1931-08-01

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the right hon. leader of the opposition, the following motion:
That this house deeply appreciates the generous gift made by E. S. Makower, Esquire, of London, England, of a complete collection of portraits of British prime ministers, from the Right Honourable Sir Robert Walpole to the Right Honourable Ramsay MacDonald, which have been placed in the parliament building of Canada; and that the warm thanks of the House of Commons of Canada be conveyed by Mr. Speaker to Mr. Makower.
I dare say that my right hon. friend may think that this is another illustration of the old saying, that one sows and another reaps. The fact is that the arrangements in connection with the gift of these valuable portraits to the Canadian people was arranged by my predecessor in office, who was communicated with, I understand, through the then Prime 22110-282
Minister. It was my privilege and pleasure to receive from Mr. Makower these portraits framed as they now hang upon the walls of the gallery leading to the restaurant. There I trust they will always serve as a reminder to us of the splendour of the achievements of the great and distinguished men who have occupied the position of Prime Minister of Great Britain. In recording our sense of appreciation of this gift, I am sure the resolution conveys the sentiments of every member of this house. It is an additional pleasure to associate my right hon. friend with me in the motion as its seconder.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker,
I am indeed happy to have the opportunity or joining with my right hon. friend in approval of the motion which has just been placed in your hands. As my right honourable friend said, it is a case where one sows and another reaps. The sowing has been done by Mr. Makower, and we in Canada, and of this parliament irrespective of the parties to * which we belong, have been reaping the benefits of his generosity. As the Prime Minister has just said, during the time the late Liberal administration was in office I received a communication from the then Prime Minister of Great Britain asking if it would be agreeable with a view to the portraits being placed in our parliament buildings to accept from Mr. Makower on behalf of the government of Canada this splendid collection of portraits of the Prime Ministers of Great Britain from the days of Walpole down to the present time. I expressed to the Prime Minister of Great Britain our warm appreciation of the contemplated gift, and subsequently sent as well a personal word of thanks to Mr. Makower. The gift itself of the collection of portraits was not received until after my right hon. friend came into office, and it is a happy circumstance, that as a consequence each of us has now the pleasure of joining in this acknowledgment, which I am sure will be made wholeheartedly on the part of all hon. members of this House of Commons.
May I say that I understand Mr. Makower's generosity has extended to the making of similar gifts to the British House of Commons and to the parliaments of the other self-governing dominions. It is a noteworthy example of great generosity and public spirit, and I feel that too warm a word of appreciation cannot be expressed for what this parliament has received.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supplementary Estimates

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I desire to move
seconded by Mr. Rhodes:
That the recommendation submitted by the Civil Service Commission under section 12 and section 61 of the Civil Service Act,_ for a change in the compensation of the position of chief page, House of Commons, and laid on the table of the house on Friday, July 24, 1931, be approved.
This recommendation, directed to the hon. the House of Commons, alters the compensation from a maximum of $1,140 to $1,380. It is approved 'by the hon. the Speaker and signed by the Hon. W. J. Roche, chairman of the Commission, by Dr. MacTavish and by Mr. Tremblay.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1932, was presented by Right Hon.
R.	B. Bennett (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house and referred to the committee of supply.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message with the accompanying estimates be referred to the committee of supply. In doing so I think it well to indicate that of the three items mentioned two have already been considered by the committee of supply. The first item merely changes the wording of the provision made for payment of the subvention in connection with the movement of coal. It will perhaps be recalled that under the previous provision the subvention was payable only to the railways; this change removes that difficulty. The second item relates to the harbour at Quebec, to which I made a short reference last evening. Some few years ago it was agreed by the harbour commissioners that the sum then voted by parliament- would be all that could be voted for a period of five years; but the report of the engineers indicates the desirability of making certain investigations as well as maintaining from deterioration certain parts of the works of the harbour, and this sum is being loaned for that purpose. The last item, I am bound to say, was inadvertently overlooked from the estimates. Last session parliament voted some $390,000 odd for a ship for the use of the hydrographic survey. A contract was let and the work has made some progress, but by some misadventure the vote was not included in the main or the supple-meDtary estimates. It is a revote of some

$390,000 odd, and the balance of $340,000 is the sum required during the fiscal year. I make this explanation because it is unusual to submit these further supplementary estimates.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: What was
the change in the coal subvention?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The subvention was payable "to the railways." Those words disappear, because it will be observed that all the money does not go to the railways; provision is made, for instance, for payment of some of the money with respect to coal that is mined on Vancouver island.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: My right hon. friend
suggests that the amount for certain works in the harbour of Quebec will be in the form of a loan?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under the harbour commission act.


Ernest Lapointe: That would be a bill
then.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is proposed to make
it just by estimate in this case as a loan because of the provisions of that statute.


Ernest Lapointe: Is it regular to make a
loan by way of an item in the estimates?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it is quite competent for parliament to make a loan through the estimates.


Ernest Lapointe: It is certainly unusual.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may say to my hon.
friend the reason it is unusual is that under the last act relating to Quebec harbour it was provided that no further sum should be paid for five years, and at that time my hon. friend thought the sum loaned to the harbour commissioners would be more than ample for that period; but the -new pier has cost more than was expected. This loan will enable certain investigations to be made and repairs carried on, and I am advised by the competent authorities that it is the proper wording for an item of that character.


Ernest Lapointe: I am in favour of it;
I was only questioning the form.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 143. respecting the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company, Limited.

Beauharnois Power Bill
Hfe said: I think I mentioned this matter to the house yesterday, and the bill was distributed this morning so its purport is quite apparent to everyone. I had thought that possibly if the bill were given a first and second reading without the house in any sense committing itself to the principle of the measure, in committee an opportunity would be afforded through the asking and answering of questions fully to inform those who are interested of the purposes of the measure. Whatever attitude the house may take in that regard is acceptable.	[DOT]
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. BENNETT moved the second reading of the bill.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
with the understanding which the Prime Minister has said will govern in this matter I do not see that there would be any objection to the second reading at this moment. It is understood that by giving second reading and going into committee we do not commit ourselves to the principle, not that I think there is going to be any difference of view on that score; at any rate if there is a difference we can express it in committee, and for the sake of expediting the business of the house to-day I will gladly concur in the suggestion of the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire merely to record the understanding that by permitting the bill now to be read a second time and the house to go into committee the house does not commit itself, nor does any hon. member commit himself, to an approval of the principle of the bill. There will be the fullest opportunity in committee to discuss every phase of it.


Ernest Lapointe: Even if the discussion
does not bear essentially on the section under discussion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: I hope the chairman of
committees will be so advised.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Apparently my hon.
friend has anticipated who may be chairman. I will try to meet his views in that regard.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: We have no objection to this bill getting second reading and going to committee, but hon. members must remember that we have had no very full explanation as to what are the
22110-282J
intentions of the government in regard to this matter. May I suggest that in the event of the house permitting this bill to go to committee, after the Prime Minister has given the explanation which he may desire to give to the house, if members of the committee feel that they should have some little time to think over the matter I trust the Prime Minister will not object to meeting their wishes in that respect.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
Mr. BENNETT moved that the house go into committee later this day on said bill.
He said: If it is not unacceptable to the house I would move that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair for the house to go into committee on this bill at a later time this day. These two bills touch on the same matter, and if it would be convenient they might be taken together in committee.


Ernest Lapointe: When will my right hon. friend take up the bills in committee?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought we could do "it at once.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I do not know what the procedure will be immediately after the house disposes of this matter, but since I have one or two questions I should like to direct to the government I do not want to lose the opportunity of doing so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend will be . afforded a chance to ask the questions before the orders of the day are called.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 144, to declare certain works of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company, Limited, to be for the general advantage of Canada.
He said: I endeavoured to explain yesterday that this bill would be proceeded with on the assumption that it is satisfactory to the government of Quebec, whose counsel has been assisting the Secretary of State in its preparation. By giving the bill first and second readings and going into committee I do not expect the house, in view of these circumstances, to commit itself to the principle. Every hon. member will have the fullest opportunity to express in committee any opinion that might have been expressed
[Stage Direction]
Government Printing Bureau
on the motion for second reading, without limitation with regard to the section to which the discussion may be directed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Under the conditions I have just indicated I move the second reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I move that the house do resolve itself into committee to consider said bill later this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: May I ask the Prime Minister what success he has met with in putting a tracer on that correspondence between himself and Premier Anderson. There seems to be a missing letter, and I should like to know how he has got along with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only this morning I endeavoured to ascertain what the trouble had been. While I was in England, Mr. Whiteside wrote a letter to me and a reply was sent during my absence. On my return a letter was received from Premier Anderson, enclosing a letter from Mr. Whiteside, and I sent a reply to Mr. Anderson.


William Richard Motherwell: That is the one I want.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The return was treated as one dealing with the correspondence with Mr. Whiteside, and I have asked the clerk to obtain from the office a copy of the letter to which the hon. gentleman refers. The order for return rather indicated that it was the correspondence between Mr. Whiteside and myself which was required.


William Richard Motherwell: Between the right hon. gentleman and Mr. Anderson. In order to assist my right hon. friend I will tell him that I have reference to a letter which was published on the front page of the Ottawa Journal under date of March 7th.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not publish it.


William Richard Motherwell: The right hon.
gentleman might take the trouble of looking up that issue. What I want to know is whether or not that letter as it appears in the Journal is an official letter. If it is, I have the information I desire.



GOVERNMENT PRINTING BUREAU

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Et R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: I desire to direct the attention of the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) to a press item appearing in this morning's Ottawa Citizen, on which I desire to base a question:
For the first time since civic holiday was inaugurated 21 years ago, the union men at the government printing bureau will not get the day off. A notice to this effect was put on the bulletin board at the bureau last night saying that all civil servants would have a holiday on Monday, August 3, but that all prevailing wage men would have to work as usual. The men are 100 per cent union workers and feel that although the bureau is working overtime on government printing, they are being discriminated against.
In view of these conditions, may I ask the Secretary of State whether these men will receive proper compensation, either in a monetary way or by being granted a special holiday to make up for the time lost?


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: As to whether the men employed in the printing bureau on prevailing rates are or are not union men, I have no knowledge. Representations have been made to me from time to time that they are largely union men, but I have not yet been able to ascertain the facts. With regard to their holidays, I may say that the men who are at work on prevailing rates are entitled to the highest rates which prevail in the printing trades in Toronto and Montreal, and are paid accordingly. In Toronto and Montreal the men who are paid these rates are entitled only to the statutory holidays. Therefore I see no reason why men who are employed on prevailing rates and who are receiving the highest wages, men who are not in the civil service as such, should receive holidays at the expense of the treasury of Canada. The responsibility is solely mine, but I gave instructions to the King's Printer that hereafter, until he was advised otherwise, printers on prevailing rates who are not members of the civil service should receive no holidays on pay which are not holidays in the printing trades of Toronto and Montreal. I may say that the printing bureau last year ran behind $70,000, and that was due largely to the fact that we were allowing printers on prevailing rates to have holiday after holiday which were not recognized under the statute. Each holiday of that character costs this treasury, in cash, $4,500 or thereabouts. I gave instructions that any printers employed at prevailing rates who wished to celebrate on Monday would have ample opportunity to do so. They were

Privilege

Mr. Woodsworth
requested, if convenient, to notify the King's Printer beforehand whether they would be in attendance on Monday or not. But if they are not in attendance they will not be paid for the day: no work, no pay.



PRIVILEGE-MR. WOODSWORTH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSW'ORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):	Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of privilege. On Wednesday the hon. member for South Winnipeg made a statement which reflected on my integrity. Speaking of myself, as reported at page 4306 of Hansard, he said:
The hon. member found occasion too to refer to newspaper despatches relating to alleged statements by the Hon. Mr. Finlayson of the Ontario government, intimating what was likely to happen in certain camps in the north of the province. So far, so good. But not until his attention was definitely directed to it by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) did he say, "Yes I did read denials by Mr. Finlayson." Is it too much to expect, sir, that one who in former years was engaged in the promulgation of the principle, "do unto others as you would they should do unto you," would be fair enough in the first instance to place the two statements side by side?
May I say, sir, that a reading of Hansard does not show any justification for that charge. I said, as reported at page ,4292. of Hansard:
We are told by the newspapers that one of the schemes may be camps in the north country. The Minister of Mines and Forests of Ontario, the Hon. William Finlayson, has suggested that labour camps will be established in northern Ontario. I have not the slightest objection to labour camps in the north country for the construction of roads, reforestation and so on. It may prove an excellent idea. But I should like to know what conditions will prevail in these, labour camps. Mr. Finlayson has said there may be only a nominal wage paid. If that be the case, on behalf of labour across the country I would raise a vigorous protest against any such arrangement.
And I spoke about one or two other statements Mr. Finlayson had made. Later on, .down the column, I passed on to some other considerations.	.
Mr. SPEAKER:: What is the hon. gentleman's question of privilege? What he is reading is already recorded in Hansard, and no purpose can be served by his reading it again.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I do not want to
take up the time of the house, Mr. Speaker, but in the passage I have quoted from the hon. gentleman's remarks, there was a distinct reflection upon my personal, integrity, and I wish to show, by reading these two paragraphs, that there is in Hansard nothing that warrants such a statement as was made by the hon. member. I think I have a right to do that.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member may
not now redebate a subject under consideration in a previous debate. If another hon. member has misrepresented him, let him point out in what respect this has been done.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am doing that
now.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman is
going over the debate.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I wish to read only one more paragraph. I went on to deal with another matter entirely, not with the statements of Mr. Finlayson, but with other statements which were made with regard to what might possibly take place in these proposed detention camps. I had in mind letters which had come to me from places in the west, from Regina, particularly, from Calgary and Winnipeg-	-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member might
have had various matters in mind. But what is the statement in reference to which he is complaining?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not want to
read it again, but the statement was that I refused to admit that I knew of Mr. Finlay-son's statement with regard to this matter.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does the hon. member
deny that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do deny it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Well, let the hon. member deny it and have done with it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I deny absolutely
that in a later passage dealing with military control I had reference to Mr. Finlayson. 1 was thinking of letters such as that of Colonel Hunter and others and I went on in that connection to speak of what might take place in these detention camps. I was not referring at that time to Mr. Finlayson, and it is only fair to have this misunderstanding cleared up. It may be that, in the confusion that sometimes prevails, the hon. member for South Winnipeg did not hear distinctly; but I desire to point out that a reading of Hansard shows that at that time I was discussing an altogether different matter and not referring to Mr. Finlayson.


Mr. MANION:: Why did you not correct it when the hon. member was here himself?

Benuharnois Power-Income Tax


Mr. MULLINS:: Is not the hon. member
referring to the hon. member from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy)?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, I apologize;
it is the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.



CONFERENCE WITH RAILWAYMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: Mr. Speaker, I notice the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) is not in his place, and probably the question which I am about to ask should be directed .to him. However, in view of the lateness of the session, I will ask my question to-day 'before the orders of the day are called. When the Minister of Labour was west a .month or six weeks ago he held . a conference with the railway employees. Only this morning I received a request for a copy of the written record of what took place at that conference. If such a record exists, I would appreciate being furnished with a copy or the opportunity of examining it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If there is a record of the conversations to which the hon. gentleman refers, I will try to secure it for him between now and three o'clock.



BEAUHARNOIS POWER PROJECT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the question which I desire to ask of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) might have waited until the supply bill was before the house for second reading, but to expedite matters I shall ask it now. Will the minister advise the house whether he intends to take proceedings in order to collect income tax on the $125,000 which Mr. John Aird, Junior, said he received for services rendered a year or two ago. This gentleman claimed that he had no tax to pay because the bonds he received were tax-free bonds. Tax-free bonds are free only as far as the interest is concerned, but if a man receives his salary in such bonds he is liable for income tax.


Mr. EULER:: That has been decided in the courts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no argument
about that.


Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue):: In answer to the hon.

member's question, I would1 advise that if the department has any rights they will be pressed. This matter will be canvassed1 at once.



FARM AND UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, July 31, consideration in committee 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-the Prime Minister-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-payments authorized.
Richard Bedford Bennett: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot regret too deeply that my right hon. friend has not seen his way, I shall not say, to accept the suggestions of the opposition, but to act in accordance with what is everywhere recognized as a fundamental principle, namely the control of the House of Commons over expenditures. I regret that above all because of what it means in the way of violation of the constitution. His refusal constitutes a complete, may I say, submarining of the right and the duty of the commons to control taxation, especially where taxation on so very large a scale will be necessitated in order to meet a situation such as the Prime Minister contemplates by this measure. Let me say to my right hon. friend that I believe I appreciate the reasons why he takes the position he does at the moment. I believe him to be sincere in the statement he has given us of those reasons; but I believe he would hardly have given them were it not for the fact that, having so completely in mind the seriousness of the position with which we are faced in the country owing to the extent of unemployment and the possibility of that situation becoming still more serious, he has lost the larger vision of a matter which is more important than all else, namely, the necessity of keeping parliament supreme in dealing with all questions of great national concern. My right hon. friend has spoken as though it were the duty of the executive regardless of parliament altogether tp deal with the problems that may arise within the next few months. In that attitude I think he is quite mistaken. If a grave situation should arise, it would be his duty to have parliament summoned to cope with it. That is the all-important point which my right hon. friend seems to lose sight of altogether.
The House of Commons is the committee of the nation appointed by the people at large above all else to control appropria-
4450	COMMONS
Farm and Unemployment Reliej
tions of public money which may be necessary to deal with all situations as they may arise. The importance of summoning the commons at a moment to enact the measures necessary to deal with any great question cannot be exaggerated. The security of the nation, peace, order, good government-all of these matters have their foundation in the fact that under our system of responsible government, under our British constitution, the people's representatives may be brought- together at any moment to cope with any situation which affects their rights and well being. My right hon. friend appeared to recognize that last year when conditions were not at all comparable with what they are to-day. In September of last year he summoned a special session of 'parliament on account of the unemployment situation. Why should he not summon a special session of parliament this September to deal with unemployment if the situation' at that time demands it. He will not have any Imperial conference to attend this year; he will have the intervening month or two to rest up after the present session. Otherwise, why can he not bring parliament into regular session in the month of November, if need be, rather than attempt, himself with the aid only of his colleagues, to deal with a great national emergency. The stronger the reasons presented by my right hon. friend why unlimited powers should be given his executive, the stronger, in my mind, becomes the necessity of his remembering the obligation which rests at all times upon the government to bring together collectively the people's representatives to cope with any great national question, and not to leave a national emergency to be dealt with by any committee of parliament, albeit the committee which constitutes the cabinet.
I am just afraid the course my right hon. friend has taken in this matter may help to aggravate the condition with which he is faced. It creates another situation more serious, it seems to me, than anything we can contemplate at the moment. No one can tell what condition may arise. My right hon. friend, in asking for these additional powers in connection with peace, order and good government raises at once an alarm in the mind of the country that he is contemplating something dangerous. The whole seriousness of that situation will be increased if the people get into their heads the idea that no matter what happens parliament is not to be summoned until on in the spring of next year. I hope my right hon. friend will, before parliament prorogues, make it quite clear that
IMr. Mackenzie King.]
if there does arise in Canada a situation-and let us pray it will not arise-of a very serious character, he will immediately summon the people's representatives. In that way; and that way alone, will we escape the effects of what comes inevitably from autocratic and coercive action. I am genuinely alarmed as to the possible effect of some of the provisions of this measure through what they may occasion in the way of riots and violence in different parts of the country. Powers will be given to officers or individuals who have had little or no experience with the enforcement of law. With this great authority behind them which at the moment, the government of the day is taking from parliament, they will feel free to act to the limit; that will believe that the executive has absolute authority in regard to all moneys required and in regard to the force that may be needed. This thing of itself may create a condition of unrest, if not of strife, such perhaps as we have not seen in this country at any time. I do not believe that one can stress that possibility too strongly, and it is because I am hoping and praying that nothing of the kind may occur, and am seeking to have this parliament preserved in its rights to deal with any situation of a serious kind, that I make this strong appeal to my right hon. friend. Parliament should not part with its control over the executive. That is what it is being asked by this bill to do.
Let me repeat, there is a consideration above all other considerations not only with respect to peace, order and good government, but with respect to all that pertains to our constitution and to the making of laws, and that is that at all times parliament may be summoned at a moment's notice and that when parliament is summoned the people's representatives in parliament shall have complete control over the executive and its acts, particularly as regards those measures which involve increased taxation.
I am not going to try to elaborate that idea by words of my own, but in order to surround the whole matter with the solemnity which I think is its due I wish to quote a paragraph or two from a treatise which is recognized throughout the British Empire as the standard work on parliamentary grants. I have in my hand the volume, which is entitled The Principles and Practice of the System of Control over Parliamentary Grants, by Colonel A. I. V. sDurell, C.B. May I read two or three significant paragraphs and ask hon. members, as the representatives of the people, elected to maintain their freedom and their rights, and above all to sustain and maintain the tradi-

Farm and Unemployment Relief
tions of parliament and responsible government, to weigh in their minds the significance of these few words. On page 2 the writer says:
The bedrock on which the English system is built is the principle of the maintenance by parliament of control over the grants which it makes.
This bedrock on which the English system is built is being shattered by the act of the administration in refusing to allow this House of Commons to fix any amount in connection with the purpose of this particular bill.
Now I come to the section of this work which deals with the constitutional aspect of these grants. On page 3 I find the following:
It is one of the old standing principles of our constitution that the House of Commons should control the finances of the country. That is the right, privilege and duty of the house. It has been achieved by means of struggles lasting through centuries, beginning from the fourteenth century down to the seventeenth century, when it was fully confirmed, and since then it has never been practically disputed. "Ut quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus approbetur." The quotation by Edward I of this legal maxim transmitted it into a great and constitutional principle. In other words, the cardinal principle on which the whole of our financial system is based is that of parliamentary control, and by this is understood not the control of parliament in its constitutional sense as composed of Sovereign, Lords and Commons, but control by the Commons alone.
My right hon. friend has a great regard for one other authority whom he has quoted' many times in this House of Commons, and that is Redlieh, on the House of Commons. Here is a quotation on the very page from which I am reading, from Redlieh, chapter iii, page 114:
Upon this fundamental principle, laid down at the very outset of English parliamentary history and secured by three hundred years of mingled conflict with the crown and peaceful growth, is grounded the whole law' of finance and, consequently, the wdiole British constitution.
Surely my right hon. friend in the pressure of a very strenuous session, and dealing with an extraordinarily difficult -situation must have had his mind so preoccupied with the immediate thing that he has lost sight altogether of the larger principles which he above all others should maintain, and, may I add, which I believe in his heart of hearts he as much as any other is anxious to see maintained. I believe my right hon. friend has a real reverence for parliament; I think he has an equal reverence for the institutions of parliament, and I find myself at a loss to understand how, excepting under the pressure of tremendous strain through a long session, he could have been
tempted to take what seems to be the easy path and the short path in dealing with the problem that he is dealing with here in the manner in which he is dealing with it. May I go just a step further? A quotation from Todd's Parliamentary Government is given on this same page from which I have been quoting:
The most ancient, as well as the most valued, prerogative of the House of Commons is the right of supreme control over taxation, to which the right to control issues is a natural corollary.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that those words ought to be emblazoned on the walls of this chamber to be constantly before the mind of every hon. member who sits in this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were written here.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my right
hon. friend says, they were written here. It is a great tribute to our country that we have had an author of such distinction, so ingrained in his appreciation of the British constitution and all that it stands for, that he has been able to summarize and epitomize in the way which in these words he has done what is of the very essence of the British constitution as it has been evolved after centuries of struggle and effort on the part of all who love freedom and liberty. May I repeat the words?
The most ancient, as well as the most valued, prerogative of the House of Commons is the right of supreme control over taxation, to which the right to control issues is a natural corollary.	[DOT]
Is every hon. member opposite going to torpedo this most valued pi-erogative of the House of Commons? Is he going wholly to disregard it as something not worth paying attention to?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what we are being asked to do by this legislation.


