1931-07-31

THE GOVERNOR GENERAL

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, a question was
raised by the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) as to the instructions, commission, and letters patent issued to His Excellency the Governor General. The facts are that the commission appointing the Earl of Bessborough as Governor General of Canada was issued by His Majesty on March 20, 1931, and countersigned by the Prime Minister of Canada. It empowered the Governor General to exercise the powers contained in the letters patent issued on June 15, 1905, or in any other letters patent issued thereafter in accordance with such instructions as had already been given, or might hereafter be given.
On March 23, 1981, His Majesty, on the advice of His Majesty's government in Canada, issued new letters patent and instructions. The letters patent and instructions were gazetted on July 25. The commission has not hitherto 'been gazetted.
I lay on the table copies of the relevant documents.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. BURY:: 1.	Was John W. Cahill, district supervisor of beef grading, Calgary, a naturalized British subject when he first made application for the position?
2.	When was he appointed to this position?
3.	When did he make application to the Civil Service Commission?
4.	When was he naturalized?
5.	How many applicants were there for this position?
6.	How many were qualified and placed on the eligible list?
World Wheat Conference
COMMONS [DOT]
7.	Give names and dates of appointments.
8.	Who was the Department of Agriculture representative named to he a member of the examining board?
9.	What officers of the Department of Agriculture signed the examining board report?
10.	What other competitions have been held since that date for this position by the Civil Service Commission ?
11.	How many applications were received?
12.	Give the names of the successful candidates, in the order in which they were placed by the Civil Service Commission?
13.	Were either or both of these applicants in the first competition?
14.	If so, why were they not placed on the eligible list?
Return tabled forthwith.



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GROTE STIRLING (Yale) moved concurrence in the first report of the' joint committee on the library of parliament.
Motion agreed to.

Richard Bedford Bennett: 

BEAUHARNOIS POWER PROJECT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, July 30, the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Gordon for the concurrence in the fourth report of the special committee appointed to investigate the Beauharnois project.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as a member
of one of the independent groups and as one who has supported the plea for an investigation I should like to call attention to certain aspects of the report. I shall not attempt to follow the apologia of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). There were no charges made against him, and yet he made an elaborate defence which reveals, probably, his own personal integrity, rather than his political sagacity. In the early part of his speech he discussed Mr. Sweezey's cynical statement that "gratefulness was always regarded as an important factor in dealing with democratic governments." He repudiated the idea that the acceptance of campaign funds had any influence on the policies of politicians. However, later in his [DOT]speech he insinuated that an investigation might show that tariff concessions were not unconnected with campaign funds, and insisted that large contributions are what tell at election times. He urged that a leader of a party could not very well have a knowledge of the campaign funds and of those who had contributed and still be free to decide questions on their merits. Again I would suggest that the moral standards of the leader of the opposition are high but rather unreal. I ask, would the majority of corporations continue to subscribe to campaign funds from purely altruistic motives? And I ask, would the leader of the opposition himself be very happy in his enjoyment of the position secured through doubtful means, even although he himself was personally ignorant of them? As a matter of fact we all know that every member of parliament is required to certify to the statement of his agent with regard to contributions and expenses, and thus if the contentions of the leader of the opposition were correct every private member must have moral difficulties as great as those which the leader would have.
I should like to congratulate the chairman of the committee, the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) on his statement. He enunciated a new code of financial morality- at least I have never heard it in this house put so clearly. I quote from page 4355 of Hansard. He was referring to the
fact that the promoters of the company who are now in control have no money in it but had made a great profit out of it, and he said:
-every time a dollar is added to the capital cost of any business the ultimate result is that those who have to transact business with that company or with that industry, must, all down through the future, just pay that much more for the product of that industry. Therefore it is very essential, particularly in the development of a resource such as this, that its initial capital cost be kept down to the lowest possible limit, in order that the benefits that will flow' from its development will be reaped by the people of the country.
It seems to me that if we really incorporated that principle into our requirements with regard to big corporations, we would be far on the way to a much higher level of business morality than we have had in the past.
It is obviously very difficult for the ordinary member of parliament to study the evidence as contained in the report of over a thousand pages, covering highly technical engineering problems, and legal and constitutional questions and financial arrangements with wide ramifications. I have wondered as I have looked over this evidence, whether a hundred years from now, if somebody delving into the archives should discover the report of this inquiry he might not regard it as a farce displaying the political morals of the dark age of 1931. Look at the dramatis personae! Senators, financial promoters, deputy ministers and other government officials, bankers, parliamentary agents

otherwise known as ''lobbyists"-barristers galore, engineers, investment brokers, chartered accountants, an ex-Prime Minister, a medical doctor. In the background, as a sort of chorus, political parties-and may I say not a single woman in the play.


Mr. BOURASSA:: The directors of one of the corporations were all women.


Mr. WOODSW ORTH:: Yes. I had forgotten that at one time the directorate of one of the corporations was composed entirely of stenographers.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Women stenographers.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, women stenographers-I stand corrected. I think the people of that future time might well consider that the author of such a play goes to incredible lengths and creates impossible situations. That a man could be a trusted member of a government advisory commission, the head of an important allied executive position, a senator, the confidant of the Prime Minister of
[DOT]1392
Beauharnois Power-Report

the day, and at the same time one of the gang engaged in looting the resources of the country-well, it might be considered that even in 1931 the people could not have been such fools as to be so hoodwinked. Or another illustration: that any man could be a responsible official of a government-owned road, a deputy minister of the Department of Railways and Canals, and at the same time a partner with the aforementioned senator in a fake company through which they milked the principal company. Well, really the plot transcends the bounds of poetical licence or legitimate fiction.
I would say that we have inherited from the classical economists the doctrine that capital is built up by means of frugality and savings. It seems to me that one of the outstanding results of the investigation ought to be to dispel that superstition. The wealthy, starting with little or nothing, to use the expressive phrase of the day-"financing on a shoe string," spending lavishly other people's money, using political influence to acquire what are called "rights," creating "nuisance" values, and building up a financial structure are enabled to exact tribute in perpetuity from the public.
Further than that, it seems to me that another result of the investigation ought to be the revelation of modern business methods. Men known to all of us, respectable, honoured, kindly men are yet engaged in a ruthless competitive system that recognizes no accepted moral standards, that is essentially a scramble for profits-rival concerns fighting one another, distrusting and overreaching one another, then joining hands the more effectively to loot the public. Sweezey, an engineer wanting to get things done- finding obstacles that had to be removed-bribery distasteful but necessary-outside his own field gullible as a child and the prey of unscrupulous adventurers! As I thought over the situation thus revealed, I recalled a book that I had been reading not long ago, James Truslow Adams on Our Business Civilization, wherein he remarks:
If the leaders are not humanely rounded personalities, civilized rather than barbarous, what shall be expected of the mass which patterns itself upon them? In a word, can a great civilization be built up or maintained upon the philosophy of the counting house and the sole basic idea of a profit.
I think perhaps it is well that the general public should recognize very clearly that the special committee of investigation was not an impartial court. As we went in to the railway committee room we were impressed by the battery of lawyers representing various

interests, and, curiously enough, the accuser and the rival political parties involved were sitting in judgment on their colleagues and upon the man who evidence showed confessed to attempting to bribe them. I would say that naturally men are apt to shield personal and political friends and to expose the shortcomings of their rivals. I do not know that that is altogether a reprehensible tendency; there is a good deal to be said for it; but I would point out that such a committee is not very well fitted to carry out an impartial investigation. That is the main point. I think I took that ground several years ago when the customs matter was under consideration, I then moved that there should be a judicial commission to complete the investigation.
It should be remembered that this Beauharnois probe was the result of the action of the independent members of this house. It has been claimed that a good deal of political capital is being made out of this discussion, so perhaps I might be permitted to make that statement from our standpoint as independent members. May I say also that I am not claiming any superior virtue whatever for the members in our corner of the house, but I think I may claim that in a matter of this kind we are in a superior position in that we are free from some of those considerations which perhaps somewhat tie up members in other parts of the house. Last year the hon. member for Acadia-


Mr. VALLANOE:: How do you know? Can you prove what you are saying?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not know; I am merely expressing an opinion. I would say frankly that I think one of the reasons is that we are too few in number as yet to have come to the attention of some of the men who may be anxious to secure concessions. Let me be perfectly frank in the matter; I said I claimed no superior virtue in the matter but that possibly in a question of this kind we were in a position to criticize somewhat more freely than some others.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Barkis is willing; is that the idea?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I am not making a bid at all; as a matter of fact most people could not be ten years in the house without having been made aware that people might be willing to do something if a certain attitude were made manifest.
Last year the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), backed up by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), by

Beauharnois Power-Report
myself and by certain members from Toronto brought this matter to the attention of the house. The action of the government was defended by the then Minister oi Public Works. This year the hon. member for Acadia, again backed up by several of the independent members, introduced the question in the house. I think it is not going too far to say that if this group had not brought the matter to the attention of the house we would have heard very little about Beauharnois, so we must assume some responsi-[DOT] bility for whatever good or evil has come about in connection with this investigation.
I might point out as well that it was really touch and go as to whether or not the matter should be discussed in the house at all. Hon. members may recall that at first only a handful of members voted in favour of considering the question, and then a roll call was asked for. In fact I am not quite sure that we were strictly entitled to a roll call, so small was the number of members who actually stood up. I might note also that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) voted on that occasion only after the Prime Minister had voted, and at this point I may say that I believe very considerable credit should be given the Prime Minister for having permitted this matter to go to a committee.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: My hon.
friend knows that the reason for that occurrence is recorded in Hansard.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, I know the reasons are recorded in Hansard, and I think they might bear very careful reading. The scene was one of the most ludicrous I have witnessed in this house.
I do not intend to go further into that phase of the question except to say that in a general way the contentions of the hon. member for Acadia and those who supported him were substantiated, but I do submit that the outside public is far from satisfied with the results of the investigation. If I interpret outside public opinion aright as I learn of it through people who come to see me, through the letters I receive and from newspapers in all parts of the country I would say that to-day the public demand several outstanding things. First of all the punishment of (a) those who have defrauded the public; (b) those who have been guilty of bribery, and (c) those who have betrayed public trust. Second, I think the public demand a further investigation, and third at least a very large section of the people demand government control of the whole Beauharnois enterprise. Further, at least the more
thoughtful part of the public demand legislation that will prevent similar occurrences in the future, and from my standpoint I think perhaps that would be the most desirable result of these unfortunate revelations.
Now let me very briefly speak of those three or four points. I suppose that with regard to punishment the public generally likes to find a scapegoat. Perhaps we all remember the ancient Hebrew ceremony by which the people sought to get rid of their sins by taking a goat, laying their hands upon him-thus symbolizing the laying of their sins upon him-and then driving the goat into the wilderness.


An hon. MEMBER:: Ask Mr. Jacobs.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, perhaps my
hon. friend from Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) will be able to say whether or not I am giving a correct interpretation. Some of us, too, may have seen that painting, by Holman Hunt, if I recollect aright, in which the scapegoat is shown as a very sorry and desolate figure wandering in the wilderness. Well, I confess that I have a good deal of sympathy with the scapegoat; I am not sure that these particular individuals whose actions are now before us are so much more to blame than a great many other individuals. I must insist on this though, that if a small man or a small criminal is to be punished-and I called attention to this a few days ago in connection with another matter-what about the man who takes millions without giving any return, the man who attemps to bribe political parties and to undermine responsible government, or the man who uses public position for personal gain? I would say that practices of this kind are much more dangerous to our morals than are nude parades.
After all, criminals big or little are not very different from ordinary people. I can remember shrinking away when I first met a criminal. I regarded him as a creature different from the rest of us. But as I came to know men of his class a little better, and as I came to understand their experiences a little more intimately I began to realize that they were very much like other men. Indeed, the greatest differences were that they had been harder pressed and that they had been caught. So I would suggest that our indignation really ought to be against the system rather than against the victims of that system. I think that ought to be kept in mind; we ought not simply to drive these men into obscurity and heap all sorts of blame on them when we know perfectly well that a great many of the things they have done are quite common in society to-day. Not only are they common, but let me say that with regard to the

Beauharnois Power-Report
morality of many of those transactions, we have not yet worked out very clearly a generally accepted standard, and the public as a whole are apt to condone a great many things in general which in a report such as this we condemn.
Then I would urge further investigation and in this suggestion I join with the leader of the opposition. I urge that the report of our committee of investigation should be followed up by the appointment of a royal commission to investigate just as far as can be done the whole question of corrupt practices. The probe is something like a drill. The committee bored down and struck oil; the disquieting probability is that had they drilled in other places they would also have struck oil. The surface indications are very much the same. The financing of Beauharnois was dependent, for example, on two power contracts, one to the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario and one to Montreal Light, Heat & Power Consolidated. This will be seen at page 555 of the report. I would ask what were the circumstances connected with the securing of these contracts. I think that had these been investigated fully we should have a great deal more evidence than is now before us.
In this connection, with regard to the payment of 8125,000 to John Aird, Jr., I note that the Ottawa Journal of July 30, has the following to say-and I commend the Journal for having taken this ground:
The committee reports that there was no evidence before it that this money reached any political party. There was the evidence of Mr. Sweezey that he paid it to Aird -with the understanding that it was to go to the Ontario Conservative party, and, this being so, it is difficult to understand why the committee did not probe the matter further; all the more so seeing that Mr. Aird's statement that Mr. Sweezey paid him $125,000 for doing nothing in particular places an impossible tax upon human credulity.
That coming from the Ottawa Journal is most significant and heartening, and it seems to me that if the Prime Minister could see his way to the appointment of a royal commission he would be simply carrying on the work which he had the courage to commence in allowing the matter to go to the committee.
With regard to campaign funds, again I should like to quote from the Ottawa Journal of July 22:
No political party can enter an election in this country to-day without a central fund of at least $1,000,000-for perfectly proper purposes.

Perhaps the Ottawa Journal might have stretched that a little bit and made it $2,000,-
000.	That is closer to the actual mark, from the information I have.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: What is
your information?


Charles Stephen Booth: The general information which one secures in the course of a number of years around the lobbies of the House of Commons.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just hearsay.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Just hearsay, that
is all. But if the hon. member prefers I will take the estimate of the Ottawa Journal-Si,000,090. That is good enough. It may be that a great political party, in order to carry on a campaign under modern conditions, needs a million dollars "for perfectly proper purposes." But this means, I suggest, that the ordinary people across the country will not have very much opportunity to initiate policies with much hope of seeing them carried into legislation. Some of us in the independent groups feel very strongly on this point. We are making an effort to have adopted certain policies. I know that most members do not agree with us, and that is their right. But we as citizens, as groups of citizens, believe that we ought to be more largely represented in this house. A few of us only have as yet been returned to parliament. Now, we have no such funds as these, and if our groups are to extend their influence it is rather a serious thing if we have to contemplate in some way raising a great fund of a million dollars before we can hope to enter the field against the established and older parties.
In contrast with these large funds, I might point out that my own campaign last year cost less than $500. In fairness I should say that there came from what might be called the central committee of our little organization possibly $100 in value; that is to say, they financed one big meeting for us and financed some literature.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: You were not using the radio?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, to some extent.


Ernest Lapointe: Out of the $500?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; that came out of the central committee fund. Our proportion of the general amount would be something like $100, but my election last year cost with this included, less than $600. I admit

Beauhamois Power-Report
that the situation was rather exceptional, because I did not have opposing me any official Liberal or Conservative candidate.


James Dew Chaplin: You could not have used the radio to any great extent at that rate.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; and that is
the very point I am getting at. It is impossible for us to use the radio and other modern means of getting our point of view across to the general public. And that involves a very serious question. If corporation funds are the determining factor in an election, that means that the most wealthy people in the community are going to control and win elections.


James Dew Chaplin: Did you not do something last year to change the law?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: Why did you do it?


James Shaver Woodsworth: There was on the
statute books a law which prevented corporations from contributing to campaign funds. We all know that this law was very largely a dead letter; it had never amounted to very much. But that legislation had the effect of prohibiting labour unions from contributing to campaign funds. We had tried our best to introduce an amendment to exempt labour unions from this clause as they contributed openly. That amendment was turned down on one or two occasions, but last year on the third reading, when there was no opportunity to go into the matter in detail, I introduced an amendment removing that particular clause from the criminal code, and the house accepted the amendment. I will not discuss the question whether, in view of the present situation, that was a good thing or not; but I do know that campaign funds came from corporations long before that amendment was adopted.


James Dew Chaplin: It was not in the criminal code but in the election act.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I accept the
correction; it was in the election act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: (York-Sunbury):	You
weakened the law.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Possibly. But I
assert that it was generally recognized that the law as it stood, without punitive clauses, without provision for the disclosure of campaign funds to central committees, was practically useless. It seems to me that legislation along this line should provide first of all for the publication of central campaign funds. We all know that the individual 22110-279
member has to send in an account of his expenses in his own riding. But there is in the election act no regulation which insists that central campaign funds shall be reported. It is not for me to indicate the particular legislation needed, but I would urge that we might do away with a good many of these evils and make life a great deal easier for members of all parties if we insisted that campaign funds of central Organizations should be published just as now are the expenses of individual candidates.


James Dew Chaplin: Why not have compulsory
voting?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Compulsory voting might be a good thing. But I have another suggestion to make, and that is that the necessary election expenses should be furnished by the government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think, Mr. Speaker-


Ernest Lapointe: The report will be
unanimous.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think this is the first suggestion which I have made in this house which has met with unanimous approval.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is most ridiculous.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member
for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) suggests that this is a ridiculous suggestion, but I cannot see it in that light. If it is desirable that men should be selected to be sent to parliament, as is done under our parliamentary and democratic system, then it seems to me to be only reasonable that provision should be made for those expenses incident to such selection. That seems to me to be a common sense proposition.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: That is not original at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not put it
forward as being original; it has often been put forward in the past. I do not know whether the hon. member for York-Sunbury has ever come across it, but it has been advanced by those possessing more authority than I. I think it worth while to pass on to the house.


Mr. QUINN:: The fellow who was defeated would be a total loss.



Beauharnois Power-Report


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is incidental. It would be one of the greatest economies which this country could put into practice.


James Dew Chaplin: There would be a dozen candidates in each riding.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is possible,
but members would be left free to vote on different measures without feeling that there were strings attached to them.
I come now to my third suggestion. I believe that a very large section of the public is in favour of expropriating the whole of this Beauharnois work. The Montreal Star of July 24, possibly speaking with its tongue in its cheek, nevertheless gives some very sound advice. It says:
Private enterprise having failed so signally, having permitted so sickening a series of developments, we who have always been in favour of private enterprise and against public ownership feel that a colossal problem has been suddenly thrust into the face of the Canadian people for which they must find a solution, and the only solution we can imagine for the moment is for either the Dominion government or the provincial government-or both-to take the tragic business over and run it for the benefit of the citizens.
It seems to me that that is the soundest piece of teaching which has come from the Montreal Star for a long time.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Why expropriate what
belongs to us?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I suggest that perhaps the Star is speaking with mental reservation because in later editorials it contemplates taking over only the canal, which as a matter of fact, no one wants very badly. The canal would be rather expensive to maintain, and I am not so sure but that the canal comes over to the people anyway.


Ernest Lapointe: That is the only thing
which is under Dominion control.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not so sure
of that. Without going into the constitutional question at any length I would say that the so-called provincial rights do not present a very serious problem. Mr. Sweezey's claims were based entirely on the Robert rights.


