence, there is no aid from the federal government.
In New Brunswick the territory of a municipality merges with those of the county in which it is located. Thus the municipality of Gloucester comprises the extent of the county of Gloucester.
Social welfare, which is financed conjointly by Fredericton and Ottawa, is administered by the municipality.
The county of Gloucester is poor, desperately poor. So it is extremely difficult to collect the total amount of taxes stipulated, even though every measure is employed to drag them from the citizens. Moreover, in view of the very large number of poor families in this district, the money at the disposal of the social welfare committee is soon exhausted, even though this committee (and others like it) are notorious for their meanness in handing out aid to the poor.
The circular which we have translated and reproduced on our front page, signed by Théophile Légère, an official in the committee for social welfare, declares that there exists a shortage of funds. And because of this shortage of funds, the government of Louis Robichaud stops all aid to this county. Likewise, the federal. And the poor people of Gloucester are left without help in black misery.
This is a curious way to treat the poor! Those who live in a county not quite so poverty stricken will continue to benefit from provincial-federal aid. But not poor Gloucester. The more poor people there are the less assistance is rendered.
Poverty in Gloucester. Poverty in Restigouche. Poverty in Kent. Poverty in Northumberland. Poverty in Westmoreland. Poverty in St. Johns.
The populations of these counties are for the most part French-Canadian of the ancient and honored lineage of the Acadiens aristocratic people whose history in Canada, from the beginning, has been one of persecution!
Today, it is not the English, conquering New France, who persecute the Acadians. It is that criminal and unjust system, of which governments are the lackies, which oppresses these people oppresses so many poverty stricken multitudes in all parts of the world. Today, as it so happens, there is an Acadian, Louis Robichaud, holding the premiership of the province of New Brunswick. But Louis Robichaud doesn't seem to be the least concerned about the sufferings of the many families of his province and of his race.
He protests that the law is law and what can he do about it. A law is supposed to be ordered to the welfare of the community. Is the welfare of the community being respected when a multitude of families are being left in abject poverty and misery because the county in which they live is a poor county?
Or perhaps Louis Robichaud will argue, as Théophile Légère, that the financial situation (that of the province in the case of Robichaud) does not permit him to do any more for his unfortunate people.
What is money?
It is the right to goods. Is there a shortage of goods in the stores resulting in a refusal to poor people of the right to a share in those goods which they so desperately need? It has never been proven that such is the case. A premier who has a true appreciation of realities and a determination to that which he should, who is fully aware of production's capabilities and of the needs of the people, would do more than shrug his shoulders and wash his hands of any responsibility to aid his people in the face of injustice.
Why did Robichaud bother seeking the premiership if he is so ready to admit that he is in a strait-jacket. It would have been better for him never to have entered the contest. Perhaps someone willing to take the necessary steps to relieve the plight of the people would have come forward.
There is nothing preventing Robichaud from setting up within the jurisdiction of his province a New Brunswick Credit Bureau whose operations would be based upon the productive capacity of the province.
The very least he could do would be to cry out with all his force against an iniquitous system of finance which obliges the poor to remain hungry in spite of the enormous surpluses of foodstuffs which are piling up everywhere in our land.
The members of the Union of Electors pilgrims of a better world are not provincial premiers. They do not have at their disposal, like Louis Robichaud, a public forum, the publicity of the press, the prestige which will draw the attention of the world. And yet they cry out. They denounce. They castigate. Why cannot Louis Robichaud do the same thing? Why can his Minister of Municipal Affairs not do the same thing instead of having his assistant answer the pleas of a needy mother with an answer such as given below:
Fredericton, N.B., October 1961 Mrs. John Daigle
Robertville (Co. Gloucester)
Madam,
We acknowledge receipt of your letter of a recent date.
Since it deals with a matter which comes under the jurisdiction and authority of the county, I can do absolutely nothing for you in it.
You will naturally understand that we at the provincial level have authority only according to the laws of the Legislative Assembly.
Your truly,
E. G. Allen
Deputy-Minister
If there was question of a municipality which was lax in taxing its citizens and meeting its financial obligations, the deputy-minister would have no difficulty finding a way to intervene. But since it is only a question of poor people who have not enough to eat, the deputy-minister doesn't find it serious enough to warrant intervention!
We can find no excuses for those public men who shrug their shoulders and reply that there is nothing they can do. After all, they pushed themselves into public office chiefly on the argument that they could do better than their predecessors or rival candidates.