Mr. STEVENS:: No, no, nothing of the
kind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are under this measure taking away from this House of Commons its control over taxation. Let me read a little further:
The prohibition of raising taxes without parliamentary authority would be nugatory if the proceeds, even of legal taxes, could be expended at the will of the sovereign. The right, therefore, of appropriation was a logical consequence of the right of levying supplies. "The chain of historical evidence undeniably prove.s that a previous and stringent appropriation, often minute and specific, has formed an essential part of the British constitution."

Farm and Unemployment Relief
There is nothing specific, there is nothing minute in the appropriation of the moneys required for this act. As a matter of fact, there is no appropriation. That is the sad and tragic part of it all, that this House of Commons is not being asked even to make an appropriation for the purposes of this measure, though I say here and now that if my right hon. friend asks for any amount, I care not what it is, in order to maintain these old and valued traditions, these high prerogatives of the House of Commons, I for one will support any appropriation that he may bring in, be it fifty million dollars, seventy-five or a hundred million dollars, or whatever sum he likes to name, provided of course that he gives to the house his reasons for believing the amount he names to be necessary.
Now may I go a step further. On page 9 the following paragraph appears:
The supreme control of the commons over public grants, as already mentioned, necessarily demands the complete right of control over the manner in which those grants are spent.
There is no control over the manner in which these grants are to be spent under this legislation. This legislation takes away control from the House of Commons and puts it completely in the power of the executive. If we confine our thoughts only to the scope of the objects as specified in the bill, they are sufficient in number and significance to enable the government to spend public money on almost any single thing that can be conceived of, so long as by the wildest stretch of the imagination it may be brought to have a bearing upon the peace, order and good government of the country, or to the other subjects mentioned in the bill. To continue:
This second right must be inseparable from the first if the control over the grants is to be effective; but it is a right which was not claimed nor enforced by the House of Commons until long after the right of control over supply had been established.
So we are parting with two of the most precious rights of the commons with respect to control of finances. I will quote one further paragraph at page 10:
In its constitutional aspect then, the English system of finance and the rules of financial administration are based on the principle of supreme control by the House of Commons, and the machinery, by which it works, has been built up, developed, extended or modified to meet the requirements of that principle.
My right hon. friend in an earlier part of the session introduced a measure for the more effective supervision of the country's finances by a comptroller associated with the very
lMr. Mackenzie King.]
department of which he is the head. But is it not almost a mockery for this house to have supported unanimously that greater control on the part of one branch of the civil service over accounting, and then in the same session to be asked wholly to part with its control over expenditures and over the specific purposes for which public moneys should be appropriated?
I might continue a long time, Mr. Chairman, to deal with this matter, but I will allow the weight of the authority of the words which I have read to make up for anything there may be in the lack of further emphasis. What I have given to the house in the quotations I hkve read is, I believe., as solemn as any statement could possibly be of the great rights which through centuries of thought and struggle have been won by those who were prepared to give their all for a free parliament to safeguard their interests and their liberties. It is most regrettable, indeed it is tragic in the extreme, that in dealing of all questions with relief of unemployment generally and of distress in the rural areas the people should have the government presenting to them what nominally appears to be a generous attitude but which in reality is an attitude which at the same time robs them of the most sacred right of British citizens, namely the right of having their interests fully protected by the parliament to which they send their representatives.
. In the hope that even yet before it is too late this fatal course may be averted. I move, Mr. Chairman:
That section 2 be amended by adding the words "not exceeding such amounts as may be appropriated by parliament."
In making this motion, I again appeal to the Prime Minister, to his colleagues and to all hon. gentlemen who support him in this house to consider above all else that greatest of the prerogatives of the commons and their own duties as representatives of the people in seeking to preserve this -most ancient, this most important of all tihe rights of a free people.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I find myself to a considerable extent in sympathy with the position taken by the leader of the opposition, although personally I would feel inclined to stress the practical rather than the constitutional aspect of this question. I have no desire to cover the ground already so fully traversed when the bill was in its stage of second reading, but on behalf of labour I feel that I cannot permit this opportunity to pass without protesting against this bill as it stands. It is most unfortunate that

Farm and Unemployment Relief
there should be grouped together the three items in this section: (1) tihe relieving of distress; (2) the providing employment; (3) the maintenance of peace, order and good government. It seems to me that it is unfair to this house to so group these three items. In the first place, we can hardly vote intelligently on such a section. I want to have relief, I want to have adequate relief, but I do n'ot like the three items included. If I vote against the hill in its present form it may be said I am voting against relief. I would personally take tlhe risk of that interpretation by the outside public, but I do hot think it is fair to the house to put members in that position. Then again, I do not believe the grouping in this way is fair to the needy people of this country. They are not criminals.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who suggests they are, except yourself?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Who suggests they
are?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I say the very
grouping suggests that among the needy people of this country there are those who will have to be held down by the military.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Now, Mr. Chairman-


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I am not going to sit down. I have the right to make my protest, and the very calls from across the way that this thing should be rushed through are-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We did not make any such calls.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -are in themselves indications of that arbitrary spirit against another manifestation of which I am protesting at this time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You are wrong.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It may be that I am wrong, but I want to protest against what I conceive to be a wrong policy on the part of this government. I would reaffirm that it seems to me the connection that is being established between peace, order and good government and the necessity for relief-


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Do you object to peace, order and good government, or to any of them?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


James Dew Chaplin: Do you object to them all?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No. I trust the
member across the way will be fair in this matter. I say the conneotion that is being established between the maintenance of peace, order and good government and the present situation of distress is indeed a most unfortunate one. That is my point. I say it would suggest that the people who are in need are to be held down by physical force.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I protest against language of that kind.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is my inference-will you allow me to put it in that way?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it is absolutely contrary to the facts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think it is rather a significant fact that recently we have had an increase in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and have placed at the head of the force a military man.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And a good one.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Which Itgain suggests a particular type of action. It is rather a serious thing if military methods are to be used in conneotion with the care of unemployed and needy people. It is all wrong.


Mr. MORAND:: It is to take care of those who intend to feed on the needy people.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not understand what is meant.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Why don't you, yourself, arrange for some work for those people instead of talking about it?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is what I am sent here by my constituents to try to arrange. Does the hon. gentleman mean that I ought to go out myself and give charity? That is the job of this parliament.


Alexander McKay Edwards: No, give
work.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is the job of this parliament, and that is what I am pleading for, work for the people and not an increase in our military establishment, with special means for maintaining law and order and the right to make special regulations which is contained in a later clause. That is what I object to. I say this is essentially class legislation, because after all the people who have been carrying on Beauharnois schemes or Canada Power and Paper Company schemes; bankers and others of that class are not in need of material relief of this kind. This will affeet only the poorer people, or the more unfortunate people in the community, generally those who are in the ranks

Farm and Unemployment Relief
of labour, and this year, because of the acute situation, also the farmers. So this legislation, is in effect directed against the labouring and the farming people of this country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is ridiculous.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think it
is ridiculous.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I say it is absurd and
ludicrous.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I say those are the people for whom this legislation is designed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the hon. member said those were the people against whom this legislation was directed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Very well, then; I will say those are the people for whom this legislation is designed. But I would point out that the legislation contains clauses which involve the possibility of the need of keeping these people in order by force.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps keeping the
bolshevists in order by force, if there are some.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, the bolshevists are not in particular need at the present time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, they get their hand
out from Russia, as you know very well.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, I do not know about that, though I have some suspicions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You know pretty well.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member
says I know. I have not access to the confidential reports which are available to him, so I have no knowledge on the subject. We were told yesterday by the present chairman of this committee that we should not trust to hearsay evidence, so I have nothing to say with regard to this .particular question. But I want to state that if there is to be a direct dealing with the bolshevists of this country; if this is in any respect legislation designed to enable this parliament to get rid of the bolshevists, then let us have a separate measure to that effect, and let us discuss it on its merits. I think that should be done. If the government have grounds sufficiently strong to make them expect something dangerous to the state I suppose .they have a right to take power of that kind, but let it be done in a separate measure. What I am here protesting against is the grouping of measures for the giving of relief with this question of the maintenance of peace, order and good government. I say that essentially this constitutes class legislation, because the wealthy people and even the middle classes

of the community are not affected by it; they are not in need. The working people should not be in the position of being near-criminals, with special provision being made to suppress them in case the relief measures are not sufficient.
That is what this bill means, for I urge that if we really provide work for the people and give anything like adequate relief we will not need force. I think that is obvious to all. It is one of the fundamental principles, that is recognized as belonging to what the older philosophers used to call "natural rights," 'that a man has a right to defend his own life. If his livelihood is not guaranteed and may be taken away from him he has a right to fight for it. So said the older philosophers, and whether or not we admit this right a man is likely to do that very thing. The point is that we should make such provision for him that he will not be driven to take any such step.
Further I would say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that this plays directly into the hands of those who urge the use of force in the bringing about of reforms.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Only when misrepresented by hon. members such as my hon. friend.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think not, The Minister of Trade and Commerce has his opinion and I have mine, which I am trying to express.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have not only an opinion; I have some knowledge and some acquaintance with my hon. friend's tactics over a great many years.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That may be so,
and I also have some knowledge of my hon. friend's tactics for a great many years, so possibly we can call it quits. I say that in my judgment this measure plays into the hands of those who advocate the use of force to bring about reform.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not designed to bring about a reform; it is to maintain the life of the country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, but if the life of the ordinary people is not being safeguarded under existing legislation and regulations the only thing the people can do is to take some steps to change that legislation and those regulations.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: By force?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, and I want to make that clear. So far as I am concerned I am not in favour of the use of force and I am not advocating it.

Farm and Unemployment Relief


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But a few moments ago the hon. gentleman laid down as a principle of public policy that those who did not receive relief which they deemed adequate were entitled to fight for it.
Mr. WOOOSW0KTif: I said that principle was generally recognized and that whether or not it was recognized as a matter of fact people in desperation would fight. I think no hon. member of this house will dispute that statement. But I am now trying to state my own position.


Mr. STANLEY:: Are you encouraging
them to do so?


Mr. YOUNG:: You would do it yourself.


Mr. WOODS WORTH:: No, but I think the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) is quite right; if the hon. member were desperate and starving he would fight.


George Douglass Stanley: Not under the circumstances of which my hon. friend is speaking.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am speaking of the situation of men driven to desperation.


Mr. McGREGOR:: This bill is brought in so they will not have to starve.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would support a bill which would supply relief, but I object to having incorporated in this relief measure a clause providing for the use of force.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is designed for the protection from fraud of those who administer it, for one thing.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If it were only that I might be inclined to support the measure, but I think it goes much further. It has been suggested that I believe in the use of force, I want to say frankly that I do not believe in force. As a matter of fact I do not know what one driven to desperation might do; I am not saying I am going to be able to live up to my principles under all conditions. I am not boasting that, but I do say that for a great many years it has been my conscientious conviction that force does not get us very far. It was because I did not believe in force that I was not in favour of the last war; because I do not believe in force I have opposed military estimates; because I do not believe in force I cannot join hands with communists in their advocacy of it.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sun-bury):: Will the hon. gentleman confine
himself to this section?


James Shaver Woodsworth: With all deference, Mr. Chairman, I think I am doing so. We are discussing the maintenance of peace, order and good government and I suggest that the means which are outlined to maintain these things is the use of force. I say that as one who does not believe that force carries us very far I think my suggestions ought not to be brushed aside as though I were the one advocating force or defending those who advocate the use of force to bring about reforms. I came to this house very largely because I advocated parliamentary reform rather than the use of physical force. I have worked away here during all these years in the hope-sometimes I have almost thought it was a vain hope -that we were going to bring about adequate reforms by the use of parliamentary methods. I should almost despair if we proceeded fur-there along the line indicated by this bill. I think I know the labouring men and the farmers too as well as any gentleman in this house, and in my judgment let me repeat, this kind of legislation is playing directly into the hands of those who advocate the use of force to bring about reforms. We are giving authority to the government to lay down certain orders and regulations which will have the force of law, and that again takes away real liberty from the people. I do not know just how this is going to be worked out, but I carl imagine an order going out for a man to go to some camp in the north country, and I can conceive of circumstances in which a man might feel himself justified in saying, "I will not go to that camp." The regulation, under this proposed legislation, is put into operation and a man is forced to go; or, if he refuses to go, he may be subjected to a fine of $1,000 or to three years imprisonment, or both. That is -the abrogation of the fundamental principles of liberty-the liberty of the subject, and his right as a citizen.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: There is no provision in this bill for such a thing.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We will discuss that further under clause 6 of the bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let us suppose the hon. gentleman were charged with the administration of a substantial relief measure and that he provided, according to his best judgment, good work with a fair living, housing, clothing and meals, and a reasonable remuneration. Now, if he offered such work to those who were unemployed and, because of some prejudice against the locality, or for any other reason, they refused to accept it, what would he do with those who so refused?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, I want to be fair in this matter. I think that the hon. gentleman presents a very difficult case. I think

Farm and Unemployment Relief
that a man who is offered decent work, under decent conditions and with good remuneration would accept it. I believe that ninety-nine out of a hundred would take it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about the hundredth man?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, I suppose he would be one of the antisocial people and he would have to be punished-that is, proceeding on the principle of using force. I recognize, frankly, that the whole of government is based on force; that indeed is the logical justification of the advocacy of force. It is sometimes said that the way to break force is to use force, and there is some logic on the part of those who so contend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then my hon. friend admits in this case the necessity for using force.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I say, I should not wonder at the government taking that action; nor should I feel inclined to argue strongly against that. But I do not think that is the position which is being taken in this measure.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is it then?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is for the
promoters of this legislation to say. But my point is that it is most unfortunate that relief measures should be accompanied by a provision for coercive measures of this kind. They should be separate. If a man becomes a criminal he should be tried as such by the ordinary processes of law and if guilty convicted and sentenced. If our laws are inadequate for the purpose, we are going to be here a few hours if not days longer and there is still time to pass legislation to meet that difficulty. And that legislation Should be a part of the criminal code: I submit that it should not form part of a relief measure. I may have a few words to say later in this connection and I do not want to cover ground that has already been adequately gone over. But, on behalf of those whom I represent, on behalf of a large number of people from coast to coast from whom I have received letters within the last few days, I do want to protest against legislation of this kind.


Mr. VENIOT:: I do not intend to discus3 the principle of the bill; I pronounced myself in that regard when the resolution was before the house. I wish, however, to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to a situation that has developed, at least in the province of New Brunswick. This act, section 1 declares, may be cited as the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931. 1 do not see in any section of the bill any specific reference to what section of the country the relief will

apply. I suppose the government would be prepared to consider requests for relief from farmers or settlers in any section of Canada, provided the request was not exceptional in character. In New Brunswick a great many people settle on what are known as green farms. They get the right to do so from the local government under the colonization statute of the province. They are obliged to clear ten acres of land, and to build a house, whether it be a log house or not, twenty feet by fourteen, together with a barn. They clear the land and live on it for three years and after that they have title. This local colonization has been carried on to quite an extent in northern New Brunswick. In the last three or four years a number of people have taken up these green farms and have hewn homes for themselves out of the forest. Under the act they are allowed to absent themselves from their farms during a period of four months. That period takes in the summer season. After they have put in what crop they can, they are allowed to go and earn a living elsewhere, the land not having yet reached that state of cultivation which will enable them to live entirely from the crops grown on it. In the past they have been able to sell pulpwood from the first ten acres, and when these ten acres are cleared and put under cultivation they are permitted to take up a further ten acres adjacent. In this way they have been able to eke out a living and bring up their little families, clearing the land and selling the timber for pulp-wood. In winter, if they are not engaged getting out pulpwood, they have an opportunity-at least they had in the past-of going to the lumber camps in large numbers. Within the last three or four years, however, winter operations in the lumber camps, as everyone . knows, owing to economic conditions, have not provided much employment, and in some parts of New Brunswick labour has dwindled to practically nothing. Last winter in northern New Brunswick there was little lumbering carried on. The price of pulpwood in the local market has fallen to practically nothing. In fact, there is little demand for it at the present time except in one section in northern New Brunswick. Now, these people find themselves in this position. While there is not a crop failure, as in the west, they have not in the last four or five years had the means of earning a living while at the same time building up homes for themselves in the forest. I know certain sections of northern New Brunswick where the people are in a desperate condition to-day, and I would ask the Prime Minister whether, in the event of a request

Farm and Unemployment Relief
being made by the proper authorities, and the situation being fully explained to the government, relief under this act will be extended. I plead for these people. Other members from New Brunswick who know the situation as I do will see the force of my argument and, I think, will be convinced as I am that these people should have some recourse for relief under this bill. If a request were made through the proper authority, say the municipal or religious authorities of any denomination, or the provincial Department of Lands and Mines, could assistance be given under this bill as it will be given to the farmers in Saskatchewan whose crops have failed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have indicated already that that is a matter for which the provinces would be responsible. Of course, any representations which they might make would re-, ceive the proper consideration.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Chairman, the few observations which I desire to make will have to do entirely with the amendment offered by the leader o<f the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). He and others on this side of the house have urged so strongly the desirability of leaving with parliament the voting of definite sums of money that I will not deal with that phase, although I recognize the force of their arguments. When a constitutional or theoretical side of a subject comes too strongly in conflict with the practical side, ordinarily I am inclined to favour the practical. What I have to say at the present moment is the result of the' observations made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) at the outset of this debate. He stated that he recognized fully the validity of the principle urged by hon. members on this side, that ordinarily (parliament should retain its control over all expenditures. I think it will be agreed that that is a sound principle, both constitutionally and from a business standpoint. The Prime Minister having conceded that it is a sound principle, I submit that it should be only some consideration of tremendous and practical importance which should cause him to override and violate that principle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The principle is not overridden.


William Daum Euler: I know it is useless to waste the time of the committee in asking my right hon. friend to change his procedure because he has made the very definite statement that he is going to adhere to the bill as it is. However, he has on occasion changed his mind1-
I do not say that by way of reproach because
a wise man will change his mind sometime when he finds it expedient or wise to do so- and he might very well accept this amendment. In that way 'both purposes which are desired to be served could be served; there would be no violation of constitutional principles and he would still have all the practical authority and power necessary to deal with unemployment. The leader of the opposition has suggested that if he, the Prime Minister, would insert in the bill a definite anibunt, whether it be $50,000,000, $75,000,000 or $100,000,000, he would be quite willing to support it. In all probability the sum of $100,000,000 would be quite sufficient, and then there would be no violation of constitutional principles. Surely if parliament were in session there would be no attempt made to take such powers as are being taken under this bill. When we get right down to the essentials of the things I have heard no argument which convinces me that a definite sum should not be placed in the bill, a sum sufficiently large to guard against all emergencies which might arise. It does occur to me that possibly it might be an inconvenience and expense to summon a special session of parliament, but we must consider whether in order to save the expense of a special session, it. is worth while to violate a principle of the constitution which states that parliament shall have control over its expenditures. I think all purposes could be served iby inserting the sum, of, say, 8100,000,000 and I 'believe all hon! members on this side would willingly support such a measure. That would provide sufficient money to enable the government to contend with any difficulty which might arise, and if that amount should not be sufficient then I submit it would be the duty of the Prime Minister to summon parliament in order to consult about the difficulty into which the country had fallen. I realize the human disinclination to change one's niind because-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has nothing to do with it.


William Daum Euler: -of the solicitation of those opposed. I, for one, have not the slightest suspicion of the motives of the government in asking for this blank cheque. I do not think they are going to spend the money for the promotion of their political fortunes or anything of that kind, but I do say that the Prime Minister could accept the suggestion offered and serve both the constitutional and practical phases of the situation.


Mr. BOURASSA:: Mr. Chairman, the
Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) must be thanked for the justification he has given for



H5S COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Farm and Unemployment Relief
the criticisms made both on the resolution and the second reading of this bill. I expected nothing else from the right hon. gentleman, knowing his principles and his traditions. I think every hon. member expected it, and I trust the youthful member of the government, the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), will be able to profit therefrom. I was painfully surprised at the remarks of the Solicitor General. I have known him to be a young man of principle, and I hope his twelve months in office have not yet made him cynical with regard to the maintenance of the basic principles of government.
I will not say anything further with regard to the fixing of an amount. The amendment now before the committee expresses the views which I stated when the resolution was introduced. In some respects, I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. AVoodsworth), while in other respects I disagree. I also both agree and disagree with the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol) who spoke last night. I believe that there is possibility of danger, especially in the large centres, and I hold that it is one of the primary duties of the government to make preparations to guard against such dangers. The government has the duty and the responsibility of looking after the welfare of all classes of the community in all parts of the country. The maintenance of peace is one of the essentials of the liberty of the subject. Poor people could not be relieved if peace were not maintained. However, on the other hand, I agree with the hon. member from Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor), and with my hon. friend in this corner of the chamber (Mr. Woods-worth) that the form in which this legislation is presented is not the form which should have been adopted by the government in order, first, to accomplish its bounden duty to keep peace and order and, second, to counteract the attempt which will be made by those wanting to create disorder. No doubt the revolutionaries, call them bolsheviks or communists, are very few in number; I do not think they are dangerous in or by themselves and I think it was a mistake upon the part of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol) to have given the impression that the communists in Toronto are as numerous or as active as they appear to be from the printed sheets he has read. The danger that I see is this, that you have a large number of good people, usually law-abiding, who, in the state of suffering and anguish in which they find themselves,

may lend their ears to the enterprises and propaganda of individuals who will lead them into crime, although in themselves they are no more criminals than any of us here, and perhaps less than some of us. That is what I am afraid of. It seems to me in order to have the moral force of public opinion, especially among those people for whom this legislation is meant, I mean the sufferers, the government should have made it clear they do not want to resort to force unless they are compelled to do so.
The most plausible argument that has been advanced in favour of this disposition is the one made last night by the Minister of Justice. He explained that on account of certain judicial interpretations of our constitution, it would be doubtful if the government could exercise in matters of relief all the powers "contemplated in this legislation unless it were connected with the basic and broad principle that the government is primarily loaded with the responsibility of preserving peace, order and good government in Canada. That is what I had in mind when the resolution was before the house, and for that reason I did not mention that part of it; I waited for the bill. But if the object of the government^ is what was stated by the Minister of Justice last night, why would they not change the preamble of their bill and the clauses which derive from that preamble, in this way? I pass over the first part of the preamble and I come to the sixth line. AVhy not phrase it in this manner?
And whereas it is necessary for the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada that parliament should support and supplement the relief measures of the provinces and other bodies-
And so forth. That would make it quite clear as the basic principle of the law that the government are adopting relief measures and, so to speak, are going beyond the ordinary and normal boundaries of their jurisdiction in order to preserve peace, order and good government. That would mean that the first object of the government is to maintain peace, order and good government by giving relief to the sufferers. That would be serving notice to all the suffering classes that the first thing they will receive from the government, after parliament has given its authorization, is relief; and then such measures as may be necessary to preserve peace, such measures of force as may be required to maintain good order, would come not as a preliminary or as a separate subject from that of relief, while being connected in the same law, but would be exercised as a sanction to the preliminary measures taken by the government for the