Ernest Lapointe: They were two years
ago in the case of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This was confirmed by Arthur E. Dubuc, chief engineer, Department of Railways and Canals, who said:
The Robert rights were the ones which I regarded as the basis upon which this whole development could take place.
Further there is not the slightest doubt that the Beauharnois as part of the develop-

ment of the St. Lawrence is essentially a Dominion proposition and is necessary to fulfil our international obligations. As such it seems to me that it stands in a class by itself and I regret exceedingly that the late government took the position which it did. We all know that there are rival claims to rights but it seems to me that the Dominion government has yielded altogether too much to the viewpoint of the present administration in Quebec.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad the hon. member-


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member must
be wrong if the deputy speaker is with him.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We should remember that parliament may at any time annul or vary any order of the governor in council under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Viewing the whole situation, an outstanding man has written me as follows. I quote it because he puts in good form that which many people are feeling. He says:
The group which has been guilty of such corruption should not be permitted to retain the fruits of their corrupt acts or escape prosecution therefor. In the Teapot Dome scandal in the United States the government took steps to cancel the oil lease and succeeded, and they prosecuted the principal actors in the deal. We sometimes think we have more political virtue than they. This case will show whether we have as much.
There is a danger of this whole proposal falling into the hands of another group of promoters. Such a disaster would be a sorry outcome to the probe. The Financial Po3t of August 1, suggests that public ownership would involve more jabs and hence more political power; further more opportunities for the continuation of the graft which has been already exposed. It says:
Graft or waste would pile up year after year by way of increased capital investment on which interest must be paid.
It seems to me that that is the most ludicrous argument which could be advanced. The graft in this case has come through private ownership, and I cannot imagine anything worse than the further suggestion of the Financial Post. They say:
The association of Sir Herbert Holt-under whom Montreal Powrer has been built up-with some unsuccessful merger promotions should not blind us to his main achievement.
They then actually go so far as to suggest that this development should be handed over to Sir Herbert Holt. We are asked to overlook for the moment that Sir Herbert Holt is the one largely responsible for that

Beauharnois Power-Report
outrageous Canada Power and Paper Corporation affair which I think should be investigated just as thoroughly as the scandal now before us. Had it not been for this Beauharnois matter I was hoping to have an opportunity of impressing upon, the government the necessity of such an investigation. It seems to me that the government has a responsibility at this time. The Montreal Star of July 28 has a timely editorial headed Parliament is on Trial. The Star says:
They are shocked at the Beauharnois revelations. But that feeling is being fast submerged by another thought 

 What will parliament have the courage, the conscience, the public spirit finally to do about it?
Parliament should represent and express the moral sentiment of the people. It is the highest court established in our land. It has full power to deal with even novel situations in which the property, the future prosperity and the moral standards of the people are involved. It is denied one easy alibi - the favourite alibi of the coward - "non poss-umus."
To use the wording of the last phrase, I would say that nevertheless "non possumus" is the alibi in this case. To translate that legal phrase into the language of the street, I suppose we might put it: we cannot do anything about it.
The recommendations of the committee are decidedly disappointing, in fact they mean practically nothing. It is suggested that we should do all that is necessary in a manner that will best serve the people of Canada. That is all right as a phrase but it does not mean anything. The report states further that the respective rights of the Dominion and the province should be preserved. Everybody accepts that, but it does not mean anything. Again it says that definite action should be taken to preserve the rights of the-


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My closing warning is that capitalism is on trial and that democratic institutions are on trial.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, on June 10 last this House of Commons appointed at my request nine of its members to conduct an investigation into the affairs of the Beauharnois power enterprise. That motion was adopted unanimously. The committee met, appointed a chairman and has made what purports to be a unanimous report; for on the last page of the minutes of proceedings the following words appear:
It was unanimously agreed that the following be presented to the House of Commons as a fourth report.
July 28, 1931.
After which follows the report, and at the end of the report, at page 30, appear these words:
A unanimous vote of thanks was tendered by the other members to Hon. Mr. Gordon for the manner in which he discharged his duties as chairman of the committee.
The committee adjourned sine die.
John T. Dun,
Clerk of the Committee.
That report, purporting to be a unanimous report made by at least three Liberal members, one Independent member and the remainder, or five in number, Conservative members or supporters of the administration, is now submitted to the house. It was presented to the house last evening by the chairman, who moved its adoption in a speech that all will regard as one of singular moderation, based entirely upon the findings of the committee as supported by the evidence adduced.
He was followed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) who for three hours and a half dealt with all possible means at his disposal for the purpose of creating a smoke screen to prevent this report being considered. I have listened to the right hon. gentleman for four hours, for three and a half and for two hours, but I confess I never before listened to so many irrelevancies with respect to the subject matter of a motion as I did last evening. In some houses of parliament I have no doubt he would have been called to order because his observations were wholly irrelevant.
The issue before the house to-day is concurrence or non-concurrence in the report of the committee. I do not know that I have ever before been more pleased at unanimity as expressed in a report than I have been with respect to this report. It has very properly been urged that where party strife runs high and men have strong political opinions and convictions, there is always a danger that the evidence and the value of it are sometimes obscured by reason of those opinions and convictions. But in this case the fact that unanimity was reached, at least indicates that in the mind of the committee there was a high sense of individual duty and a clear realization of obligation to the institution called parliament. The one criticism that I have to urge against the speech to which we listened last evening and this morning is that it was a speech in which there was an entire and utter forgetting of parliament, of its great traditions, of our

Beauharnois Power-Report
institutions and of what is involved in this inquiry, and one long continued effort on the part of the right hon. gentleman to vindicate himself at the expense of parliament. In entire forgetfulness of parliament and our obligations, it was a long effort to vindicate the position of the right hon. gentleman himself. That was not at issue; that was not what was being tried. The order of reference that was made by the house was to have an investigation into the Beauharnois undertaking, and I say this to the right hon. gentleman: Had he desired to give evidence, why did he not go down to the committee and give it under oath so that he could be cross-examined? What right has he to stand in his place now and state as facts mere conversations? Everyone who has anything to do with courts of law, with investigations before tribunals, knows you cannot get at the truth without recalling to the memory of the witness circumstances and fact, relating one thing to another and bringing to his attention circumstances that in the ordinary course of events he might and probably would have forgotten. The only way in which the truth can be arrived at is by relating those incidents one to another and carrying on a rigid cross-examination under oath. I shall not follow the course of the right hon. gentleman; I shall not state what I believe to be facts, because I was not before that tribunal. I was not called as a witness. I had at one time a very strong conviction that I should have gone before that tribunal because of the way in which my name was used in connection with it. I did not do so, however, and I do not yet understand why the right hon. gentleman, thinking as he does, did not go to the committee and say: I desire to be examined under oath, cross-examined, and to give my view of the matters under investigation in order that the truth may be known and justice be done. If there be any cause for complaint that it has not been done, he cannot complain; for the opportunity was there for him or any other man who so desired, to give evidence before that committee. It was a committee of this house of whose honour at one time he was the custodian, the former leader, who knew something of its traditions, who knew just what was expected from public men who occupy positions of that kind; and under those circumstances, as I have said, I shall not endeavour to follow the course which the right hon. gentleman pursued. I shall not read from the story of the life of Sir Robert Hudson, who could get money from rich men when the prime minister could not do so.

I shall content myself with dealing with the issue which is before the House of Commons this afternoon, and ask hon. members wheither or not in their judgment the adoption of the report with the remedy suggested, will not go a long way towards meeting what was in the mind of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) when he made his submission to the House of Commons. May I remind the house, as it has frequently been reminded before that a year ago I suggested a judicial tribunal should be appointed for the purpose of investigating this matter. When this question was raised by the hon. member for Acadia in 1930, before the last general election, I in my then place yonder pointed out that I regarded it as of so serious a character, in view of the statements that had been made, as to necessitate a judicial investigation. But I pointed out on the very evening when in May of this year the hon. member for Acadia renewed his attack, ill-advised as I think he was, in making the references which I am sure on sober reflection he would not have made, with respect to judges and the judiciary, it was obvious that a judicial inquiry was no longer possible and that the house must itself deal with the matter. I stated that frankly. I am only too pleased to say to-day that the efforts and the result have entirely justified the course I then took.
Another reason, and one that has been borne in upon my mind very strongly during the progress of this discussion is this: Our judges should not be selected to sit on matters of this kind; the statutes contemplate they shall not do so, for judges to a very great extent, dealing with questions of this nature, have once more recalled to them their ancient past, the memories of their old political prejudices and the glories of their political antagonisms. That, I think, would be most injurious to the interests of this country. May I point out further that when in 1899 the circumstances in connection with the elections of West Huron and Brockville were investigated by a committee of this house at the instance of Mr. R. L. Borden, now Sir Robert Borden, the committee made a report which I believe many people thought was not highly creditable to parliament, and it was suggested that the committee should be renewed the next year. But in June of the next year, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, from his seat as Prime Minister, stated that he had that day submitted an order in council to his colleagues appointing Chancellor Boyd, Chief Justice Falconbridge and Judge Mac-Tavish a commission to inquire into election proceedings in the province of Ontario. That

Beauharnois Power-Report
commission never met; it never took a word of evidence. It was open to either party, but nothing was done under it. For reasons which are obvious I am not in a position to say whether or not the information I have received is absolutely correct; but the dominating reason, as I understand it, was that those judges realized fully that it would detract from their dignity and from the position judges should occupy if they were to sit as commissioners upon a matter of that character.
I have revised my opinion as to the functions of this house. I have greater faith in it to-day than I have ever had in my life, as I find it was aJblc to arrive at what purports to be an unanimous opinion with respect to a matter in connection with which the most acute differences were possible. I agree with my right hon. friend that it is possible in a matter of this nature, where a report involves many pages, that a line here or there may constitute a line too many or a line too few, but the fact is that there was at least a semblance of unanimity.
I am free to say that once I sat on a committee of this house, not many long years ago, a committee on which there were representatives of itthe Liberal party, the Conservative party and the party to my right across the floor. I recall vividly that the committee, in terms stronger than any committee had ever made denunciations of wrong doing in departmental administration in Canada, submitted a report to this parliament, which report, amended to read stronger still, was adopted by this house by a small majority, as will be found in the journals I have under my hand. Yet in the succeeding election the people of Canada brought back to power the very men whom this parliament had condemned. That in itself is some reason why there is cause and justification for pride in the report of the committee before us to-day. At least it is a report which has reviewed the evidence at length, has about it some semblance of unanimity, and suggests remedies for the conditions which have been found to exist in connection with the enterprise.
I do not purpose to deal with the personal attacks which were made upon me last night. The right hon. gentleman spent hours complaining of insinuations and innuendos. Yet, for line after line he said, "If the right hon. gentleman does so and so; if the right hon. gentleman does so and so; if the hon. gentleman does so and so"

for which there is not a scintilla of evidence, or the memorandum of a single conversation. Do you call that
right and fair and just? You call that a smoke screen which it was hoped would divert the minds of the Canadian people from the Beauharnois project in order that they might think of tariffs and income taxes. Is that the sense of decency that prevails in the mind of my right hon. friend who stands in this house and makes the sort of attack he made last night? I was amazed. What was that attack made for? What was it made for? There was not a single person within sound of the voice of the right hon. gentleman who did not know what it was made for. It was made to induce the Canadian people to try to forget Beauharnois. It was made to induce the Canadian people to forget that there had been an investigation. It was an effort, through that cunning which has characterized the discharge of my right hon. friend's public duties, as evidenced by that very report of the customs inquiry to which I referred-it was an endeavour, I say, by that cunning device, to insinuate hypothetical conditions and draw hypothetical conclusions, and then afford an opportunity for his political friends to go out into country and quote them as indicating the true position of the Prime Minister of Canada.
Do you call that decency? Do you call that high art? I suppose some will. Some will call it high technical art and skill. But that is not the idea of the Canadian people;
I repeat, that is not the idea of the Canadian people. To insinuate-that is what it was- that if I carry in my pocket a list of the contributors to the funds of the Conservative party I have placed myself in a position where every legislative act I take must be influenced by that sordid consideration-and that from one who has been for nine years Prime Minister of Canada!
And then he complains, almost in sobs, about the innuendos against him in th'>
house. Is that the sense of decency that should govern with respect to matters of this kind? I asked last night, and I ask now: Show me within the four corners of the evidence given in this instance anything which warrants such observations. All that appears there-and i't is correct-is that I did decline to have anything to do with contributions from the Beauharnois people, so far as my party was concerned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And it is not a matter for which any great credit is to be accorded to me. I never have claimed such credit. I merely took the view any man should take, that as the matter had been raised in parliament, and I had said that I thought a judicial

Beauharnois Power-Report
investigation should be held, if I succeeded to power I was bound to provide that investigation. How could I do that if I had taken benefactions from them for the purpose of preventing my taking proper action? That is the question. That position is met by the whispered insinuation: "You raised the tariff on textiles, woollens and steel, and you raised the tariff on something else, and where is your list of contributions? I have no such list; that I desire to make perfectly clear.
I shall not enter into a further discussion of my position; for if this matter is further investigated-and I say right here and now if the right hon. gentleman and those who sit beside him think that the Beauharnois matter has not been adequately investigated I will give them an investigation, judicially or otherwise, if they require it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But if the right hon. gentleman had ended his remarks at that point one might have not been so greatly concerned; we expected that. I did not however expect that in three sentences he would explain the whole situation. Standing out here in the cool of a summer's evening looking at Victoria chambers we see the right hon. leader of the opposition, saying, "Behold, these Conservatives, how they work. See the literature they are sending out. Haydon, I have no money; we cannot do it." Haydon gets it; Why wouldn't he? Haydon gets it; why shouldn't he? Why wouldn't he?-why wouldn't any man who stood in relation to the Prime Minister as he stood? Let me read what my right hon. friend says the relationship was; just listen to this. Referring to page 4383 of Hansard I read a quotation from Mr. Spender's Life of Hudson, as quoted by the right hon. gentleman:
The confidence that Hudson at once inspired in men, even rich men, wary of their pockets, was extraordinary. Rich men would give him thousands when they would not have given prime ministers a penny piece, and yet Hudson had nothing to offer them in return save his good-will, for the federation possessed neither patronage nor power, and never attempted, or would have been allowed, to interfere with the arrangements of the whip's room.
Then my right hon. friend, Speaking of Haydon, said':
I had asked Senator Haydon why it was that, despite the fact that we were labouring night and day in this parliament to make our policies known, we could not get a leaflet published which we could distribute among the electorate. We had the Dunning budget which we were bringing in and we wanted to have the electors acquainted with the details of that budget and the policies that underlay it. So 
far as the Liberal information office was concerned, there was no money for the purpose of getting out any publications.
There is the story. He said Senator Haydon occupied to him the relation that Sir Robert Hudson did to the leader of the Liberal party in England. Why would not Haydon do what he did do? When his chief, his fidus Achates, his inseparable friend said to him, "I have no money; we can publish no information; the 'beauties Of the Dunning budget-cast iron and icut flowers-will not be known to the electorate unless we have money." And Haydon goes out and gets the money. The suggestion to him was a command, and he forgot everything else except Beauharnois and the getting of the money. And he gets it by the hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is the reason our constituencies were flooded with leaflets, that is the reason that there went all over western Canada the great volume of Liberal literature, some mimeographed, some prepared by Mr. Deaohman of the consumers league-they too, are in it; this literature went all over western Canada and throughout other parts of the country. The Prime Minister said, "Why is it we have no money? Haydon said, "Here ^ is the money." And Beauharnois provided it. That is the position the former Prime Minister occupies to this corporation. Did he think Haydon was going to make money? Did he think Haydon was going to pull it down from the stars, did he believe he was going to find it in the earth, or did he believe-as the facts are-that he found it in the water? Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker.
The former Prime Minister stated that the relationship that existed between Senator Haydon and himself is the relationship which he says Spender so splendidly mentioned as the relationship between himself and his chief; and he says: "You will observe that Sir Robert Hudson did not have any patronage; all he had was good will." Good will-that is what Spender said he had. And look at the good will that his friend Senator Haydon had! All Mr. Sweezey had to say to Senator Haydon was "S50.000, if you secure our order in council." And he got it. All Mr. Sweezey had to say to Senator McDougald was "Two thousand units, if you secure approval for our scheme." And he got it. That is the evidence of this inquiry, and that is the testimony of the right hon. leader of the opposition himself as indicated in his speech last night.
I put to every hon. member of this house, as I put to every citizen of this country, this simple, single question: Is there any organizer

Beauharnois Power-Report
of any party in the world who, confronted by his chief and told that the party had no money with which to make their virtues known, would not go out and get it-or try to? And so we have the right hon. leader of the opposition saying that he told the organizer that they hadn't any money. He must have seen that it was received from some source, and what source so likely? Just think of it! And then calling upon high heaven to witness to his virtues, to speak of the disinterested character of his services to the country, it resolves itself at last to the statement of his organizer, "We have no money."
But the results of money from some source soon became apparent. We have the circumstances under which Mr. Sweezey made his payments. I agree with what was said yesterday about Mr. Sweezey. I mentioned his position last year. He is an engineer of vision; he saw great industrial communities thriving where you and I saw but a stream flowing over rocks; he saw the possibilities of dams, he saw the possibilities of machinery, he saw energy created and industries grow. He is a promoter-some would say a dreamer. This simple-minded engineer was told, "The only thing to do is to get in touch with those who know how to do it." So there in his first letter, and hon. members will remember that when mentioning Mr. Jones he said, "He has no political value, he has just a business value." As to the rest of them, they had that value which belongs to those who "get things done." Not necessarily improperly-just "good will," according to Spender. "Get it done." And look at the efforts to get it done. I am not going to discuss how it was done; that is not a matter of importance at all at the moment. It was done. The promoter says it was done in that way because he understood that that was the way to do it. Now, whom did he learn that from? "We have no money."
Leaving that for the moment, behold the character of the influence that is used. These gentlemen do not deny in reality, although they clothe it in words of milk and honey, that they were interested in this matter, They bought shares in syndicates to make money. Surely men who contribute must recoup themselves some way if there is a chance to do it I that is the theory, and they did it. That is all. But that is not all for parliament. There is an Independence of Parliament Act, there are such things as the traditions that pertain and belong to parliament. Yesterday you saw the vindication of the law in England with respect to one of the proudest of the men who live in that country. But herewell, here it is sanctioned, here it gets the hallmark of ready approval, here men become apologists-or used to; they will not after this committee's report because this report marks a distinct advance in the public life of this country. I am perfectly certain of that.
I am not going to discuss any of the senators mentioned in the report. The conclusions of the committee are warranted by the evidence. That is all I have to say. But the right hon. gentleman is wrong there. This house has a perfect right to discuss the evidence given before the committee. When any senator is requested to give evidence, and is granted permission by the house of parliament to which he belongs to attend and appear, and does attend and appear, he attorns to the jurisdiction and must accept the inevitable result of his attendance. And it becomes no part of the procedure of this house to stand between him and the discussion that is raised by reason of the evidence that he has given. We may not in debate discuss members of the Senate. We discuss them now as witnesses, or as those whose position has become known by reason of the evidence given by witnesses before the commission. But I do not propose even to do that. We can leave that to the Senate and the government. The Senate must act first; it is the custodian of its own honour. It will receive this report when it is adopted by this house, and from what I know of the Senate of Canada-despite the reformation that has been made therein during the last few years- it will, I think, be worthy of its great traditions. The only thing the right hon. gentleman did not mention last night was reform of the Senate. I waited anxiously for a reference to that reform! I wanted to hear about those who when they went into the Senate had signed a document by which they were going to bring about its reform; at least that is what was told to a confiding public. Now, I suppose if we ask for the documents they will say they are lost. Peradventure there were not any. But I believe the Senate will take care of that part of the situation. Afterwards, it may be, the government of the country will have to put in operation certain laws and institute certain proceedings; which the government will do.
So far as restitution is concerned, I can only say to the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and to other members of this house that that is not a matter over which this government has any jurisdiction. The lawyers who framed the report realized that is so. One of the cor-

Beauhamois Power-Report
porations was created by act of the Department of State, the others were created by statute of the province of Quebec. And we have no power to institute civil proceedings for the restitution of money. So far as our right to institute criminal proceedings is concerned, every hon. gentleman knows that such proceedings must be instituted by the provincial and not by the federal authorities. Inasmuch as the deputy attorney general of Quebec has been retained by Beauharnois I am satisfied that for his $1,500 a year he will take proceedings to that end.
Leaving that for the moment we will proceed to what I regard as the more important phase of this matter. As I said, I have no interest in discussing these senators or other witnesses; time will take care of them and the body to which they belong. But I have a very great interest in this further phase of the question, because of the unhappy position which I occcupy-for it is unhappy at times -and I desire now to indicate to this house, not as leader of a party but as leader of the House of Commons, what action this government propose to take in connection with this matter. I am dealing now with the second branch of this case. The first deals with the injury done to parliament, the injury done to our institutions and the fuel that it provides for bolshevists from one end of the country to the other to deride our country and its institutions. But the very fact that this House of Commons has done what it has will do much to still that criticism and make men realize that in the end the House of Commons will rise to a high sense of its own responsibilities.
Now, as I have said, I come to what I conceive to be the second branch of this inquiry. Sir, the real, fundamental criticism I have to urge against the conduct of this enterprise is that from its very inception it defied government. Will hon. gentlemen take the trouble to turn to the report and note the conditions which were imposed upon that company under the licence it was given to exercise its powers? If those who are interested will look at page 628 of the proceedings of the committee they will find certain matters set forth which will leave no doubt as to the conditions imposed. I will say this, that there were twenty-eight conditions imposed in the order in council, and the original slips by which little amendments were made here and there as the document was being prepared are still extant, in the handwriting of one who is still a member of this house. Those amendments introduced into the final licence, as settled on the recom-

mendation of the former Minster of Public Works, indicated that if they were observed the public interest would be protected. What do you think they did, sir, with respect to them? Just let me direct your attention to the finding of the committee in that regard:
(7) Your committee finds as a fact that the work of construction is proceeding according to plans which have not received the approval of the governor in council or of the Minister of Public Works.
But that is not all; to show how supreme was their confidence in their own position let me tell you, sir, that they did not file any plans until fifteen days after this government came into power. They did not need to file any plans as long as the former government was here. Just look at the report in that regard. It says:
.... actual construction on the north embankment was commenced on the 7th August,
1929,	in the vicinity of lake St. Francis, and on the south embankment on the 23rd April,
1930.
Then follows condition 11 of order in council 422:
The company shall not commence the construction of the works until detailed plans of construction .... have been submitted and approved of by the minister ....
They constructed something entirely different from what was provided for in the order in council; the remedial works have not been approved of either by order in council or by the minister; the Hungry bay dyke has been breached without consent or permission, and finally they are still proceeding without their plans having been in any sense ratified, approved or given even an acquiescent approval by the government.
Now let us see, for a moment, what they did when they found that situation confronting them, in agonized fear, I take it, seeing that a new government was in power. You can readily understand what would have been the significance of the position if the new government had been led by one who was under financial obligation to them. Certain other plans were substituted on the 22nd of August, 1930, as is indicated at page 623.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Those
were substituted for the plans filed in 1929.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, but the plans of 1929 were never ratified or approved. I am just coming to that. The report says:
None of these has as yet received the approval of the Minister of Public Works, although the chief engineer of the department has recommended them for approval. Plans submitted on the 22nd August, 1930, did include

Beauharnois Power-Report
plans for the remedial works, but such plans were subsequently withdrawn and as the matter now stands there is now

That should read "not now".
-before the department for approval any plan or plans of these remedial works.
I put this to every member of the house who happens to be a member of my profession. If a judge were charging a jury, as Mr. Justice Wright did the day before yesterday in England with respect to a matter not unlike this in some particulars, would he not say: "Gentlemen, is it not a significant fact that although order in council P.C. 422 provides that there shall be approval by order in council, and also by the minister, of plans of the undertaking and of remedial works which are to be carried out, until the defeat of the administration that was in power at the time the order in council was granted no such approval had been given, and fifteen days after a new government took office in Canada new plans were substituted?" Is that not a significant fact? Most men in this house have served on juries. Why was it that these people went on with their work week after week and month after month and paid no more attention to the government of Canada than they did to the government of China?