Nor can we forgive those officials of the welfare office who do nothing to help the poor. They have no right to rebuff the poor who come to them for help. They almost seem to consider the poor as adversaries to be repulsed and vanquished. They seem to expend much effort in proving that the poor, in fact, have no right to help or to the benefits provided by social security acts. Or they strive to reduce such aid to the smallest amount possible. We might almost consider them to be guardians of the public treasury rather than helpers of the poor.
One thing is certain, on Judgement Day the Lord will not say, "I was the public treasury and you guarded me well." Rather will be say: "I was the poor and you fed me not nor clothed me".
What sort of comfort and consolation is the father of the poor family in Gloucester likely to derive from the circular sent out by Théophile Légère and reproduced in this article? "I regret not being able to give you a more favorable reply. Yours sincerely -". We are justified in thinking that the "regret" of Légère is a little less than sincere.
The politicians will probably tell us that the poor are the exceptions; that on the whole the country is prosperous. The politicians see the people only when they travel about the land at election time seeking votes.
If these politicians were to take the trouble to visit carefully every district of the land, go into the homes of the people as do the workers of the Union of Electors, sit at the bare tables of the poor, stay in their cold and shabby shanties, where people have to live all year long, they might possibly see the other side of the picture which they paint so glowingly in their election speeches.
Below, we list some examples of the hundreds which exist in the county of Gloucester which has been cut of from welfare aid since August, 1961.
12 children ranging from 12 years to 1 month. Unemployed.
Father has been blind for 9 years. Operated on in 1958. Received the blind pension for 4 months only, the time he was in the hospital.
The house: a slum dwelling containing 11 people.
Father, mother, three children, Family allowance, $24 a month.
The father is ill: boils and kidney trouble.
On October 6th they had been living for a month on bread and potatoes.
They received nothing from the public welfare office since last winter.
Théophile Légère, the welfare officer went to visit them last Spring. His advice to the father: "Work".
5 children, aged 9 to 16 years, at school. Unemployed.
Family allowance, $39 a month. Refused aid by the public welfare office.
Widow, 3 children between 6 and 14 years. Family allowance, $35 a month. Refused aid by the public welfare office.
Father, mother, 6 children at home.
The father is suffering from rheumatism, sciatica and a nervous disorder.
The municipality has placed him under seizure three times for taxes.
He owes the municipality $350.
The mother is likewise sick, has just been operated on and is lacking the medicines she needs. She must go 2 miles each day on foot to seek the things they need to keep alive, each day!
The boy used to work at Camp Robichaud but was let out because he did not have an electric saw. He returned home in deep discouragement and enrolled in the army. It broke his mother's heart. The boy is only 17.
Father, mother, 8 children. Family allowance, $50 a month.
The father has heart trouble, the mother is likewise ill. They have no medicines because they have no money.
The roof of the shanty is leaking. No money for repairs.
An officer of the welfare bureau visited them three years ago. They have never received any help.
They have nothing in the house; and no hope of aid from the welfare bureau.
Father, mother, 7 children, from 9 years down.
Family allowance, $42 a month.
The father is ill with arthritis. He has not worked for a year.
The house is 19 x 20. Taxes: $50 a year. Owing: $67.
Debt for hospital care and medicine: $800. One month they received $30 in aid. After that, nothing.
A baby and other children. The father works only 2 days a week, at the fish factory. The mother is too ill to feed her baby. She kept it for 3 days on boiled water. She has no proper covering for its feet. The little body is wrapped in rags.
The entire family has been living, for the most part, on bread and lard. The house is a wretched hovel, always cold in the winter. They have been refused welfare aid.
Seven orphans, from 17 years and down. They live with their grandmother who has no pension.
The family allowance, $40. They receive no aid.
Father and mother and 5 children.
The father is sick and one child of 13 has been stricken with polio.
These 7 persons must live on $35 every two weeks.
Father, mother and 8 children, all at home. Family allowance, $62. The aid from the welfare office, which they had been receiving for a very short time, was cut off in August.
The house is a mere shanty. Ten people sleep in one room. On this they are taxed $50 a year.
Mrs. Daigle wrote to the Minister of Municipal Affairs at Fredericton, detailing the misery in which the family was living.
The reply from the Minister: "We can do nothing for you. This lies solely within the jurisdiction of the municipality."
The municipality seized Mrs. Daigle's electric washing machine for taxes (an unqualified bit of barbarism). They also took away from her, her refrigerator, upon which she had not completed payments. So Mrs. Daigle must continue to pay for something which she no longer possesses.
Father and mother and 7 children up to the age of 9 years.
The father is stricken with arthritis and judged incurable by three doctors.