Farm and Unemployment Relief
relief of the suffering classes. It is of advantage, it seems to me, as a means in the hands of the government of alleviating that feeling of distrust and disquietude which is arising much more quickly than the government realize since the introduction of this bill. Let us not make the mistake usually committed in parliament of thinking that, when we come to the last days of the session and after such discussions as those which have accompanied the Beauharnois affair, the people are concerned only with those things which have excited the nerves and feelings of parliament. No. The people at large are primarily concerned with what relates to their liberty and their material comfort. At the present time, there are in Canada millions of people who do not care a penny what parliament is going to do with Beauharnois, but who care very much what they themselves are going to get and give to their children next winter. There are also large numbers of people, especially in the big centres, who are very much disquieted at what the social order will be in those cities, when thousands and thousands of transient workers, men who have no relations with the community in which they live, who have no homes, who cannot be traced to any domicile from night to night, will be on the streets looking for food-and here I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-who will not care about law, or order, or the constitution or anything like that, but who, if they have nothing to eat, will simply break the doors or windows of the bakeries or butcher shops and serve themselves. Of course this action would be bad; but would any human being, whether he be a member of parliament or not, say that this is not a natural instinct of the human animal, if you like, who goes out for food? We shall have thousands of these next winter; and although I advocate the taking of measures for preventing such things, if necessary by force, I advocate first that you put on the side of parliament and government all the moral strength you can gather from all classes of the community by making it quite clear that you want to feed the people before you want to put them in gaol.
Henry Herbert Stevens: We want to give them
work before we put them in gaol.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite So. In that I concur entirely. For example, I am quite in sympathy with those subclauses mentioned in clause 3 which define the powers to be exercised by the government. I have marked them with three red lines which is my colour of approval. It is quite right that this legislation should be very much broader than that 22110-283
of last year. I am pleased to give that ample measure of liberty of action to the government in regard to relief measures. As regards the other ipart of the bill, however, I think the government should accept the suggestion, first, to insert a fixed amount of money which can be enlarged at the next session, special or ordinary, as they choose; but I insist even more on the necessity of making it clear in the letter of the law that they are introducing these words " peace, order and good government " as the moral and constitutional basis for their legislation and not as a new matter of legislation. In that way the practical object would be attained and t'he principle would be saved; public opinion would remain in a much better state and would be much stronger behind the government than it is now. I need not say that the political result of this legislation does not concern me a bit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nor me.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I quite believe so. I also believe the leader of the opposition is sincere in the amendment he is making now. What is the use of trying to minimize the motives of each other in these matters? We may have differences of view as to the details of legislation like this, but after all, we are all Canadian citizens; we are all in touch with individuals who are suffering at the present time and we all want to do our best in order to help -them out. It is in that spirit I am asking the Prime Minister to modify the principle of this bill and those clauses which attach to that part of the preamble so as to make it quite clear that the object which was stated last night by the Minister of Justice as being the reason for introducing the bill, is properly stated in the phraseology of the preamble.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I quite agree with the general sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Labelle, but it seems to me he has placed upon the preamble to the bill a construction which it does not necessarily convey. The bill in the preamble recites practically what the hon. member for Labelle suggests. We are in a condition of national depression involving the necessity for relief measures of an extended character. We all know that when such distress prevails an effort is always made to stir up dissent and dissatisfaction and to promote civil tumult and strife. I agree with what my hon. friend has stated with regard to the city of Montreal. From one end to the other, in large sections of that community, propaganda is being carried on night and day of a most reprehensible character, and relief measures to a very great extent will be necessary in that



Farm and Unemployment Relief
great city in view of the large influx of population which is taking place day by day, to which the hon. member for Labelle called attention in the other stages of this debate.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: And at other times this session.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And at other times this session.
This preamble should be read fairly, and read fairly, I think, it does not convey the impression sought to be conveyed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre nor in a milder way the impression which was sought to be conveyed by the hon. member for Labelle. The preamble says:
Whereas by reason of the continuing worldwide economic depression there exists in many parts of Canada a serious state of unemployment and distress-
That is the basic fact upon which the whole bill rests. It proceeds:
-and whereas the partial failure of the wheat crop of western Canada has intensified the adverse economic conditions theretofore prevailing-
That deals with a specific economic condition prevailing in the three provinces of the west, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. It proceeds:
-and whereas it is in the national interest that parliament should support and supplement the relief measures of the provinces and other bodies in such ways as the governor in council may deem expedient, and for that purpose should vest in the governor in council the powers necessary.
and so forth. That part of the preamble accentuates that the conditions theretofore referred to are such as to demand national relief, to demand, in other words, legislative action on the part of this parliament and administrative action on the part of the government of Canada. The preamble proceeds to state that for the purposes of relieving unemployment, and so forth, there shall be vested in the governor in council the powers necessary to ensure the speedy and unhampered prosecution of all relief measures. That is the main object. This bill may be founded, as the hon. Minister of Justice has stated, and indeed it is founded upon the constitutional provision which places upon the parliament of Canada the supreme duty to maintain peace, order and good government, but recognizing that fact, as the hon. member for Labelle has done, does not necessitate that that should be the basis of the preamble to this present measure. The preamble says: - for that purpose should vest in the governor in council the powers necessary to insure the speedy and unhampered prosecution of all relief measures.
[Mi. Cahan.]
To that extent we are in accord, I think, but no one could sit down to consider the drafting of this bill for the prosecution of all necessary relief measures with the knowledge that every member of this parliament has, and with the wider and more accurate knowledge which the members of the government have without-
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, I had almost closed my analysis of the preamble of this bill. I was discussing this latter clause: -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:-
I assure hon. gentlemen that there is no sinister motive in the sequence of these several clauses. I had something to do in a brief way with the drafting of this section, and my own view at the time was that we were facing a national crisis of unemployment and possible distress, that the first duty of the government was to provide for the relief of unemployment and of distress, and to support and supplement the relief measures of the provinces and other bodies in such a way as might be deemed expedient. Then the further question acrose in my mind that some provision should be made for the maintenance of peace and good government from the federal standpoint. I am not departing from the view that the whole basis of this statute is the preservation of peace, order and good government; but experience shows that in all times of distress and depression such as we are passing through to-day, opportunity is given to inflame public opinion, and especially to excite the minds of those who are suffering from that distress; and I believed when this bill was being drafted, as I still more firmly believe to-day, that it is the duty of this government under these exceptional circumstances to take such measures to protect those who are in distress, in poverty and in need from civil strife and tumult as a result of agitation. I know that the day we were considering the draft of this bill I read in the daily press of France-because it happens that at my home we receive the daily papers of France-the text of what purported to be a semi-official document stating that special efforts were being made by a certain element of society to stir up strife in Canada owing to the present commercial, industrial and agricultural depression, and that special measures were being taken throughout Canada for that purpose. No person who reads the pamphlets and leaflets which are being circulated

Farm and Unemployment Relief
throughout this country at the present time can fail to believe that special efforts are being put forth. Therefore as part of the relief of this national distress it seemed to me perfectly proper and convenient, and even necessary, that the federal government should be empowered to take special measures in that regard. Consequently the bill in the form in which it now is met with my approval, because in my mind-and I am sure in the minds of those associated with me in the government-there is no sinister or subtle meaning or intention in its terms, but those terms clearly disclose the purpose of the bill.
With regard to the other constitutional aspect which is suggested by the right hon. leader of the opposition, it is well understood in constitutional parliamentary practice that usually in voting money a limit is fixed to the amount that can be expended by the government during the fiscal year. But after all that is merely practice, it is not law. There are no constitutional and no legal limitations upon the authority of this parliament. Parliament now is here to decide, the pros and cons of the whole matter are before parliament, and all that the government asks is that parliament, in the exercise of its discretion and its authority, shall authorize the government from now to March 31st next to expend such sums as may be necessary under conditions which are not now known, which cannot now be fully appreciated or estimated, and which render it impossible to determine whether the amount of expenditure necessary shall be $10,000,000 or $100,000,000. It seemed to me-and I am sure it seemed to other members of the government from discussions I have indulged in with them-that in a time of national crisis such as this parliament might well vest in the government of the day during these few intervening months before March 31st of next year authority to expend such sums as may be deemed necessary. To fix a sum too small would hamper relief, because no one has protested more vigorously than h'on. gentlemen opposite against the appropriation of funds by governor general's warrants, and this is not a matter to which according to the ordinary and constitutional practice such warrants would apply. It is not an unforeseen expenditure such as would usually be covered by a governor general's warrant; it is foreseen, it is known now, and therefore parliament should deal with it. But although the amplitude of the crisis may be only dimly foreseen at the present time, I say there is no hon. gentleman in this house who has a sufficiently extensive knowledge of what will take place in this country within the next six or eight months to be able to determine with any degree of accuracy the amount of expenditure
which will be necessary in the interim. If the money is improperly expended, so much the worse for the government. It is true that here they are given a large and exceptional discretion in times unprecedented in Canada and therefore, to use the phrase of the right hon. Prime Minister, as the shareholders or directors of a company parliament must give a large discretion to the executive officers who, for the time (being, are to administer the finances of this country, whose duty it is in a national crisis to relieve unemployment, hunger and distress and who, when parliament meets again in February of next year, must take full responsibility for every act they have done or suffered to be done.
But I wish hon. gentlemen, so far as I am concerned, would rid their minds of any thought that in the drafting of this preamble or of this statute there was any subtle intent undisclosed in regard to dealing with the matter of peace, order and good government. In fact it was brought to my notice by some of the officials of our railways the other day that the men travelling by the score from one end of the country to the other, with hundreds being brought daily to the city of Montreal from the western and northern districts, were deliberately allowed by the railway companies to take passage on their trains, with no effort being made to keep them off because conditions were such that the officials were afraid that if these men were prevented from taking the ordinary baggage or freight cars as a means of transportation, the lives of passengers throughout this country would be endangered. I believe that to be a fair appreciation of the possibilities with which we must deal, and therefore, I think parliament may well authorize the government, in these exceptional circumstances and during these exceptional times, to take advantage of what may be called this exceptional vote in order that there may be wide-spread relief of the existing distress and that the ordinary peace and harmony which should prevail throughout the length and breadth of this land may be maintained during the coming months.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend the Secretary of State has just said that with respect to parliamentary grants the principle of parliament limiting the amount that may be expended is a matter of constitutional practice rather than a matter of law.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And my hon.
friend says "certainly" in acknowledgment of that statement. I grant that he is correct, but if it comes to a choice, in matters pertain-

Farm, and Unemployment Relief
ing to government, between having regard to what is constitutional practice as against what at the moment may be the law, for my part, of tlhe two, I deem it infinitely more important to have regard to constitutional practice. After all it is parliament that makes the laws; constitutional practice determines how parliament proceeds in the making of laws and in determining their character. I say the first regard of members of parliament-what may be the first regard of lawyers may be another matter though I fail to see it would be so-should be the upholding, so far as it is possible so to do, of constitutional procedure and practice. I say that in this bill we are departing from constitutional procedure and practice as regards the manner in which grants of parliament are made and taxation controlled.
It is true that the Minister of Justice made reference to two or three cases in which he said the principle of parliament definitely limiting the amount of possible expenditure had not been carried out. I submit that the examples he mentioned only go to prove the strength of the principle and of the rule itself as it is laid down by all constitutional authorities and as it has been stated so frequently from this side of the house.
Let me deal with the cases mentioned by the Minister of Justice and, which were also referred to by the Prime Minister himself. The first was the Elections Act. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice drew attention to the fact that in this act in connection with what might be necessary for the purpose of conducting elections a definite amount had not been fixed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would imy right hon. friend pardon me-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a moment.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have to leave the chamber; I have an engagement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say
to my hon. friend that however much I may differ with him politically I shall never have any doubts as to his courtesy in everything.
I was speaking of the Elections Act. The reason in that case there is no limit fixed is that at the time of general elections, parliament is dissolved, the former parliament has passed away, and until a new parliament is elected no parliament can be called together to make a grant. Circumstances might arise in connection with an election where if the amount was not sufficient to carry out all essential factors, the election itself might not be completed satisfactorily. Therefore, in the realization that circumstances may arise when
fMr. Mackenzie King.]
parliament is dissolved which might prove embarrassing where an election is in progress, and that a new parliament cannot be called together until after the election is over, this latitude is allowed.
The next case referred to was the Expropriation Act. There again a certain latitude is allowed, but it is restricted to a definite specific purpose. In each of these cases there is a specific, defined object with respect to which parliament because of very special circumstances has allowed a little in the way of latitude. The act before us is not one that relates to a specific, definite thing; it is an act that is broad enough to enable the government to carry on practically the whole business of the country for six or eight months. That constitutes a very great difference. In connection with the Expropriation Act we all know it is impossible to foresee the sudden necessity which may occasion a wholly unforeseen necessity, and what it may involve. There is a reasonable latitude allowed, but it is always allowed in the light of the fact that the contingency cannot possibly be foreseen and that expropriation proceedings will have to be immediately confirmed by parliament and that in nature and extent they are definitely limited.
Another example given was sections 4 and 5 of the Finance Act, and in referring to those sections this morning the Prime Minister used the expression that it had been recognized as being important that in moments of emergency the government should have the right to spend certain sums of money without having first received authority, within definite bounds, from parliament so to do. I draw attention to the word "moments" used by the Prime Minister. This is not a moment of crisis; this is a condition of affairs extending over a year, a condition which has been continuous throughout the months of the past year and which is likely to continue for yet a year or more. In the case of the finance act, the act as I have said gives the power it does because parliament may not be in session at the moment of time at which the government must act in order to save a wholly unforeseen situation, A financial crisis may take place at any moment, and some act on the part of the administration may be necessary to save the day until parliament can be assembled. That is a very different thing from parliament itself, while actually in session, giving permission to the executive to spend indefinite amounts without limitation, not with regard to a momentary crisis but with regard to a situation which may last for months if not for years.

Farm and Unemployment Relief
The other case cited by the Minister of Justice was that of old age pensions. There, no definite amount it is said was fixed. In that regard the amount is very definitely fixed in an indirect if not a direct way, because the payment of any proportion of the old age pensions amounts is conditional upon the provinces in the first instance appropriating definite amounts of moneys for the administration of their old age pension laws and payments to be made by them on account of old age pensions. The representatives of the people in the provincial legislatures vote what is necessary for old age pensions, and it is only after they have so done and the money has been constitutionally provided that our agreement, which finds its basis in that constitutional obligation, comes into effect. The proportion agreed upon at present is 50-50; possibly on and after Monday it will be 75-25. Very definite amounts are fixed in the first instance by the provinces through their legislatures. All these seeming exceptions, studied in the light of their true significance, are found to be really such exceptions only as go to prove the rule, and exceptions which in the light of the contingent circumstances have due regard to strict constitutional practice.
There is one all important point which I think ought to be repeated. Hon. gentlemen opposite seek persistently to convey the impression that it is necessary to give these extraordinary' powers to the executive because it is going to be some months before parliament reassembles. The Prime Minister says that he is walling to change the date of the period for which the act shall continue to apply. He is willing to change it to the 1st of March. But again I say that if a condition is so serious that it requires unlimited powers with respect to expenditure, with respect to police and law and order, then when any such exceptional situation arises parliament ought to be called to deal with it. This House of Commons should not give to the ministry any excuse for not calling parliament under such circumstances. Once disturbances arise in this country and there is a general demand throughout Canada for the reassembling of parliament to deal with the situation, what we shall hear from my right hon. friend and his colleagues will be that parliament has already given the executive all the necessary powers-that they have unlimited borrowing powers, unlimited powers with regard to expenditure, the unlimited use of force in any way they may wish to apply it, and that they can handle the situation much more effectively than the people's representatives can by discussing the matter in the house. I say that we should not encourage any view of that kind; and to lend it even remote countenance is to help to create the very conditions in this country which the administration should of all be the most anxious to avoid.


Mr. ALFRED SPEARMAN (Red Deer):: In view of the unusual nature of this measure, and in view also of the importance of the subject matter, I may be pardoned even at this stage of the session if I say a few words on this question, particularly as very little has been said from this corner.
As to the measure itself and as to its extraordinary nature, I shall speak in a moment or two. But the first feature of the measure that strikes me forcibly is that it carries with it a confession of at least partial failure. A few days ago the corridors resounded with the acclamation of the Conservative party who were celebrating the anniversary of a great and momentous victory that took place a little over twelve months ago. That victory was due, in part at least, to the expectations held forth to the Canadian people that within measurable time the problem of unemployment would be solved. At the expiration of twelve months, after two sessions of parliament, a special session and this regular session, we find that not only is the problem itself unsolved but that it has reached such a point, involving so much human suffering, actual and potential, as to call on the part of the executive for such powers as are embodied in this act.
Again, Mr. Chairman, the measure involves another confession of partial failure. During these twelve months, and particularly during this session of parliament, we had looked for some definite policy of relief, some policy of public works, some detailed and defined policy which would indicate the method and extent of the public works involved, the amount and location of construction, and in a general way a fairly accurate concept of what would be done. But, again, we are met now with a measure somewhat vague but so comprehensive as to enable the executive to do anything along the lines of relief and to devise such means, to carry on such construction, as may appeal to their discretion but which at the moment is not in their minds. It is a matter of regret to me that during the last few months a Dominion-provincial conference has not been called to discuss this policy and settle upon something definite and detailed, so that we might know now the nature and extent of the public works

Farm and. Unemployment Relief
which might be constructed to provide employment in order to relieve the - present situation. I regret also that the government did not see fit to accept the resolution which I myself offered, and which was supported in this part of the house, for the establishment of a national council which would study these matters and the underlying problem from which unemployment itself arises, and from whose deliberations, if not in time for this emergency then for other emergencies, might evolve a policy so that no longer would the grim spectre of unemployment and suffering stalk this land. That, however, was not done, and it seems to me a matter for regret that we should find ourselves in our present situation.
. Now, coming to the measure itself, I must confess at once that to me it is an extraordinary measure, using that word in the proper sense. It is out of the ordinary, and in OTder to understand thoroughly how unusual it is we may define for a moment the functions and prerogatives of an executive. To my mind, as the word implies, the functions df the executive are to execute the express will of parliament as crystallized in the various law's placed on the statute books. But I cannot accept the suggestion that at the present time the government is usurping or seeking to usurp those prerogatives which have always 'been in the hands of .parliament itself. What the government is asking is that parliament should, of its own volition, invest the executive with those powers which properly belong to parliament, and to do so for a definite period for certain express purposes. My point is that parliament is asked to express its own will in the matter; theoretically ait least, parliament is at liberty to give or to withhold that consent and those powers. And if parliament does see fit to grant those powers it will foe the act of parliament itself by which this is done. Parliament for the moment will 'be over-riding its former wishes, expressed in normal times by way of statute.
I must confess again, Mr. Chairman, that under ordinary conditions, I should hesitate very much to give my support to such an unusual measure; for undoubtedly, under ithis measure, if and when passed, the government will exercise all those powers and functions which have been religiously retained by the legislative body. It will abolish, ait least during the months that w'ill intervene, that definite difference which has always existed between the legislative body and the executive body; and the executive body will for the time being assume the functions of the legislative body itself. That is the situation, and

it is undoubtedly a most serious one, and one that clan be tolerated only under most extraordinary conditions. Do such conditions exist? For some months, in common with other hon. members of this house, I have been giving consideration to the situation and to measures parliament might adopt during this session to alleviate conditions, to mitigate suffering and to rid the country of this grim spectre of want. I have come to the conclusion, reluctantly it is true, -that the only way to accomplish this purpose is to give to the executive the powers which it seeks. If there were other practical ways, I would be glad to adopt them; if it were possible for parliament to say at the moment what public works would be carried on, what program was to be advanced, how much money was to be expended, then I would not be ready to sign this blank cheque. The fact that neither the executive itself nor any hon. member of parliament has the slightest conception at this time of the amount of money which will be involved or the kind of action which will foe necessary, helps me in coming to this conclusion.


An hon. MEMBER:: Or where.


Alfred Speakman: Or where. I think there is an implied criticism of the executive for their not having held a Dominion-provincial conference so as to be prepared ,to leit us know what policy would 'be adopted and what public works would be constructed. But taking things as they are at the moment, I cannot see any other practical way of meeting the situation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does not the hon. gentleman think that there is another practical way of meeting the situation? *Could not a special session of parliament be called?


Henry Herbert Stevens: And lose a couple ol months.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does not the hon. gentleman think that would be the proper way to proceed?


Alfred Speakman: I have considered that during the last few months and, rightly or wrongly, I have come to the conclusion, first, that much suffering might take place before parliament could meet to deal with the question and, second, parliament being called at any given time, with a constantly progressive condition such as we have, there would be difficulty at that time in knowing just what would be needed in the immediate future.
There are two what might be called contradictory motives confronting us, and we

Farm and Unemployment Reliej
must adopt one or the other. We must stand by the constitution as it is written, retain within parliament those functions which properly belong to parliament and place the prerogatives of parliament before the necessity for action; or we may exercise this prerogative for the time being and for this purpose by giving to the government the power which it seeks. In either case parliament would be exercising its prerogative. As I said before, I have reluctantly reached the conclusion that with the conditions with which we are confronted, it is the wisest, the sanest and the most humane course to be followed, to give to the government the power necessary to deal with the circumstances which we find to-day or may find to-morrow.
When I spoke critically of the failure of the government to implement its expressed promises in regard to the solution of unemployment, when I spoke critically of the failure of the government to evolve and bring forward a policy of construction, be it understood that I was referring to industrial conditions and not to farm relief. That is something of which no government could have comprehension and to which no government could have given proper consideration.. It is a condition which has arisen out of a complete crop failure in a large part of this country. However, my criticism still stands in connection with the conditions which have been with us for twelve months and which are confronting us in increasing measure.
Where the question of peace, order and good government is concerned, I must confess that I am not a constitutional lawyer. In discussing this question some weeks ago with some friends I expressed the opinion that I thought we must give powers of general import. I expressed the opinion that in order to do so we must make reference to those general powers of peace, order and defence of the realm, or what might also come within the purview of a war measures act. These powers were not to be given for a wrongful use but rather that the government might have the necessary authority with which to carry out the relief purposes. I was glad to hear my opinion confirmed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie).
Another question arises in my mind. Have I or have I not sufficient confidence in the present government to bestow these great powers? Although I have frequently quarrelled with the government over matters of policy, although I have offered criticism, I have that confidence in their integrity which warrants me in giving these powers, just as I would have given the same powers to the
late administration. I believe that every government we have had has been composed of men of moral integrity who would not abuse powers thus bestowed. I must suggest to the government what is undoubtedly in their mind, that in giving them these remarkable powers we are giving also the most unusual responsibilities, responsibilities which must be lived up to. Following the suggestions already made by other hon. members, following the pronouncement of the government itself and following some of the terms of this bill, I suggest that special attention be paid to a really constructive line of public works. There is throughout this country the need of works of construction which will add to the value and to the credit of this nation, works which will be of value and use to the people for years to come. I shall for one scrutinize very closely and critically the actions of this government. When we meet again I intend to make certain that the money, power to raise which we are now giving, has not been frittered away in useless or unnecessary pieces of construction. An effort should be made to keep away from doles, although I do not want to see any man or woman suffer from the need of direct relief. The work accomplished should be work worthwhile for this country.
I state my position without equivocation. I believe, perhaps reluctantly, that at the present time these powers should be given to the government in order to meet an unusual situation. I trust this government to use these powers fairly and wisely, knowing that they will be called to account when parliament again meets. I trust that in the immediate future they will make an honest and serious attempt to study this question and to evolve a .policy which will banish this spectre of unemployment and the necessity for action of this kind. I hope they will appoint some kind of consulting body and that in another year we will not be confronted with the necessity of giving carte blanche to a government to relieve the effects of depression, but that we will be met by a government which has fulfilled its pledges to remove the cause and solve the problem of unemployment for all time.