Mr. JACOBS:: Would the right hon. gentleman permit me just one question? I do not wish to interrupt him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Samuel William Jacobs: What is the government
engineer doing there now? What has he been doing from August 7 to the present day? He must be representing some person.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government engineer is there to see what is going on, and he was not there on the 7th of August. I asked for a report myself, because I realized that action had to be taken. I had heard of these things; I sent an engineer there last fail before I went to England and I asked the Minister of Public Works and the Department of Railways and Canals to keep watch on that undertaking because of what I had heard. I received a report which I told the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) I thought I would have to treat as a confidential report made to a minister as to what was going on. I take it that the paragraph appearing in the report with respect to the chief engineer and deputy minister has some relation to these facts. -
Now I ask this house to consider that significant fact. The government of this country was defied. These people got their order in council; they breached the Hungry
bay dyke, which they had no right to do. They went on just as they pleased; they were so sure that the government would be returned that they thought they could afford to take almost any chance in the world.


Mr. EULER:: I do not wish to interrupt,
but would my right hon. friend permit a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


William Daum Euler: If this company was forbidden, under the order in council, to go on with construction until the plan had been approved by the government, how is it they were permitted to go on for a year after the last election, under the present government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a very proper question; it indicates that the hon. gentleman wants to know exactly what the terms of the order in council were. They were
these:
(11) The company shall not commence the construction of the works until detailed plans of construction and all necessary information respecting the said works have been submitted to and approved of by the minister, provided that such plans and information shall be submitted within one year.
(14) The works shall be constructed by the company subject to the approval of an engineer or engineers authorized for such purpose by the minister and the decision of the said engineer or engineers shall be final and conclusive upon all questions that may arise in connection with such construction.
Now, no approval was given within the year, and the final plans were not filed within that time. The question of law is a simple one. Where a delegated power is being exercised by a minister, has he any authority to exercise that power after the expiration of the period of time fixed within which he must do it? There are clear authorities that he has not such power. No application was made, as a matter of fact, beyond the filing of the plans. I will give in a single sentence the answer to my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), who is of a very inquiring mind: These gentlemen took the view before the committee that all they were doing was digging a ditch on their own land. That is the answer.


William Daum Euler: Was that a correct view?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the committee had no power to be judge and jury and to pronounce on questions of law. They only had to find the facts. And the committee strove with the witnesses to ascertain those facts. But counsel took the position, "What have you to do with us? We are here, having
Beauharnois Power-Report

bought a piece of land and we are digging a hole in it. That is what we are doing;" although they had sold to the public securities on a hydro electric enterprise.


William Daum Euler: Was the company doing an illegal thing in continuing their works without having these plans certified or approved? If so, why were they allowed to go on for a year under the present government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will give the answer in a moment.


William Daum Euler: A legal technicality which I do not understand, not being a lawyer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman does not need to be a lawyer to understand this. He who runs may read. And the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein. Let me put it this way to the hon. gentleman, who is neither. If their contention was right, that they were down there having bought a piece of land on which they were carrying on excavations, putting up some embarkments, and matters of that kind, this government had no power to interfere.


William Daum Euler: But were they right?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact, if they say that is what they were doing, they are right. And they sold debentures of a hydro electric enterprise with which this government had nothing to do. I hope I make myself clear.


William Daum Euler: I understand it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. Now, that is one of the difficulties.


Samuel William Jacobs: They took the ground that the works referred to were remedial works in the river.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They took the ground that so far as the order in council was concerned, it did not touch anything except the remedial works. What the hon. gentleman says is perfectly clear. And so far as they were concerned, although they had sold debentures, nevertheless they had the right to dig holes, to put up walls and1 embankments, and to operate machinery, without any water at all.


William Daum Euler: And they are still doing it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have breached the Hungry ibay dyke without consent. The fact is that they could not do that either. I will confess to my hon. friend that it is a matter that gave me great concern when I found what they were doing; and it gave me greater concern when I discovered the attitude they had taken, because it made our position so
(Mr. Bennett.]
difficult. We could not launch injunction proceedings against them; they owned the land. They were not trespassers; this was their property. That is the position.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: It is a fact, which I think my right hon. friend has overlooked, that before the work was started detailed plans were filed on July 29, 1929. The work was not started until August. May I refer to the statement of the chairman, that apparently it had been the custom to allow proceedings to go on after the filing of detailed plans.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. But the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) realizes that the plans filed had no relation to the work done. That is the difficulty.


John Campbell Elliott: That is why they were not approved.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend says that is the reason they were not approved and I aocept his word in that regard. They were not approved because they were not plans referable to the work they were doing, and they are not in any sense the detailed plans called for by the engineers in the department.
I have given these illustrations because, as I have said to the house, it does appear to me that the real gravamen of the charge against the company in the first instance is that it absolutely defied this government. And when I say this government, I mean the government of Canada, under whatever auspices it may be conducted. Why did they do so? Any judge addressing a jury would say, "It is for you gentlemen to say why." Well, there were at least 700,000 reasons each worth 100 cents on the dollar.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it not a fact that the
plans have since been recommended for approval by the Department of Public Works, and have been waiting for the last eight months for the approval of the minister?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mentioned that the
engineer had recommended them. But the minister is met with this legal difficulty- and I put it to any legal member of the house: Can a minister, exercising a delegated power from the governor in council, legally exercise that power -when the period of time has lapsed within which the plans are to be approved, without the plans having been filed?


Samuel William Jacobs: The government had it before them-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No application was made until after the year had passed. Within that, year no plans had been filed.

Beauharnois Power-Report


John Campbell Elliott: Will the Prime Minister permit me again-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No detailed plans, my hon. friend means. The plan of July 29 had nothing to do with the construction.


John Campbell Elliott: They were working on that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not on that. Let us have no misunderstanding.


Samuel William Jacobs: What plans have been approved by the department?


Richard Bedford Bennett: None.


Samuel William Jacobs: But what plans are before the minister?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No plan has been approved.


Samuel William Jacobs: No, the plans before the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No plan has been approved.


Samuel William Jacobs: No, but recommended for approval.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By the engineer whom the committee has censured?


Samuel William Jacobs: Censured only for not having given evidence in a satisfactory manner.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, if that is not criticism I will say-whom the committee has not lauded for his frankness. Now, I am not competent to advise the Minister of Public Works. The Department of Justice says that this is a question of the greatest legal difficulty. It is a question whether or not, under these circumstances, the minister may, after the expiration of the time fixed for the filing of the plans, give his approval. It is a question whether or not he is functus officio after the expiration of the time; because there has not been filed within the year anything to which he might give approval under the terms of the order in council.
These are the circumstances that confront us. The committee has inquired why, and has given reasons which I think are ample. And in view of these findings the only other question which the government has to consider is what action shall be taken. First may I point out that the province of Quebec claims and has exercised certain jurisdiction over certain parts of the St. Lawrence. The privy council has decided that the bed of the harbour of Montreal belongs to the crown in right of the province in the first instance. The question as to the right of the province with respect to the water has for many reasons not yet been decided. The leader of
the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) last evening indicated the difficulties so far as the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was concerned on the stated case presented for its consideration. The Dominion has paramount right in respect of navigation; and for myself I never had any doubt in the world about the fact that there is no power under the Navigable Waters Protection Act to approve of plans such as these. The act itself is clear. It makes no more reference to the matter than it does to a river in China, so far as that is concerned. I feel perfectly confident that this is so, and hon. gentlemen may convince themselves if they will read the following words in chapter 140:
No approval shall be given under this part of the site or plans of any bridge over the river St. Lawrence.
You cannot place piers in the river upon which to erect a bridge but you can dewater the river.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my right hon.
friend claim that order in council, P.C. 422, has the effect of permitting the diversion of the whole St. Lawrence?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that the province
of Quebec has added 30,000 second feet to the original 40,000 second feet and the effect will be to render no longer navigable the river St. Lawrence. It is only navigable in a limited way at any time and the governor in council is now being asked to practically dewater the river so that it would not be navigable.


Ernest Lapointe: Not under order in
council, P.C. 422. Surely the government has the power to prevent that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The governor in council granted only 40,000 second feet but the province of Quebec has granted an additional 30,000 second feet.


Ernest Lapointe: But not this government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Application has been
made to the government. If, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act they can grant one thing, they can grant the other. If they can cause the river not to be navigable, they can dewater it altogether. As a matter of fact the plans that have been prepared-this leads me to the other point-were to take the whole flow of the river St. Lawrence. In other words, what was the river St. Lawrence yesterday is now to be the Beauharnois canal. Yet it is said that this can
Beauharnois Power-Report

be done under the statute which will not permit the erection of a bridge across the river.


William Daum Euler: It cannot be done without
the consent of the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not the government, of
parliament; that is my point.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not P.C. 422.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The former Minister of
Justice (Mr. Lapointe) knows that I am not endeavouring to mis-state or confuse the issue. Order in council, P.C. 422 permitted the diversion of 40,000 second feet.


Mr. RALSTON:: It did not permit the
diversion, it approved only of the plans. My right hon. friend stated that the diversion was approved; it is not that, the plans were approved.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have no power
over navigation and they do not pretend to have any right to take the St. Lawrence river away from its course. What a beautiful argument to say that you do not permit the diversion although you approve of plans for a contemplated diversion.


Ernest Lapointe: If my right hon. friend
admits that the bed of the river and the land adjacent are the property of the province of Quebec, is it not for that province to allow the diversion of the water and change the course of the river providing this government approves of the plans which create the diversion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend just overlooks one sentence. The paramount right of navigation is in the hands of the Dominion and the right of navigation is the navigation of the river as nature put it there, unless there is some power given to change it. That power is parliament and parliament alone. My right hon. friend referred to the section which reads:
Parliament may, at any time, annul or vary any order of the governor in council made under this part.
It is abundantly clear that that is a recognition of the fact that no great undertaking such as this was contemplated. There is no provision there for the protection of investors or anything of that sort which always occurs in an act of parliament of this kind. This contemplates just the sort of thing one expects with respect to navigable rivers, such as booms and small matters of that kind and not a great national enterprise such as this.
Having said this much about the statute,

the next question is what shall be done at the present moment. Subsection 10c of section 92 of the British North America Act provides that the province shall not have control over:
Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
We can only with the consent, or shall I say with the goodwill of the province of Quebec take that action. We have prepared a bill which if agreed to by the province of Quebec will declare that this work is a work for the general advantage of Canada. In order that there shall be no misunderstanding ' on that point, we will say:
The canal now being constructed by the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company Limited, a body corporate, incorporated under the laws of the province of Quebec, between lake St. Francis and lake St. Louis, on the south side of or in or along the St. Lawrence river, and the works on lands or lands covered with water, excavations, embankments, retaining structures, remedial works, dams, locks and other works appurtenant thereto, now executed or hereafter to be executed, are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.
Counsel for the province of Quebec has cooperated with us with respect to this legislation and it is proposed to add a provision that nothing in the act shall in any sense be taken as interfering with any of the vested rights which the province of Quebec may have in hydro electric development as distinguished from the canalization of the river.


Ernest Lapointe: Would that mean that the canal is to be declared for the general advantage of Canada but that the power created by virtue of the works will be under the control of the province of Quebec?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We could not make a declaration of that kind. That is something which will have to be decided ultimately by the courts. We propose to have a decision based upon a concrete case and not upon the theories which unfortunately engaged the attention of the supreme court.


Ernest Lapointe: It is only that part which constitutes the canal which is declared to be for the general advantage of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In order that my hon.
friend may understand it, I will read it again. It is as follows:
The canal now being constructed by the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company Limited, a body corporate, incorporated under the laws of the province of Quebec, between lake St. Francis and lake St. Louis, on the

Beauharnois Power-Report
south side of or in or along the St. Lawrence river, and the works on lands or lands covered with water, excavations, embankments, retaining structures, remedial works, dams, locks and other works appurtenant thereto, now executed or hereafter to be executed, are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: For the purposes of the canal?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a fact. I now
proceed to the next point, and that is what is to happen with respect to the enterprise as at present constituted. With the approval of this house we propose to annul and cancel the order in council. Having regard to the circumstances under which it was obtained and the defiance of Canada and of the government, we propose to cancel it. The act will not become effective until proclamation of the governor in council is made to that effect.
We propose to ask parliament to authorize the diversion of water from the stream to the extent to which the order in council provided, namely, 40,000 second feet. We shall provide for those people who put their money bona fide into this proposition under the debentures of $30,000,000. This shall be carried out under such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve. This statute also will come into effect upon proclamation of the governor in council.
The net result of the action which we propose to make will be, first, to declare that this canal is a work for the general advantage of Canada; second, we shall declare that the old order in council under which it operated is no longer operative; third, that no grants out of the river St. Lawrence shall be made by order in council, but only by parliament and we shall provide further that the order in council shall be on such terms and conditions that this undertaking, its successors or assigns shall be able to carry on. But one provision must be that protection is given to bona fide investors who have subscribed $30,000,000 to the enterprise and whose money has been there expended.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend used the expression "grants will be made". I assume what he refers to is approval of plans.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, a grant of water
by parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A grant of
water.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A right to divert 53,000
cubic feet per second of water, being the
40.000	cubic feet per second authorized by the province of Quebec and the 13,000 cubic
feet per second that belonged to the Robert interests, the cotton mill interests, making
53,000	cubic per second that this parliament has granted, and that belongs, so far as the Dominion is concerned, to alii the people, supplementing the action of the province of Quebec which has already given a lease of its rights in that water to the Beauharnois company, and has reserved the right to determine its successors; that so far as our legislative power extends, without arrogating to ourselves a power which we do not possess, this parliament will grant.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
same as the order in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly, but in the one case it is an order in council, and in the other it is parliament.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Under
what form of management will the work now proceed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has
asked a question to which I was just going to refer. I have indicated what we propose to do-assert the supremacy of parliament on the one hand and declare once and for all that the methods by which the undertaking was commenced are not the methods by which it will be ended. Thirdly, it is desirable to ensure the continuation of this undertaking and to hasten its completion, because I believe it to be one of the greatest undertakings that could be completed in the national interest. Then there arises the question as to 'the control of the enterprise. That is involved in the terms and conditions for which the order in council must provide, because there are four alternatives, and four only, as I see the matter: first, the present management might be able to secure financial backing to enable them to continue. That is their business. I do not think they can. Second, the property could be taken over by the province of Quebec, under a hydro or public commission. That I do not believe the province of Quebec will do.


Ernest Lapointe: And it is their own
business.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Absolutely, and that of
nobody else. I have made it clear that is their business absolutely and I have no comment or criticism to make in any way, shape or form as to what they do or do not do. I was privileged to have an opportunity of discussing the matter with one of their ministers the other day and I made it quite clear, as the hon. gentleman has said, that it would be as impertinent for me to suggest

Beauharnois Power-Report
what they should do as it would be to suggest to the government of the United States what it should do.
Third, the Dominion might take it over, although legal difficulties would arise, to which reference was made yesterday and in regard to whiidh I wholly agree, of such a character that t'he inevitable result would be the stoppage of the enterprise. I say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), who has just taken his seat: He must realize dlearly we could not by any declaration of this parliament, unless Quebec acquiesced and became a partner with us, do what he suggests so far as 'the Dominion is concerned.


William Daum Euler: Would it not be competent for parliament or for the government of Canada, by purchase, to take 'the place of the shareholders of the Beauharnois company?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had thought that
question would be asked. The lease from the province of Quebec naturally provides that that province must concur in any alienation or transfer of that property and they would exercise their own discretion in that regard. But I have no reason to believe they desire the Dominion of Canada to undertake the operation of a hydro-electric plant in that province; neither have I any intention, of asking the house for authority to do so.
Lastly, there might be complete reorganization of the enterprise under the circumstances to which I have alluded, namely, by the creation of a new corporation under the authority of an act of this parliament with the cooperation of the province of Quebec under such terms as will ensure the continued progress of the work and make it clear for all time that any concessions, that may have been obtained with the thought in the minds of those who received them that it was necessary to expend hundreds of thousands of dollars for that purpose, are negatived absolutely and positively, and that the honour of parliament and of this country cannot be bought and sold for any sum like $700,000, or any millions of dollars or any payment of that kind. I want to be fair about that. It has not been suggested that the honour of this parliament was bartered or sold, but it has been suggested by those who paid the money that they believed it could be secured in that way and that payment of money was the method to be adopted for the purpose of attaining the end they had in mind. This legislation will cure them of any such delusion.
One word more. The submission to the committee was broad. It has been suggested that

a saw-off was arrived at with respect to some of the work of the committee. The committee was not investigating campaign funds, so called; the committee was investigating this undertaking. Last night the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King), once more trying to divert public attention .from Beauharnois, began to talk about an investigation of campaign funds. For nine years the Liberal party was in power. Anyone who knows anything about campaign funds knows the party in power is -always able to obtain them with readiness as compared with anybody else, for the contributions that are made, not ifor corrupt purposes, but for the purposes of enabling the organization of a party to be effective, are made on the assumption that the party in power is best able to attend to affairs because it has power to do great injury to those who are carrying on business in this country. I do not propose that there should be a roving commission going over Canada to ask every man that it meets whether he contributed money to help the Consumers' League or somebody else. I do not believe the people of Canada expect that a roving commission should be appointed to go around and ask everybody whether he made a contribution to a party fund or to help anyone to be elected or not. The people of this country are in the main honest, and many of them from profound conviction contribute even as small a sum as twenty-five cents to the fortunes of political parties. There is only one thing I want to say about the wellbeing of the party that sits across the way to my right, and it is this:	Their organization ensures at the
minimum of expenditure that the voice of the people may be recorded and the twenty-five cent contributions that are made by individual contributors to the funds of the party in the province in which I live have been of great use and have taught the people that they get just what they pay for, so far as that is concerned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -Some hon. gentlemen
are pleased to put upon that a meaning that I had not intended, and one which I think is not warranted. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke of the cost of his election being $500 or $600. The cost of election campaigns carried on by hon. gentlemen who sit opposite to me and to my right amount to only a few hundred dollars, for this reason: A candidate comes into one community and it is the bounden duty of the organization there to take care of him and -to see that he gets his propaganda over until he goes to the next community. The same thing happens there, and

Beauharnois Power-Report
so oo. When I said that the people got what they paid for in alluding to the contributions of twenty-five cents apiece, I meant that they get elections without corruption and an honest expression of public opinion at the polls through the efforts that their money made possible. I do not think hon. gentlemen will object to that being done. I only wish that more of it were done in this country.


Mr. HANBURY:: We will accept the right hon. gentleman's first statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should think the hon
gentleman is a living illustration of just what that statement means in his opinion.


James Dew Chaplin: Now will the hon. member be good!


Edward Joseph Garland: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds to his peroration, I should like to ask him to revert for a moment to the question of management. He has not yet made it clear to me in what form the new management will be. How will it be handled?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can assure the hon.
member for Bow River of one thing, and that is that I am not going to manage the company or ask the people of this country to manage it. I look to the bankers interested in that enterprise to see that it receives such management as will ensure the terms and conditions of the order in council being those to which we may properly agree. It certainly must be changed, however, if that is what the hon. gentleman means. I could not undertake the management of that enterprise. When my hon. friend was asking the question, I could not help but think of the troubles which have been left on our doorstep. Here is one, and there is one down in Montreal harbour-I refer to the bridge. Those troubles are left on our doorstep. The auditors are there completing their report. These are the legacies left to us when we succeed to office; this is one of them, and that is another.
Now, may I complete what I have to say. I have said we have no intention of appointing any roving commission to run around the country and ask people what they are contributing to an election-not any. If my right hon. friend gets any comfort out of that, well and good. The reasons for it are obvious. Some of those who could give the most striking evidence with relation to campaign funds have passed to the beyond. There are others who, out of the goodness of their hearts, have made substantial contributions, just as the right hon. gentleman said last night, for the purpose of promoting the policies and principles in which they believe.
The law as amended at the last session permitted corporations to make contributions, and that amendment was made at the instance of the gentleman from Winnipeg who has spoken to-day. That is the position. Contributions were made legal and proper, but in preceding elections that was not so.
We must always have regard to the morbid curiosity of people who desire to stick their noses into everybody else's business for the purpose of ascertaining just what their neighbours get, or do not get. How many men who listened last night were beneficiaries of the election funds in the last general election? How many of them will say no part of the election funds from the central fund was spent in their constituencies?


Ernest Lapointe: I will; that is one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, all I can say is, my hon. friend has probably been overlooked.


Mr. MANION:: One.


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: I will say so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Peradventure, if there be two righteous men the city may be saved,- peradventure.