The municipal councillor, Pierre Gionet, who visited him, nevertheless refused to grant him any aid, reproached him with being unwilling to work!
The only revenue they have is the family allowance of $42 plus $30 which they finally managed to get recently.
They live in a cabin and for 9 people have only 2 beds and a divan.
They pay $50 a year in taxes and owe $67.
N. B. The address of this, Théophile Légère, responsible for welfare in the County of Gloucester: Social Assistance, P. O. Box 581, Bathurst, New Brunswick.
Charitable readers are encouraged to write a few lines of encouragement to these poor people. It will be deeply appreciated. All addresses are in New Brunswick.
* * *
We have taken considerable space to enumerate these various cases in some detail because we want our readers to know that when the Union of Electors speaks of poverty in Canada it is not discussing some abstraction. We are speaking of cold hard facts which the members of our movement have discovered and come to know in their work and their travels. How can we possibly speak of a rich and prosperous Canada, of living "beyond our means", when such poverty exists in our midst, not only in New Brunswick but in every province, in every city of Canada. These cases are blots on the face of the Canadian society. They are the shame and disgrace, not only of the Robichaud government in New Brunswick, but of every government, municipal, provincial or Federal which allows such conditions to exist without taking efficacious means to remedy them.
In the face of such misery as we have detailed above, every voice which can make itself heard should be raised and united with others, to force the officials, upon whose shoulders lies the task of caring for the unfortunate, to comply with their duties. These voices must be raised to denounce a system which, instead of distributing the abundant fruits of our productive system, allows them to lie idle in the face of such a multitude of needs. And these voices should never be still as long as individuals and families are sacrificed to the rules and regulations of a criminal financial system.
It is one of the great shames of our society that not only the well-fed, but the governing class yes, and even those who preen themselves upon being helpers of the poor, (especially at charity campaign banquets) seem totally indifferent to the needs of the poor. In fact, the members of our movement, in their voyages about the country have run into definite hostility on the part of these people when the Pilgrims of a Better World have gone to work to do something about such poverty. And this hostility has been found even among those charged with the duty of aiding the poor.
It is heart-rending to see these Acadians suffering such misery. But what bitterness to them, rebuffed by their own, by individuals bearing the name of Acadian!
The members of the Union of Electors have been criticized and attacked by certain people in those provinces into which they go to work for the poor. The attitude of these critics is somewhat along the line of "stay home and mind your own business". Our people, the Crediters of the Union of Electors, Pilgrims of a Better World, refuse to acknowledge any boundaries to the work of charity and justice. And wheresoever injustice exists, there will our people go and if the critics there don't like it, let them clean their house up themselves.
As we have said above, such cases as we have detailed above, are not exclusive to Gloucester County or to New Brunswick even though they are such glaring examples. Our people run into them everywhere. Our files are filled with such from Gaspé, Matapedia, and other parts of Quebec. We have many cases in the province of Ontario.
In demanding a just system of distribution of the abundant goods which our society produces, we demand it not only for one province, but for the whole of Canada, for all lands wheresoever the financial system immolates its victims on the altar of the god, Money.
LOUIS EVEN
As our readers well know, the commonest form of attack upon Social Credit, next to behaviour which suggests that it is non-existent, is to say that it is the opposite of what it is, e.g. Communism, Socialism, Idealism,'"funny", Anarchism, Imbecility, Inflationary, etc., etc. Often the means adopted to convey one or other of these opposites is simple attachment of Social Credit ideas to someone who has passed them by unexamined or unembraced. The latest example of this is a few paragraphs in The Sunday Telegraph for August 13th, headed "Canadian Folly" reporting the alleged expropriation of the privately owned British Columbia Electric Company. The fifth paragraph states that Mr. W. A. Bennett, the Premier of British Columbia, is "a disciple of the late Major Douglas." We don't know what he is, but he is certainly not that.
The Social Crediter, September 16, 1961
Sir or Madam,
At a meeting of the Welfare Committee, held last July 19, it was decided, in view of the financial state of the Municipality of Gloucester, to suspend, practically, all orders of Social Assistance for an indefinite period.
I regret not being able to give you a more favorable reply.
Yours truly,
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE
T. Légère (sig'd.)
First International Conference on Douglas Social Credit and Catholic Social Teaching
On May 21st and 22nd, 2026.
Scholars, students, clergy and the public who are interested in the renewal of economic thought are invited to the 1st International Conference on Douglas Social Credit and Catholic Social Teaching
Rougemont Quebec Monthly Meetings
Every 4th Sunday of every month, a monthly meeting is held in Rougemont.
Subscribe