Mr. HEENAN:: I have made one appeal
already to the Prime Minister to eliminate from this bill all reference to the maintenance of law and order. I have done so sincerely, and I believe the Prime Minister is sincere in his idea of incorporating it in the measure, but I consider his action is due to failure on the part of the government to realize the psychology of the labour men of

Farm and Unemployment Relief
this country and the effect this provision will have on that psychology. When one listened to the Secretary of State telling of the leaflets and other propaganda distributed throughout Canada and the effect that might have on our labour men, one could readily understand how sincere the members of the government might be. As I say, the action of the government is due to failure to understand the psychology of the labour men, because from my experience I believe there are no more sane, true, loyal citizens than are the labour men. We have had periods of depression before; we had for instance, the great catastrophe between 1914 and 1918, during which time the labour men of Canada were considered the bulwarks of the nation. I can recall then when the labour men had a grievance and when they came and assured the government that for the duration of the war there would be no industrial upheaval and no strike on our railroads. The newspapers at that time came out with big headlines saying what true patriots the labour men were. Now just because we have a period of depression, which was not caused by the present government nor by the late government, and because a few of our citizens are distributing leaflets, we have to bring down a measure of relief and incorporate in it a provision for the maintenance of law and order. I do not know whether the Prime Minister quite realizes the effect of this on the psychology of the men who will receive the relief.
I believe I know where the government is obtaining its information. To be fair I want to say this, that if I were on the government benches to-day, receiving the information that each one of them is receiving, and without having the experience that I have had, I might too be alarmed as to what is going to take place in this country. The majority of us know that the government have men situated in different parts of Canada giving them information as to what is going on in this regard. I recall the time when I used to sit in the Labour office reading these reports, and if one were to take them seriously, one might consider there was going to be a revolution overnight. I recall one time when negotiations were taking place in the mining areas of Nova Scotia in connection with a wage schedule, and if one were to have taken notice of the reports to members of the government, emanating from that quarter, one would have considered a revolution was going to take place overnight. I did not take those reports seriously. Knowing the mining men of Nova Scotia as I do, and knowing there is no body of miners in

any other part of the world more sane, sensible or loyal, no better citizens anywhere, I consigned that information to the waste basket. The consequence was that there was no revolution; an agreement was reached and it was carried out to the letter by the contending parties.
With reference to the statement made by the Secretary of State regarding men riding blind baggage cars and freight trains, one would imagine this was something alarming; that the railway officials were afraid of something extraordinary happening. I have railroaded ever since I came to this country in 1902 and I do not know a year since then in which we have not had hundreds of men, good loyal citizens, travelling east and west in this manner, their only reason for so doing being that they were not able to pay their fares. These men were welcomed in western Canada during the harvest time. People watched for them to drop off at the railway stations in order that they might assist in the development of the country in mining, harvesting and other projects of a national character. Therefore, there is no fear whatever with respect to the men who travel to and fro on the trains in this manner, and there is no novelty about it because it has been going on for many years.
It is quite evident from the remarks of members of the cabinet that they have changed their position with respect to this bill, especially as regards the provision for the maintenance of .law and order. The Prime Minister, who is the spokesman of the government, When he introduced this measure, made it quite plain what it was for. If hon. members will refer to page 4278 of Hansard of July 27, they will find that the Prime Minister is reported as having said this:
If the government is given reason to believe, as there may be some cause for its so believing, that there is a settled purpose in the minds of a considerable number of people-not large, numerically, but scattered over the _ various parts of Canada-to take action against the maintenance of law and order, or make attempts to impede the difficult task which we are charged, then we will take such action as in the judgment of the executive of this country, the cabinet who are the board of directors for the time being administering the affairs of this country, as will free this country from those who have proved themselves unworthy of our Canadian citizenship.
Those are his own words. Later the Minister of Justice changed the position of the government with respect to that, saying that it was only because of constitutional questions that this had to be based upon the principle of the maintenance of law and order before they could give these contributions for unemployment relief. The Minister of Trade and

Farm and Unemployment Relief
Commerce, when asking questions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, showed that he had quite clearly in mind some disturbance was likely to occur, because he asked the hon. member what he would do providing some man out of a hundred would not g-o to work. The minister showed quite clearly that he had in mind that some drastic measure would have to be taken in order to compel that man to go to work or else suffer the penalty that is provided in this legislation. Surely the government must realize that is not the way to deal with one man out of a hundred who will not go to work when it is provided for him. To take care of that one man, or half a dozen men out of a hundred, we have laid before us one of the most autocratic measure that I have ever seen in any country, coupled with the provision for unemployment relief, As I said before, I do not want to take the position that the government is doing this with some ulterior motive. A government that promised the electorate it would cure unemployment, end unemployment, or perish in the attempt, realizes that this is not a good political move. I would say that on behalf of the government. This is not a popular measure to introduce. I do not say that the government has any ulterior motive. I think it is because they are unduly alarmed because there were a few stones or bricks thrown in one particular part of the country, and because of the information given to them by their agents, who may be unduly alarmed or who, as I prefer to believe, do not understand the psychology of the labour men of Canada, and who take one or two radical speeches to represent the position of the whole of the labour men of Canada. The labour men of Canada have been through trying times in many years, much more trying than at present. They have been tested, and I think it is wrong to sigmatize, as this bill does, the labour men in Canada generally and suggest that they cannot go through a depression and co-operate with the government without having a threat staring them in the face that if they do not do thus and so they are liable to three years' imprisonment. That is the reason I pleaded with the Prime Minister the other night to eliminate all semblance of threats from this bill. The labour men of Canada have shown very conclusively, even during this particular period of depression, that they do not need the threat of maintaining law and order to get them to cooperate, for during the last twelve or eighteen months I know of thousands of labour men in this country who are entitled, because of their seniority, to so many days work per month-no one could deprive them of it
because of their agreements and because of the seniority which they have attained after many years of faithful service-and yet they agreed among themselves to lay off so many days per month in order to give a certain amount of work to others who were less fortunate. With such evidence before me I do plead again with the Prime Minister not to insult the labour men of Canada by coupling in this bill the provisions for farm and unemployment relief with a provision for the maintenance of law and order.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I do not wish to delay
the proceedings of the house; in fact, I have said very little since I came here, but I must register my most emphatic protest against this bill. Virtually it suspends the constitution of this country, and establishes a dictatorship, and a dictatorship not of a political party but of the cabinet of this country. There is nothing that the cabinet cannot do under the powers conferred by this bill. Every right and privilege of citizenship will be abrogated by the passage of this bill. As has been claimed, and as was substantiated by the remarks quoted from the speech of the Prime Minister on July 29, when introducing the resolution, this provision is aimed at the working classes of this country. I .think the Minister of Trade and Commerce said to-day that it was aimed only at the bolsheviks, but who is going to define what a bolshevik is? The Minister of Trade and Commerce might include me in his definition of a bolshevik. Someone else might define him as a bolshevik. There you are; there is no one safe if this bill passes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend says that I said the bill was aimed at somebody. I interrupted an hon. member some hours ago and intimated that the bill was aimed at nobody, that it was for the purpose of providing aid to the unemployed. It is not aimed at anybody or at anybody's liberty, that of the workingman or anybody else.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that it was aimed at certain people and that certain people would be affected by it, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, I believe, and as I t.hink Hansard will show, that it was aimed at bolsheviks.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. I made no such statement.


Angus MacInnis: Certainly the Minister of Trade and Commerce used the word, and I am asking now who is going to define who is a bolshevik and who is not. What is the definition of a bolshevik? An hon. member suggests that it is one who is Opposed to constitutional government. If that is the defini-
4468	COMMONS
Farm and Unemployment Relief
tion, then as this bill does away with constitutional government, if only for a limited period, the government must be bolsheviks. If things are not better next spring than they are now, will this provision be extended, or are you going to go back to where you were before?
I believe that the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition is quite sound, although I would not accept the bill even with that amendment. I am opposed to the bill because it links up unemployment relief and distress with the maintenance of peace and order in this country. I believe the leader of the opposition is quite within the mark and very logical when he advocates the appropriation of a certain sum of money to deal with the situation. There are only five months to the first of the year, and ordinarily parliament assembles very shortly after the first of the year. Surely the situation in this country is not so bad at the present moment that this government .cannot estimate fairly closely what amount will be required for this purpose until parliament reassembles at the usual time. I noticed only yesterday in the press that the situation in Great Britain is considered very serious, and that financial difficulties may arise at any time. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say about it? Did he ask for powers to deal with the situation such as this government is asking? No. He said that they would call a special session of parliament if necessary, even before the 20th of October, to which date parliament had adjourned. I do not think there is any reason at this time for this government to ask for these powers. But suppose there is a reason. We in this corner have been, ever since the beginning of the session, drawing the attention of the government to the seriousness of the unemployment situation, and the government have steadily maintained that there was no unemployment situation. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, speaking on the 4th of June last, said that this was not the time to deal with the situation that might be anticipated next autumn. That is all very well for those whose stomachs are filled, and who do not know what hunger is, but it is very different for those who are unemployed.
As I said at the outset, I do not wish to prolong this debate. I think that nothing has been said so far that would convince me that this bill should pass. This bill is an outrage and should not pass this house. If the government had done their duty they could have got all the necessary information in regard to unemployment. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Bpeakman) gave their dere-

fiction of duty in that regard as a reason for giving them this particular privilege which they are now asking. I do not think this house should grant it. At least I will take the responsibility of voting against the bill in its entirety, and I shall be glad to meet any member of the government before any labour audience in this country and justify my position.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, I
absolve the government from any sinister motive such as has been suggested with respect to the non-parliamentary control terms of this bill. They have no sinister motive that I know of; they have merely a fundamentally different attitude towards control of finance by the government from what we on this side have. And the same fundamental difference existed a hundred years ago, during the great struggle prior to the rebellion of 1837. Now my right hon. friend opposite claims to have put the capsheaf on our present constitutional status while he was in London recently, and yet he and his followers now want to revert to the colonial days, for by this bill they ask that the powers of parliament be abdicated in favour of the executive. That is just what the struggle was over in 1837. I do not differ with my hon. friends over there as individuals, I differ with them because of their Tory attitude of mind towards things parliamentary. It is a strange coincidence that we should have in this parliament the grandson of Mackenzie and the grandson of Papineau taking the same* attitude on this question as their grandfathers did on the question of parliamentary control of public expenditures. The grandfathers in this instance were sound and right.


Robert James Manion: They take the same attitude on every question.


William Richard Motherwell: If it is natural for my hon. friends opposite to revert occasionally to the Toryism of that day, it is just as natural that we should stand by the reformers of a hundred years ago. So we do not need to import- any personal feeling into this matter at all. There has always been a fundamental difference between the Liberals and the Tories on the right of parliamentary control of expenditures. That fundamental difference existed for centuries in Britain before 1837 and has continued in Canada more or less right up to the present _ day. A year ago I had the pleasure of visiting the West Indies and I was astonished to see what the colonial system really meant in operation. We had it in Canada prior to

Farm and Unemployment Relief
1837-the king's representative appointing the executive. In the West Indies they are perfectly haippy under that system; and there are reasons why they should be, but I need not enter into them now. But prior to the union of Upper and Lower Canada we had the struggle of the people for the right to control taxation and expenditure. I was raised on those conceptions. Whether I have been true to them all through my life or not -I hope I have-I intend to be true to them now. Everyone who has read about Lyon Mackenzie in Ontario and Papineau of Quebec are aware that in their struggle for responsible government they risked their lives, their homes, a price on their heads and everything that was most dear to them, because they wanted to secure what we are trying to preserve to-day, the control of parliament over expenditures, a control which quite unnecessarily is being abrogated by this bill. If there were some reason for taking so serious a step I would consent to it. It is not because I have not confidence in my hon. friends opposite as individuals that I appose such arbitrary powers, but because the Tory mind does not suit my mind. I do not know what my hon. friends apposite are going to do in their administration of the relief bill. From their conception of this matter at the last special session they are liable to do anything. I hope I have made myself plain.


Robert James Manion: Yes, you may sit down now.


William Richard Motherwell: Then I will leave that point. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he ponder whether he is not putting himself in wrong with the people. This relief is going to cost us a lot more money than any sum that has yet been suggested. The biggest amount that I have heard suggested was $100,000,000. That sum will not cover the necessary expenditure for both -farm relief and unemployment. Does my right hon. friend want the cost to dawn on the people gradually? Why not say $150,000,000, which will be nearer the mark than any sum mentioned so far-that is, if we are to take care of both farm and unemployment -relief all over Canada. Is there any state reason why my hon. friends opposite should not foe candid and say: This is going to cost the country during itfoe next eight months $150,000,000? If so, I am willing to listen to such state reason, but I have not heard of any yet. There are two principles that divide us, and because of that I respect ithe views of my opponents, and I hope they respect our views and realize that in opposing the terms of this
measure we are not merely pernickety about something that does not amount to anything except possibly in theory.
We are proud to be the descendants of those reformers that I spoke of, and to hold to their conception of responsible government, and I suppose my hon. friendis -opposite are equally proud of being the descendants of the Tories of 1837 and to hold to their conception of it. But I would urge my right hon. friend not to divide us now on this question. We have got along together on many things, particularly with regard to our present status. Why make this rupture ait the present time by reverting to colonial status in this respect? I would rather have in this bill the sum of $150,000,000 mentioned, and trust the government to expend it properly, than depart from the principle that I have been endeavouring to enunciate and that was so much better enunciated by my right hon. leader. I leave -that suggestion with the ministry, and I hope their pride will not prevent them from modifying this -bill in the light of -the arguments that have been presented against the measure as drafted as a blank cheque, during the course of this debate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think, Mr. Chairman, that I must say a word or two, and I will endeavour to be as brief as passible. If I might say so without offence, the right hon. leader of the opposition has overlooked the fact that every provision that Colonel Durell suggests should be taken to safeguard control by parliament of any grant it makes is provided for in this measure-every one of them. He says:
The bedrock on which the English system is built is the principle of the maintenance by parliament of control over the grants which it makes.
"Control over the grants which it makes." Parliament is about to make a grant. If it declines to make it, it has not made it. It exercises its control over that grant through the auditor general and by the annual report of the auditor general that is laid before this parliament.. No power that this parliament has provided in days gone by, no safeguard that the legislature has fixed, is taken away; the control is over the grant, it still continues. The question is, shall the grant be made, and that is the only question. There is no "Tory mind" about it. The question is, shall the grant be made; yes, or no?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the house says the grant shall not be made, that ends it. But once the gran-t is made, every constitutional

Farm and Unemployment Relief
safeguard that has been obtained during all the years that are past will still remain, they will all be taken, and if this government fails in the discharge of its duty in that regard, like other governments it will disappear, and other men will take the place of those who now sit on the treasury benches. The question is: Shall the grant Ire made? Let us look at just what this does mean. The hon. exMinister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) saj^s it will take 8150,000,000. The leader of the opposition stands in his place and says "Fill in any sum you like."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And give your reason for it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a new thought,
that came this morning; last night there was no "reason." The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) says "Name any amount,;" the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) said last night, "Name any amount." I put this to the house: Would there be any sense in inserting an amount which you know would not be spent as against inserting no amount, when you know that the latter course will encourage that economy of expenditure which is so desirable.


William Richard Motherwell: I believe that
amount to be required.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly, I say my friend the ex-Minister of Agriculture believes that.


William Richard Motherwell: Does not my right hon. friend believe it too?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say, as
I said this morning, if some of the communications that have recently been received are warrant for a conviction, you cannot tell what the amount will be. That is my difficulty, and has been for weeks. But I do put it to this house that confusion as to the grant and the expenditure of the grant is the difficulty that the right hon. gentleman opposite has been experiencing. The very statement that he read, the control of parliament over the grant, indicates that. That is the bedrock. The bedrock is not the question as to whether or not you fix the amount at $10 or $1,000; as if this great and glorious principle, which should be respected as far as may be possible, cannot be broken without smashing the constitution! To hear one of these hon. members talking about the constitution being destroyed, you would think he really meant it, instead of its being merely flapdoodle talk that he thinks will raise a cheer among the crowd. Go and tell men on the street corner, "Your constitution is broken,"

do you think they will believe it? What happens is referred to right here by Colonel Durell: the bedrock is the maintenance by parliament of its control over expenditures. It is going to have it. Did parliament break the constitution when it gave the governor in council power to guarantee the bonds, without limitation, of the Montreal harbour bridge, which reached a total of $19,000,000, when the original statement of the cost was only $6,000,000? Did that or did it not break the constitution? Was the constitution broken when the old age pension legislation was passed providing that there should be paid out' of the consolidated revenue fund any sum that might be necessary to meet half the expenditure, not of one or two provinces but of any number of provinces who might come under the scheme? That was done without knowing whether there would be one province or nine provinces affected, or whether the amount would reach $5,000,000 or $25,000,000. Was the constitution broken; was it destroyed; did it crack?
Then the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) and others spoke about peace, order and good government, and said that by this provision we were insulting the labouring men of this country. This provision is inserted to protect them from just such talk as that. There were two clear reasons for this bill. One was the constitutional point, which I always think it is difficult to explain when you are dealing with matters that have engaged our attention for the last half century, and when you begin to reconcile decisions from the Queen v. Russell to the last case decided a few years ago by the privy council as to the exact limit between the powers of the provinces on the one hand and the Dominion on the other. So I said last evening that I proposed to remove any doubt on that score with respect to section 2 by providing, through an appropriate amendment, that this relief, this provision of employment and this maintenance of peace, order and good government throughout Canada, should be as far as lay within the competence of parliament.
Attempts have been made to have it appear that what we have endeavoured to do is shock the constitutional susceptibilities of the provinces, but that is not so. One of two things had to happen. Either we had to undertake large obligations and responsibilities which, under the constitution, fell upon the provinces, and do it by declaring that it was done for the purpose of maintaining peace, order and good government, or we had to leave the provinces to do it themselves. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. The privy council has clearly decided that point, and this house expected us to take hold of

Farm and Unemployment Relief
this national emergency on behalf of all the people as distinct from the people of the provinces which might be affected. That is why we are trying to do it. That is why I say it became a national calamity when a hundred thousand people, by reason of the last crop failure mentioned last evening by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) and the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) suddenly became in need of food and clothing.
It may be said that we have trenched upon the constitutional obligations of the provinces to deal with these matters, and we had to do that on some ground. It was not the ground of war; it was not the ground of national defence or anything of that sort. It was the ground of peace, order and good government, that riots might not be possible, that unfed men might not congregate in corners to be inspired with the thought that their lot was such that they should prefer Russia to Canada. This was done so that our youth might not be banded together to decry the government of Canada, as has been advocated by the circulars which have been broadcast throughout the country. We desire to maintain peace, order and good government through employment, through activity, through food and clothing justly earned and work which involves wages. But there is the other side to it, the side of which every hon. gentleman has the right to think. Shall there be fraud in the administration of this relief? Shall it be possible that decent, honest, hard working men such as those referred to by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River shall be always subject to the insidious appeals made by non-Canadian agitators, who in some instances for the moment may have Canadian citizenship by reason of false declarations or flagrant disregard of the law which gave them a naturalization certificate? Shall these men be permitted to insinuate into the minds of Canadian men the cursed doctrines of the destruction of our civilization and the foundations of our government?
Those are the two issues, and this is the reason we have used this language in this measure. When it is said that we are trying to set aside the constitution, that is not so. Have we asked this parliament for a grant? We have. Is parliament to give that grant? Either this bill is defeated or we get a constitutional grant. True it is not limited, but it is granted. Why do not hon. members opposite vote against the bill? Why do they not summon up their forces and appeal to those on this side of the house to defeat the government? Once this parliament makes a grant that is the constitutional exercise of the powers of parliament; it
is the control of parliament, which is just the same as the control of parliament over any $100 item we have in respect to any part of the public service. It must be expended honestly; the auditor general must exercise control, for we do not provide that this money shall come from the proceeds of a loan which the government might put in a trust account and deal with. These payments are to be made from the consolidated revenue fund, and every dollar which goes through that fund under any circumstances is subject to the control of the auditor general.
That is what this measure means. If anyone suggests that because the government has not mentioned any specific fund they had in mind any object other than the safeguarding of two things, one the efficiency of the relief granted, and the other the guarding of the treasury of this country and the credit of Canada, he is suggesting what is not so. Those are things for which the responsibility rests for the moment upon the government. The hon. member for Red Deer made a happy observation when he asked if any hon. member in the house thought those of us who sit here to-day were seeking this measure for comfort or for pleasure. Does anyone think for a single moment that it makes it easier for any one of us because we have to ask parliament for a statute such as this? Then the cry is "Summon parliament." I can only say that this parliament will be summoned in due course, under whatever circumstances exist or may arise, but at the moment what is wanted is action and not words.
During all this session hon. members have been complaining that they could not get a statement, and they could not. During all that period there was not a day when at least one member of the cabinet was not thinking about this matter, securing information from every possible source, endeavouring to fit themselves to grapple with a problem as difficult as any that ever faced men in Canada. I wonder if hon. members realize that when war was in this country it gave employment at once in increasing numbers to the men left here, providing food, clothing and the other necessities of life. This condition which exists to-day is just the negation of that other condition. This matter is not being put through hurriedly and I should like to assure my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition that I have not for a single moment lost my sense of perspective. I only wish sometimes that my sense of perspective was not just what it is; my lot would be somewhat easier. I think I have just as clear an appreciation of the situation, from one end of this Dominion t)o the other, every

Farm and Unemployment Relief
part of which I have visited, as any hon. member in this house. From information which I have received and read and re-read and read again until I have 'been tired and weary with the reading of it, I know just what the conditions are. And what the hon. member from Willow Bunch and the hon. member from Weyburn have said is nothing new to me nor to the members of the government.
I say advisedly that in the early days of the session we had fervently hoped that with the spring, with the planting of the crop, there would come that betterment of conditions which would result, of course, from the prospects of a harvest, even although the price which it would bring would be small. We had hoped, relying upon statements made by men who had a better knowledge of world affairs than we have in the northern half of the continent, the great financial men to the south, and other great economists in other lands, that conditions would improve. The conditions that brought about the disappointment of our hopes in that regard are, as the hon. gentleman said yesterday, the act of God in one instance and those conditions in central Europe which are known to every hon. member of the house who reads. The condition in two countries, more than in any other, is responsible, together with the worldwide condition that results from the situation, to which I referred, arising out of the great war.
Those are the conditions, and I just ask my hon. friends this: What would you have done better than we are doing? We are doing our very best to deal with the problem, with a deep and ever-increasing sense of responsibility, which sometimes leaves men little opportunity for sleep and sometimes little thought, except the thought of what that responsibility is. But that does not in any way destroy our sense of perspective. And when this government asks the house for this legislation it does so for just the purpose mentioned-to preserve peace, which is the negation of war; to give happiness, which is the negation of sorrow; and to give order, which is the negation of riots and tumultuous assemblies in various parts of the country. And for the provision which will ensure these ends, of peace, order and good government, through constructive effort in public works and undertakings, giving assistance to the provinces and to the municipalities and other bodies, not depriving them of their constitutional functions but enabling them to collect their taxes, thereby receiving from the people the necessary assistance to carry on-

for this condition of affairs, I say, no men will be more grateful than these various authorities, that we have at least tried to see that they will not be charged with responsibility for those who are taking advantage- and I say that deliberately-of the very trying conditions of the present time, and of the great and difficult problem with which we have to deal, of those who try to incite men to actions which under normal conditions they would not think of.
With these problems, Mr. Chairman, we will deal to the best of our ability and after the most thoughtful consideration which we are able to give them. That consideration may not be the best the world offers, but it is the best we can give. We have asked parliament for these powers, not for selfish purposes, but for the benefit of this country. It is our bounden duty, by every means within our power, to establish successfully and to maintain in the present situation peace, order and good government, and we propose to do so by the measure which we have offered for adoption by this house. With the grant made, parliamentary control is complete, and it will be maintained by reason of the auditor general's control over the consolidated fund.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When I quoted this morning from Durell's Parliamentary Grants, which my right hon. friend will I am sure agree is the standard authority throughout the British Empire on this all-important subject, the right hon. gentleman asked me whether I would lend him the volume. He has, as opportunity has afforded, been carefully perusing its pages ever since. I have no doubt he took it away with him during recess-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I did not have time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, he has been busy on it ever since. I have rather enjoyed watching him, because I knew what he was looking for. He was going through the volume to see whether, anywhere in its pages, he might discover something which would afford him some excuse for making of bis present stand an exception which might be justified1. I venture to say that if within the two covers of that book there could have been found anything that would lend shadow of countenance to what my right hon. friend is asking this house to do at the present time he would have found it, and we should have heard about it in a manner much more emphatic even than that which he has employed in speaking.
What does my right hon. friend say? He began and concluded his remarks by saying