Ernest Lapointe: How many on your side?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am just putting that question to the whole house. But do not let those gentlemen go around arrogating to themselves virtues they do not possess, for the purpose of trying to get a mob to howl about campaign funds to cover up their delinquencies in regard to Beauharnois, to cover up the story that they themselves have spread upon Hansard about asking for money from their organizers, and then being reckless as to where it was obtained. Could anything be more reckless or indicate more utter disregard of the public interest than for a public man, at the end of a great inquiry before a committee of fellow members, to say, "I want a royal commission to investigate campaign funds of the years 1926, 1926 and 1930."
What about Beauharnois? That is the issue before us. If in the opinion of hon. members a royal commission or further inquiry is necessary at another session, so far as this government is concerned, it will give it to them. What is more. If, following the example of Blake and Huntington, those men who carried on the investigation with respect to the Pacific scandal, which was but a little drop in a river as compared to this, any hon. member will rise in this house, even at this late day in the session and make charges acouiesoed in hv a sufficient number of those

Beauharnois Power-Report
about him, he will get the investigation, this session or next. You will get a commission or an investigation before a committee.
In view of the spirit that sometimes is aroused concerning these matters, I do not think judges should be dragged into discussions in this house. But I repeat if, however, hon. members will rise in the house next session or at another session, so long as we are in power, make charges with respect to election funds, give us particulars and do not propose a roving commission to run around the country, and attempt the impossible, we will meet them. I repeat, we will meet them. Make the charges against me, if they like,-and I except nobody from that statement. Make your charges, but do not go about this country talking about your virtues and arrogating to yourselves a righteousness you do not possess-


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I say.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -and then expect that the attention of the people will for a moment, be diverted from what this investigation discloses, by the old red herring trick of trying to induce them to think of something else. The tactics of Napoleon were "Divide and rule." Apparently you think that all you need to do is to induce people to believe that something or somebody else is wrong, and thus you may be able to induce them to forget that you stood and said, "Look on yonder building . . .; but we have no money." No; rich in influence, with leaflets distributed everywhere, we come before the house and say, "The paragon of an organizer was Sir Robert Hudson, of England." His Canadian counterpart is, my friend and organizer who like him gets money from "rich men," having only "good will" to dispose of.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, hon. members will be
glad to hear that if I had the time at my disposal I should not care to take so much as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), or had I the righteousness I should not care to display it as did the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). I have often wished I had a wide vocabulary, but I never hear the leader of the opposition but I rejoice in my infirmity. I would say to the Prime Minister that there is nothing quite so hard to live with as self-righteousness, and if he intends to live with human beings-which we are, and which I proudly claim to be-it would be very well for him some time to be wrong. He is never

wrong. He is not wrong when he brings down income tax legislation, and he is not wrong when he withdraws it; he never is wrong.
However, that is neither here nor there I think if we needed proof of the fact that the party system is bankrupt we have certainly had it in the three and a half hour speech delivered last night, and in the speech we have heard to-day. While I do admire the despatch with which the Prime Minister acted, we must at least say for him that he does act. If he did so with a little less gusto, probably we would appreciate his actions still more. We are pleased with the stand he has taken; personally I rejoice in the thought that he intends to cancel the order in council and at least to go some distance in retaining for the people the power to be developed at Beauharnois. If it is to be managed by three bankers, however, I think I would have to know who they are and what they are before I could agree that the change is an improvement.
When one surveys the great fortunes which have been made in this country-and the fact is that great fortunes are being made in Canada-one traces them, always, to the natural resources. They have been made through the taking of the people's wealth. When one thinks of wealth in Ottawa, one thinks of lumber; when one thinks of wealth in Winnipeg, one thinks of wheat. Great wealth in any community has a close connection to the great natural resource of that particular locality. So again we have one bunch of exploiters-and we shall likely have others in the future-taking from the people the great natural resources that should belong to them, and taking it in a way that will cause those who use those resources when developed, for instance, the electric energy to 'be developed at Beauharnois, to pay more for it in perpetuity, while those who by their exploitation made an exorbitant profit quite likely will go scot free. I feel there should be a law- whether provincial or federal does not matter to me-to force those who so exploit our great natural resources to disgorge their dishonest gains or else go to jail like any ordinary Canadian citizen would have to do if found guilty of petty thievery. Why not? If a hungry person takes a loaf of bread or a bag cuf potatoes, or some other thing of practically no monetary value, he is sent to gaol. So why should not people who have taken wealth that certainly did not belong to them, whether they have given it to somebody else or retained it does not matter-why, I ask, should not such people 'be brought within the criminal code? Are we to do nothing about it? Are

Beauharnois Power-Report
people of that type to be honoured rather than condemned? I suppose one should apologize for not knowing the law, and I regret my lack of legal training, but most of us have an average mental endowment, and I think we should remember that we are passing through very difficult and very hard times, and that there is nothing quite so nauseating to the people of Canada, nothing that arouses a rebellious spirit so strongly as the fact that when they are striving to remain honest and cheerful and hard-working, at the same time they see a bunch of rogues making off with wealth that really belongs to the nation. Unless something definite is done to curb these so-called financiers and the senators who got some of the money through their supposed political value, then as a former teacher and as a woman I would ask: What are we going to tea oh the children of Canada? What is the use of saying to the 'boys and girls in our public schools "We must have high ideals, we must be honest and hard-working, we must respect our institutions, we must look up to our public men and have confidence in them, if such men are to be allowed to remain in the parliament of Canada? Here are three senators who appeared before the Beauharnois committee, and I suppose they will continue to bear the prefix "honourable." If there is to 'be any respect for the Senate-and there is precious little now-we ought to rid the Senate of their presence, and we should not be afraid or ashamed to say so. I read in the latest issue of Toronto Saturday Night this amusing little poem which pictures the case in the words of the people:
Behold Beauharnois How happy is The Senator!
He gets let in
On the ground floor,
And makes himself A millionaire For some concern That isn't there.
The magnate has A lot of fun-*
He splits up stocks At ten for one,
And think how he 13 tickled when He sells them out At one for ten.
How generous is The financier!
He gives a hundred Thousand clear To any college
Chum he meets And doesn't even Ask receipts.
The witness prides Himself a lot On what he did
For what he got,
But on details-
He will be frank-
He finds his mind A perfect blank.
O sweet to be A politician Whose acts are all Above suspicion But who can always Find a way To make his nuisance Value pay.
That is the way the people are looking at the Beauharnois scandal, and unless everybody is to be smirched by the disclosures we had better take no uncertain stand in the matter.
The Beauharnois committee was also told something about campaign funds. It is interesting to know where some of the campaign funds came from. It would be equally interesting to know where the remainder came from for both parties; because I do not think campaign funds always go to one party, J. fancy they go to both. It is not so long ago that we had the liquor scandal, when an investigation disclosed that huge sums were paid to both parties by the liquor interests; then we had the customs scandal, and now the Beauharnois scandal. These investigations have given us three little glimpses of how campaign funds are paid. This does not mean that we know where all the campaign funds come from, but in the latest disclosures John Aird, jr., put it very well indeed. He said: "Gratefulness was always regarded as an important factor in dealing with democratic governments."


An hon. MEMBER:: Sweezey.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Yes, but he was telling what Aird told him. Well, in one way I do not blame the parties, I blame the people for payment of campaign funds. As long as the people enjoy having corporations and bunches of rogues, or whatever you like to call them 

I do not mean that all corporations are controlled by rogues, I am thinking of this particular gang-as long as the people enjoy being fooled by men of that type it is their own fault. During my own campaigns I have said this many times: If the people of Southeast Grey do not want to pay for the financing of a candidate, then don't have one; if they do want one, then pay for it. Suppose every family in Canada paid Si to the candidate of his choice, that is money enough to carry on an honest campaign, to pay for radio broadcasts, newspaper advertisements, lectures, and any other decent method

Beauharnois Power-Report

of convincing the electorate of the virtues of the candidate. Until they do that we shall go on from the customs and the Beauharnois scandals to other scandals, on, on, on, endlessly, and sometimes it will be the Conservatives who are pure and holy, and sometimes-if they are careful and astute-it will be the Liberals.
Undoubtedly the methods of securing campaign funds for the support of the old parties throttles the whole idea of democratic government. The large sums which the old parties get-and they are not 25 cent pieces, I should judge-cause them to be "grateful," in the words of John Aird, jr., to those who give the money. However much those who require such campaign funds may try to be perfectly honest in their relation to the people of Canada, they can scarcely help being biased in favour of those who made their election possible by their bounty.
In the same issue of Saturday Night there is a very interesting cartoon, and I hope all hon. members will look at it. "The People" shown by a figure in the centre, very much bedraggled, a beaten little man, with a bump on his forehead, a black eye, hair dishevelled, deprived of his coat and in a state of impotent rage, his fists clenched, while on his right hand are two grinning, well-dressed, corpulent gentlemen representing the power interests, on his left two financiers emptying his coat pockets, in the background two politicians -there should be three-slinking off with a fat bag, seeming a bit ashamed. The cartoon is headed: They've Taken Everything but His Vote. And that is about where we are in democratic government. The people can vote, but they cannot do much else, for it does not matter a great deal which side they vote for. True, a change of government does help; we find out what the other party was doing, and that is always interesting. But certainly if there were no big campaign funds available to the old parties the number of independent members in this house would be much greater. They might not be sitting in this corner; they might not think as we do but they would be independent, free men, and how they would enjoy it. I am sure, during the last few weeks, many men in this house have gone through what the right hon. leader of the opposition last night called the valley of humiliation.
Then there is something else I should like to know. I should like to know why Sweezey gave John Aird that $125,000. The fact that it went to the province which supplied the contract which enabled the company to sell bonds is, to me, a suspicious circumstance.

Then take Aird's own words as given by Mr. Sweezey-we will go over them again. He testified that Aird said:
That he thought that a contribution would be in order to the Ontario Conservative party because we would probably be having a lot more dealings with the Ontario people, and that gratefulness was always regarded as an important factor in dealing with democratic governments.
The matter is pretty clear to anyone who is not too credulous, but we ought to know more than we know about it as yet. One is almost led to suspect that long years of careful manoeuvring have taught certain people how to completely cover their tracks. I am not sure that the committee went into that question as far as they might have; I am not sure why it was not made clearer, though of course in the minds of the people it ,'s quite clear. Mr. Aird was certainly a marvellous man to get that amount of money for a few words of advice, the nature of which he could not recall. Advice must be valuable.
Before I finish-and I have not taken very long, nor do I intend to do so

I must say that I think the people of Canada ought to take this lesson seriously in regard to campaign funds. If they do so this revelation will be worth while; a great lesson will have been learned by this investigation. I am sure I do not enjoy seeing people's characters besmirched, but there was one individual, Senator McDougald, about whom I feel it would not matter very much. A man who not only used his position of trust for his own enrichment but who betrayed his best friend seems to me beyond anything but our contempt. All the others, I suppose, are doing just what is being done in other corporations day after day and month after month, which goes to show how absolutely rotten is the social system under which we live. The Toronto Saturday Night, which is not a radical publication, or was not such, in P.M.R.'s column says the following:
If the capitalistic system is to survive, there must not be scandals like the Beauharnois. Disclosures such as those which have shocked the country in recent weeks are just so much ammunition for the reds.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Are you sure that is
not from the Worker?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: No, that is from the
Toronto Saturday Night, and it is followed by a paragraph in which it is stated that the only argument in favour of the capitalistic system is that under it both overalled and white-collared workers have had the best opportunity for advancement, and that unless the capitalistic system proves that to be true it cannot last. There can be nothing more

Farm and Unemployment Relief
sure than that; we are watching the old system totter to its fall. I am not particularly interested in it, but if those who are interested wish to save it, it is time they bestirred themselves, because unless that is done, it will hasten to its end.
Motion agreed to on division.



FARM AND UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 142, to confer certain powers upon the governor in council in respect to unemployment and farm relief, and the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada.
He said : I think I have made all the explanations I can make with respect to this legislation, except that I indicated yesterday that it might be desirable to add "as far as the legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada extend" or words to that effect. However, at the moment that has nothing to do with the second reading of the bill.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, since I have had an opportunity of seeing the bill I must confess that I feel it lends emphasis to the remarks I made in speaking on the resolution upon which the bill is based, and that it really would be impossible to express in too emphatic terms the objections to which the measure as proposed is open.
I should like to repeat that I believe it is a very great mistake to associate the relief of unemployment arising from economic causes, of which existing fiscal policies are one, and the relief required in rural areas because of distress occasioned by drought, failure of harvest and other like causes. It is an even greater and graver mistake to associate these relief measures with a measure concerned with peace, order and good government in Canada, which looks to me like a war measure applied to our country in times of peace. One would think that the possibility of a civil war were contemplated in this country by a measure of this kind, and that it was going to arise out of the extent of unemployment.
That is most unfortunate. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) did say that he desired legislation with respect to peace, order and good government in order to deal more effectively with some noisy minority who might represent certain Bolshevist or what he terms communist views which he did not think should be permitted to make headway in this
country, but the public will not get that idea from this measure, nor will those who are suffering from unemployment and who are experiencing the great distress which is theirs in virtue of the fact that, seek as they will, they are unable at the present time to secure remunerative emplojunent. That is my first objection.
There is another objection, which is perhaps even stronger. The bill gives to the governor in council power not only to spend money for certain purposes but to borrow money and spend it without limit. I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe there will be found on the statutes of this parliament any comparable measure in the whole history of Canadian legislation. As was pointed out the other evening by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), when parliament was asked to vote huge sums to meet the emergencies and necessities of war, the Prime Minister of the day never thought of coming to this House of Commons and asking parliament to give him a blank cheque for the purpose. He fixed some amount. True he was unable to estimate within appreciable bounds what the amount might be that would ultimately be required, but, notwithstanding, he did have some regard for the rights of parliament. It seems to me this bill disregards parliament altogether; it is a complete usurpation of the rights of parliament. This afternoon my right hon. friend spoke with some force, some emphasis and feeling about having regard to the traditions and the institutions of government. Well, the fundamental tradition in all that pertains to responsible government is that the people's representatives in the House of Commons must exercise control over taxation and that that right must never be taken away from
them.	It -cannot be too strongly emphasized that that is exactly what this bill does. It takes away from this House of Commons and this parliament control over taxation, because no amount is named. We have no knowledge whatever of how much will be borrowed and how much will be spent. All we know is that after the treasury has been depleted to a very considerable extent, and our public debt has been correspondingly increased, and not until
then,	will the people have any idea of what this particular measure involves. I do not
_ think it is possible to emphasize too strongly how serious is the departure which the government is making in asking this house, no matter what the reason may be, to give it unlimited powers of the kind.
When one reads the measure and contemplates the possible uses of the moneys,

Farm and Unemployment Relief
judging from the provisions with respect to what the governor in council may -do once these powers are given, the situation will be seen to be more serious than ever. It becomes, I confess, extremely grave. In the first place, the measure gives the government power to aid in the relief of unemployment in a manner similar to that which characterized the legislation passed at the special session and which seemed at the time to be going pretty far. But it gives the government wider powers than were conferred at that time. Such relief as was given at the special session had relation to the needs of the provinces and the municipalities, and to a corresponding contribution on their part, which surrounded possible expenditures with some sort of limiting safeguard. But see what this measure does. It enables the governor in council to use any sum of money it may wish in order to-
(a)	Provide for the construction, extension or improvement of public works, buildings, undertakings, railways, highways, subways, bridges and canals, harbours and wharves, and any other works and undertakings of any nature or kind whatsoever.
Why have a parliament at all? Why have estimates submitted to parliament for consideration if the governor in council is to be given authority to do without any control by parliament all these things which ought ;o be subject to the most careful scrutiny ff this House of Commons? Take the next power given the ministry under this bill. They are empowered to:
(b)	Assist in defraying the cost of the production, sale and distribution of the products of the field, farm, forest, sea, river and mine.
That gives the government power to do almost anything in the way of subsidizing any industry associated with the great natural resources of the country. They can give moneys to any extent to any enterprise to be used in any way. Why bring in a measure such as the one which passed this house a day or two ago, granting to the farmers a five cent bonus in connection with the production of their grain when under a measure of this kind the government without further sanction by parliament could give them 25? There was no necessity for that measure with thi3 bill in view. All the powers required to grant that assistance and as much more as desired* are being given in this bill to the governor in council without even the necessity of any supervision on the part of parliament. Take the next section, which empowers the government to:

(c)	Assist provinces, cities, towns, municipalities and other bodies or associations, by loaning moneys thereto or guaranteeing repayment of moneys thereby, or in such other manner as may be deemed necessary or advisable.
Contemplate what that means. It give3 the government the right to borrow to any extent, to assist in any way they please, for any purpose, the provinces, the cities and towns and municipalities, and other bodies or associations. That pretty nearly covers all important organizations that can be thought of which would require assistance for any reason whatever.
While the measure has reference to unemployment and farm relief and peace and order-that is the title of the bill-in reality it may be summed up in the first few words of the title: "An act to confer certain powers upon the governor in council." That is the whole purpose of the bill, to give additional powers to the governor in council to go to any length it wishes. Take the next section. This gives the government the power to:
(d)	Take all such other measures as may be deemed necessary or advisable for carrying out the provisions of this act.
That leaves nothing that the government cannot do if it wishes to act under the terms of the bill now before us. I do not think that anything of this kind has ever been introduced in any parliament in any part of the world since there have been representative institutions and responsible government in the different countries. But the bill goes further. It not only contemplates the expenditure of moneys in this way; it gives the government power to make any orders or regulations it may wish to make by reason of the circumstances recited in the preamble. The preamble touches upon peace, order and good government-that cover's pretty much everything; it touches specifically upon unemployment, rural distress and the like.
What this house is being asked to do now is to enable the government of Canada, without any supervision on the part of this parliament, to make any order or regulation whatsoever; this is equivalent to saying that the government may make any law whatsoever which can possibly have a bearing upon conditions in this country during the remainder of this year and until March, 1932. Never was power asked for by any government at any time of any parliament comparable to that which is asked for in this measure. Not only does the bill give the government power to make these various orders and regulations, but it gives power as well to enforce the orders and regulations. And in that connection it goes the length of providing that the govern-

Farm, and Unemployment Relief
ment may make any order it pleases or any regulations, and that they may therefore revoke those orders and regulations. If a mistake has been made in the original order no consideration is to be due those who may have suffered under the order. I cannot conceive of anything more arbitrary, which an autocratic government could seek to possess, than power such as that. Just imagine a responsible body of the people's representatives being asked to give the administration power to make any rules and regulations it pleases, to pass any orders in council, to revoke those orders in council, and even if it be shown that injury has been suffered by those affected, and that there has been loss and suffering from the government's action, there shall be no redress! But that is not all. The measure goes on further than that. It asks this parliament to part for the time being with its right of imposing fine and imprisonment and to hand over that power as well without reservation to the government. It asks parliament to give to the governor in council power to fine and imprison if it thinks with respect to the enforcement of any feature of this legislation that may be necessary. I do submit, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunburv):: Where
does it say that it gives the government power to fine and imprison?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Section 6 reads:
6.	The governor in council may prescribe penalties that may be imposed for violation of the orders and regulations made under the authority of this act, but no such penalty shall exceed a fine of one thousand dollars or imprisonment for a term of more than three years, or both fine and imprisonment, and may also prescribe whether such penalty shall be imposed upon summary conviction or upon indictment.
Nothing could be more emphatic than that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
must be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government prescribes the fine and the penalty creates the offence where there was no offence before.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It fixes the maximum penalty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It creates new offences and new penalties.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It does not impose them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely parliament alone should have the right of saying what constitutes a criminal offence. Since
when has parliament parted with its right to be the guardian of the people in the matter of liberties every citizen is entitled to possess? No citizen can escape being liable to fines and penalties which the governor in council may wish to prescribe if for any cause his actions may be held to come under the provisions of this section and if he does what the governor in council during the next nine months may say is a crime punishable by fine or imprisonment though no such offence exists at the present time. That is a most serious aspect of the whole measure.
If this measure were dealt with as it deserves to be, it would be the duty of this House of Commons to remain in session until the measure was withdrawn. That is the only way in which I believe a free parliament could in the circumstances be expected to maintain the rights of a free people. However, hon. gentlemen opposite have the majority; ithe government knows that it has at its back those who will support it through thick and thin. At this stage of the session we are forced to realize that no matter what we might do in the way of endless discussion the government would not alter this measure in any particular. Under these circumstances I am obliged to content myself with making as strong a protest as can be expressed in words. As I say, under ordinary circumstances it would have been our duty to fight this bill to the last ditch. Where a measure of this kind was in contemplation, it was the duty of the government not to have made it the last measure of the session, but rather the first of all measures that all hon. members might have had a full opportunity of disclosing before it was too late the grave seriousness of this taking away of powers from parliament to be given exclusively to the ministry.
I do not intend to move an amendment on the second reading. To do so might appear to be taking exception to what the ministry will say is the fundamental principle of the bill. I wish to avoid even the semblance of anything of that kind. So far as the bill is a measure for the relief of unemployment I am wholly and most heartily in accord with the principle of it. I shall go so far as to repeat what I said the other day, for I realize that we are reduced to that extremity in virtue of the power of hon. gentlemen opposite. If the government wishes to fix any amount it pleases -I do not care what the amount is as long as it will preserve at least the form, the appearance and the semblance of the authority of parliament-we on our part will be prepared in existing circumstances to subscribe without question to the measure. The min-
-1410	COMMONS
Farm and Unemployment Relief
istry is doing something wholly indefensible, something which of itself will create more unrest in this country during the next few months than all that can ever be hoped for in the way of overtaking a very difficult situation.
When the bill reaches the committee stage, I will propose one or two amendments which touch the vital points to which I have just referred. I am going to ask that all the powers which are asked for shall be made subject to such appropriations as this parliament may vote. I believe that is the first duty of parliament with respect to the control of taxation and any added authority which it may give to the executive. I am going to move that we strike out of this measure the words which relate to peace, order and good government. I am going to do that not because I am opposed to the government taking all the powers which it may wish to have for purposes of the kind, but because any power of that sort should not be associated with unemployment relief in rural and urban areas. If the government will bring in another measure stating what it wishes to have in the way of additional authority to maintain peace, order and good government in Canada, I am almost prepared to say that for the sake of preserving the constitution and in appearance at least the authority of parliament I will give the measure ready support. I believe it is wrong, I believe it is cruel to associate with this measure, which relates to unemployment, to distressing economic conditions and to human suffering, anything which has to do with the semblance of riots and, possibly to a limited extent even of civil war.
This is all I desire to say at the moment. May I emphasize again that if this bill is passed in the form in which it has come before this parliament, it will be the beginning of the end of all that can be referred to as responsible government in Canada. It destroys the fundamental principle of control by the House of Commons over taxation. No measure at all comparable in its sinister possibilities and effect has ever been presented to parliament by this or I believe by any other responsible government, even in time of actual war.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend
to traverse the ground covered by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) except to say that I heartily concur in everything he has said. I shall not take the time to express my opinion of a government which proposes legislation of this kind in the parliament of Canada; I have no words at my command to condemn it strongly enough. I have known the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) for

twenty-five years, and I cannot conceive why he should attempt to thwart the will of parliament as he is doing by this legislation. He is asking for money to construct public works over which he will have control. We are all alive to the necessity of doing something to relieve unemployment, but I cannot condemn too strongly the action which the government is taking in this regard.
What is parliament for? Why are we sent here? What is our duty to the people? This government with its majority is taking upon itself the responsibility of doing everything which parliament should instruct them to do. After all this or any other government are but the stewards of parliament to carry out its behests, but this measure reverses that procedure right about face. What are we here for? What is left for parliament to do? This government is asking for authority to do anything they wish, in whatever manner they wish, and anyone who objects will be liable to fine and imprisonment. I do not know of any country in the world possessing a democratic government which would propose a measure such as this for the relief of the unemployed and the destitute. To combine it with a situation that actually puts into the hands of the government the right to declare a state of war in the country-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh no.