Farm and Unemployment Relief
that control on the part of parliament was affected because forsootb the auditor general would have to do with the auditing of all accounts. Now surely my right ihon. friend has more regard for the intelligence of this body than to assume that its members are going to be confused as between what constitutes control and what constitutes auditing. The two are very different functions, and if hon. members will just ask themselves what the difference is they will see exactly where the difference lies between my right hon. friend and myself, and between hon. gentlemen opposite and those on this side of the house.
The quotation I gave this morning, which has been repeated by the right hon. gentleman, was that the bedrock of the constitution was control by parliament-not by any auditor general but by parliament-of all grants. Now that control is being parted with, because the measure fixes no amount.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will my right hon. friend permit a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should prefer to get through first; I will answer the hon. gentleman's question later. We are being asked to give a blank cheque; we are being asked to allow the ministry to spend whatever sums they like, to borrow whatever sums they like. Where is the control in that? The power of parliament passes over into the hands of the executive, and they are free to borrow as much as they please, to spend as much as they please, for months at a time, and parliament is not to be in session. Parliament has prorogued, the ministry will be absolutely free to do as they please. My right hon,. friend says the auditor general will go over the accounts, and that parliament appoints the auditor general.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the reports have
to come back to parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And now my right hon. friend adds, the reports will have to come back to parliament. Well, I trust that before this bill passes the Prime Minister will insert an additional clause, which I shall move as an amendment, that reports be made to parliament of what is being done. Perhaps I had better stop to speak of that for a moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not necessary, if
that will please the right hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is
very necessary, especially where amounts certain to be spent are so large. When parliament was called to deal with the question of unemployment relief at a special session last
year, a definite amount was named in the bill respecting unemployment relief and was appropriated, namely, 320,000,000. It was deemed necessary then to insert a provision to the effect that reports should be made to parliament. I cannot understand, therefore, why in this particular bill, where no amount is fixed, and which confers infinitely greater powers upon the executive, no provision appears for a similar report to parliament. The act for the granting of aid for the relief of unemployment, passed by this parliament at the last session, contained the following provision:
A report shall be laid before parliament within fifteen days after the opening of the next session thereof, containing a full and correct statement of moneys expended under this act, and the purposes to which they have been applied.
That section has been dropped from this bill or rather has not been inserted in it and my right hon. friend tells us that he was told it was not necessary. Why was it necessary last year? It was pointed out by my right hon. friend that at least some semblance of the authority of parliament over what had been spent and the opportunity of review was essential, and if I am not mistaken that clause was included as a result of a suggestion from this side. A similar clause should be in this bill and before it is finally passed I propose to move an amendment to that effect. I do hope my right hon. friend will not seek to go the length of taking away even the obligation on the part of the ministry of reporting to parliament within a definite time after the expiration of the bill as to what has been done and spent under its provisions. That would be the last straw.
My right hon. friend quoted my remarks that the bed-rock of the constitution was that of the control of parliament, but he did not refer to another quotation which I made from the same authority. Mr. Durell points out that a corollary of the control of parliament is that there must be definite amounts fixed for the different purposes for which the ministry is asking parliament to make grants. Mr. Durell lays as much emphasis upon the restricting and defining of grants as he does upon the control of parliament in the broad sense. He says that one flows from the other, that one is the necessary corollary of the other and that you have not control by parliament unless you have your amounts definitely stated. My hon. friend did not quote that. When he ventures to quote Durell he should quote from the beginning to the end, and give to the committee the entirety of the meaning. I am standing
4474	COMMONS
Farm arid Unemployment Relief
upon that authority and I am giving to the committee what Mr. Durell has said in this regard.
During the course of his remarks my right hon. friend seemed to intimate that as much as $150,000,000 might be required. Do hon. members realize that when the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in office the total expenditure of Canada, including the interest on the public debt and the like, did not in any way exceed $125,000,000? Do they realize that when Sir Robert Borden became Prime Minister of this country during his early years of office the expenditures for all matters in connection with which this parliament voted appropriations did not exceed the figure which is being discussed at this moment as being necessary to meet this need? Do they realize that the amount which this government is asking us to permit them to spend without any limitation and, as my right hon. friend has just revealed to us, without the necessity of even reporting upon to parliament, is almost equivalent having regard to this period of time for which it is asked, to the annual amount appropriated by parliament for the administration of all the services of Canada, for the payment of the interest on the public debt and for the meeting of expenditures which have grown out of the war and the like? This amount is required for seven months only. When the proportions of this matter are thus revealed, one would be far removed from a sense of responsibility who did not realize what it may mean and what it may lead to.
My right hon. friend does not wish to call a special session of parliament. Let him then call the regular session a little earlier. We would be obliged if he would call it at the beginning of the new year or, better still, at the end of the present year. My right hon. friend will be fortunate if before this year is out he does not find it necessary to call a special session to save himself from the effects of what he is doing at this moment. He may find that he will need to call a special session to deal with conditions in this country which have got beyond his control owing above all else to the fact that he is asking this parliament to give him unlimited powers. Apart from the dangers which autocratic powers always seem to breed, having unlimited powers, the men and women of this country, believing that there is nothing under heaven my right hon. friend cannot do, may confront him with the things they demand of him to do and he may find it necessary to call this parliament to shield him in the administering of the enormous amounts which he is now asking us to

give in this way. There will be a period of seven months during which the provisions oi this bill will apply. My right hon. friend has said that this bill will expire on March 1.


Richard Bedford Bennett: March 31 is provided for.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend said he would change it to March 1.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the opposition so desired.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will certainly do all we can to reduce the time. Among other reasons I think it will be helping to save my right hon. friend from himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am so grateful.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The other evening my right hon. friend gave us the definite assurance that parliament would be called not later than the middle of February. That means that over half a year must elapse before parliament will be called. In the meantime the government will be free to do what it pleases, no matter what circumstances may arise. They are to have a bottomless well from which they may draw all the resources necessary to meet any situation. What does that mean? It means that parliament as parliament in making this grant is simply committing hari kari, we are turning over the whole business of this country to the executive to be run in a more absolute and dictatorial way than has been sought by any government from any parliament at any time since the days of Cromwell and the civil wars of that period.
Amendment (Mr. Mackenzie King) negatived.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the section is declared passed, I will ask the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) to move an amendment thereto. This amendment will obviate the possibility of there being any misunderstanding so far as provincial rights are concerned.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I move that section 2 be amended by adding after the word "maintaining" in the fourth line the words "within the competence of parliament", and adding after the word "government" in the last line, the words "throughout Canada".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This amendment may prove helpful for the purpose of giving a semblance of limitation to the matters to which it refers, but it neither adds to nor substracts from the powers which are given by the section. However, I think it would be well to have it included in the section.

Farm and Unemployment Relief
Amendment (Sir George Perley) agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3.-Powers of governor in council.


Edward James Young: Last night when the house
rose I was about to make a few remarks in regard to a letter I had received and read into the record. The Prime Minister and his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, seemed to be under the impression that I did this to embarrass the government. That is not the case. I do not see how any government could find anything in that letter to embarrass them. The letter was well and courteously written; it attached not a word of blame to the government for any of the conditions described in it. The writer stated distinctly he understood the difficulty with which the government is confronted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And he addressed it to
the Prime Minister and not to the hon. member.


Edward James Young: A copy was sent to me with a covering request asking me to bring it to the attention of the powers that be. If any government can find anything in that letter to embarrass them, I must say they are easily embarrassed. My purpose in reading the letter was to set as clearly as possible before the committee the exact situation as it exists. These people who have lost several successive crops, first exhausted their own resources, their own credits. Then they turned to the municipalities and the municipalities helped them out until their credit was exhausted. Last fall the municipalities found themselves in the position that they could not secure another dollar from the banks without the backing of the provincial government; their credit was exhausted. Now from what the Prime Minister tells us to-day, the credit of the province is likely to be unequal to the task of securing for the municipalities the necessary relief to hand out to these people. That is the situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the hon. gentleman realizes he is doing no service to any part of this country by making that observation. I did endeavour to disclose to the committee, without going into too much detail, that the strain might be such that money would have to be loaned to the western provinces. That is what I said. I have refrained purposely from getting into discussion of that kind which might furnish ammunition for those who attack the credit of the very 22110-284
province in which the hon. gentleman lives. If he desires to do so, I cannot help that; I have done my best.


Edward James Young: I will accept the Prime
Minister's explanation. This is what I want to put before the committee: As the Prime Minister has said, the primary responsibility rests with the municipalities. The information contained in the letter which I read and in another communication which no doubt the government received, is to the effect that many people out there are in such straits that they need immediate relief. In this clause of the bill I find paragraph (a) as follows:
(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.
All that is excellent, but it will take time to plan those works. You cannot commence them to-morrow.
(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 is excellent also, but it will take time, It will not bring immediate relief.
(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.
I suppose that paragraph will cover the case of municipalities that are unable to assist themselves, but this will be subject to certain rules and regulations which will take time to work and plan out. My purpose in bringing this matter to the attention of the minister is to suggest to him-and I am not and have not been trying to embarrass him- that while these plans are being worked out, something might be done to yield immediate relief to those who are on their last bag of flour now and whose children are running around insufficiently clad, by letting the municipalities and the banks know that where it is necessary for a municipality to extend immediate relief in the form of the necessities of life, such as food, fuel and clothing, the credit of the government is behind that municipality in furnishing such relief. I make that suggestion seriously, and I hope the government will consider it favourably and not believe I am doing it for the purpose of embarrassing them.

4476	COMMONS
Form and Unemployment Relief


Peter Heenan: Is it the intention of the government itself to proceed with any works under this provision or only in cooperation with the provinces?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Both.


Peter Heenan: What I have in mind is this: in the part of the country I have the honour to represent many public undertakings are required, the plans of which are already prepared, and the federal government could do a great deal of work without any cooperation on the part of the provinces or the municipalities. We have already, for instance, the plans of a bridge over the Rainy river. The United States government have passed an act permitting the Dominion government to build a bridge across there, but have refused to cooperate in paying a portion of the expense. Inasmuch as the bridge is for the purpose of, shall I say coaxing people from the United States into Canada, I think the government at this time could very well bear the whole cost of the undertaking.
The Minister of Public Works has in his office a report by one of the engineers in his department in regard to a retaining or protection wall along the south part of the lake of the Woods where the waters are washing away town property. There is also a public building that I think the present Minister of Railways and I promised the people of Emo because it was required and there are many other works of a like nature. I see the minister smile. This promise was made during election time.


Robert James Manion: I was not in Emo then. I was smiling at the facility with which my hon. friend makes promises.


Peter Heenan: I happened to meet my hon. friend in Emo in 1926. I do not remember what department he was minister of at that time, but I know he made the same promise to the people of Emo as I did.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend's memory is of a very convenient type.


Peter Heenan: I am glad to know the government can initiate public works under this measure and we shall look for some of these undertakings to be carried out.


John Vallance: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Let us take that portion of Saskatchewan where at the present time there is such dire distress. In connection with the public undertakings mentioned in paragraph (a), is it the purpose of the government to permit the agriculturists

of that portion of the country to take advantage of the opportunity of rendering service on this construction work, or are we going to confine it to other classes?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Primarily, as I said before, that is a question for those in the province responsible for those matters. The language is that it is to enable the government to assist them in discharging their duties. It was not intended that the federal government should send somebody out there to employ eight or ten men to work at a given point. That is not a matter which constitutionally comes within our powers, but we shall not only try to enable but we will enable those whose duty it is to do that work.


Mr. HEAPS:: Paragraph (a) refers to work which may be municipal or provincial in character. I have in mind works which are purely federal in character and which the government could carry on at this time, that would help to a considerable extent in relieving unemployment in the larger centres. At the beginning of the session I asked the Minister of Public Works whether it was the intention of the government to provide work of that nature whereby the artisans in the cities could find employment. I was unable to get any definite answer from the government. However, I see that the government are asking for an unlimited amount and paragraph (a) gives the government power to provide for the construction of public works, and so on. I would ask the Prime Minister whether, under that clause, the government will undertake to carry out federal works which will be wholly a federal charge and towards the construction of which the municipalities will not have to pay anything. It is hardly necessary to point out that many municipalities, particularly in the west, are not in a position to pay even the one-third that they were called upon to pay last winter. I think it would be much more desirable if the federal government itself would undertake such federal public works as are necessary and can be carried on in the immediate future.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I tried to make clear
to the hon. gentleman that the real reason we have to go so much further than heretofore is that because in a great many parts of Canada municipalities have been unable to collect any taxes whatever, and therefore they cannot carry on their undertakings. The provinces wherever possible have come to the assistance of the municipalities. To the extent to which it may be thought desirable,

Farm and Unemployment Relief
having regard to the circumstances of each case, such action will be taken as the interests of the country as a whole demand. That is the real reason why those words are there. Certainly it contemplates that there may be federal undertakings that will be carried on solely by federal authority. We expect that that will be so, but as I did explain to the leader of the opposition, the estimates provide for federal undertakings and public works that are within the contemplated revenues for the year. This extra effort on the part of the country will have to be one related to the communities wherein it is made, having regard to the conditions that obtain. I could not give an antecedent expression of opinion that might satisfy my hon. friend, but I told him that with respect to every province except one, and the premier of that province is writing a letter stating his position, we have already taken steps and obtained from them indications of the work they thought they could do which would be federal in its character, and undertakings which might be regarded as appropriate for joint effort. We have in addition, of course, the reports of our own engineers.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Let me give a concrete illustration of what I have in mind. In Winnipeg for a number of years we have been requiring a neiw post office and a new custom house. In times like these when there is so much unemployment I think that work of this kind should be undertaken. They are not works the expenditure on which would come out of the revenues of the country, but are capital expenditures. I am wondering whether under the provisions of this bill the government have in contemplation works of this nature.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A committee* of the
citizens of Winnipeg sent representatives to this city. They met the government and presented their case. They presented it also in writing. The attitude that may be taken with respect to the matters referred to will depend altogether on the general position as indicated by the province of Manitoba and also the municipalities as they relate their position to that of the province. Whether or not the works mentioned will be undertaken has not been, decided, and naturally will not be until such time as this measure having been adopted the activities under it will begin; but if every member of the house were to rise in his place and mention the works that might be done we would remain here rather a long time. For the information of the house I may say that I have asked the Minister of Labour, as soon as this bill becomes law, to communicate with every mem-22110-284}
her of this house, regardless of political affiliations, and ask him for just such information as that to which the hon. gentleman has directed attention, and the Minister of Labour is making the necessary effort in that direction. It was thought very undesirable to send out and ask for information of that kind before this bill was submitted to the house; for it would have involved such claims as might have made it almost impossible for the government to contemplate the position with any degree of equanimity.


Ernest Lapointe: There will be some
representations coming afterwards.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that they will all come afterwards-I hope my hon. friend did not misunderstand me. The letter has not been sent, and will nob be. sent, to anyone until after this measure becomes law.


Ernest Lapointe: It is postponing the
trouble.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will admit that, but it is better to postpone it than to have it thrown upon one in the form in which it would have been had those communications been sent before. I think it only fair to state that to the house now, it being well along on Saturday afternoon. Otherwise it might well have been that the progress of the. measure would have been entirely impeded, instead of only partially, by the recital of claims of the various constituencies for consideration.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is one of the most candid ministerial statements that I have heard.


Mr. NEILL:: The information just furnished iby the Prime Minister has forestalled much of the information I was going to ask for. I have no intention of putting forward the claims of my own particular district at this moment. Paragraph (a) provides for the construction of public works, and I take it that it is the intention of the government to proceed with such. I rather inferred from the remarks of the Prime Minister that he intended under this bill to supplement what should have been in the estimates for public works but was not. That is to his own advantage as Finance minister, for this reason: Any money that comes out of the loans for relief will, of course, be treated in a different category from the ordinary public works expenditures as provided for in the estimates, which have to come out of revenue, and if the Finance minister does necessary public works out of relief money he will be just that muich ahead in balancing his budget. This same section was in the act last year, and so
4478	COMMONS
Farm and Unemployment Relief
far as British Columbia was concerned notching, so far as I know, was done under it for the reason, I think, that the money was allocated to the provinces on a basis of each party paying so much. There was less reason for federal work last year in any case, because the public works estimates for the year had been ordinarily sufficient, but this year, owing to the need for economy, the public works estimates, as we all know, some of us to our cost, have been very severely cut down. I think this affords a very appropriate means of supplementing them. There is certain work which will have to be done, and to postpone it is in many cases a pure waste of money because it will cost much more to replace those works in a year or two than it would cost to do the work now. I think I gathered enough from the Prime Minister's remarks to reassure myself in that respect.
The other point on which I Should like a little more information is with reference to paragraph (e) which provides for assisting the provinces, cities, towns and municipalities, by loaning them moneys or guaranteeing repayment of moneys. In many cases we have got far beyond that point. Even if the Dominion or provinces were willing to lend money to the smaller municipalities, we cannot take it because the law forbids us to borrow more than a certain proportion, and we have already borrowed that proportion. Even if the government were to come in as a second mortgagee, it would only make our position worse. Paragraph (c) goes on to say "or in such other manner as may be deemed necessary or advisable." But that is somewhat vague. I notice that in last year's bill it said that they would make straight grants. They do not use the word "grants" in this bill. It says that the government may assist the provinces and municipalities "by loaning moneys thereto or guaranteeing repayment of moneys thereby." Also last year it was laid down in the regulations, if not in the act, that the cost would be allotted in certain proportions, 25 per cent by the province. 25 per cent by the Dominion, and 50 per cent by the municipality. We are not told anything about that in this bill. What I want is an assurance that despite the pajrtfcularity of this language, which would appear to confine it only to loaning moneys to municipalities or guaranteeing repayment of moneys thereby, there will still be just the same opportunity to assist the municipalities, and possibly the provinces, by grants to the extent they require, without requiring repayment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I explained, I received a telegram the day after the bill was
[Mr. Neill.3
introduced on behalf of a large number of settlers in Saskatchewan who said that they did not wish to take money unless they gave a promise to repay it. So far as the federal government making direct grants to municipalities is concerned, I can only say to the hon. gentleman that the matter has not seriously engaged our attention; the relations between the provinces and the Dominion would be a very serious matter if they were directed along that line.


Charles A. Stewart: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But every representation that has been made will receive serious consideration.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister claims that we must not deal with the municipalities, we must deal with the provinces; but last year the dominion government, quite properly perhaps, imposed a stipulation that the municipality should put up fifty per cent, which was rather a harsh condition. In that way the Dominion was dealing directly with the municipality. Therefore, suppose a municipality went to the province and said, "We cannot pay this," the province might reply, "We cannot help you because the Dominion insisted that you should put up fifty per cent."


Mr. REID:: Has the Prime Minister considered the question of registration? I am prompted to ask owing to the fact that last winter hundreds of people flocked illegally into British Columbia.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What do you mean by
"illegally"?


Thomas Reid: Through the highways and
b3'ways.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is not illegal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question of the
registration of all those who may be out of work, especially in the province of British Columbia, has been taken up with the local government. It has been regarded as being the duty of the provincial, the city and the the town authorities to secure that information.


Charles A. Stewart: I am beginning to be afraid that by keeping silent one's attitude towards this matter will be misconstrued.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the idea.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Are you beginning to
worry?


Charles A. Stewart: I have not changed my mind towards this bill in any

Farm and Unemployment Relief
single particular. When it was introduced I said that the governor in council was usurping the powers of parliament, and I still think so. The business of the government is to carry out the behests of parliament-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: -and this is a direct reversal of that particular power which the government are asking for at the present time. But there may be some doubt about the fixation of amounts where moneys are to be spent through the agency of the provinces, and I take it from what the Prime Minister has said that that method will be pursued. I can scarcely understand how any other method could be pursued, because to reach the municipalities the federal government must go through the provincial government. In such a case I can well understand it would be difficult to estimate the amounts required. But in subsection (a) the government are asking for authority to construct federal public buildings, railways, canals and highways. Highways of course, are still under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments, and I assume that if there is assistance for highway construction the work will be done through the medium of the provincial governments. But I think the government might very well have made some effort to present to parliament an estimate of the amount that they wish to spend by designating where buildings would be put up, and the type of buildings, and so with respect to canals or other public works that they are going to undertake. Surely some estimate could have been made of the cost of such federal works so that parliament could have granted a definite sum for the purpose. As I said before, the government are going to pass this bill by the sheer strength of their majority. I have no hesitancy in saying that so far as I am aware they will do their very best to spend money economically and spend as little of it as seems to be necessary. But on the other hand nothing has been said so far to convince me that the government is pursuing the proper policy in asking for a blank cheque, for this is nothing more than a request to be granted authority to borrow money and spend it where they like, directly in opposition to anything that we on this side of the house may say with respect to the matter. But let it be known that so far as we are concerned, we make our protest in the strongest kind of language against this usurpation of power on the part of the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to make one suggestion to my right hon.
friend, which I hope he will receive in good part, and which I believe would be helpful in the administration of this act. I am sure that of the amounts paid out it will be desired that as much money as possible shall go to the persons who actually perform labour as a means of obtaining relief. I gather that many municipalities may not be in a position to make any proportionate arrangement such as was made last year. Might I suggest that the minister in charge of the administration of the act keep in mind the desirability if possible, of inserting in all contracts with municipalities or provinces, certainly in most of them, a clause which would oblige those communities or organizations which may be receiving any federal money for relief purposes to see that the whole, or nearly as much of the whole as possible is spent out only in payment to labour. Let me give but one illustration which will throw light on what I mean. I imagine the building of highways will be one feature of the work to be carried on. I suggest that before any municipality or province be entitled to receive federal moneys under this act it be obliged to incur all the costs of administration, of superintendence, of equipment, supplies, materials and the like in connection with the particular service being performed. This would be a real check on wastefulness and would ensure the money paid out under the provisions of this act going direct into the hands of those who do the actual work. I have given a little thought and study to this question of unemployment relief, and I know that the method that I have suggested has been adopted in other countries with most satisfactory results. This method of cooperation might well be carried to the point where farmers and others who have horses or vehicles or tools, and who reside in the community in which most of the construction is being carried on, might be asked to contribute towards the work by supplying what they could in this way, the dominion's contribution being limited to moneys going to pay for the actual labour perfomed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This affords me an opportunity to say what I should like to say now. My right hon. friend and I had a discussion the other evening about these matters, and I availed myself of the opportunity to secure from him a record of his own experience when he was administering considerable funds in connection with a rather serious condition that prevailed in Colorado. I am grateful to him for the information which he gave me, and which this afternoon he has mentioned without indicating his part in con-
4480	COMMONS
Farm and Unemployment Relief
nection with it. I think there should be in every constituency a local committee of citizens to see to it that no one suffers, for if the people themselves do not have some sympathetic consideration towards one another to warrant that action, it is hardly fair to expect that governments shall carry the whole of that particular kind of load.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the committee act in an advisory capacity?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be its own
business.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I want to draw the attention of my right hon. friend to one point in connection with subsection (c). As to subsection (a), which has to do with the construction of public works, I do not intend to elaborate on what I said in regard to a similar clause last year, that if the Minister of Public Works were making an appropriation of S2,000, ordinarily he would have to give the house full details. This, of course, is a direct departure from that rule, but I do not suppose any protest will have any effect. I want to refer particularly to clause (c), however, having to do with assistance to provinces, cities, towns, municipalities and other bodies. In many places in the dried out areas one of their greatest difficulties is that for two or three years they have not had crops and have consequently been unable to pay their taxes, which have accumulated on the property. In many cases the property is liable to pass out of the ownership of those who have built, broken, fenced and otherwise developed it and worked upon it. I was wondering what my right hon. friend had in mind with regard to assisting municipalities at least to postpone the payment of taxes so as to not have people in that position deprived of their homes because of their inability to pay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No one knows better
than my hon. and learned friend that only the provinces can deal with moratoriums and with the question of relief from the payment of taxes. As to what action may be taken by municipalities where taxes have not been paid and where the property of taxpayers is imperilled, that cannot be antecedently stated with any degree of satisfaction. I can only assume that the provinces will put that point forward rather strongly. I know in some cases I have already suggested to the provinces that they should consider what action they are going to take to protect those who may lose their homes through non-payment of taxes.
[Mr. Bennett. 1


Mr. COOTE:: There is one question I
should like to ask the Prime Minister on this section. One of the very worst feature* of the situation, at least in western Canada, is in connection with the debts of many people, and particularly of farmers, some of which carry 10 per cent interest. Under this act has the Dominion government power to see that a rate of interest not in excess of say 5 per cent should be charged in any case? I wonder whether under section 2 the government would not have the power to take such action.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Macleod brought this matter to my attention some time ago. I told him I would look into it, since which time I have been able to do so although it may be that the opinion I express will be subject to revision. The Dominion parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over interest rates; the evidence of that will be found in the Interest Act. But where contracts have been made the province has supreme and exclusive control, and the jurisdiction of this parliament is gone. That is, we may legislate as to the maximum rate of interest, as we have done, but where a contract has been made the provincial authorities, and they only, may deal with the situation.