Charles A. Stewart: That is my interpretation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no such power
asked.


Charles A. Stewart: Why insert the expression "for the peace, order and good government"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the bill gets into committee I shall explain it to the hon. member.


Charles A. Stewart: I shall be
glad to get the explanation. My right hon. friend has not left out a single thing that he may require and that parliament properly has the right to bestow. He is asking for a blank cheque without the semblance of a statement as to his intentions. I presume- and I have no quarrel with him on that score-that so far as relief work is concerned, he will carry out the program that was carried out under the legislation of last September. But he is going to carry on public works, controlled absolutely by the government of Canada, and parliament is not given the consideration of a mention of what shall be done, except that it is asked to give a general, blank order that the government may do thus and so.

Farm and Unemployment Relief
I could not let this occasion pass without voicing in the strongest terms condemnation of this attempt to get such wide powers. Indeed it is not only an attempt but a reality, as the Prime Minister informed us on previous occasions, when for instance we were discussing the tariff board bill: I have the majority behind me, and the majority is a subservient one and will carry me through.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the hon. member
say when that was said?


Charles A. Stewart: It was said in a debate in the house by my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When?


Charles A. Stewart: That my
right hon. friend had the power behind him to carry out his wishes.


Mr. ROSS:: When?


Charles A. Stewart: On a former occasion when we were discussing matters similar to this. I have not Hansard before me, but if my hon. friend will look it up he will find that my statement is correct.


Mr. COTNAM:: My hon. friend was subservient to his leader.


Charles A. Stewart: Not on all
occasions, because I supported my hon. friend's party against the then government, on one occasion, and if a similar occasion arose, I would do it again.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Just once.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes; that
is more than my hon. friend can say, because he would not think of doing such a thing. I have it on my record on a certain occasion, but I doubt whether my hon. friend, who is so anxious to interrupt proceedings and annoy, would ever do such a thing. It is the last thing that would occur to him. Without delaying the house further, I want to put myself on record as being unalterably opposed to this method of carrying on the affairs of this country.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. STANDING ORDERS
Sixth report of the select standing committee on standing orders.-Mr. Bury.
Mr. BURY moved that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: The business of the house under the order of private and public bills having been disposed of, the house will revert to the debate on the second reading of Bill No. 142.




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett for the second reading of Bill No. 142, to confer certain powers upon the governor in council in respect to unemployment and farm relief, and the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada.
Thomas McMillan: When the house rose at six o'clock I had not intended to say anything on the bill now before us. Had it not been for the attitude of members of the cabinet I should not have spoken. We know the powers they seek to take out of the hands of parliament, and this is not the first time since the general election of July 28 last, they have endeavoured so to do. We know that at the special session the power of taxation was taken out of the hands of the people, a power which had rested with their representatives in parliament under the terms of the British constitution ever since the days of Magna Charta. The government took the power out of the hands of the representatives of the people and placed it in the hands of one man, the Minister of National Revenue, so that he could place upon goods a value for duty purposes without any respect- whatever to their cost price. He could raise the value as high as he wished, reduce it as low as he wished or change it whenever he wished.
I desire to do nothing to delay the business of the house, but we had before us a few days ago a bill providing that members may be appointed to cabinet positions without asking the sanction of their constituents -just another instance of power being taken out of the hands of the people. The system of representative responsible government under which we live leads us to believe that the people constitute the great tribunal of last resort. That power has been kept in their hands, after having been fought for and won. and has been transmitted to us from the days w-hen the heads of kings used to be tumbled into the wastebasket simply because they persisted in the imposing upon the people of their imperious wills, in the belief that the people were merely the serfs and chattels of the state and that the state and the high command must be all-supreme.

Farm and Unemployment Relief
We have just emerged from the greatest conflict of the ages, and in it the very same principle was at stake, namely whether the common people would rule or whether they were to be serfs and chattels I have already described. In preparing for that great conflict the children of Germany were taken at a very tender age from their mothers and placed in the hands of the military command. So well did they succeed in this way, in building up a great military force that for four long years the freedom and liberty of humanity, the preservation of the liberties of the world, trembled in the balance. The measure which allows cabinet ministers to hold office without appealing to their constituents took away from the people a sacred right which should have been preserved. That is another instance in which the people lost the power and authority which should have been preserved to them.
Here again we have before us a blanket proposition through the medium of which the government can do anything they like with the finances of Canada, and where power is being taken from the representatives of the people and given to the custody of a few. I am not going to obstruct the measure, because I know it will pass, but I did not wish to see it pass without voicing my protest.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to speak at great length on the bill, but I desire to endorse the remarks made in opposition to it and to the manner in which it has been presented to parliament. I support every objection raised by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and I am in full sympathy with every word uttered by my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) in the speech he delivered, which I have read in Hansard.
By this measure the government takes from parliament matters which should be under its exclusive control. It wipes away parliamentary control and takes upon itself all conceivable powers. The terms of the bill I am sure are more general than most people have begun to realize. Referring to section 2, I find the words:
There may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund such moneys as the governor in council in his discretion may deem expedient to expend for relieving distress, providing employment and maintaining peace, order and good government.
"Peace, order and good government," may mean anything. As was said in committee the other day, the sky is the limit. They are bor-
JMr. T. McMillan.]
rowing the very terms used in the British North America Act to define what is the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament. Section 91 provides:
It shall be lawful for the queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces;-
I draw the attention of the house to the following words:
-and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this act) the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say,-
1.	The public debt and property.
2.	The regulation of trade and commerce.
And so forth. By this bill they borrow not only those words " peace, order and good government," which may mean anything under the sun by way of legislative jurisdiction, but they take the trouble to say in section 3:
Without restricting the generality of the terms of the next preceding section hereof, and notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law, the governor in council may,-
-do certain things mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). Under this bill as now drawn it will be within the power of the governor in council-of the Prime Minister of Canada-to take money from the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of doing anything which under the British North America Aot this parliament has the right to do. They may establish banks. We do not need any legislation for the completion of the Beau-harnois canal-they will be able to build it under this proposed legislation. And they bring down this measure at the very end of the session, after members on both sides have for five or six months asked the government to define some policy for unemployment; they wait until the very last days of the session and then ask for this wholesale power without any restriction, without any control whatever on the part of parliament. I say that is a piece of despotism which has not had any parallel in the history of Canada, or, so far as I am aware, of any other democratic country enjoying responsible government. It is the establishment of a virtual dictatorship; there is no doubt about it. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) said that it smacks of bolshevism, and my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) said it was fascism. I do not know what term to use to describe it, but it is the worst piece of auto-

Farm and Unemployment Relief
cratic power which a prime minister or a government in this country has ever tried to assume.
Only the other day, Mr. Speaker, when some hon. gentlemen raised the question of unemployment and besought the Prime Minister to define some policy, he said that lie was hampered because of constitutional difficulties, because of the powers of the provinces in matters of property and civil rights, and he had his doubts as to the power of this parliament to intervene directly and not through the provinces. And I myself did say at the time that I thought there was a national emergency, and that if unemployment had become a matter of national emergency the parliament of Canada had the right to legislate with regard to it; but never did it enter my mind, and I do not think it did enter the mind of any hon. gentleman, that that meant that parliament itself would abdicate its control, its power, its jurisdiction, its authority, and entrust all of these into the hands of one man or one set of men, who after all are only a committee of this parliament.
Sir, in matters of national finance the vital principle is the full sovereignty of parliament, of the representatives of the people, in disposing of the burdens which eventually will be borne by their constituents. Parliament and the government must be kept within their respective spheres, or else the whole machinery cannot work. No public money can be taken out of the consolidated revenue fund except by a vote of parliament, either by way of a special statute for an expenditure of a permanent nature like the salaries of judges, members of parliament, or something of that kind, or by an item in the estimates which is voted annually. That is the basic principle of the control of parliament over national expenditures. In the time of the great war at the special session of 1914 I had the honour of a seat in parliament. That was a national emergency; it was war, and in time of war everything seems to be permitted. In all the countries engaged in the war the inevitable answer to every suggestion or criticism was "This is a war measure." But even so the then Prime Minister never thought of asking parliament to give to him what the right hon. gentleman is asking parliament now to entrust to his care. Even then the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, although he asked for votes of money without their being subject to the ordinary measures of control, asked for a definite sum of $50,000,000 at the first session; and at every subsequent session another amount was voted by parliament, but always there was defined
an amount which could not be exceeded, $100,000,000 or $150,000,000; and every time the Prime Minister thought it his duty to give to parliament, to the representatives of the people, a list of the destinations of the money which he was asking parliament to vote. We have nothing of that kind in the present bill. There is no detail; carte blanche is being asked without any control whatever. Even during the war, with the limitations which were then imposed, everybody knows that there were abuses, everybody knows that money was wasted, there were scandals, and a royal commission was appointed. My right hon. friend this afternoon spoke against judges sitting on royal commissions. That was not the idea of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden. At the most difficult time of the war when those questions of abuses, of wasted expenditures, of scandals were raised, he appointed two distinguished judges of the land, Right Hon. Mr. Justice Duff, of the Supreme Court of Canada, and Chief Justice Meredith, of Ontario. He thought that was the best way to act, and I quite agree. When there is a question of judicial importance; when judicial powers must be exercised, I agree that judges are the best men to carry on the work. I do not believe in justice being dispensed by majorities belonging to one or another party, and if I may be permitted to use the words of Burke, that is not where we can find the strict neutrality of impartial judges.
I say that even then there were abuses, but in this measure there is no limitation as far as amounts of money are concerned; there is no limitation as to the destination of those moneys or the use to which they may be put. I have been reading a book which my right hon. friend quoted many times when sitting on this side of the house but which he seems to have forgotten since he has been on the other side; I refer to that famous book written by Lord He wart, chief justice of England, entitled The New Despotism. In that book Lord Hewart relates the sitory of an Anglo-Indian civil servant who returned to England on leave after an absence of many years. On arriving in London and while travelling between Victoria and Charing Cross stations he asked the man with him, "What are those buildings?" The man said, "Well, those are the parliament buildings; that is Westminster." The Anglo-Indian said, "What, does that rubbish still go on?" That was the attitude of mind of that gentleman, and if we agree to this bill in its present form I really believe we will be entering on a path fraught with grave danger. Surely someone will say, sometime, "Does this rubbish still go on at Ottawa, the parliament of Canada?"

Farm and Unemployment Relief


Mr. DURANLEAU:: What would the hon.. member suggest?


Ernest Lapointe: I suggest that an amount should be fixed. I am quite prepared to be as generous as possible in order to relieve unemployment in Canada and give work to the people who are willing to work, 'but parliament should set the amount.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What amount?


Ernest Lapointe: Any amount the government thinks necessary provided they give some good reasons for it, but not a blank amount which will enable them to do anything at all with regard to peace, order and good government. Under this act anything may be done by the government without parliament having anything to say in the matter. In the days of the worst kings the custom was to defy parliament, but they failed.
Mr. LaVERGNE: What kings?


Ernest Lapointe: What does the deputy speaker have to say?
Mr. LaVERGNE: What kings? Name the worst kings.


Ernest Lapointe: Some of the kings my hon. friend is so fond of referring to-
Mr. LaVERGNE: May I ask-


Ernest Lapointe: If the hon. member for
Montmagny, the deputy speaker of the house, will keep order, I shall Ibe much obliged. I voted for his appointment as deputy speaker in order to keep him silent, and I hope he will not interrupt me when I speak in the house. I am willing to vote his salary, but I want him to keep quiet when I speak.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Once more-


Ernest Lapointe: We will talk about it.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Yes, in your county, any time you like.


Ernest Lapointe: Will you keep quiet?
Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to ask this noble deputy of yours to keep quiet? I know my hon. friend is more often an embarrassment to the Prime Minister than to myself, but I will ask him to keep quiet when I have the floor.
Mr. LaVERGNE :	My most humble
apologies.


Ernest Lapointe: Who has the floor, Mr. Speaker, your deputy or myself?
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Undoubtedly you have
it.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not quite remember what argument I was presenting when I was interrupted by my hon. friend. That shows

how unfair it is, on the part of the man who is in charge of order in the house, to act as he has acted under the circumstances.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: You were speaking of
kings.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, the kings who are
so dear to the heart of my hon. friend. I was saying that some of those kings attempted to defy parliament but failed in the attempt. Apparently the ways of the new despots arc different. They do not challenge parliament openly; they try to subordinate parliament, to supersede parliament, to render supreme their will or their caprice of those of the Prime Minister or governor in council, no matter what parliament may think; and they rely on a majority in the house to achieve that purpose. I repeat that this course is fraught with great danger, and hon. gentlemen should think twice before endorsing the principles embodied in this bill.
"Peace, order and good government"-I repeat, and I do not think any hon. gentleman opposite can successfully challenge my statement or contradict me, that this includes everything which under the British North America Act is under the control of the parliament of Canada. There is no limitation. The powers set out in the subsequent clauses do not restrict the generality of the expression "peace, order and good government," and on that point I am in agreement with the words of the right hon. leader of the opposition, who said the other day that it was adding insult to injury to include, in a bill for relief to the unemployed, provisions having to do with keeping order and things of that kind In other words the government seem to say, "We may give you bread; we will have the power to do so. We will have the power to give you work but also we will have the power and the money necessary to employ that power to shoot you down if you are not satisfied.'"' Certainly that is not what hon. members in this house, even those on the other side, have in mind, but that is what is contained in this bill. I do not think the way to avoid disturbances and troubles is to deal with the people in that way. I do not think police matters and things of that kind should be included in a bill having to do with the relief of unemployment.
I do not like to add more on this feature of the subject, though there are many things which come to mind. I am speaking under some restraint, and I do not like to say all I am thinking about this feature of the bill.
I repeat, in conclusion, that so far as subscribing to relief measures is concerned, and

Farm and Unemployment Relief
giving assistance to those who are in need, 1 am quite willing to go as far as possible in the support of the government in any legislation it may bring down for that purpose. But this bill is the negation of the powers and the rights of parliament, and for that reason I cannot but oppose its second reading.
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE (Mont-magny): One would have thought last night that hon. gentlemen opposite were still in the valley of shame and humiliation, but it seems to-night, to hear the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), that they are coming out into the open plain of the shameless. One word particularly struck me in the address which the hon. member for Quebec East has made to-night, and I must say I was not surprised. The moment I mention the argument used by the hon. gentleman everyone in this house who has lived in the province of Quebec during the last twenty-five years will recognize it. After a long and sorrowful appeal in behalf of the liberties of the people, which the hon, gentleman scorned when he was in the government,- and we had a good example last night, without referring specifically to a past debate- the ex-Minister of Justice, with tears in his voice, suggested that there was some intention to shoot down the people. I may tell the hon. gentleman that this argument is exploded. It has been used too long in the province of Quebec to have any effect.


Mr. OHEVRIER:: That was probably when the hon. gentleman was shooting holes in the British flag.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I did not at any time use language of that sort, but if the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) forgets the days of Papineau and William Lyon Mackenzie, I may tell him that I do not. He can discuss that matter with his leader. As a Canadian, I do not forget those days. At any rate, I have never shot holes in the British flag. Let me assure the hon. member for Quebec East once more that this kind of argument is exploded. Hon. gentlemen have been shooting the people of Quebec long enough; they will not now listen to anything of that sort. What they want this year is bread, which the hon. gentleman failed to give them. May I also tell him that we are waging a war-not a war such as they endorsed in this house and denounced in Quebec; not a war in Turkey or Egypt, nor the last war in India, discussed in their papers, La Presse and Le Soleil of Quebec, in which a picture of my hon. friend appears once a week. No; this is a war against hunger, a
war against misery brought upon the people of Canada by the policy which hon. gentlemen opposite have been following for a number of years past. And, to wage this war, we are willing to endorse a blank cheque, if hon. gentlemen wish to call it that.
When my hon. friend says that parliament has not been consulted, I wonder what we are doing now; I wonder what we shall be doing next year when this government brings before parliament its accounts in connection with the adminstration of this fund. But I will go further: I dare the hon. gentleman to get up and ask for a vote on this bill. Hon. gentlemen opposite will let it pass, "carried on division," as they have been doing lately, not having the courage to register their names to those great principles which they have been bringing before the house. The principles which they have been bringing before the house they have not the courage to bring before the people.
I was not going to speak on this matter, but the hon. gentleman, in his speech, became quite huffy. He began naming the worst kings who have reigned in the past. Let me put a very humble question to the king of Quebec *-and the king of Quebec, I am afraid, like the ex-king of Spain, instead of standing his ground and answering, will take his hat and run away or take refuge behind the Speaker, who has to maintain order in this house. When I am in the chair I am for the time being not an ordinary member; I must maintain order, as the hon. gentleman knows very well.


Ernest Lapointe: And very poorly.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Very poorly, perhaps; I
know my limitations, which is something that cannot be said for the hon. gentleman. He does not know his limitations.


Ernest Lapointe: What does the Prime Minister think of this exhibition?
Mr. LaVERGNE: I have not asked the Prime Minister's opinion. What he thinks of me is his own affair. But I know one thing: I know what the people of Quebec think of the hon. member for Quebec East.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: What will they think of the hon. member for Montmagny after this display?
Mr. LaVERGNE: I invite my hon. friend from Ottawa to come to Montmagny and he will see. That invitation is reasonable; it is a fair proposition; I am signing a blank cheque in that regard, and I ask my hon. friend to endorse it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let us have another.

Farm and Unemployment Relief
Mr. LaVERGNE: I will go to Vancouver, although I am not an eloquent speaker like the hon. gentleman, and discuss it with him there. Speaking of what the Prime Minister may think of me, I know that I shall never receive at the hands of my leader the denunciation the hon. gentleman got from his leader last night. That is all I have to say on that point.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Are you speaking about me?
Mr. LaVERGNE: My hon. friend knows that I have a great esteem for him; I esteem him too highly to repeat half what was said about him last night by his own leader. Now, coming to this bill which is before us, we are giving the government power to relieve an unusual situation in this country. One suggestion I might make, however, is that some time limit ought to be fixed in the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is fixed; the act expires in March, 1932.
Mr. LaVERGNE: That being so, parliament will then have an opportunity to criticize the government; the government will be responsible to parliament then. But I repeat what I said at the beginning to the uncrowned king of Quebec, or the resigned king of Que-ber, or-


Ernest Lapointe: Choose your worst.
Mr. LaVERGNE: If I chose my worst, I would say the hon. member for Quebec East.


Ernest Lapointe: Very, very clever.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Not very clever but quite sufficient for my hon. friend. However, I will say once more to the hon. gentleman, I dare him to vote against the bill.


Ernest Lapointe: Only one cheer.


Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) :: I will not say much on this subject,
but I think I should answer the challenge of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). The hon. member for Quebec East, like the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), contends that this legislation is a departure from the basic principle of parliamentary government. It seems to me that this is only a matter of mere procedure. Hon. members seem to forget the fact, which ir, my humble estimation is important, that we are going to render an account of the moneys which we are going to spend. And this blank cheque, as they call it, is not for very long; it is only for a few months. As I understand the attitude of hon. members opposite, they are trying simply to raise a new constitutional issue. They tried this trick in 1926, when they raised a constitutional issue with

reference to the governor general. I cannot say that it proved a fiasco on that occasion; they wanted to gain votes by it and they did succeed in getting many votes. If ever the word "humbug," which has been hurled at us, could be applied, it could be to the issue raised by the hon. member for Quebec East.
We are perfectly willing to take issue with our hon. friends on this question and we would like them to come into the province of Quebec and discuss it upon the public platform. When I heard the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) speaking about the basic principle of parliamentary practice, I thought of that ancestor of his who said in this house:	Let
my country perish but the principle must be saved. On that occasion Lafontaine answered him by saying just the opposite, let the principle perish but my country must be saved. We have no desire to be quite so tragic. We simply say:	If there is a principle at stake,
as our hon. friends contend, if they think it is as dangerous as they say it is, they can take care of the principle; we will take care of the unemployed. When I was speaking on the old age pension act and was faced with the criticism of hon. members opposite, I replied as did the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne): I challenged hon. members opposite to vote against the measure. Tonight I repeat that challenge. I defy my hon. friends opposite to vote against this legislation.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be an evening for challenges, and I rise to accept the challenge of the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre). The Minister did not say one word which would be helpful to the unemployed. If he has any political or parochial tactics to employ, he should go down to the province of Quebec and let us deal with the unemployment question. When the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was speaking, the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) asked him what he suggested. I am going to offer a suggestion which I think will prove helpful to the unemployed. Section 3 of the bill states that the governor in council mayprovide for the construction, extension or improvement of public works, buildings, undertakings, railways, highways, subways, bridges and canals-
And so on. What the unemployed want in this bill is not that the governor in council " may " but that it " shall " provide. We want a program of what the government proposes to do to help the unemployed. That is my suggestion. Every hon. member admits that the unemployed and the farmer need relief, but why should unemployment and

Farm and Unemployment Relief
farm relief be coupled with a provision for the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada? What has arisen in this country to cause such alarm? If there is any sign of rebellion or dissatisfaction among the labouring people it is due to the neglect of this government. During the last elections the party opposite undertook to end unemployment. The Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) was on the platform in Quebec when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) made that promise. The Prime Minister concluded his remarks by saying: "I ask all members from Quebec to vote against me and put me out of office if I do not carry out the obligations which I have undertaken to-night."


Maurice Dupré: We are carrying them out now.


Peter Heenan: Has the hon. member's
government carried out any obligation since they came into office?


An hon. MEMBER:: What did the hon. member do?


Peter Heenan: In addition to coupling
with this measure the maintenance of peace, order and good government, there is a provision that the bill is only to supplement what the provinces and other bodies do. If the provinces and other public bodies can do nothing, then the bill will be of no effect.


An hon. MEMBER:: It would be of every effect.


Peter Heenan: It is only to supplement that which the provinces and other public bodies will do.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, no.


Peter Heenan: The only trouble is that the Prime Minister speaks for the government instead of my hon. friend. Perhaps he should be Prime Minister.


An hon. MEMBER:: We can read the bill.


Peter Heenan: If the hon. member can read this bill it is the first time I ever knew him to be able to read anything correctly. Let me read it to my hon. friend and see if he can understand my Irish. It reads:
And whereas it is in the national interest that parliament should support and supplement the relief measures of the provinces and other bodies

	.
It is in the public interest to supplement what the provinces will do.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is only the preamble-read the bill.


Peter Heenan: The hon. member does not know the difference between the preamble
and the rest of the bill. Where ignorance is bliss it is folly to be wise. The bill continues:
*-and for that purpose should vest in the governor in council the powers necessary to insure the speedy and unhampered prosecution of all relief measures and the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada.
That is to say, the government would supplement what the provinces and the municipalities will do. I come from the best part of Canada, northern Ontario, a part of the country discriminated against and persecuted by the government of Ontario because of its political faith. Let me tell the house what the municipalities in this part of the country will be able to do. I do not intend to quote any political body, but rather a resolution passed by the associated chambers of commerce and boards of trade. The Kenora Examiner of Friday, June 19, contains the following resolution, which was one of many passed by this organization:
Unemployment, the greatest problem facing the country to-day came up for discussion with the result that a resolution was submitted and adopted as below:
Whereas, the problem of unemployment has now advanced to a position of primary importance in the life of northwestern Ontario inasmuch as in the various sections of the area there is an alarming percentage of unemployed workers.
Whereas, the condition of unemployment has now existed for some eighteen months thus depleting the accumulated savings of the people entirely, in the majority of cases, and
Whereas, many have gone in debt by mortgaging homes, life insurance, etc., thus impoverishing and pauperizing themselves to such an extent that the morale is seriously effected, and
Whereas, the municipalities have mortgaged the future in order to provide their portion of the funds made mandatory under the provisions of the Unemployment Relief Act, 1930, and
Whereas, municipal taxation has increased to provide relief and the various councils now find the same or worse conditions of employment as existed in October, 1930, and are not able, financially, to provide either the work or direct relief needed, even though further funds were provided by the dominion and provincial governments, therefore be it.
Resolved, that the northwestern Ontario federation boards of trade appeal to the provincial and dominion governments to immediately begin construction of the trans-Canada highway and to renew construction of the subsidiary roads still uncompleted.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Speaker, there was so much ignorant interruption one other evening from the Conservatives as to cause the development of considerable heat. At that
Farm and Unemployment Relief


Maurice Dupré: I can answer my hon. friend.


Peter Heenan: I do not want an answer just now.


Maurice Dupré: If the hon. member challenges me I should like to answer..


Peter Heenan: I want the hon. member to applaud. I do not want an answer.


Maurice Dupré: I am not going to applaud, but I am prepared to answer the hon. member.


Peter Heenan: Some hon. members from Prince Edward Island may applaud the figures in regard to that province.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They have mo unemployment there. They were not asking for relief. The hon. member is putting up a straw man to knock down.


Peter Heenan: If the hon. member were a housewife keeping a family on three cents a day, he would be knocked1 down too.
These figures were obtained in the fairest way possible, because I consulted with those who issued the report, and it will be found that prior to June 10 there were 291,735 individuals who got 6,273,228 man days' work. Butr when one analyses that as it really is and as the housewife experiences it, one wonders whether the workingman of Canada is going to be treated any better under this bill, which is a blank cheque and which I may say I am going to vote for if we cannot get anything more satisfactory.

Farm and Unemployment Relief


James Dew Chaplin: If it is as bad as that,
why do you vote for it?


Peter Heenan: Some hon. members are
so ignorant they don't know enough to rise in their places when they ask questions.


James Dew Chaplin: You don't understand
anything; you must be ignorant.


Peter Heenan: You can't expect anyth ing but a grunt from a pig, anyway.
One of the hon. members opposite took an hon. member from Winnipeg to task the other day for daring to suggest that Mr. Fin-layson, the Minister of Lands and Forests for Ontario, would suggest anything with respect to camps. I understand the exception was taken to military camps. I say to hon. members that when I read Mr. Finlay-son's statement and then read this bill I am wondering whether there will not be a necessity for military camps. I have before me Mr. Finlayson's statement as it appears in the Ivenora Miner and News of Wednesday, July 15, 1931, when he addressed the board of trade, a non-political organization. At that time he tried to intimidate his hearers by telling them that if the town councils and boards of trade did not enter into political controversy and repudiate what the labour men in the Ontario legislature and I were stating, he was liable to spend in other parts of the country the money under his control. In other words, a minister came into the town of Kenora, one of the most democratic places in Canada, and, addressing a public body, made the statement that if they did not enter into political controversy and did not repudiate statements publicly made by their elected representatives, he might spend the money under his control in other parts of the province.
Does that not verify what I have said for many years, that there has been intimidation and persecution of the worst kind by the Ontario government? I shall read his statement as reported in the paper to which I have referred:
Speaking on the problem of the floater or transient, Mr. Finlayson stated that he had been proposing, and his proposal was now receiving consideration, to take the transients to camps in spots where they will not interfere with local labour, and supply them with work, food and clothing, and pay in the spring, say fifty cents per day for their work during the winter.
I have been accused by labour men of being very mild in my views, that I am not at all radical, but if there is anything which will create communism and bolshevism it is the kind of treatment that is handed out to
the working men of Canada. There is a suggestion in this statement of paying as little as fifty cents a day, and on the other hand we have before us a bill to provide for peace, order and good government if the men do not want to accept those conditions.
There is no provision in the bill to proceed with public works, but there is a provision that the governor in council may do so and so,-construct highways, public buildings, subways and anything of that kind. If we may judge from the results of what they did with the last $20,000,000 vote I am satisfied the money will not be used to the best advantage. In my section of the country, a new part of Ontario, boards of trade and town councils have gone on record as asking for the immediate construction of the highway. If this bill had provided for a subsidy sufficient to facilitate the commencement of work on the highway, I do not know but what I would have withdrawn my other objections to it. I have no assurance, however, of such help. Ontario ministers have come through northern Ontario telling the people that they will do something just as soon as the federal government acts.
Mr. MoGREGOR: What can the Dominion government do, when you are in it?


Peter Heenan: Do you want a cigarette? I thought perhaps you wanted a cigarette to put in your mouth. Somebody has to maintain order in this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker is there for that purpose, and will preserve order.


Peter Heenan: I shall ask him, Mr. Prime Minister, and I think you will agree with me that there are few hon. members who interrupt less than I do.


Mr. SPENCE:: You are talking all the time. That is why you don't interrupt-you never quit talking.


Peter Heenan: I would ask, Mr. Speaker,
that you request the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Spence) and other hon. members who cannot give anything but abuse, to refrain from so doing. Let them go outside and grunt, so that we may have peace and order in the house. The Prime Minister would do well to address his remarks to hon. members sitting behind him.
I wish to know whether the Prime Minister will consider the suggestion, which I made, in all seriousness, that a bill of this description providing for unemployment relief and the relief of needy farmers should not be coupled with a provision for the maintenance of law and order. I can recall another period

Farm and Unemployment Relief
in the history .of Canada when similar measures were introduced. I was not in politics at the time, but I advised against such drastic action. Every man in western Canada will admit that it would have been far better for the western people if such drastic measures had not been enacted.
I contend that the legislation before us is only an aggravation and will disturb the men who consider they have grievances. The only men who were taken care of under the 1930 legislation were the common labourers. The government could go on with a program of building bridges, public buildings and other things of that nature which are really necessary and for the erection of which carpenters, machinists and other artisans could be employed at a fair rate of wages. The hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette), speaking yesterday, complained that some labour members were arguing for higher wages. I have not heard a labour man in the house lodging that argument concerning this kind of work. We urge that fair and reasonable wages be paid.
The regulations under the Unemployment Relief Act of 1930 contained the following clause:
All agreements made with provincial or municipal authorities involving the expenditure of any portion of the money appropriated by the act of public works or undertakings shall contain provisions for the payment of fair wages and hours of work in accordance with the intent of the Fair Wages and Eight-Hour Day Act 1930, and the fair wages policy of the government of Canada as set forth in order in council (P.C. 1206) dated 7th June, 1922, and amendments thereto.
That was the condition under which after the special session the provinces and municipalities received grants. To-night we have the spectacle of the government of Ontario ignoring entirely that provision. The Minister of Labour made the statement that he had by agreement with the province set a fair wage of thirty-five cents an hour, yet we find that in most parts of northern Ontario they were paying only 30 cents an hour. I am going again to ask the government to see to it that the moneys wrongfully withheld from the workingmen of northern Ontario be paid to them. That is an obligation of this government. From a return tabled in response to my inquiry I find that the fair wages for common labour is between 40 to 50 cents an hour, that being the scale set by this government during the last two or three years. Notwithstanding that this scale has recently been reduced to 35 cents an hour, the provincial government is paying only 30 cents an hour. This rate of wages was paid on highway work, and undoubtedly it was

highway robbery to deny the workingmen of northern Ontario the money rightfully coming to them under the provisions of this act of parliament.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Peter Heenan: That is all my hon. friend knows about it. I noticed an hon. gentleman from New Brunswick who said "carried," told the house the other night that 27 cents an hour was sufficient for the workingmen of thait province. He ought, to bow his head in shame.
I am not going to discuss whether or not unemployment is greater now than when the government took office, for everybody knows it is greater, and everybody knows that the government is not responsible for it. But they boasted that they would end unemployment. Well, now they have to confess that they did not and could not end it. I object to the autocratic powers which the government seek by this bill, especially with respect to the maintenance of peace, order and good government. But notwithstanding these objections that I have to the measure, I am going to support it in the hope that some housewives in northern Ontario may get sufficient food, clothing and shelter during the coming winter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Before I engage upon a very brief discussion of the general principles of the bill, may I, Mr. Speaker, enter my protest against the conduct of a man for whom I have a great personal regard-the deputy speaker of this house, an honourable gentleman who curiously enough takes such a prominent and contentious part in the debates.
Those of us who went through last winter in the various centres of Canada have a painful recollection of the tremendous efforts that had to be made by private individuals, by private organizations, by the municipalities, by the provincial governments and also by the federal government, to provide relief for the unemployed. In the budget debate I impressed on the right hon. Prime Minister that I contemplated with the greatest possible concern the very grave emergency that would confront us next winter. My observations lead me to believe that to cope with that emergency we shall need the joint efforts of all sections of the community and the absolute elimination of partisan considerations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Before I discuss the esential features of this bill I

Farm and Unemployment Relief
wish to direct a practical suggestion to the right hon. Prime Minister. It has already been advanced by my friends from Bow River (Mr. Garland) and Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine). The right hon. gentleman has subscribed to the famous pledge No. 5 of the Winnipeg convention; he is committed to the construction of an outlet from the Peace River to the sea. So is the party on this side of the house. I am not going to discuss the relative responsibilities of both parties in that regard. The other evening my good friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) gave us a well considered and very reasonable statement in regard to the difficulties that confront the government in a solution of this problem. He concluded that statement by informing the house that three engineers were to proceed to the Peace river area, one nominated by the Canadian Pacific Railway, one by the Canadian National Railways, and, as I understood him, a third by the government. Now, I wish to make this observation, but not in any critical spirit; at the present time the administration has ample, information at its disposal to come to an immediate decision with respect to the most practical route to be followed from the,Peace River area to the sea, and I submit that those three engineers within thirty days of leaving Ottawa can decide amongst themselves on the most feasible route. I wish to leave this suggestion with the right hon. Prime Minister also. To redeem his pledge he must, either this year or next year or in the near future, embark on a policy of railway construction between the Peace River and the sea, and I suggest to him and to his Minister of Railways-and I do so in the most friendly way possible-that there is no practical difficulty in reaching an immediate decision with respect to the most feasible route.


Robert James Manion: In the same friendly spirit may I interrupt my hon. friend? He has been studying the question, and I have heard him speak on it a number of times. Would he offer the house his opinion on the best possible route?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My personal predilections in the matter might be influenced by territorial considerations. All that we desire on the Pacific coast is an outlet from the Peace River district to the sea. We are convinced that if that outlet taps the Canadian National Railways there will be inevitably a diversion of traffic from the great and growing city of Vancouver.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend knows that we can come out by the Canadian National Railways in two or three different ways. We are in the same position as he is,, we are amateurs in the choosing of routes. Would he suggest the one that he prefers?
Mr* HANSON (Skeena): We already have facilities at Prince Rupert, owned by the Canadian National; why not use them?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are three possible routes, namely, the Peace pass, the Monkman pass, or the Pine pass, by tapping the Canadian National Railways. I am going to link up this question with the present emergency situation with regard to unemployment in the west. You cannot complete your outlet from the Peace River to the sea at much less than $20,000,000. To-day you could place at work betwen Rolla or Pouce Coupe and Prince George, or whatever point you are touching on the Canadian National system, some 20,000 men and have them with their hands making ties, and with their hands placing those ties on the grades, abolishing as far as passible all unnecessary machinery. We have from the present government of British Columbia the promise that if my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, his right hon.. leader and the government embark upon a comprehensive policy of developing the Peace River outlet, the provincial government will commence construction from Quesnel to Prince George of the Pacific Great Eastern railway, thereby placing many more residents of that province at work.


Robert James Manion: But my hon. friend knows that the engineers themselves differ, and that was why I asked the question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
quite well aware of that, fact, but wihat I asm trying to drive home is this: There is no reason why the engineers should not come to an immediate decision. This winter my hon. friend's government will be confronted, under the authority of this blanket legislation, to which I shall come in a few moments, with an expenditure the amount of which they cannot tell at the present moment. My suggestion is this: Last year something in the neighbourhood of $20,000,000 was spent directly by this government, and about $70,000,000 in all throughout Canada in connection with unemployment. I am suggesting to the administration that if in the future they are to be committed to the expenditure of some $20,000,000 in the development of a Peace River.outlet; if this winter they will be com-



Farm and Unemployment Relief
polled to spend millions of dollars, possibly in unjustifiable expenditures, perhaps on some useless roadways in British Columbia and the prairie provinces, why not combine the emergency of the moment with the definite policy of the future and spend your $20,000,000 this year, putting men at work in the finest climate in Canada during the coming autumn and winter? In that way you will go far towards solving the unemployment problem of British Columbia and the western provinces. I do suggest that to the Prime Minister, not in any political sense. He is aware that some weeks ago I requested an interview with him on this subject on behalf of myself and other western member's. I realize that because of his responsibilities he could not possibly meet our committee at the time-


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend was busy in a committee himself; that was the real trouble.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is true; we were both busy, but the western members certainly would have appreciated an opportunity of discussing this very grave situation with my right hon. friend in an entirely non-partisan way.


Olof Hanson: I arranged for
the interview with the western members.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Now may I consider, in the light of the present situation in Canada, the situation which existed just over a year ago. At that time a political campaign was being waged throughout the Dominion, and we had the present ministers of the crown making definite and specific promises and pledges to the Canadian people in regard to this grave issue of unemployment. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this house that very largely as a result of the promises they made and the pledges they gave they are to-day in office as ministers of the crown. What did my right hon. friend the Prime Minister say? Speaking in his own city of Calgary on June 12, 1930, the Prime Minister said:
This is a new country, and there is no excuse for unemployment in Canada if a government does its duty.
Those words, Mr. Speaker, as and when they were uttered, were either true or false. If they were true, surely we are within the bounds of fair play in confronting the right hon. gentleman, a year after he has been in office, with the promises he made to the
	,
Canadian people at that time. Again, speaking in Victoria on June 17, he said:
Is there any excuse for Canada to have hard times-if the government is discharging its duty as it should?
Further, speaking in this house during the special session, on September 17 of last year he said that whatever promises he gave and whatever pledges he made, this government proposed to implement them immediately. The actual situation, sir, which I am sure causes every hon. member of this house the gravest possible concern to-day, is a hundredfold worse than it was before July 28, 1930. And, sir, this legislation is the remedy offered this house; this is the remedy offered the Canadian nation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I ask
hon. members not to be impatient; I have good reason to fear that before we meet again in this house they may be more serious in their attitude towards this very grave problem. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure it is true of all hon. members in this house:	I leave to-night for the
city I have the honour to represent in this parliament, and I intend to spend all the time at my disposal during this coming autumn and winter in every possible conference to do all I can to help those who are hungry, those who are starving and those who are unclad, of whom we have been told, who in my city of Vancouver are being fed in a jungle by the organized clergy of the city. I am sure other hon. members of this house will do the same thing. That is the situation in Canada thirteen months after my right hon. friend told the Canadian people-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: -there was no excuse for unemployment in Canada if a government did its duty. Is there any excuse, Mr. Speaker? Was the right hon. gentleman right or was he wrong? Either there is an excuse for unemployment to-day in Canada or this government is not doing its duty by the Canadian people. Here we have the remedy proposed by the government to meet this emergency situation.
The hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne), speaking in this house a few moments ago, said this was a war against human misery and human starvation. Wei!, if that is true-and possibly it is-then that was an admission by the hon. member that this is war legislation. I suggest to hon. members of the house that during the cam-

Farm and Unemployment Relief
paign last year the Prime Minister suggested that the unemployment situation could only be fully met by calling a special session of parliament. Sir, if the authority of parliament was necessary at a special session in September, 1930, why is it necessary, in July, 1931, to dispense in one fell swoop with the entire authority of this house and to give the government blanket authority to deal with three great subjects which have been linked together in a trinity of measures-the unemployment situation, the relief of farmers in the west and the preservation of peace, order and good government in Canada?
I greatly fear that the inclusion of the latter of this trinity of measures, Mr. Speaker, together with legislation which is designed to help our unemployed, our suffering, our hungry and our starving, is a direct incitement to insurrection and insubordination in every city in this Dominion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now we are getting at it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I trust, sir, that my interpretation of this section is not correct, but I do want to emphasize to my right hon. friend that he has abolished, in one piece of legislation, those great and imperishable liberties which the people from whom we obtained our ideas of political and constitutional freedom secured after centuries of effort and struggle. Last year my right hon. friend the Prime Minister could not deal with the situation except by summoning a special session _ of parliament. Now in one piece of legislation he takes away from parliament all authority and all control and gives to the governor in council complete power, complete jurisdiction and complete control over the situation in Canada in regard to the maintenance of peace, order and good government. I associate myself in the most emphatic way with those who along these benches have described this legislation as the grossest usurpation of those parliamentary rights which have been established through the efforts of the common people over hundreds of years.


Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):: I do not intend in these dying hours of the session to take* up much time discussing this matter of relief. I am glad to know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is at last convinced that in western Canada there is a condition that calls for relief. From the time the house opened in March last we on this side have been endeavouring to impress upon the Prime Minister and his government the seriousness of the situation in the west. But when we told him about these things we were simply told that we were playing politics. Some of his supporters from the west charged us with playing politics and laughed at us
22110-281J
for our pains. They told us there was nothing to it. But at last apparently the Prime Minister is converted. He begins to realize that there is out there a condition that requires immediate relief. Well, we rejoice even in one convert. There is, we are told, more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety and nine that need no repentance. The right hon. gentleman has changed his mind. It was the same thing with the income tax and the stamp tax-something proposed and then changed. It is the same thing over and over again: off again, on again, in again, Finnegan-another jump. He does not know where he is going but he is on the way.


An hon. MEMBER:: Pretty cheap.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Yes; I thought the remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite were pretty cheap when we came here and told them of conditions in the west and they only laughed at us. I have been thirty years in western Canada and have never known things to be so bad. For the last three years in my constituency we have not had a crop. An odd farmer here and there has had seed, but we find poverty and starvation everywhere. I have driven into communities and have talked with people and I can assure the house that I have never known such conditions to exist before. Things are bad enough indeed when a man will come and tell you that his three little girls came to him crying because they had no shoes to wear, nothing to put on their feet to go to a Christmas tree. And when you see a home with five or six little children all with pinched faces, showing starvation, you will realize what things are like. Yet when hon. members come to this house and try to impress upon the government the seriousness of the situation they are only told that they are playing politics.
Just consider what the Prime Minister himself said in regard to conditions out in the west. Speaking in this house he said, as reported at page 779.
The bank reports show that tens of thousands of farmers in western Canada have money in the bank.
And later on, at page 780, he is reported:
There are some people who try to make it appear that the western country is a country that is bankrupt. I repeat, those gentlemen are entirely wrong. Western Canada is the country it always has been.
Further:
The other day I had a letter from a gentleman saying: Cannot something be done to stop Mr. So and So from talking so about his country?


An hon. MEMBER:: What date was that?
*430

Farm and Unemployment Relief


Thomas F. Donnelly: You can look it up; I gave you the page.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the date?


Thomas F. Donnelly: It is this year's Hansard.


An hon. MEMBER:: That was before we tnew we had a crop failure.


Thomas F. Donnelly: We have had a crop
failure for two years, and I have been telling the government what the conditions were. I knew what the conditions were last winter and I knew what they were when I came here and stated them to the government. But I got no sympathy, no consideration from the government or from anyone else on the other side.


An hon. MEMBER:: Play fair; give us the date.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I played fair but your
side did not. Again, at page 1075, the Prime Minister is reported:
But what have we from hon. gentlemen opposite? Nothing but the Jeremiah wail of despair.
That was on April 28, 1931. These are some of the things we were told when we tried to put before the government the situation as it has existed out in the west for some time. For three years relief has been handed out. Two years ago that relief was given by the municipalities, and as usual the ne'er-do-wells and drifters, the ordinary labourers and renters, came to the municipality and got relief. But the thrifty farmer who was trying to make a go of it got no consideration. All the relief was handed out and paid for by the municipalities, and the result was that quite often they were very hard up. Last year the relief handed out was paid for partly by this government,' partly by the provincial government, and partly by the municipalities. And, again, those who got relief were the ne'er-do-wells and drifters, the ordinary man who could not succeed; they were always looking for something which they could get as . easily as possible. But the thrifty farmer received little consideration. Yet he had to pay the shot, because one-third was charged to him in his taxes.
What do we find now? This year these thrifty farmers are up against it just as much as anyone else. Their backs are against the wall. They have not paid their loans from the banks for three years; they have not paid their taxes; they are not able to meet the interest on their mortgages. Unless something is done at once for these people they will be driven from the land. There is no doubt about that. Indeed, some are leaving now, and I tell the Prime Minister that this

is a serious condition that must be faced. It is no laughing matter when you see men who are the backbone of the country, thrifty, capable farmers, taking the view that the best thing for them to do is to pull up stakes and move out.
Conditions were so serious in the middle of June, when our pastures are supposed to be good, that horses and cattle were dying from lack of food. In June, in one municipality I know, they brought seventy carloads of hay to keep the stock and cattle alive. Ours are famine conditions, conditions as serious as any that ever existed in India or China when our charitable institutions in this country have raised money for the relief of the people in those countries. Surely we can do the same thing for our own people. If we had hundreds of millions with which to fight the war with Germany, when we were killing and were being killed, surely we have money to spend in western Canada to relieve the people there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why try to prevent its
being done?


Thomas F. Donnelly: I am only pointing out that the relief is so late m coming. This is eleventh-hour repentance; it is coming at the last moment.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is not too late.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Probably conditions
are better in the hon. gentleman's section of the country; but let him come to my section and he will hear what the people have to say. Last year the relief came too late, for the only work that can be done in those sections is road work, and you cannot work on the roads when the ground is frozen. Now is the time to get down to work with road gangs, men and horses. These people do not want charity; they want a chance to work. That is what the Prime Minister himself told the people in the stadium in Regina when he almost cried over them. He said, "The people do not want charity; they want a chance to work." The same is true to-day. Open up work for the people. And this work must be given to all who need it; it must not be given only to the ne'er-do-wells and the drifters but to the thrifty as well. In my opinion this work should be divided up so that each grown-up person may receive, say, $100. There should be about $100 granted to every grown-up man and woman and something like $50 to every child. A survey of the districts should be made in order to estimate how much each family should receive. Sufficient should be given to keep these people

Farm and Unemployment Reliej
for ten months. There is no chance that they will make any money until the crops ripen next year.
This thing should not be handled as it was handled last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman must realize that the primary obligation in this matter rests with the provinces and it is only now that we are in a position to give any support.. The uncertainty of what might be involved is the reason for the character of this bill.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I appreciate very much that position but I say that this relief should not 'be handed out as it was last year. In certain districts in my riding if you were a good Tory you got a job.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not true.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Excuse me, but I know what happened.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did the same thing apply in Quebec?


Thomas F. Donnelly: The hon. member can look after that himself; I am speaking about what happened in my own district. If you were a Tory you got a job but if you were a Liberal you were very likely not to get a job.


An hon. MEMBER:: That statement is not true about the hon. member's district.


Mr. VENIOT:: It is true of any district.


Thomas F. Donnelly: In one instance they went four towns away in order to get a good Tory who was a prospective candidate to come in and take a contract. All the local Tories were turned down, and that action made about one hundred good Liberals in that district. This relief work should be handled by non-partisan bodies. Let the municipal officers handle it, and in the local improvement districts, let it be handed over to the overseers. I know of one instance last year where a hotel-keeper who had a section of land clear as well as his hotel clear was picked out and put in charge of a road gang in order that he could receive relief. A thing like that looks pretty queer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The federal government did not hand out anything. Everything was handled through the provincial authorities.


Thomas F. Donnelly: That is just what some of the people thought, that the federal government did not hand! out anything. In many districts they got very little.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The money was paid to the provinces and not to the individuals direct or to the municipalities.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I understood the Prime Minister to say that they did not hand out anything, and that is what some of the people in my district think. They did not get enough to keep themselves properly clothed.


An hon. MEMBER:: You will not get them any more.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Probably not, but I am not laughing over the situation. Hon. members laugh at these people suffering from hunger and want.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are the joke.


Thomas F. Donnelly: This is a condition at which you laugh; it does not appear to be serious with you.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Hon. members must address the chair and not one another.


Thomas F. Donnelly: The provincial premier and others had a meeting the other day at \ orkton at which it was stated that this unemployment matter should be handled in a nonpartisan way. I agree with that statement because it is a terrible thing to have to think that a man's politics will determine whether or not he obtains relief. The premier asked his political opponents to join hand in hand with him to meet these conditions. He asked that they do away with politics. One of his ministers got up and asked that politics be forgotten, that we unite to help the unemployed-and then he launched an attack against the opposition. Is that the way to approach an opponent when you want him to join wholeheartedly with you? I say to this government and the government of Saskatchewan that I am ready and willing at all times, to meet them half way to alleviate the condition we have out there. Politics should be forgotten but it must not be expected that we will stand for that sort of treatment. That is not the way a matter such as this should be approached.
The condition is so serious that I do not think any government or group of governments can handle it. The Red Cross and other charitable institutions should be called in to lend their assistance. A government cannot go from home to home and from place to place and hand out boots and shoes and wearing apparel of one kind and another. The charitable organizations will have to be called in to give assistance. Last year while I was in the east I went to several places and called upon certain clergymen, and we sent out two

Farm and Unemployment Relief
ov three tons of second-hand clothing and boots and shoes. That was altogether inadequate even for last winter, which was so mild. If this winter should happen to be a hard winter there will be much suffering unless steps are taken to send help to these people; ten times the amount of clothing will probably be needed. Our charitable organizations should begin at once to make preparations to relieve the suffering of these people in western Canada.
I welcome this bill, but I am sorry that it has come so late in the session. It should have been introduced much earlier in order that this work could have been started some time ago. However, we rejoice over the eleventh hour repentance when it does come.
I think a definite amount should have been named. I believe it will take at least $100,000,000 to relieve conditions. Approximately $80,000,000 was spent last year by our railroads, municipalities and the provincial and dominion governments. The municipalities of western Canada will not have any money to spend this year upon relief; they will not be able to put up a cent. In many of our districts they are threatening to close down the public schools, and that is one objection I have to the grant for technical education. If we are to give a grant of this nature, it should be handed over to the provinces for educational purposes, letting them use it as they see best for either technical education or public schools. It is a terrible condition when one sees public schools closing and children not getting the privilege of learning to read and write, while the federal government is giving a grant for technical education. In my own village where we had five teachers, we have reduced the number to three and have. cut their salaries in half in order to keep the schools going, because there is very little money coming in from the municipality this year and there was very little last year.
These are some of the conditions as they exist out in the west, and if this legislation will give any relief to these people, I welcome it. I hope the relief work will begin at once, because, as I say, once the ground freezes up, very little work can be done at making roads, and that is practically the only work that can be given; otherwise the money will have to be paid out as direct relief.
Mr. J. R. MaoNIOOL (Toronto Northwest) : I want to speak briefly in support of the government measure in connection with unemployment relief. I shall commence by expressing my approval of that portion of

the measure which deals with the maintenance of law and order. Last night on the streets of Toronto bills were distributed in English and other languages, and although I have not copies, judging from, the Party Organizer, a pamphlet published by the Communist party of Canada, I have no doubt that similar bills were distributed elsewhere in the country. This bill reads:
Out on the streets on August first.
Demonstrate on Saturday, August 1, at 12.30 noon, Spadina and Queen.
To all workers of Toronto:
August first, the real day of struggle against imperialist war and for the defence of the Soviet Union, must be made into a day of militant working class solidarity. All classconscious workers must come out into the streets and demonstrate against the danger of imperialist war and for the defence of the Soviet Union.
On August first, to-day, Canada, as part of the world capitalist system, finds itself in the grip of the deepest, most widespread crisis ever recorded. Five hundred thousand industrial workers, besides hundreds of thousands of agricultural workers, are walking the streets.
Let me pause for a moment to state that that is absolutely untrue. There are not at present in Canada 500,000 workers unemployed. Another paragraph reads:
Fellow workers: the Communist party and the Young Communist League, united with all militant working class organizations, calls on you to come into the streets to demonstrate your readiness to fight against these war preparations.	The struggle against war is
closely bound up with the struggle for your immediate demands, with the struggle to build your revolutionary . organizations, with the struggle for the defence of the Soviet Union.
I shall pause for a moment again. This circular, like many others I have in my possession, speaks of revolution, of wars, as if the thought uppermost in the minds of the organizers behind these sheets is revolution, the upsetting of law and order not only in Canada but throughout the world. At the bottom the circular reads:
Demonstrate on August first.
Fight against wage cuts and worsening conditions.
Fight for non-contributory unemployment insurance.
Fight against growing political terror.
Make August first a mighty demonstration against imperialist war and for the defence of the socialist fatherland.
Saturday, August first, 12.30 noon, Queen and Spadina.


Mr. FACTOR:: Does the law not now provide for punishment for distributing circulars of that kind?


Mr. MacNICOL:: There are not sufficient
police to be on every street corner in Toronto to prevent distribution.
UUXJX 01, iyoi
Farm and Unemployment Relief
In the Party Organizer published by the central organization department of the Communist Party of Canada, I find the following
on page 10:
Hang this reminder in the kitchen.
When the cupboard is bare; when threats are made to cut off relief; when electricity, gas or water is discontinued, or if any worker is to be thrown out on the street because he cannot pay his rent, or at any time that unemployed are discriminated against, communicate with local council of the Nationalist Unemployed Workers Association.
The N.U.W.A. organizes and fights for noncontributory unemployment insurance for immediate cash relief, for free electricity, gas and water and against evictions. Organize Unemployed councils. Fight, don't starve.
We are all deeply sorry for any of our fellow citizens who are out of work, and I am sure the people of Canada will support the government in every effort it makes to see to it that no Canadian citizen suffers either this fall or the coming winter, through cold, lack of clothes or lack of food. We can trust the government and the Canadian people to see to it that our fellow citizens do not suffer. But we must have law and order, and agitators who always do their best to cause revolution and to interfere with the administration of law and order, when times are hard as they are to-day, must not be permitted to bring about revolution in this country. I have under my hand another paper distributed in Toronto, and, I suppose, elsewhere. This is entitled "Toronto Free Bread League." Amongst many other resolutions and so forth, I find this:
Our demand is, that the city of Toronto take over all the bakeries, at a valuation to be later decided, and distribute bread free, plain bread, brown and white, to every house, big and little, to all stores, shops and hotels, and lunchrooms, wherever bread is needed, and that it be a criminal offence to sell bread.
Surely there must be some provision against such people agitating for the violation of law and order in this manner.


Samuel Factor: There is a law now.


John Ritchie MacNicol: 
Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina):: I should not have risen at this time had it not been for certain statements made this evening by the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly). No doubt because of successive crop failures a serious situation prevails in the southern part of the prairie provinces. That fact is well known to all hon. members and to citizens of Canada generally. No benefit can accrue, however, to the people affected by speeches such as that delivered this evening by the hon. member for Willow Bunch. Prior to the last session of the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan friends of the hon. member made from place to place throughout the province statements similar to those he made to-night. At the opening of the legislature an opportunity was afforded the friends of the hen. member to appear before a committee to make good such statements as -were uttered by him to-night. If the hon. member would go to the proper authorities in Regina he would have an opportunity of making good those statements. The very statements he made to-night were considered and disposed

of by that committee, and the resolution exonerating the provincial government with respect to the distribution of relief roadwork and matters of that kind was moved by Liberal members and carried unanimously by the investigating committee. That being the case, no assistance is being given to improve conditions in Saskatchewan by bringing up in this house stories which have been disproved in the legislature of the province concerned.
As to the closing of schools, my hon. friend was very careful not to name any that had been closed, although he was invited to do so 'by the member for Moose Jaw. The premier of Saskatchewan has declared that no public schools had been closed as a result of financial difficulties, and he has declared further that none shall be closed if it is possible for the provincial authorities to prevent it.
I 'believe there will be very little difficulty in the province in this connection.
With respect to a large number of the unemployed being at the meeting in Regina on June 10, whispers to this effect were heard in Regina shortly after the meeting. They were repeated, if I mistake not, by the right hon. leader of the opposition during his tour through Canada. I do not blame some of the gentlemen who repeated these whispers, because they thought they had good authority for repeating them'; but if they will take a file of the Regina Leader containing issues of the paper a day or two after the meeting they will find the facts set out as a result of an interview with the secretary of the unemployed workmen's association, in the course of which he said that they were not there at the request of the Conservative party, that the Conservative party had nothing whatever to do with their being there, neither had the Conservative organization, except to accord them the privilege of the seating that they asked for. That is the declaration of the secretary of the unemployed workmen's association.
I would not have taken part in this debate had I not felt that some of the misstatements regarding my province should be corrected. I submit that my hon. friend is doing no good service to his constituency by repeating statements not founded on fact, and thus giving a misleading idea of conditions in the province. So far as my constituency is concerned, the money spent there last year was contributed partly by the federal government, and I take this occasion of thanking the government for its assistance. My constituents are grateful for that contribution. There was much more money spent in the constituency of Willow Bunch and in the constituency of Weyburn

Farm and Unemployment Relief
than in mine, and a large amount also was spent in the constituency of the right hon. leader of the opposition. So the Liberal constituencies got relief just the same as did the Conservative constituencies. I regret that throughout this session, although some of those hon. gentlemen can get on their feet very readily when it suits their purpose, not a single one has attempted to voice the gratitude of his constituents for the relief money spent in their behalf. We are taking no great credit for spending those relief moneys, it was a duty imposed on the government by the people of Canada; but I know the people of other constituencies are grateful to the provincial and Dominion governments for doing their duty in that regard.


Samuel Factor: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate were it not for some extravagant statements made by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MaoNicol). I rise to protest as vigorously as I can against his insinuation that Toronto is the centre, the hotbed of communism.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, I made no such statement, and I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw it.


Samuel Factor: Mr. Speaker-


John Ritchie MacNicol: I demand that the hon. member withdraw the statement.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Give the hon. member a chance to speak.


Samuel Factor: The hon. gentleman produced certain literature and said it was


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. The
hon. member for Toronto Northwest denies that he made the statement imputed to him, and the hon. member for Toronto West Centre should withdraw it.


Samuel Factor: I say that the hon. member for Toronto Northwest made statements implying that Toronto is the centre of communism.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then he will have to
withdraw his first statement, Mr. Speaker.


Samuel Factor: I am ready to withdraw my first statement, and to substitute therefor the statement that the hon. member's remarks carry the implication that Toronto is the centre of communism.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is your interpretation of it. I must protest again, Mr. Speaker. I said nothing of Toronto being the centre of communism.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Samuel Factor: This is mot the first time that I have listened to the jingoistic speeches of the hon. member. He seems to be imbued with the idea that there are communists in Toronto.


An hon. MEMBER:: Everybody knows
that.


Samuel Factor: If the hon. member would come to Toronto and attend a meeting of communists, as I did one night, and acquaint himself with their numerical and intellectual strength, I think he would come back to this house and laugh at the situation, rather than be so serious about it as the hon. member for Toronto Northwest. The people in Toronto are too sane and too sensible to countenance revolution, no matter how bad economic and social conditions may be. I want further to point out to the hon. member that the criminal code already provides against the distribution of literature of a kind that he produced in this house. Let me refer him to section 98 of the criminal code which declares it an offence for any society, association or organization to promote by unlawful means governmental, industrial or economic changes. Then there is section 98 subsection 8. which specifically provides for the punishment of persons who print, publish, edit, issue, circulate, sell, or offer for sale or distribution any book, newspaper, periodical or pamphlet, advocating methods of force to bring about changes in our economic situation. If the Prime Minister is of the opinion that the present law is not strong enough to counteract the sinister influences referred to, I maintain it is his duty to ask this parliament for an amendment of the criminal code in order to strengthen his position.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all members welcome the provisions of this bill which are intended to provide for the relief of unemployment and agricultural distress in the west. But we very strongly protest against what we consider to be the vicious part of this measure, which takes away the control of parliament, which scraps every statute, and substitutes legislation by governor in council. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the old czarist government in Russia never passed a law containing provisions of the kind set forth in this bill.


An hon. MEMBER:: How do you know?


Samuel Factor: Because I happen to have been bom in Russia under the czarist regime and I have seen some of the conditions that then obtained there. I should like further to say that if the governor in council gets authority under this bill to pass regulations, they
4t35

Farm and Unemployment Relief
may pass a regulation that if I make a speech in Toronto which in the opinion of the Prime Minister is contrary to the maintenance of peace, order and good government I may be deported back to Russia.
I do say that this legislation is an absolute symbol of dictatorship, and I point to section 5 as an example. Under that section the governor in council may pass regulations providing for the method of trial of those who disobey the orders or regulations issued by the governor in council. They may abolish jury trials; they may deport people at their whim.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where is that in the
bill? Read it.