Mr. SPENCER:: I should like to remind
the Prime Minister that although the federal government decided, under the Bank Act, what the limitation of interest should be, at the same time the government does not restrict people from charging more than is supposed to be the limit.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Under individual contracts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the difficulty about the contract.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4

Orders and regulations.
George Halsey Perley: I desire to move the following amendment:
That all the words after the word "as" in the second line be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"may be demed necessary or desirable for relief of distress, providing employment and within the competence of parliament in maintaining peace, order and good government throughout Canada."


William Richard Motherwell: I should like to suggest to the Prime Minister that when the regulations are being drafted under this bill he consider such cases as I am going to describe. The drought area extends considerably farther north than it did during the

Farm and Unemployment Relief
previous two years. There are a few men with a little reserve left in the bank or elsewhere who, unless they can get fodder, we will say, through the means which will be employed in the granting of relief, will be obliged to buy in small lots and pay regular freight rates. If it would bs possible for them to get carload rates, which will probably be the *way in which relief will be dispensed, it would mean a great deal to them. Will these men be able to do that, or will they be obliged to buy on their own, at less than carload rates and under the regular freight rate? I think that is worth considering in drafting the regulations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no doubt that what my hon. friend says requires the closest consideration but primarily it must be a provincial matter. All I can say is that those who are charged with the responsibility under this act will cooperate to the fullest possible extent to ensure the best results possible.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-Enforcement of orders and regulations.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have just one word in regard to this section. I can scarcely hope the government will change its wording, but it is a little rough on those who may be affected adversely by some error on the part of the administration. As I read it, the government have power to make any orders and regulations they please and to vary, extend or revoke those orders as they see fit. But if in the process of making, revoking or extending the orders they make mistakes there shall be no redress on the part of those who may suffer therefrom. Under this section the government is free to do what it likes; it can make as many mistakes as it pleases but there is no redress for those who may be adversely affected as a consequence.


Charles A. Stewart: What is the reason for that provision?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a usual provision in statutes of this kind; to leave it otherwise is an invitation to claim against the, crown under every possible circumstance. It has not been unusual for the crown to take cognizance of situations such as those mentioned by the right hon. gentleman. This gives no ground for legal action, while stiff leaving the subject the right to complain, and in the estimates from year to year usually there will be found some recognition of that fact. That is all that is meant.
I may as well make this further statement at once. It was suggested that the courts might be wiped out by regulations made under this statute. No such thought was in the mind of the government, and that was indicated by the amendment to the previous section. It must be remembered that the establishment of the courts is in the hands of the provincial legislatures, and no power here is conveyed to destroy or wipe out those courts or to establish new ones.


Mr. RALSTON:: That statement had not reference to the establishment of courts but to the reference of questions to any authority. It was not the wiping out of any courts; it was only the utilizing of various authorities for the determination of offences under these regulations. My hon. friend the former Minister of the Interior asked why this provision was necessary, and I thought that was the question to which my right hon. friend was directing his answer. That is what we should like to know. Why is it necessary to provide for a reference of offences under these regulations for trial, not to judicial authorities but to some other officers or authorities as are mentioned here?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid my hon. friend has not exercised his usual care in reading this section. The words are:
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 ....
These are the existing officers and authorities. This does not establish new ones. Such officers and authorities as the govemnor in council may prescribe are the existing officers and authorities. The word "authorities" is used because some of those who are responsible for the discharge of obligations and duties before the courts might not properly be called officers but authorities. It is the court officers and authorities such as may be prescribed. They are not a creation of this government except in the sense that the Supreme Court of Canada, the exchequer court and other federal courts-


Ernest Lapointe: Any other court that
parliament might establish.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; but apart from that this does not establish a court. This could not in any sense be said to establish a court. These words are used in the usual sense.


James Layton Ralston: It does not sound as if it were referable to judicial officers. My right hon. friend has referred to other statutes
4482	COMMONS
Farm and Unemployment Relief
of this kind. I took occasion to look at the War Measures Act, and there is no such provision there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not the War
Measures Act.


James Layton Ralston: No, it is a good deal
broader. But on this point-the matter of regulations-the provisions of the War Measures Act ought to be sufficient. My right hon. friend suggests that "officers and authorities" means "judicial officers"; that is his interpretation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not "judicial officers."
The provincial authorities establish courts and appoint the officers, and this authorizes "such court officers and authorities" to be named for the purpose of carrying the regulations into effect.


James Layton Ralston: I submit not, though perhaps I am wrong. I thought that the court officers and authorities were those who might try the offences under the regulations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


James Layton Ralston: That seemed to be the
reading of the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Look at it and you will see it is not that.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know what court officers and authorities are for if not for that purpose. I thought they were the ones to whom the offences might be referred.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In his political zeal-


James Layton Ralston: No political zeal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -I am sure my hon. friend wishes to be fair. All orders and regulations of the governor in council, the section declares, shall have the force of law and shall be enforced in such manner and by such court officers and authorities, and so on. That does not in any sense take away the jurisdiction of the courts. But a constable, a sheriff, a bailiff, or other authorized court officer, may be directed to do these things.


James Layton Ralston: He does not enforce the regulations; that is my point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The sheriff?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; the whole theory
is that these are the officers who do enforce the regulations. Certainly the courts do not enforce them, but the officers of the law.


James Layton Ralston: That is what I am getting at.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And these men are the
officers of the courts. We do not create the courts.


James Layton Ralston: I am perfectly satisfied to have the court carry out the execution. But we want to see that trials do not take place before court officers or other authorities other than those properly constituted for the purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No such intention was
in the mind of anyone connected with the measure.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
see any necessity for having in this bill any provision that a person suffering monetary loss by reason of a change in the regulations, with which he may not be kept informed, shall have recourse against the government. He has no recourse anyway, unless the government is willing to grant it. These regulations are bound to be changed. Undoubtedly this is a new venture in many respects, and regulations that would seem to be workable under ordinary conditions will be found to be not adapted to the circumstances that may arise. The regulations may be changed at any session of the governor in council. A man in perfect good faith enters into some business arrangement under a regulation, and he wakes up some morning to find that the regulation is changed; and the statute provides that he has no recourse, except by the ordinary method of bringing the matter to the attention of the government and obtaining redress through government channels or through reference to the exchequer court or some other body. I do not see any necessity for including in the statute an obnoxious reference of this kind.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Fines and penalties.
Edward James Young: I believe the penalties
mentioned are intended for those who deliberately set out to disturb the peace. As this section reads, however, these penalties might apply to anyone who did not carry out the regulations in regard to the administration of relief. Let me illustrate. Last year we passed a relief measure and voted so much money to be spent by the municipalities in cooperation with the provinces. Regulations were drawn up by the provinces. In a certain municipality the council looked over the regulations and said, "We cannot carry these out. If we do there might arise a situation in which we should be personally responsible for the expenditure." And they refused to

Farm and Unemployment Relief
act until they had positive assurance that this would not be the case. With a section like this in force, an arrogant official could throw a man into gaol. I do not think that is the intention of the government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We have no idea
what orders and regulations are contemplated.


The CHAIRMAN:: I would remind the
hon. gentleman that we are on section 6, fines and penalties.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is what I am discussing. It seems to me that these penalties are extremely severe, and we have not been given much idea what the orders and regulations are. If this has reference merely to the orders and regulations with regard to the relief measures, these are very severe penalties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: From the fact that a penalty seems severe, it does not necessarily follow that it will be the penalty exacted. The penalty is not to exceed a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment for a term of more than three years. I have in mind

well, I must not mention cases that have been considered in this house; I will forget the one I had in mind. I pointed out, however, that the federal power, in dealing with some of these bodies, must entrust the exercise of authority to those whom we name, and if -they play us false we want to be able to deal with -them summarily. Suppose there were embezzlement or fraud. There was brought to my attention the case of one charged with responsibility who had derived great benefit while those who should have received assistance were defrauded and deceived. I think there should be a power to deal with such persons promptly, effectively and severely.


Alan Webster Neill: I must protest against this clause. It provides that one justice of the peace, a man very often practically ignorant of law, may sentence a man to a fine of $1,000 and to imprisonment for three years. Let us suppose that there are two or three hundred men in a logging camp. A few simple rules are provided for the convenience of the men. One is that they must go to bed at a certain hour, there must be no talking after a certain time, they must not smoke in the bush during warm weather, and so on. In some camps the men are fined a small sum when they break the rules, or warning is given and then they are discharged if another infraction oocurs. The minister has hinted that it may be necessary to put men into a camp. Those men will be in charge of one man. The camp will probably be located in some remote place and there will have to be a justice of the peace on the
premises so to speak. That man will be nominated by the head of the camp and will be under his influence. A man may break one of the simple rules of the camp, or other rules may be made, say in connection -with seditious talk. A man may say, "This is a poor dump," or "I do not think much of the blank, blank government." This justice of the peace incited by his superior officer may take advantage of this section and give the man a very heavy sentence.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That -could not be done
under this section.


Alan Webster Neill: I am talking about section 6.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What the hon. member is saying has no real reference to section 6. This section reads:
The	governor	in	council	may	prescribe
penalties,-
A limitation is being placed upon the penalties which the governor in council may prescribe.


Alan Webster Neill: I will read the section. It
reads:
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 they also prescribe whether such penalty shall be imposed upon summary conviction or upon indictment.
I think that covers the case. If it was to be by indictment only it would not matter so much. The minister says that it does not necessarily mean that a man will be fined a thousand dollars, but I know of justices of the peace who would look at that section and say, "By jove, I will have to fine this man one thousand dollars."


Richard Bedford Bennett: The discretion is not
there. The governor in council will assume the -responsibility of fixing what the penalty shall be.


Alan Webster Neill: Is a new criminal code to
be created?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is to prevent that
very thing; this is to be something which will last only during the lifetime of the bill. This is to cover offences which may be incidental to the administration of great sums of money.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister told the hon.
member for Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) that the courts would be invoked.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely, but this is not
a criminal code.
4484	COMMONS
Farm and Unemployment Relief


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. member goes
astray in thinking that the penalties are fixed by this section. This is simply a limitation upon the powers of the governor in council to fix the penalty, and unless the governor in council goes crazy it is not going to fix a penalty of one thousand, dollars or three years in prison for a man going to bed at half-past ten o'clock when he should have gone at ten o'clock.


Alan Webster Neill: Power is given to do anything.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: After the penalties are
fixed for particular offences then they may be enforced. In the distribution of large sums of money through various employees more extensive opportunity will be created for fraud than exists under ordinary circumstances. The governor in council should be allowed considerable discretion in fixing the penalties to be imposed for such frauds.


Alan Webster Neill: A man who embezzles
public money can be proceeded against under the criminal code.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This does not take that
away, this is to provide merely for the special circumstances mentioned in the bill. The attorneys general, the criminal code and the machinery of the criminal law will be still there. I thought I made it clear some time ago that the fixing of these offences to be dealt with by regulation and the power of fixing the penalty were asked for in order to ensure some degree of, shall I say happiness among those who have to do with these matters rather than the opposite. Instead of making the burden greater we have endeavoured to make the administration simpler.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No prosecution could
be taken other than through the ordinary provincial authorities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


James Layton Ralston: By way of summary conviction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the case in our
courts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It seems to me
that a regulation of this kind could be used to intimidate the men. If this were merely to provide for the punishment of fraud by officials, I would not have any objection, but this would apply to men who are seeking relief or who are engaged on government works. Although the penalty in many cases may not be as severe as the maximum, that
rMr. Bennett.]
penalty could be used for purposes of intimidation. It seems to me that we are setting up a temporary criminal code. We are changing to the status of crimes what might be regarded as ordinary misdemeanors or infractions of certain regulations. I do not think an infraction of a regulation or an ordinary misdemeanor should be put in the same category as a crime, even although that crime will exist only until March 1, 1932. It is a serious thing thus to adopt a new criminal code, even if it is only a temporary adoption.


Charles A. Stewart: This
is one section of the bill which I think I can support. Evidently the government is willing to trust parliament to instruct them as to how far they can go with penalties. The other sections are unlimited but in this case the government is being restrained to one thousand dollars or three years in prison.


Alan Webster Neill: This act expires in March
1932: Supposing a man is sentenced under it to three year's imprisonment, would that imprisonment cease on March 1, 1932?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely it is unnecessary
to answer that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Duration of act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend promised that he would delete the word "thirty" in this section, to make it read:
This act shall expire on the first day of March, 1932.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am quite satisfied to
do that.


George Halsey Perley: I will move that the word "thirty" be deleted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have an amendment to offer in the form of a section to be added. I have endeavoured to draft my amendment in such a way as to anticipate any difficulty which may arise in connection with its acceptance. In the measure for relief which was passed at the special session there was a clause which required that a report containing a full and correct statement of the moneys expended under the act should be laid before parliament within fifteen days after the opening of the next session. The bill as now amended will expire on the first day of March. It has been promised that the session of

Farm and Unemployment Relief
parliament will open not later than the fifteenth of February or thereabouts. It may take a little time after the act has expired before a report can be made. Instead therefore of fixing the time within which a report should be made relative to the opening of the session, I am proposing to fix it relative to the date of the expiration of the act. I desire to move that the bill be amended by adding the following section as section 8 thereof:
A report shall be laid before parliament within fifteen days after the expiration of the act-
Not after the opening of parliament.
-containing a full and correct statement of the moneys expended under this act and the purposes to which they have been applied, together with copies of all orders and regulations of the governor in council made under the provisions thereof.
I think that is a reasonable request. Of course when the house assembles a return could be moved for all these particulars and documents, but I believe the insertion of this clause in the act will help to effect a certain control over these matters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman has given the answer, that is that a motion for a return would always be in older. But in view of what he has said, I shall be glad to accept the amendment if he will make it section 7 and call the present section 7, section 8.


Mr. TURNBULL:: What would happen if parliament were not in session?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will have to be. The right hon. gentleman is taking it for granted that parliament will be in session.


Franklin White Turnbull: It should read "within fifteen days after the opening of parliament".


Ernest Lapointe: May I ask whether those orders and regulations cannot be published in the Canada Gazette?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was hoping the hon. gentleman would not raise that point, because it is obvious, if we have to do some of the matters of detail which I hope we shall not have to do and the provinces will do, this will cause a great deal of unnecessary work, and as this return asks to have them all brought down, I thought that might cover it. I had anticipated the question would be asked. I do not think any purpose will be served, but if it is desired we can provide for publication. There will be a number of very small matters that it seems to me will have
to be dealt with if we are not able to escape what I conceive to be the constitutional obligations of others and have to accept them ourselves.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On the preamble.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I move in amendment
to the preamble:
That in the sixth and seventh lines the words "in the national interest" be struck out and be replaced by the following:
"necessary for the maintenance of peace, order and good government of Canada"-
This would make it read: .
And whereas it is necessary for the maintenance of peace, order and good government of Canada that parliament should support-
And so on. Then strike out in the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth lines the words:
And the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada.
In other words, as I explained this morning, this places the whole thing on the basis of legislation for the maintenance of peace, order and good government of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This morning when the
hon. member for Lafoelle made the observations he did, I followed without difficulty his line of argument. But to enable us to exercise these powers of relief there must be somewhere a declaration of the national character of the calamity or of the difficulties that have to be overcome, and in order to make it easier than it would otherwise be, we have adopted the language of the British North America Act "peace, order and good government." In that we have predicated our constitutional right within limitations, as the hon. member for Shellburne-Yarmauth mentioned last evening, to undertake this work. I think it must be common ground to every member, whether he be a lawyer or a layman, that this is not any part of the work of the Dominion parliament. That is the real basis of this difficulty and in order to found jurisdiction there must be somewhere a declaration. A declaration about war is, of course, a national matter. If you mention the word "calamity", it might be that it was referable to one section of the country-I am talking about relief now-but when we use the words of the constitution, "peace, order and good government", as the former Minister of Justice pointed out, the case of Russell and the Queen would form some little foundation for the exercise of that power.
4486	COMMONS
Farm and Unemployment Relief
although recent decisions have cast some doubt upon that case. I think if the hon. member for Labelle will look at the preamble again he will find that the sequence in which he puts it makes it difficult to say it is such a declaration as founds a constitutional power with respect to relief. During recess I looked at it, and I do not think the use of the words in the sequence in which he desires to employ them would enable us constitutionally, without question, to do this work. I asked the Secretary of State to look at it, and perhaps he will speak on the matter.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is obvious the amendment of the hon. member for Labelle would strike out from this bill all authority which is now vested in the governor in council to take measures for the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada. He has suggested striking out the words "in the national interest " and inserting in lieu thereof the words:
Necessary for the maintenance of peace, order and good government of Canada.
But when he strikes out at the end of the paragraph the words-
Maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada.
-by striking out those words from the position they occupy in the preamble, he takes away the authority which is now vested in the governor in council to make rules and orders for maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada. I think he is taking away from the bill far more than he is adding to it. He is adding no new constitutional provision, but he is depriving the governor in council of all authority to make orders for the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada in connection with the carrying out of these relief measures.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Surely the Secretary of State does not mean to say that outside of the new powers asked by the government in its legislation of seven months, the government has no authority to execute the existing laws for the maintenance of peace, order and good government. I want to meet the very object of the government, and the object under this language is to afford relief to sufferers and maintain peace, order and good government. I would leave to them unhampered all the powers that they enjoy at the present time either under the criminal code, the Militia Act or any other act. With great respect for the -legal knowledge of the Secretary of State, I think he is giving an 
interpretation to my amendment which the words do not carry. I think I am meeting the views of the government as expressed by the Minister of Justice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid that the hon. member for Labelle has not quite appreciated the full force of his proposed amendment, because the declaration that it is in the national interest I think every lawyer within sound of my voice will regal'd as absolutely essential if we are going to give any relief at all.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I have no obj ection to leaving that in. Suppose you put it "in the national interest and necessary."


Richard Bedford Bennett: The preamble, as the
hon. gentleman knows, in the interpretation of a statute does not bear a decisive part, but I think the legal members of the house who sit opposite will agree that a declaration that it is in the national interest must be followed by something more if you are undertaking a constitutional obligation that rests upon the provinces. That is why that language is used. I do say that having regard to the doubts passed upon the decision to which reference has been made, it is not as powerful language as might be employed, but it at least serves the purpose. I would ask my hon. friend not to press the amendment under the circumstances because it deals only with the preamble and the preamble is only for the purpose of laying the foundation upon which to exercise a constitutional power which, under the British North America Act, as the hon. member for Labelle properly said this morning, rests with the provinces and not with the Dominion.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
On the title:
William Richard Motherwell: After this bill becomes law I understand that the first act towards putting it into operation will be the writing of a letter by the Minister of Labour to each member of the House of Commons asking us our views as to how best this money can be spent in our respective constituencies-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not quite that.


William Richard Motherwell: In the direction
of unemployment relief. After that is done, what next? My understanding is that the administration will be part provincial and

Farm and Unemployment Relief
part federal, or a combination possibly of both. I just want to know what all this is about because when I go home I am sure that I shall be asked about it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What I said this afternoon was that the Minister of Labour, the appropriate minister, would communicate with every member of the house as to what federal undertakings, as distinguished from others, they might be interested in their particular constituencies, but necessarily the province itself must be the body in the first instance with whom we communicate. Some of the provinces suggest that they do not require so much. I just wanted to make that clear.


William Richard Motherwell: That is clear,
thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. BENNETT moved the third reading of the bill.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Anderson (Toronto-	McGillis,
High Park),	McGregor,
Arthurs,	McLure,
Beaubier,	Maloney,
Bennett,	Murphy,
Bury,	Myers,
Campbell,	Plunkett,
Cantley,	Rhodes,
Chaplin,	Ryckman,
Coote,	Senn,
Cowan (LongLake),	Shaver,
Dickie,	Spankie,
Esling,	Speakman,
Gardiner,	Spence,
Gobeil,	Spencer,
Gordon,	Sproule,
Hay,	Stanley,
Irvine,	Stewart (Leeds),
Kennedy	Stewart (Lethbridge)
(Peace River),	Stitt (Selkirk),
Kennedy (Winnipeg	Sutherland,
South Centre),	Swanston,
LaVergne,	Tetrault,
Loucks,	Thompson (Lanark),
Lucas,	Weir (Melfort),
Luchkovich,	Willis,
MacNicol,	*Wright.-51.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the said bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instruction that they have power to amend it by adding in section 2 thereof the words, "not exceeding such amounts as may be appropriated by parliament."
I would support the proposed amendment by everything that has been said on this side of the house. While we are but a mere handful now, I offer this amendment as a protest up to the last sitting of this session against the enactment being made in the form in which the bill still stands.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I oppose the amendment by everything that has been said or may be said on this side of the house, and I oppose it with the last breath that I have in this last sitting of the session.
The 'house divided on the amendment (Mr. Mackenzie King) which was negatived on the following division:
Ahearn,
Bourassa,
Brown,
Cardin,
Chevrier,
King, Mackenzie, Macinnis, McIntosh, Motherwell,
YEAS Messrs:
Neill,
Ralston,
Sanderson,
Stewart
(Edmonton West), Weir (Macdonald), Woodsworth,
Young.-16.
(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief whips).
Messrs:
Anderson (Halton), Arsenault,
Baker,
Barber.
Bell (Hamilton),
Bell (St. Antoine),
Bell (St. John Albert), Black (Halifax), Bowen,
Borvman,
Boyes,
Burns,
Cahan,
Casselman,
Charters,
Cormier,
Cotnam,
Cowan (Port Arthur), Dorion,
Duguay,
Duprd,
Duranleau,
Edwards,
Embury,
Ernst,
Fortin,
Fraser (Cariboo), Gagnon,
Garland (Carleton), Geary,
Gott,
Guthrie,
Hackett,
Hanson
(York-S unbury), Harris,
Johnstone,
Jones,
Lafleche,
Factor,
Thauvette,
Bertrand,
Totzke,
Mereier (St. Henri), Raymond,
Dubois,
Dubuc,
McKenzie (Assiniboia), Hanson (Skeena), Deslauriers,
Butcher,
Rinfret,
Blair,
Howard,
Dumaine,
Hurtubise,
Ilsley,
Verville,
Denis,
Ferland,
Boucher,
Elliott,
Bothwell,
Spencer,
Fafard,
MacMillan (Huron), Boulanger,
Goulet,
Mereier (Laurier),
Rutherford,
Lapointe',
Perras,
Veniot,
J acobs.
Donnelly,
MacLean (Prince), Girouard,
4488	COMMONS
Farm and Unemployment Reliej
Laurin,
Lawson,
Lennox,
McDade,
MoGibbon,
Manion,
Matthews,
Morand,
Mullins,
Nicholson,
Peck
Perley (Qu'Appelle), Perley, Sir George, Pettit,
Porteous,
Robinson,
Koss,
Kowe,
Ryerson,
Sauve,
Short,
Simpson (Simcoe),
Simpson (Algoma), Smith (Cumberland), Smoke,
Spotton,
Stevens,
Stinson,
Stirling,
Sullivan,
Thompson (Simcoe), Tummon,
Turnbull,
Weese,
White (London), White (Mount Royal), Wilson,
Fontaine,
Gray,
Pouliot,
Dupuis,
Power,
Euler,	_
Moore (Ontario), Parent,
Howden,
Bradette,
Beaubien,
Munn,
Mareil,
Bouchard,
Macphail (Miss), Desrochers,
Roberge,
Lacroix,
Taylor,
Seguin,
Heenan,
Fraser (Northumberland,
Casgrain,

Cayley,
Hepburn,
Malcolm,
Hall.
Hanbury,
Brassette,
Robitaille,
St.-Pere,
McPhee,
Buckley,
Gershaw,
Fournier,
Vallance.


Mr. McDADE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Laprarie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. LAWSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Being late, I am precluded from announcing my intention.


Mr. BARBER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke). Had I voted, I' would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: I was paired with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. SIMPSON (North Simcoe):: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BURNS:: I was paired with the hon member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BROWN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BOWMAN:: I was paired wth the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted,	I	would	have	voted	against	the
amendment.


Mr. DUPRE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Ferland). Had I voted,	I	would	have	voted	against	the
amendment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was paired with the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


John Campbell Elliott: I was paired with the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. TAYLOR:: I was paired with the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Smoke). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Ernest Lapointe: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BOYES:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Deslauriers). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


George Brecken Nicholson: I was paired with the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.

Beauhamois Power Bills


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: I was paired with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Motion (Mr. Bennett) agreed to on the same division reversed, and bill read the third time and passed.



MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SECRETARY


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the following message:
Ottawa, 31st July, 1931.
Sir,-
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable L. P. Duff, Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber August 1st at 11 o'clock p.m., for the purpose of proroguing the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to be, Bir,
Your obedient servant,
James F. Crowdy,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General. The Honourable,
The Speaker of the House of Commons, Ottawa.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. BEAUHARNOIS POWER PROJECT



BEAUHARNOIS LIGHT, HEAT AND POWER COMPANY, LIMITED-RIGHT TO DIVERT WATER-WORKS FOR GENERAL ADVANTAGE OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 143, respecting the Beauhamois Light, Heat and Power Company, Limited, and Bill No. 144, to declare certain works of the Beauhamois Light, Heat and Power Company, Limited, to be for the general advantage of Canada- Mr. Bennett-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, as I said
this morning when moving the second reading of these bills, the right of hon. members to discuss every detail of the measures was reserved. At this stage I cannot usefully add anything to what I have already said as to the principle of the two measures in question. One bill adopts the usual language in such cases in declaring that certain works and undertakings are for the general advantage of Canada, as far as what may be described as the canal part is concerned. The other bill deals with the internal management and control of the enterprise, and in order that no question may arise as to the grant of water
which it has obtained by lease from the province of Quebec being recognized by this parliament in view of what has transpired, provision is made for that matter in the measure.
My hon. friend and colleague the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) has given much time and attention to matters of this kind, and I have asked him to deal with certain phases of the measure. When my hon. friend the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has expressed his views we shall be glad to endeavour to answer any questions which may be asked in order that not only the principle of the measure may be considered but that any questions which may arise out of their consideration may be answered and dealt with as we proceed.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, there are two bills to consider, and I think my right hon. friend has taken the right course in discussing them together, because the questions that may be raised in connection with each bill are identical and it will avoid repetition *to have those questions discussed immediately.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: With the unanimous
consent of the committee.


Ernest Lapointe: That was understood.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was understood
during the discussion this afternoon.


Ernest Lapointe: One of the bills declares that the canal to be constructed, or being constructed by Beauhamois is a work for the general advantage of Canada. Contained in the same bill is a very important provision reserving the rights of Quebec, if any. Of course I would take rather strong exception to those two words, "if any."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I intend to move an amendment to that section.


Ernest Lapointe: That will facilitate
matters considerably.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If my hon. friend desires
I will give him the form of the amendment now. It has to do with Bill No. 144. In drafting bills sometimes one puts a position much more emphatically than is necessary, and I have discussed Bill No. 144 with Mr. Geoffrion, K.C., who has gone over it with me clause by clause. Finally Mr. Geoffrion wrote me this note:
Dear Mr. Cahan:
I am prepared to advise the Quebec government that this bill is acceptable.
I would prefer "any right" to "rights if any." This is less of a challenge.
As we have no desire whatever to challenge the rights of the province of Quebec, such as they are or as they may hereafter be deter-
Beauhamois Power Bills

mined to fee, I have prepared an amendment which will strike out the words "rights if any" and insert in lieu thereof the words "any right." That section of the bill will then read:
Nothing in this act contained shall be deemed to affect any right that may be vested in the province of Quebec over or in respect of the use of the waters of the river St. Lawrence for the development of hydro-electric power.
In due course I intend to move that amendment. In order that we may understand the exact position I may tell my hon. friend that in the same spirit I propose to suggest two other amendments to Bill No. 143. Section 2 of that bill now reads:
The Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company, Limited, its successors or assigns, is hereby granted the right to divert ....
Then it goes on to say how many cubic feet of water may be diverted. By some of those who have discussed the bill with me, including Mr. Geoffrion, that was taken as an assumption on the part of parliament that it alone could grant the right to divert water from lake St. Francis, and therefore I propose to amend that section by inserting the words:
. ... in so far as it may be within the competence of parliament. . . .
That will oome after the word "assigns," so that the section will read:
The Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company, Limited, its successors or assigns, in so far as it may be within the competence of parliament, is hereby granted ....


Ernest Lapointe: This also is a great improvement.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then it was suggested to me that section 3 of the same bill should be changed. That section now reads:
No further or additional diversion of water of the river St. Lawrence shall be made by said company except with the express approval of parliament.
As members of the federal parliament, and as members of the federal government we have certain opinions as to what may be the rights of parliament in the premises, but by that section we do not wish to declare that the grant made by the legislature of the province of Quebec has no validity. That is a question to be determined by the courts and not by a committee of the house or by members of this house. Therefore I propose to insert, in lieu of the present section 3, the following:
3. The governor in council shall not consent to any further or additional diversion by said company of water of the river St. Lawrence except with the express approval of parliament.
When these clauses are reached I shall move these amendments on behalf of the government.


Ernest Lapointe: I am pleased indeed at the changes suggested by my hon. friend; they will meet, to a large extent, some of the Objections I had to the phraseology of both bills. It is well, if we are to discuss this matter with some intelligence, to define or try to define the respective rights of the Dominion and of the provinces. Some members on this side have asked me. to do so and I shall try to be brief. At confederation the provinces that then existed had all these rights and they agreed to surrender some of them to a central, Dominion parliament, creating a new government in Canada. They surrendered some of their powers, both legislative and by way of assets, revenues and property, reserving to themselves other powers and properties. So far as the legislative power is concerned, the powers of the Dominion and of the provinces are contained in sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act. In that sphere of legislative jurisdiction the Dominion was granted exclusive power of legislation on various subjects; and on all subjects, except those specially reserved to the provinces, the residue of power, so far as legislative jurisdiction is concerned, goes to the Dominion. Not so with regard to assets, revenues and properties. That part of the act is contained in the sections from 102 to 126. There, what was to be transferred to the Dominion parliament is specified. As regards public property, it is stated in section 108 that:
The public works and property of each province, enumerated in the third schedule to this act, shall be the property of Canada.
The third schedule to the act enumerates the property then belonging to the provinces, which was transferred to the Dominion authorities. For instance, there are the canals then existing, with lands and water connected therewith; and it has been decided that this means the water powers then existing connected with the canal. River and lake improvements were transferred to the Dominion, but not the rivers and the lakes. Improvements have been made on the rivers and lakes, and as the Prime Minister has said-I do not know whether it was yesterday or to-day-in the case of the harbour commission of Montreal a few years ago, it was absolutely decided and settled that "harbour improvements" there means the harbour as it existed then, and that neither the harbour authorities of Montreal nor the government of Canada could, without compensation and without proper legislation, take more of the bed of the St. Lawrence river for the purpose of harbour improvements because the. bed of the river belonged to the province. There is therefore

Beauharnois Power Bills
a difference as between the legislative jurisdiction and the proprietary rights, and an essential difference.
So far as legislative jurisdiction is concerned, what is not mentioned goes to the Dominion. The Dominion has the residue; it has jurisdiction with respect to the subjects not specifically mentioned in either section 91 or section 92. Not so when it concerns property. When it concerns property rights, the properties transferred to the Dominion are specially mentioned and described in the British North America Act, and the provinces retain their rights to property in everything else. So that if you cannot show that certain property has been transferred to the Dominion by the British North America Act, that property is vested in the provinces. For instance, the water powers connected with the canals were transferred to the Dominion and are specially enumerated; but the other water powers are not. The other water powers remain vested in the provinces.
Reference has been made to a decision of the supreme court of a year or two ago. What the Dominion claimed mainly in that reference was that where the works producing the power owe their existence to the exercise of legislative jurisdiction vested in the Dominion, the Dominion has the right, claimed there before the supreme court, to dispose of the power so created by the works made in virtue of the legislative jurisdiction of the Dominion. But the Dominion has never claimed, either in that reference or elsewhere, that when a province desires the development of water powers not the property of the Dominion, and such development does not conflict with Dominion legislation or policy, the approval of the works which the province desires to undertake can be refused under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
It might be well to show what was really decided by the court, because, if there was no formal answer to many of the questions that were referred to the court, principles were laid down which certainly serve as a guide to what should be the policy of the government of the Dominion and of the provincial governments. May I refer to the notes of Mr. Justice Duff, who delivered the judgment of the court. I shall do so briefly, but I think it is important in order that members of the committee may know exactly what the situation is. At page 212 of the Canada Supreme Court Reports of 1929, Mr. Justice Duff says:
The legislative authority in respect to "Fisheries," conferred upon the Dominion parliament by section 91, does not, it was held,-
He was referring to the fishery cases decided by the privy council. The judgment continues:
-involve the power to deal with the property of a province as if the administration of that property had been entrusted by the British North America Act, to the control of the Dominion parliament; for, as Lord Herschell, who delivered the judgment of the board, said, such a ruling would enable the Dominion to "transfer to itself property which had by the British North America Act been left to the provinces, and not vested in it."
The effect of the decisions seems to be, that neither the Dominion nor a province can take possession of a source of revenue which has been assigned to the other, and as a source of revenue, appropriate it to itself, nor, as owner, transfer it to another.
And on page 218:
But although the Dominion may, by legislation enacted in exercise of its exclusive powers relating to railways and canals, authorize the construction through the property of a province of a railway or canal, to which its jurisdiction extends, this does not involve the right to appropriate the whole beneficial interest of the site of the work (including the minerals, for example), for the purpose of making it available as an asset or source of revenue for the _ benefit of the Dominion or of the Dominion's grantees, where that site is vested in His Majesty and is, by the British North America Act, subject to the administration and control of tbe provincial legislature.
Apart from the fact that such legislation would not be legislation exclusively competent to the Dominion, it would transcend the ambit of Dominion authority touching railways or canals,_ which was not intended to enable the Dominion to take possession of sources of revenue assigned to the provinces, and by assuming the administration of them, to appropriate to itself a field of jurisdiction belonging exclusively to the provinces. Similar considerations apply to the exploitation and disposition of water-powers appropriated by the Dominion in exercise of its legislative authority in relation to canals. Assuming such an appropriation by the Dominion to be competent _ without payment of compensation, the Dominion could not constitutionally assume the administration or control of water-powers so acquired for purposes not connected with the canal.
We must, as best we can, reconcile the control by the provinces of their own assets as assets, with the exercise by the Dominion of its exclusive powers for the purposes which those powers were intended to subserve. This can only be accomplished by recognizing that the proprietary rights of the provinces may be prejudicially affected, even to the point of rendering them economically valueless, through the exercise by the Dominion of its exclusive and plenary powers of legislation under the enumerated heads of section 91. On the other hand, in giving effect to the provisions of the British North America Act, we must rigorously adhere to the radical distinction between these two classes of enactment; legislation in execution of the Dominion's legislative powers under section 91, which may, in greater or less degree, according to the circumstances and the nature

Beauharnois Power Bills

of the power, affect the proprietary rights of the provinces, and even exclude them from any effective control of their property; and, in contradistinction, legislation conceived with the purpose of intervening in the _ control and disposition of provincial assets, in a manner, which, under the enactments of that act touching the distribution of assets, revenues and liabilities, is exclusively competent to the provinces.
I should have liked to quote Lord Haldane on the fisheries case, but his ruling is to the same effect as that of Mr. Justice Duff's in the water powers reference, which I have just read.
I submit that the effect of this decision is that the water powers which do not belong to the Dominion, which did not come to it by the British North America Act, are assets of the provinces, and that the legislative control of the Dominion is limited to the requirements of navigation. The Dominion may possibly say that the whole flow of water is necessary for navigation; it does not seem that a situation would arise where the whole flow would be necessary, but the Dominion could claim that it was. However, the Dominion would be limited to the requirements of navigation, and in the use of the water for its purposes the Dominion could not take more than was necessary to achieve that purpose. It would not be just nor fair for the Dominion to take advantage of or to use the assets of the province for the purpose of paying for works which are necessary for Dominion requirements. Navigation on the St. Lawrence connot be paid for by the province of Quebec any more than by any other province, and the assets of the province of Quebec cannot be taken for the purposes of federal works any more than can the assets of Ontario or any other province. Water power is created by changing the contour of the land, whether it be the bed of the river, the beaches or the land adjacent to the river. Provincial property must be used to effect the change necessary to create the power, and I submit that this change can be made only with the consent of the owners of the bed of the river and of the land adjacent to the river. I do not believe the power to divert, diminish or change the flow belongs to the Dominion, the Dominion having only the right to see that navigation is not endangered by any such work. I admit that in order to promote or improve navigation provincial property may be used, but it must be used in such a way as not to affect provincial rights any more than is absolutely necessary for the purposes of the Dominion.
The St. Lawrence river is no different as (ar as property rights are concerned from any
IMr. Lapointe.!
other navigable river. There seems to be an idea in the minds of many people that the St. Lawrence river must not be considered in the same light as other navigable rivers when matters of property right are concerned. The bed of the St. Lawrence river in the province of Quebec belongs to that province and the banks are the property either of the province or of the grantees of the province, as are the lands adjacent to the river. If Cedars rapids	belong	to the Dominion, sodoes Niagara, and if the water powers and the commercial assets which they represent belong to the Dominion, the hydro	electric	commission of Ontario
should belong to the Dominion and not be the property of the citizens of Ontario. As to that I think everybody will agree with me. When this grant was made by the province of Quebec, as the province had the right to make it, an application came to the government of Canada for approval of the works under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. What had the government to do? The Minister of Public Works had to do two things: he had to ascertain as to the legal side, and also as to the engineering side of the undertaking. That is what was done.
Let me deal first with the legal side of it and the opinion that was given by the Deputy Minister of Justice.


Mr. GORDON:: Have I the hon. member's permission to ask a question?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


George Gordon: I ask it now because the
hon. member is dealing with the law in connection with navigable waters, because of his profound knowledge of the law in this regard, and purely as a matter of information. Would the hon. member tell the committee what his interpretation is of "navigable water" under section 4 and "navigable waters" under section 7 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act?


Ernest Lapointe: Before answering my
hon. friend I would have to look at the statute. I am speaking of navigable waters generally. I wonder whether my hon. friend challenges the assertion that the St. Lawrence is different from other navigable waters, or what is the purpose of his question? If he requires an answer I should be pleased to give it to him after looking up the matter.


George Gordon: If the definition of navigable waters as used in the statute could be determined, from a legal standpoint, then the

Beauharnois Power Bills
legal argument would become a progression, and we would probably be armed with my hon. friend's knowledge, which I know is profound.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry I cannot
answer the question as put by my hon. friend. The Deputy Minister of Justice said in his opinion, in answer to the Deputy Minister of Public Works:
In my opinion there is no power in the governor in council, under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, to authorize the diversion from lake St. Francis of 40,000 cubic feet of water per second or of any quantity of water for the purposes of the company's proposed development, except in so far as the diversion of such water is necessarily incidental to, or is the real object intended to be subserved by, the construction of works which are subject to the provisions of that act. The plans of the company's proposed development embrace the construction of certain regulating and compensating and other works in the St. Lawrence river and I think it would be within the power of the governor in council, under section 7 of the said act, to grant approval of the plans and proposed sites of these works.
Let me say a word about this question of diversion, because the question has been raised in the report of the committee. The opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice is not challenged by the committee. It is merely stated in the report that questions were raised as to that, and the chairman of the committee in his speech also said, without making any definite statement about the matter, that doubts had been expressed; in fact, my right hon. friend said that doubts had been expressed as to the right of the governor in council to permit that diversion of water from lake St. Francis. I believe-and I have never had any doubt about the matter, I may say in all humility-that the Dominion parliament really has nothing to do with the diversion of water under such circumstances. The Dominion, as I stated before, never claimed ownership of the St. Lawrence waters. It has claimed the right through proper legislation to appropriate them for federal purposes, but as long as such legislation does not exist, the province and only the province can allow a diversion of water. It owns the bed; it owns the banks; it owns the land through which the diversion must be made. The only power of the Dominion is to protect navigation, to see to it that all the requirements of navigation are met. The diversion itself was not a grant of the Dominion; it was a consequence of the works permitted in the river, subject to the condition that more than a specified maximum quantity of water
22110-285J
cannot be diverted. My hon. friend shakes his head, but I believe I am right in that contention, and there are many others who have expressed their views in this matter since the question has come under discussion. It is true, no water can be diverted from a river without works in its bed or on its beaches, and any work that may interfere with navigation must receive the approval of the governor in council. Whether that diversion made as a result of those works should be in or from the river, is immaterial as far as the Dominion's control of navigation is concerned. The authority came from Quebec, but the order in council No. 422 provided for remedial and control works which were deemed to be important to safeguard navigation and imposed conditions for granting its approval of the works in the river, amongst those conditions being the manner in which the diversion should be carried out. Another condition was that the works should not involve a diversion of more than 40,000 cubic feet per second. But again I repeat that the diversion itself was granted by Quebec. That was the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice who was the natural and official legal adviser of the Department of Public Works in the matter. That opinion has been ratified and confirmed by all the counsel for the various financial institutions which have advanced money in connection with that undertaking- counsel for the banks, the trust companies and those representing the bondholders. I have here, and if it were necessary to give it I could do so, except that it would take up the time of the committee, the opinion of Mr. Tilley who, everybody will admit, is one of the most eminent counsel. I have also the opinion of Mr. St. Laurent, who has succeeded my right hon. friend as president of the Canadian Bar Association. Their opinions coincide entirely with that of the Deputy Minister of Justice in that respect. I am free to confess that because some people have seen fit to question publicly the legality of the order in council in that regard, and the committee, without pronouncing upon it, having stated that the question had been raised, it is a good thing on the part of the government to enact legislation which will make it sure that the rights exist.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There might be some
difficulty such as the hon. gentleman has suggested were it not that section 12 of the act specifically provides, as the right hon. leader of the opposition mentioned the other evening, for parliament exercising the power that is being exercised.
Beauharnois Power Bills


Ernest Lapointe: For parliament, yes. I submit that perhaps this ratification ought to be broadened and enlarged. This legislation will cover the diversions authorized for the Beauharnois company, but if there are doubts -I do not think there are doubts myself; I think the power exercised was exercised properly-with regard to validity concerning the Beauharnois company what about all those other concerns which have built works and completed undertakings at other places in the St. Lawrence and elsewhere where the very same condition existed, where diversion of water has been made, authorized by the governor in council under the Navigable Waters Protection Act? It is stated in the evidence that there are twenty-five such works, and I was given a list of the value of the works of these various concerns, amounting to over $600,000,000. I do not think it was fair to raise those doubts because they might apply to some of these other companies as well as to Beauharnois. I say, Mr. Chairman, that it was done as it had always been done before. I know that the chairman of the committee stated during the taking of the evidence that it may have been wrong all the time. In the first place, I do not think it was wrong. In the second place, those precedents certainly had some authority in the matter.


George Gordon: I am sorry to interrupt, but since what I said is in a manner challenged-


Ernest Lapointe: No.


George Gordon: -would the hon. member quote from either the British North America Act or the Navigable Waters Protection Act one single suggestion that grants or delegates to the governor in council the right to divert water from any stream, no matter what has been done in the past?


Ernest Lapointe: I have been trying to tell my hon. friend that the diversion is only the consequence of the works which are authorized in the river. The diversion is the result of the works made in the river itself, which works are authorized by the governor in council.


George Gordon: Works made on private property.


Ernest Lapointe: Not at all.


George Gordon: The canal is on private property.


Ernest Lapointe: But not the works made in the river. No water can go through unless there are works made in the river, and it is the works that have been authorized. The diversion is merely the consequence, the result, as the Deputy Minister of Justice has said, as Mr. Tilley says, as Mr. St. Laurent says, and as I humbly say myself.


George Gordon: Where is the authority for the diversion of the water?


Ernest Lapointe: The authority comes
from Quebec, the owner of the bed of the river, the owner of the banks and the owner of the land from which only the diversion can be *made. The only right of the Dominion is to control navigation.


George Gordon: The owner of the bed of the new ditch is not in the right of the province of Quebec because the fee simple is in the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company.


Ernest Lapointe: The grantee or the acquirer of the rights which were granted from the province of Quebec-


George Gordon: In private ownership?


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend will allow me, it will be much shorter if I am permitted to go ahead with my own argument.
Take the order in council concerning Cedars Rapids, dated August 15, 1916. There also the approval was of works, not of diversion. The diversion is created as a result of the works. But the approval which is given is the approval of the works made in the river. The same thing happened at Niagara.


George Gordon: Quite true, the same thing.


Ernest Lapointe: I am going to show that in a moment. My hon. friend had the opinion of the Justice department and he had the opinion of a board of engineers. I need not dwell upon that phase of the question. But this -being done, there are many who believe that not only had the governor in council discretion to exercise approval of the works, but that it was his duty, if there, was nothing in the way of obstacles to navigation, to approve of the works which were proposed as a result of the grant by the province of Quebec, which was the owner in that case. Let me quote the opinion of the late Mr. Eugene Lafleur, whose legal qualifications were so well known in Canada, when representing the province of Quebec before the supreme court in that reference. Although the question did not specifically present itself, Mr. Lafleur in the course

Beauharnois Power Bills
of his argument, which can, be found at page 1025 of the report of the argument, said:
What I want to put before your Lordships is this: When a province or one of its grantees presents a plan to the Dominion authorities here for approval, and that plan makes adequate provision for navigation, they are bound to give their assent to that plan. What I mean to say is that they cannot refuse on the ground that they want to develop that water-power themselves. Before they can refuse it has got to be a plan which is defective in that it does not make adequate provision for navigation. The moment it does, I say it is the duty of the government to approve of it. You may say to me: How are you going to force the government to do its duty in that regard? I am not concerned with that because we assume, as we have a right to assume, that the government is asking this court for direction as to what it should do under like circumstances, and when your Lordships say there is no possible interference with navigation, then the Dominion has no reasonable excuse for not approving the plans submitted. If we provide adequately, then they are satisfied. We take for granted, as we must, that the Dominion is going to act constitutionally, when it is told what the constitution requires to be done. And the competency of the remedy, the difficulty of attaining the end, I am not concerned with, because we are not here in a case taken in the regular fashion before the courts and it is not a question of procedure, it is a question of right, and if that is once settled by your Lordships I think there will be no trouble at all, I am confident that the government will follow the direction given.
But I have another opinion which I believe is of as great value. Sir Henry Drayton wa3 acting Prime Minister in 1926, and he had to explain a certain grant that was given at that time of the Carillon power. He gave a statement to the press on Tuesday, August 16, 1927, and I take it from the Ottawa Journal of that day.