Samuel Factor: It is in section 5, which
says:
All orders and regulations of the governor in council shall have the force of law and shall be enforced in such manner and by such court officers and authorities as the governor in council may prescribe. . . .
I submit that the governor in council can prescribe the method of trial, a most unheard, of thing in criminal jurisprudence in this Dominion. Not only that, but the governor in council may prescribe the method of trial for a breach of orders and regulations made by itself. I appeal to the right hon. gentleman to consider this legislation.
There is another point: If this legislation passes it will be broadcast throughout the world that Canada is in such a situation, not only economically and socially but politically as well, that it requires the abolition of all parliamentary authority and the vesting of authority in a small body of men in order to cope with the situation. I ask the Prime Minister what effect this will have on the credit of this country among the nations of the world, when they see this legislation passed and then find that the situation has been exaggerated. I say the Prime Minister has exaggerated the seriousness of our political situation. He is quite right in providing for the relief of unemployment and in assisting the farmers of the west; I agree with him in that regard. Heroic measures are required to cope with these problems, but I do say that as far as the part of the bill is concerned which provides for the abolition of parliamentary authority, it should be withdrawn. Let me say here that I am absolutely opposed to any show of communism throughout this Dominion, but if the provisions of the criminal code or the other statutes of the country are not sufficient to meet any situation which may arise during the coming winter it is the duty of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice to bring in amendments to the criminal code in order to meet the situ-
IMr. Factor.]
ation. I am sure they would be passed unanimously. I say that this provision for the maintenance of peace, order and good government coupled with relief measures will create great dissatisfaction and perhaps great disorder as well throughout the country. In my humble judgment there is nothing worse than to take away the authority of parliament and substitute rules, regulations and orders in council issued by the governor in council.
About the only redeeming feature I see in the bill, Mr. Speaker, is section. 7, which provides for the expiration of the bill on March 31, 1932; that is the most satisfactory point, having regard to the taking away of the rights of parliament. I do say to the Prime Minister in all sincerity that we on this side of the house are anxious to cooperate with him. Being one of the members from Toronto not on the government side, I have always cooperated with every member from Toronto in every unemployment relief measure brought before this house. I have always said that in meeting our economic difficulties there should be no politics and no partisanship, and I have acted in this house in no partisan spirit whenever any measure was brought in having to do with the relief of unemployment or the improvement of our social or economic conditions. I do say, however, that the provision of this bill which takes away the rights of parliament, even if only for a limited time, is very wrong at this time when conditions are what they are.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take only
a few moments of the time of the house, not in the hope of adding anything new but rather, if I may, to emphasize what has been said and to add my protest particularly with regard to the form of this legislation. Just a little while ago some hon. member said something about the argument with regard to the rights of the people having been exploded. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the argument that parliament has the right and duty to limit the expenditure of public moneys is not exploded, and this House of Commons should not be asked to put its seal of approval on a bill which in effect does away with that power of limitation.
I submit that the precedents of the past in this Dominion, particularly during the time of the great war, to which reference has been made already, do not justify this action. Even in the early stages of the war, when the greatest uncertainty prevailed; when no one knew how long it would continue; when

Farm and Unemployment Relief
no one knew anything about the obligations which Canada might have to assume, a special session of the house was called and hon. members saw fit to place a limitation in that bill, even at that time of national crisis. The sum of 850,000,000 was expressly named, and as my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) pointed out to-night repeatedly, parliament was called upon during those four years to vote money many times, and a limitation was put in each bill.
There is really only one fundamental in connection with this legislation; it is this point, as to how far parliament should be asked to go in granting what is called a blank cheque and in going further and passing an omnibus bill at this time when it is so comparatively easy to call parliament together. I submit that one cannot do more than reiterate the principle already laid down, but I believe these protests should be allowed to pile up so that at least the government may see that we are in earnest and that the air of intolerance which has been displayed by hon. gentlemen opposite this evening may perhaps give way to some serious consideration of. the principle we are trying to establish.
The situation is simply this: there are three things in this bill which call for limitation. First there are the powers. It has been pointed out already by the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that this bill gives to the government of Canada power to do anything which the parliament of Canada could do under the British North America Act. That is a pretty wide power; I do not believe it can be found in any bill which has been passed by this parliament since 1867. The next matter requiring limitation is the amount. The bill reads:
And, for the purposes aforesaid, may expend such moneys from the consolidated revenue fund as may be required.
There is absolutely no limit of any kind with regard to the amount. The third fundamental is that referred to so well by my hon. friend from Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor) a few moments ago. Full power is given the governor in council to make orders and regulations-note the words-which shall have the force of law. They may amend the criminal code if they so desire. They may make orders and regulations for the carrying out of the purposes of this bill, which are not simply relief measures or to provide employment but which are for-the general omnibus words of the British North America Act-the peace, order and good government of Canada. As my hon. friend has pointed
out, not only have they power to make all orders and regulations necessary to exercise any one of those powers contained in the 29 subsections of section 91, but in addition to that they have the power to designate the courts before whom trials shall take place for violation of any of the regulations. If they like they may designate any departmental officer to try a man for an infringement of the regulations which they make under these very wide powers; they may designate a town councillor; they may designate a reeve of a municipality or a justice of the peace. And what may he do? The justice of the peace may try people, depriving them of the right of trial by jury. You will say that there is at least a limitation of penalty. Yes, there is. And that is the only limit in the bill apart from the fact that the act itself will expire on a certain date. The penalty limit is 81,000 and imprisonment for not more than three years, and that means that any one of these authorities designated by the governor in council, whether they happen to be judicial officers or not, may for a violation of the regulations made by the governor in council impose this fine and imprisonment. And they may decide that it shall be by summary conviction or by indictment.
I submit that these are provisions which offend against the fundamental principle I have indicated. Neither my right hon. friend nor any other member of the government except the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), to whom I shall refer in a moment, has spoken this evening to explain why these extraordinary measures are required. The Prime Minister has said that this blank cheque, this unlimited authorization as to amount, is needed because of the uncertainty of the situation. Well, I say that the situation could not be more uncertain than the situation in 1914, when an honoured and respected predecessor of my right hon. friend decided that the most he would ask for was 850,000,000. As my leader has said, if the Prime Minister would only ask for a specific amount to take care of contingencies there would be no cavilling about voting it. But what we object to is that we should be asked to give carte blanche, a blank cheque, an omnibus bill.
And that brings me to this other point. Not only does this legislation provide for the exercise of all these powers that are enumerated, but it groups together things that should not be grouped together in a bill of this kind. This is an omnibus enactment with regard to unemployment relief, farm relief, and peace,
Farm and Unemployment Relief

order and good government. The only member of the government who has spoken is the Solicitor General, and he says, "We challenge you to vote against it." Many a man has held a woman or a child in front of him and said, I challenge you to strike. It is very easy for hon. gentlemen to put the suffering and the hungry in the front line and challenge us to criticize this legislation, knowing as they do that it is for the relief of these people. The Solicitor General knows perfectly well that we are thinking more of unemployment relief than we are of the principle of the bill, but at the same time he cannot make with impunity the suggestion that we are doing anything more than our duty when we criticize that principle and what it stands for. Does he mean to say that because the object of this bill happens to be the relief of those who are in need, therefore there is to be no criticism of it? I say to him that he is in exactly the same position as a man who might stand behind a woman or a child and say, "I dare you to shoot." Of course we intend to vote for the bill, if my right hon. friend insists upon its going through in its present form. But we will not vote for it without making the strongest protest, not against the object of the bill, with which we are in full sympathy, but against its form. I venture to say that no man, if he were sitting on this side of the house, would be more vehement in his denunciation of the principle of this bill than the Prime Minister himself. If he were on this side he would stand up and say that he considered it his duty, in the interests of responsible institutions, to see to it that a measure of this kind should not be passed, vesting the government with any such powers. The shoe happens to be on the other foot, and as we are on the side where the hon. gentleman himself once was, we must bring to his attention and the attention of the people just what the implications of this bill are.
My hon. friend from Willow Bunch (Mi1. Donnelly) has referred to the administration of these relief moneys. I may say to the Prime Minister that, at least in some part3 of my constituency, that administration has not been satisfactory. My right hon. friend was good enough to rise and point out that it was not the federal government who were administering the measure. That is quite so.
I understand it is done through the provincial government and the municipalities. But we impressed upon the Prime Minister last session, as we impress upon him now, that since the federal parliament is voting the money it should have some say in its administration. I do not propose to mention a single case or to make any invidious com-
parisons, but I can give to my right hon. friend privately, or to his Minister of Labour if he wishes to have them, some illustrations of the cases I have in mind to show him that the relief money often does not reach those who need it. I know the object for which it was intended and for which the government took authority last fall. But the matter is too serious now, and the authority which my right hon, friend asks for is too great, for us not to make some provision that the money shall be properly expended and that it shall go to those for whom it is intended.
In closing, I repeat that my right hon. friend is going to far greater length than is necessary to carry out the object we have in view, and he is infringing upon a principle which I think, in his younger days at any rate, he would have observed, a principle which the people in my part of the country regard as very dear, because it was fought for in the early days of responsible government in the province of Nova Scotia. That principle is the accountability of the executive and the supervision by parliament over the executive with regard to the expenditure of money.
My hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Turnbull) spoke about the gratitude of the people for what the government had done. I do not think his leader, the Prime Minister, would particularly thank the hon. member for that remark. We must remember that this is the money of the taxpayers, the people of Canada, which is being voted. It is not the money of the government; and while we realize that the government are doing their duty in this matter, at the same time I do not think any question of gratitude need necessarily be raised in this house. Indeed, as the hon. member hastened to add, the administration was really only doing its duty. And because it is the money of the taxpayers of Canada which is being voted, I submit that my right hon. friend should put some limitation upon the provisions of this bill and should be more careful of the terms upon which he takes authority than appears from the provisions before us.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: May I offer one or two words in reply to some of the observations that have been made in regard to this bill by hon. gentlemen opposite during the debate on the second reading. The hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) has protested as vigorously as he can, and he certainly has emphasized and,. I think, exaggerated the possible consequences of the enactment of this legislation. The fears which he has ex-

Farm and Unemployment Relief
pressed have also been expressed by several members in the course of the debate this evening.
First and foremost, starting with my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor), my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) and one or two others, have uttered the same criticism in regard to the appearance in this bill of the words "peace, order and good government." There seems to be an idea that these words have been placed in this enactment for a sinister purpose. If the house will reflect for a moment I think it will realize that these words are the foundation of the authority of this parliament to pass such a measure. If the bill is not founded upon the theory that it is necessary to maintain peace, order and good government in Canada, then parliament would have no authority to pass it. Without these words the bill in the form in which it is enacted into law might be set aside when challenged in the courts. The judgments of the privy council during recent years have established most clearly that unless there is something in the nature of a national disaster, of plague, famine, or some national emergency, then parliament has no authority to legislate upon the subjects set out in this bill. After consultation with the law officers of the Department of Justice, we came to the conclusion that the best way to establish the authority of this parliament was to insert the clause which states that this measure is being passed for the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada. It is recognized that there is a national emergency. That question need not be argued, in view of the speeches made from every quarter of the house. We recognize this emergency by the adoption of these words from the British North America Act, and they were placed in the bill as the foundation of our authority to pass'such an enactment. They have nothing to do with the question of enforcement; they are merely a declaration to give us the jurisdiction which we know we have under the circumstances but of which we want to be sure.


James Layton Ralston: The peace, order and good government provision follows the relief measure as an additional authority.


Hugh Guthrie: We are granting relief in order to maintain peace, order and good government. That makes it constitutionally certain that the bill will not be set aside.


Hugh Guthrie: I have given my reason for the inclusion of those words. If it does not appeal to my hon. friend I cannot convince him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did not the Prime Minister tell us that the purpose was to deal with possible disturbances arising from bolshevik and communist outbreaks; that it had nothing to do with relief, but was to deal with noisy minorities?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think the Prime Minister went quite as far as the leader of the opposition has suggested.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is my understanding.


Hugh Guthrie: I believe that at the present time we have reasonable powers apart from this bill to deal with such matters, but where communistic activities take place in connection with the operation of our relief measure, then I think it to be a safe and satisfactory thing to have some provision in the bill to meet any situation which might arise.
Another criticism, and perhaps the major one which was levelled against the bill, is one which I do not take very seriously. The leader of the opposition has been pounding his desk in defence of the constitutional rights which must not be varied or abrogated by this house. I do not take that too seriously.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member should.


Hugh Guthrie: During the history of this parliament that right has not been maintained at all times. I took the trouble to look up the revised statutes of Canada. I will refer first to the Dominion Elections Act, which by section 77 provides that the governor in council may pay out of the consolidated revenue fund whatever sum he deems necessary for the payment of the costs of elections. There is no limitation.


James Layton Ralston: But that is not for peace, order and good government.


Hugh Guthrie: This fundamental principle of democratic government has been violated in the Elections Act which was passed by this parliament. Let us take the Expropriation Act, section 34 of which provides that the governor in council, without the consent of parliament, may take from the consolidated revenue fund whatever amount may be necessary to pay the judgment of any court. There is no limitation in this case.


James Layton Ralston: The Expropriation Act provides only for certain objects for which expropriations can be made.


James Layton Ralston: Those are not the words.
Farm and, Unemployment Relief


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend need not interrupt me any more with these quibbles. The fundamental principle which has been proclaimed so loudly in this house has been violated in these two cases. Let us take another. I turn now to the Finance Act, which provides that in the event of a national financial crisis the governor in council may take out of the funds of this country whatever amount he deems necessary to relieve the situation. This can be done without consulting parliament, and no limitation is imposed. Let us consider next the Old Age Pensions Act. Is there any limitation there? I submit that there is not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a dollar.


Hugh Guthrie: We can pay any amount necessary to make up our share.


James Layton Ralston: On a certain scale.


Hugh Guthrie: That can be done without authority from this parliament, and no limitation is imposed by that act. With these, illustrations before them, why should hon. members strain this point when it is recognized that there is a real emergency? We do not know what amount will be required; we are prepared to use the money of the country in accordance with the provisions of this bill to the extent to which it may be required. We have not named any amount, but neither did this parliament name an amount in the four or five instances I have cited. I would not dwell too strongly upon this, supposed breach of fundamental constitutional principles which has been argued so thoroughly in the house this evening.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself wondering more and more why the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and his colleagues should bring down such a beneficent measure as this in such an obnoxious form. There is no need to do this. My right hon. friend knows that our leader has indicated that he would agree to any amount named, be it $50,000,000, $75,-' 000,000 or $100,000,000. As long as there is a vote to give visibility to the purposes for which the money is to be used, and the amount named should not prove to be sufficient, governor general's warrants could be used. There is absolutely no reason why such an objectionable precedent should be created. With such a wide open door, hon. friends opposite say that is the way to restrict expenditure. It seems to me that the whole

country will be wanting to get into this relief vote when they know there is no limit to the amount.	[DOT]
There is no limit either upon the purposes for which this money is to be used. Almost anything but sheep stealing is to be permitted. There is no limit to the amount, scarcely any limit to the purposes, but it must stop on March 31. This afternoon the government was pluming itself because it was restoring to parliament certain rights in connection with the St. Lawrence, but this evening sacred rights are being taken away from parliament and given to the executive. Surely that is not a consistent attitude on the part of the government. If the record of this government during the last year had been such as to inspire confidence, it would not have been so bad, but there has not been a blunder between here and Makakanik which this government has not committed. Why should we allow them to adopt this course? True, it is not within our power to put them right; we will just have to let them go on their way, but not without a strong protest. They say grandiloquently: We dare not oppose it. We will not oppose it, but we will protest stoutly against it. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Sheiburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), there were colonial difficulties in old Canada. I have often heard my father speak of 1837, the clergy reserves, and what not. These difficulties are bobbing up again under our present status, and this is another one. I would think the government were trying to borrow trouble. I do not see how they expect to deal with this relief matter better than they did last fall, especially when they start wrong. When they get off on the wrong foot, how are they going to get off on the right one? They are beginning with an indefinite expenditure-it may be $100,000,-OOO, $200,000,000, anything under the sun. That is not the way to run the affairs of this country at this time. I should have thought this was the worst time to open the door to such extravagance as may be possible. There are no conditions either under which the money is to be spent. As I listened to the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly), I knew he was not exaggerating the situation in any respect. I know what happened last fall. There is no use in talking about that too much, but we should avoid it rather than walk blindly into it again.
At times I have wondered, and I have asked myself many a time: Has this government really gone mad? It has not such a great distance to go, and thi3 is the latest

Farm and Unemployment Relief
bit of evidence to that effect. I give the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) full credit for starting out on the first of July with fine intentions. He did well; everybody was happy and the goose honked high all over the chamber. Now he precipitates this row unnecessarily at this time when we should have the very opposite conditions prevailing among us with reference to a relief bill of this nature. I believe he wants us to oppose it, bu,t we are not going to. Let him pass it, but we are on record as protesting against it as strongly as we know how.


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weybum):: I want
to draw the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to the situation as I see it in the west and to one feature in particular which I think should be drawn to the attention of the government. Only this morning I received from the west a letter, a copy of which has been sent to the Prime Minister, and which I should like to put upon Hansard. My reason for doing this is that it will bring home to the house, perhaps more clearly than anything else, exactly what the situation is out there. I do not think the house fully appreciates how desperately hard up the people are. This letter is written by a doctor who has made a personal inspection of conditions in my - constituency. I may say that the whole of my constituency is in the dry belt area and I do not believe there is a single crop in it. This is not the first year there has been no crop; for thfee successive years they have been dried out, and four years ago in a large part of that district they were completely hailed out. Hon. members can imagine the financial situation of any business man who would try to carry on for four years without any income, but that is the position of the farmers in that part of the country. This letter was addressed to the Prime Minister and a copy sent to me: Rt. Hon. R. B. Bennett,
Ottawa, Ont., Can.
Dear Sir:-
Permit me to address you personally, re need of immediate relief in this particular part of the west, i.e. the rural municipality of Souris valley No. 7, in the constituency of Weyburn, Sask.
Should you read this, let me apologize for adding to your troubles, and also, thank you.
This municipality by the late census shows 2,200 people, about 420 families.
A day ago in company with our member for local house, Mr. R. S. Leslie, I visited in the short time at Mr. Leslie's disposal, foul-families adjacent to our hamlet.
At family No. 1, the conditions were; nine children, 12 years to 1 month old, children half clad, but all the clothes they have, for food.
two-thirds of a sack of flour, a little milk from two cows but the cows are now drying up as there is no feed, no fuel, no money, no crop, nothing to sell, this last sack of flour obtained from local municipality. To question "How do you expect to obtain coal and flour this winter?" they replied, "We do not know."
At the next neighbour 1) miles away, there are six children, seven years to two months old, also on last sack of flour, no potatoes, a little milk, no feed, no crop. Children will not be able to go to school after holidays for lack of clothes. Mother says she has made summer clothes for them out of flour sacks and pillow covers. Mother in her bare feet, has a pair of shoes but wants to keep them for church, shoes produced, were broken down and worn out. They put in 160 acres of crop, nothing in sight, potatoes will not grow, to question, "What do you expect to do this winter?" answered, "We do not know."
Third family, nine children, 19 years to 3 months, father 60 years of age, one of the pioneers here, hard workers all their lives, house and children neat and clean, have enough food to carry them along for about three weeks, after that they do not know what they will do, have never applied for help before, but they have no money, no credit, no crop in sight, no feed, for stock. Children have three miles to go to school, will have to stay home for lack of clothes this winter.
Fourth family, six children, nine years to six months, children not doing well, the mother says, thinks they do not get enough food, all dressed in old overalls made over from old pairs of the father, no crop in sight of any sort, do not know what they will do for the winter.
Thirty-six in these four families, all within radius of three and one-lialf miles, and out of 420 families in this municipality there are at least 300 of them in like position.
Have practised my profession in this municipality for sixteen years. I know the people and that they are honest, sober, and industrious.
Through no fault of their own they have reached this dire necessity.
Something must be done now. Flour and coal and food must be put in their possession at once, before -winter is on them, or there will be such a calamity as will be a lasting disgrace on all governing bodies of Canada.
Meetings of ratepayers are being held often, they get together and talk, and get nowheres. they are lost and desperate, and ready fuel for the agitation and the Red.
I realize what a difficult position the government must be in.
I realize living among these people in this stricken area much better than the government what we are up against.
And so I am begging you to strive for immediate action, that will result in something concrete, not promises.
Thanking you again for consideration of this letter.
Yours truly,


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. member
think that letter was written to me for the purpose of having him read it to the house?


Edward James Young: No, I do not.

Farm and Unemployment Reliej


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. member
think that a right thing to do?


Edward James Young: 1 received the letter with
the request-


Mr. STEVENS:: To put it on Hansard
to embarrass the government.


Edward James Young: I received the letter with
the request that I bring it to the Prime Minister's attention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have the letter.


Edward James Young: I know. The writer toid
me the Prime Minister had it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is now eleven o'clock


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the house thinks we
could have the second reading of the bill, I should be very glad if it would consent to remain for another half hour. If not, I am in the hands of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to my right hon. friend that one or two hon. members mentioned to me that they wished to speak on the second reading. They have left the chamber expecting that other speakers would take up the time to eleven o'clock. I know there are at least two or three who have that desire.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the Saturday sitting will not help the situation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We were going to sit
to-morrow, but it is quite clear we cannot get through to-morrow. The matter is in the hands of the house. As far as I am concerned I am prepared to sit for half an hour and have the second reading passed: but if hon. members desire to speak on the second reading, they have that privilege. If Ihey have left the chamber on the understanding that other speakers would take up the time till eleven o'clock, we cannot go on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Probably the
purpose hon. members have in view might be served if they were allowed wider latitude in speaking in committee. We might pass second reading to-night, and go on to-morrow, if that is satisfactory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I think that would
be quite satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Ross in the chair.
Progress reported.

ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS	OF THE
Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the house adjourns may I say that the bills I mentioned this afternoon have been prepared and printed. The French translation will be completed by morning, and I hope to be in position to hand to hon. members copies of the bills when we meet at eleven o'clock in the morning.


Ernest Lapointe: Is there more than one bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Two bills.


Ernest Lapointe: Two bills?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the first dealing with the declaration that the works are for the general advantage of Canada, and the second combining two matters to which I referred. I think they will be laid on the table at eleven o'clock. I shall propose that they be distributed at once, so that there will be ample opportunity to consider them. They are not long bills.
In the meantime we could proceed with this measure and dispose of supply. Owing to the wording of one item in supply concerning coal, which is copied from that of a former year, to which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) directed attention yesterday, I shall submit a new measure,, and so that it may be regular it will be signed by the Governor General. I will explain that payment was to be made to the railways, as was indicated, and some payments with respect to subventions for coal are not so made.
Another matter deals with conditions concerning the Quebec harbour. Perhaps hon. members know that there is a lateral movement of the foundations at Wolfe's cove. The other concerns a hydrographic boat, under contract and partly paid for last year, the amount for which by some strange circumstance was not revoted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right
hon. friend is bringing down further estimates requiring a message, may I ask if he will not reconsider the matter of inserting in the relief bill an amount no matter what the figure is, which will indicate the extent of the sums to be appropriated? I do suggest that in the interests of the preservation of parliamentary institutions, which I know my right hon. friend has at heart, that step, even if taken only for the sake of appearances, would serve a useful purpose in the history of this parliament.

British Prime Ministers' Portraits


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman has put hi3 request most reasonably, but I must say I have considered the matter very carefully, and the more I have considered it the greater appears to be the difficulty, as it was in connection with old age pensions and several other statutes to which I could direct the attention of hon. members. There is no difference between the two, so far as I can see, having regard to the situation which has developed. Without taking up too much time I desire to say to my learned friends of the law that the real difficulty has been partly explained by what has been said to-night. In many instances apparently the provinces are unable to grapple with this situation, and the extent to which we must substitute the federal power for the provincial authority would seem to be a matter of the first magnitude and one with respect to which I certainly desire to proceed most guardedly, because of the general situation of Canada as a whole. I shall however think the matter over and speak to my right hon. friend in the morning.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Saturday, August 1, 1931.