An hon. MEMBER:: 1927?


Ernest Lapointe: He gave that statement a year after the discussion took place in the house. Here is what Sir Henry Drayton said:
An understanding of the basic conditions that ought to apply to the whole question is first necessary.
I know there was no question of the Beauharnois at the time.
They can be shortly stated as follows:
1.	The water-powers afforded by the rivers of our country must be considered as absolutely subject to provincial jurisdiction.
2.	That the provinces have the right to develop such powers, by such means, in such manner, and in such districts as may be determined by the policies of their respective governments.
3.	That on navigable streams, where the dominion authority is charged with the right and duty of maintaining navigation, that right ought only to be exercised in the interests of
navigation, and never in order to (a) delay or defeat the policy of the province; (b) make dominion revenue out of provincial undertakings.
In other words, that the interests of the dominion in navigable streams, apart from navigation, is simply that of a bare trustee for the provinces, and as such the dominion is charged with a duty to authorize and to assist to make legal all provincial works that do not interfere with navigation. Whatever other legal technicalities may be advanced, there is no doubt but that the public interest and provincial rights alike demand the acceptance of such principles and irrespective of past practices. I admit these principles have not always been followed in the past.
That was a censure.
Bor example the plans of the great hydro works at Niagara were only made legal last summer, years after their construction.
Well, that was worse than Beauharnois.
In connection with that undertaking in the first instance certain works in ease-
I should like to call the attention of the committee to this, that changes were made in the plans.
[DOT]-in ease of navigation were to be done by the hydro commission. These -works were found to be unnecessary, and further plans submitted were found by the dominion department to be satisfactory, but the validating order was never issued owing to the fact that the railways department insisted on an annual rental of $17,580. The basis of this charge is set out in the department's letter of April 9, 1926, to the commission as follows:
This was calculated at 6 per cent on a valuation of $2,000 per acre, applied to approximately 144 acres of river bed lying between the mouth of the Welland river and the point where your supply channel leads it.
Sir Henry goes on :
It may go without saying that I saw to it that the proper order went immediately without the creating of a further precedent that the Dominion had the right to enact toll money from provincial enterprises when conditions enabled the holdup to be made.
So Sir Henry expressed clearly the opinion that it is a duty on the part of the federal government to approve plans which are submitted to it to develop water powers on navigable rivers when those water powers are the property or assets of a province, and in that very case of the hydro-electric commission the work was even done before the final plans were approved, but Sir Henry Drayton saw to it that they were approved during his term of office as acting Prime Minister in 1926.
Now, sir, at the time public opinion was manifesting itself, which is rather interesting. The government was taken to task by some for wanting to rush this thing through, and by others for delaying the work which was in the interests of the country. I have here
Beauharnois Power Bills

articles published in a very important organ of public opinion, the Ottawa Journal, which I cannot find time to read. But let me quote a couple of extracts. In an editorial on January 16, 1929, entitled:	That Beauharnois Power Project, the Journal states in conclusion :
In the circumstances, and seeing that it has been made reasonably clear that the Beauharnois project cannot interfere with navigation, there is nothing left for the government to do but to give its sanction. The withholding of it, in fact, would, considering the industrial possibilities which the plan holds out, be a grave dereliction of duty.
Those editorials continued until the order in council was passed. But I have in my hand an editorial of March 11; that was after the order in council had been adopted.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Will my hon. friend allow me? As he knows, he will require unanimous consent to .speak for more than forty minutes in committee. I suppose unanimous consent is given?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Ernest Lapointe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am almost tempted to withdraw everything I have said. The editorial is entitled: Beauharnois, and is as follows:
After six months' of hesitation between its plain duty under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the fear of offending powerful rival power interests which are numbered among its political friends, the government has at last approved the application of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company.
As you see, you will be cursed if you do, and you will be cursed if you do not.
From the very first, no reason existed why the application of the Beauharnois people should not have been approved. It might well have been granted four months ago. AH that the government had to do was to see that what was proposed did not injuriously interfere with navigation, and, that done, permit the company to use the rights which it had legally secured through the proper channels. As between public ownership and private ownership, there was no issue at all. The circumstances being what they were there couldn't be.
However, all's well that ends well. The application is now granted, and, reading the order in council granting it, nobody can say that navigation and all other public interests haven't been safeguarded. The government's approval, in fact, is hedged by so many stipulations, conditions and reservations that the Beauharnois people must be wondering whether they have anything left at all.
That is rather interesting, and I must say that in fact the conditions imposed were of the strictest character.
Mr. 'GORDON: But they paid no attention to those conditions.


Ernest Lapointe: That is another question, if my hon. friend will kindly let me refer to the situation as it then existed. The conditions were very strict indeed. I do not claim any credit for it, because perhaps hon. members who were here at the time will remember that I was the unfortunate victim of an accident that winter and was kept in my room for over two months. The reference to the supreme court and the order in council were made known to me through the press. I claim no merit in the drafting of those conditions, but I say they certainly were of a very strict nature and I was not sure, when I read them, that some were within the purview of this parliament or this government to impose.
Parliament had the right, as has been stated during this debate, to cancel this order in council as soon as it was passed. It was laid on the table of the house the very day it was passed, and attention was drawn to it by the then Minister of Public Works. Any member of the house, including the right hon. Prime Minister, who was then leader of the opposition, if he had found anything suspicious, if he had found the order invalid in law or that the conditions imposed were not as they ought to have been, had the right and power to move the cancellation of that order in council. What happened? I direct the attention not only of the house but of the country as well to what happened in connection with that order in council and the action of parliament with regard to it. The order w,as passed on March 8, 1929. In 1980, during the following session, the then hon. member for Toronto Northwest, Mr. Church, introduced a bill which was really very similar to one of the sections of one of the bills introduced to-day, making it imperative that any approval of such plans should be made by parliament itself instead of by the governor general in council. But the bill was made retroactive to January 1, 1930, and could not apply to Beauharnois. Mr. Church was asked by the then Minister of Public Works why the bill was not made retroactive so as to include Beauharnois, which was then in existence, and Mr. Church replied, "Well, I had a separate bill for that purpose, but I have been ill and that is why the bill has not been introduced."
What happened to the bill introduced by Mr. Church? It was discussed by him on the second reading, when he made quite an extensive speech, but when he concluded his remarks the bill was negatived without a division being taken. Hon. members will find that at page 501 of Hansard for 1930.

Beauharnois Power Bills
Not only did no ton. member of this house make a move towards the cancellation of order in council P.C. 422, but when a bill was presented the following year which would have made it imperative that parliament should control such approval instead of the governor in council, the bill was lost without a division being recorded in the house at the time.
I desire to refer briefly to condition 28 of the order in council in which obviously nothing is sacrificed. In that condition it is clearly stipulated and understood that nothing is thereby granted except approval of the proposed works under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, upon and subject to those conditions.
My right hon. leader has mentioned the fact that at the time there was an application by the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, supported by the Ontario government, for permission to construct works of the same nature in the international section of the St. Lawrence river. I shall not refer to that matter except to assert again that the conditions imposed on Beauharnois were considered unfair to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec when they came to deal with the government of Canada in an endeavour to come to an arrangement as to a future policy with regard to water powers. They did not want to accept the situation created in connection with Beauharnois, under which the company or the province doing the work would be assessed for many millions of dollars for the purpose of creating and constructing a canal for the general advantage of all the citizens of Canada.
I do not want to take much more time on this subject, but the question of public ownership is very often raised in this regard. I do not want to discuss the merits or demerits of public ownership. If there were an academic discussion on the question I am not sure that I would not be tempted to side with the advocates of public ownership, but I say that when it concerns the assets of a province it is for that province to decide. It will be for us, the citizens of the province of Quebec, to decide among ourselves whether we shall have public ownership with regard to the assets of the province. It is not for the gentlemen from Ontario or those from Alberta or some other place to dictate the policy to be followed by the people of Quebec. The federal parliament has no more right to interfere with the water powers of Quebec with regard to public or private ownership than we would have the right to interfere with the hydro electric of Ontario. That was a question settled by the citizens of Ontario, and we were never tempted
to dictate, to advise or to suggest what they should do as between public or private ownership of electricity and water powers in their own province. The same principle applies to the province of Quebec. I repeat, it is for us to decide that; and when the people of Quebec discuss the question and decide which side they will take, it will be the people of Quebec who will be the judges. Therefore, while I am grateful for the excellent advice which we are receiving right and left, I suggest that we can do without it. It is our own business, and so I thank the hon. gentleman for nothing -the hon. gentleman who offered that advice. I think this is pretty clear. I cannot understand the way of thinking of hon. gentlemen like my good friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), for whom I have the greatest esteem, as revealed in his speech of yesterday. I cannot understand the way of thinking of gentlemen who for years have been pleading and arguing for the transfer of the natural resources of their own provinces from the Dominion to those provinces, and who wish to take away from Quebec some of the natural resources which that province has always had from the beginning. That is beyond my comprehension.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Has anyone on this side of the house suggested-


Ernest Lapointe: I did not say that; I
said that we were receiving advice.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not from this
side.


Ernest Lapointe: No; I did not mention
my hon. friend or his associates.
Mr.. GORDON: The hon. gentleman certainly leaves the implication that something we have done seeks to take from the province of Quebec some right it has. Let me say now-


Ernest Lapointe: I am not talking-


George Gordon: I say now, if I may be permitted, that there is not one single, solitary thing done in connection with this Beau-hamois project that would seem to indicate for a moment that there is any such intention. There is no intention that the rights of the province of Quebec shall be imperilled one way or the other.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is too sensitive, and he puts into my mouth words I have not used. But speeches have been made in this house, last year and this year, even when the charges which led to this investigation were made, in which it is more
Beauharnois Power Bills

than suggested, more than hinted at. I 'have not spoken at all abouit my hon. friend nor about the Minister of Public Works. Indeed, I have under any hand extracts from a speech of that hon. gentleman, made in 1927, I believe, on the Carillon power scheme, when he spoke eloquently on the side of the provinces. I was far from suggesting anything of itihe kind, far from insinuating what my hon. friend has denied; and i'f he had only permitted me to conclude I am sure he would not have-risen. Especially with the amendments suggested by my good friend the Secretary of State, (the suggestion put forward in the present legislation might be, I believe,, the best under the circumstances, more particularly with the elimination of the words "if any," which I intended to challenge as vigorously as possible. With those words left out, I must admit that my good friend has taken the wind out of my sails.
Now the canal will 'be declared a work for the general advantage of Canada. I believe that under section 92, paragraph _ 10, subparagraph (c), a canal, although entirely situated in one province, can be declared for the general advantage of Canada. The effect will be, however, that what was primarily a work for water power purposes-and all that the province of Quebec could do would be to deal with the water power side of the matter -'becomes under this bill a work primarily for the general advantage of Canada, for navigation purposes, the water powers being incidental. The rights of the province of Quebec will be reserved as they existed. I have no objection on the ground that this qualification is not in the bill; it is expressed by the Secretary of State; because this parliament could not grant rights to the province of Quebec if they did not exist, any more than the province of Quebec could grant to the Dominion of Canada rights which it did not have.	.
There is one feature of the bill to which I wish to direct attention.


George Halsey Perley: I do not want to curtail the hon. member's remarks on a matter of this kind, but I would point out to him that this is supposed to be the last night of the session and someone else might wish to speak.


Ernest Lapointe: Had my hon. friend been here this morning he Would have known that we agreed not only to the introduction of the bill without sufficient notice, but to the first reading and the second reading, and we agreed to have it referred to the committee. This was done on the understanding that I should have latitude in the expression of my views.


George Halsey Perley: I was only suggesting t*o my hon. friend that time is passing and someone else might wish to speak.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. member has dealt with the general features of the matter and I would suggest that we might now proceed with one of the bills.


Ernest Lapointe: My personal friend from Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) has lost an opportunity to be kind to me, because I was just concluding. He might have allowed me to finish my remarks.


George Halsey Perley: I am not objecting at all; I was only calling the hon. member's attention to the fact that the time is going.


Ernest Lapointe: I should have liked it
better had my good friend allowed me to conclude without that reminder. However, as I was about to say, this work has been declared for the general advantage of Canada, and the preamble reads:
Whereas the improvement of inland navigation by the development of a deep waterway, which is now in progress, from lake Superior to the sea, through the great lakes and connecting waters and in part in, over or along the St. Lawrence river, requires that the canal now being constructed or to be constructed by the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company, Limited should hereafter be under the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada.
For the first time parliament is committed by this bill to a deep waterway scheme. I do not suppose there was any way of taking over a canal situated entirely in one province-I am glad that my right hon. friend agrees with me-and making it for the general advantage of Canada without linking it up with this other great national undertaking. Obviously this bill commits us to the development of a deep waterway system from the great lakes through the waters of the St. Lawrence.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee for the courtesy extended to me. I have perhaps trespassed too much upon the time of the committee, but this is a matter of vital interest and I have tried to deal with it as best I can without hurting the feelings of anyone.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to enter into what would be for me a very pleasant discussion regarding the respective rights of the two provinces and of this dominion in and to the use of the waters of the St. Lawrence river for the development of power. My hon. friend has delivered a lengthy opinion in a most admirable and rather convincing manner, but if we had ample time for

Beauharnois Power Bills
discussion I would repeat to him some of his former speeches in which the views expressed were not those which he has expressed tonight.


Ernest Lapointe: That was before the judgment of the supreme court; I bow always to the decisions of the tribunals.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We all learn; as we grow older may we advance in wisdom and experience. From the point of view of the province of Quebec, I might congratulate that province upon the development of my hon. friend's opinions. However, there remain certain issues which cannot be decided by a committee of this house or by parliament itself; those issues must be left, and I trust they may be left at an early day, to the final decision of the supreme court and of the privy council. During the discussions which I have had during the last few days with the counsel of the government of the province of Quebec, he has suggested that the government of that province will be quite willing to facilitate a decision on these issues by the highest judicial tribunal of the country. In view of that possibility it would be useless for me to advance arguments with respect to the powers and jurisdiction of the dominion parliament, save to say that with respect to Bill No. 144, which should be dealt with first, there is no doubt that the declaration that this work is a work for the general advantage of Canada is within the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, and, as the hon. member has said, in view of the present conditions, it is a very necessary piece of legislation. I suggest to the committee that we should consider the provisions of Bill No. 144 clause by clause in order that we may now dispose of them and that I may be enabled to propose some amendments which will meet with the approval of the hon. gentleman.


Maurice Dupré: Mr. Chairman, I intend to take only a few minutes in ordeT to answer my hon. friend the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe).


Ernest Lapointe: Why be afraid?


Maurice Dupré: The questions dealt with by the hon. member for Quebec East have to do with provincial rights. May I say to him that there are two schools of thought. One school contends that the development of hydro electric power belongs to the provinces, while the other school holds a somewhat different view. My hon. friend has quoted a number of extracts from judgments in connection with this question. I have before me quite a number of opinions which I had intended to read
to the committee, but as the time is rather late I will ask that special permission be granted me to place these upon Hansard. I do this in order to give an idea of the opinions expressed by those who are the champions of provincial rights.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely my hon. friend will tell the committee who the authorities are before he puts them on Hansard.


Maurice Dupré: Some are obtained from the same source as those quoted by my hon. friend, there is a judgment of Chief Justice Sir Charles Fitzpatrick in Leamy vs. The King, and also the opinion of Viscount Haldane, from which my hon. friend quoted.
The first question then is, did the province have the rights in regard to power development or did these rights rest with the Dominion of Canada.
There has been a long series of decisions bearing on this question both in the Supreme Court of Canada and in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The first of these authorities is that known as the First Fisheries case, cited as the Attorney General of Canada versus the Attorney General of Ontario, et al, 98 Appeal Cases 700, and in that case, in the judgment delivered by Lord Herschell, he says, at page 709:
It must also be borne in mind that there is a broad distinction between proprietary rights and legislative jurisdiction. The fact that such jurisdiction in respect of a particular subject matter is conferred on the Dominion legislature, for example, affords no evidence that any proprietary rights with respect to it were transferred to the Dominion. There is no presumption that because legislative jurisdiction was vested in the Dominion parliament proprietary rights were transferred to it. The Dominion of Canada was called into existence by the British North America Act, 1867. Whatever proprietary rights were, at the time of the passing of that Act, possessed by the provinces remain vested in them, except such as are by any of its express enactments transferred to the Dominion of Canada.
In Leamy versus The King, 54 Supreme Court Reports 143, in the judgment of Chief Justice Fitzpatrick, at page 14, he says,-
Since confederation the title to beds of navigable waters has been vested in the crown in right of the province but the authority to legislate regarding the public right of navigation is, by the British North America Act, 1867, assigned to the Dominion parliament.
In the case of the Attorney General of Canada versus the Attorney General of Quebec, 1921 Appeal Cases, Viscount Haldane, in referring to the 1898 case above mentioned says, at page 419,-
What the board on that occasion had to determine was among other things, whether the
Beauhamois Power Bills

beds of rivers and other waters situate within the territorial limits of a province and not granted before confederation belong to the crown in right of the Dominion or of the province. The answer was that generally speaking the proprietary title of these beds, excepting where expressly transferred, remained provincial.
In a latter case of the city of Montreal versus Montreal Harbour Board, 26 Appeal Cases 299, it was held that the bed of the stream which the dominion wished to add as part of the harbour did not belong to the dominion but belonged to the province and must, if taken by the dominion for addition to the harbour, be compensated for.
The last case dealing with this question is that of the Water Powers Reference in 29 Supreme Court Reports 200, and the ninth question there asked was:
Has the province the right to control or use the waters in provincial rivers and to develop or authorize the development of water-powers within the province, provided that in so doing navigation is not prejudiced and that the province complies with Dominion requirements as to navigation.
and the answer to that question given by Hon. Mr. Justice Duff, on page 266 is:
As to question 9, it was not seriously disputed that under the conditions mentioned, the provinces have the rights which are the subject of the question. This, of course, on the assumption that there is no conflicting legislation by the Dominion under an overriding power, a power, for example, conferred by the combined operation of section 91 (29) and 92 (10a).
From these authorities it seems that the proprietary right to control and use the waters in provincial rivers and to develop or authorize the development of water powers within the province rests with the province and not with the dominion.
There is another school of thought which holds a view contrary to the opinions I have just cited. Among my authorities there is one which is quite familiar to my hon. friend, the opinion of the ex-Minister of Justice himself in 1927. If my hon. friend will refer to the speech he delivered in this house in 1927 in connection with the Georgian bay canal he will find that he then expressed an opinion contrary to the one he expressed to-night.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is not being fair.


Maurice Dupré: I do not want to bore the
committee-


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is not
being fair.


Maurice Dupré: -but I would like to read a few extracts from the opinion given at that

time by the hon. member for Quebec east, to be found in Hansard of 1927, at page 1619. In his letter to the premier of Ontario which my hon. friend then quoted, he said:
So far as I am aware, any interest which the province may have in the matter-
Of power development.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not fair at all.


Maurice Dupré: My hon. friend continues:
-is of a limited character, depending possibly upon the ownership of lands in the bed of the river or within the area to be flooded.
Continuing, my hon. friend said this-


Ernest Lapointe: I shall have to speak again.


Maurice Dupré: I will go back to an opinion expressed this evening.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall have to speak again, as my hon. friend is not being at all fair.


Maurice Dupré: I do not want to make any misrepresentation of the facts. A few minutes ago my hon. friend said that he was satisfied with the amendments as presented by the hon. the Secretary of State, especially with regard to the words "if any" which are going to be erased and which words he declared himself ready to challenge. The very words he used were that he was ready to challenge the term "if any."


Ernest Lapointe: In this bill surely, in
connection with the Soulanges power, which is entirely in Quebec, Quebec property, the bed of the river in Quebec. That was not the case there.


Maurice Dupré: In other words, my hon.
friend said that he was going to challenge the words if the bill were not amended.


Ernest Lapointe: With regard to Beauharnois.


Maurice Dupré: In the last clause of Bill
No. 144.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Maurice Dupré: Very good. If my hon.
friend will refer to Hansard of March 28, 1927, he will find that in his speech on that date this is what he said, speaking of the water powers of the provinces and the rights of the provinces with regard to water powers.


Ernest Lapointe: Where?

Beauharnois Power Bills


Maurice Dupré: This is what my hon. friend said:
The question of what interest, if any, the province may have in any water-powers which may come into existence by the erection of works for the improvement of navigation beyond what is required to operate the works has not yet been judicially determined.
Therefore in 1927, my hon. friend was less severe and exacting than he is to-day.


Ernest Lapointe: Why this attack?


Maurice Dupré: Just to prove to my hon.
friend that he is not the only one who may rise to champion the rights of the provinces. If my hon. friend wants to know the other reason it is that he rose in his place to-night just to assert himself as the champion of provincial rights in order to help his party in the next provincial election in Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member is still young.


Maurice Dupré: My hon. friend said this
also:
When the question eomes to be determined, I believe the court will have to take cognizance of the fact that the provincial title to the bed of the river is burdened by the public right of navigation, which considerably decreased its value; that upon payment to the province of compensation for its proprietary interest in the bed of the stream, such interest according to the judgment of the Privy Council in the Montreal Harbour Commissioners' ease, will be extinguished. Furthermore it has been held that the ownership of the bed of a river does not carry with it any proprietary interest in the waters which flow over it.
May I draw the attention of the hon. member for Quebec East to his own words, which are exactly the opposite of what he said a few minutes ago. I will repeat them:
Furthermore it has been held that the ownership of the bed of a river does not carry with it any proprietary interest in the waters which flow over it. The surplus waters in question do not exist by nature but are brought into being by the Dominion in the exercise of its powers.
That is just the contrary of what my hon. friend said a few minutes ago.


Ernest Lapointe: But that was before the judgment of the supreme court. May I say to my hon. friend that those contentions were submitted to the supreme court? The Attorney General of Canada by his representatives there submitted the very point my hon, friend is reading, but the supreme court has decided otherwise and I am abiding by the judgment of that court.


Maurice Dupré: Shall I, being an ignoramus in these matters and my hon. friend being an expert, abide by the opinion given by my hon. friend in 1927 or by the opinion he expressed to-night?


Ernest Lapointe: That is childish.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which-the opinion?


Maurice Dupré: To continue, this is what
my hon. friend said as reported on page 1621 of Hansard of March 28, 1927:
It follows that until the matter is judicially determined, the Dominion must regard the provincial interest in such water-powerg as not being so considerable as some hon. gentlemen in the course of this debate have claimed.
That is the contrary of what my hon. friend said to-night. Provincial rights were not considerable in 1927, but to-night, on the eve of a provincial election in Quebec, they are of very considerable importance.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend
notice the words "until the matter is judicially determined?"	-


Maurice Dupré: Yes, but "until it is determined," the hon. member for Quebec East took the opportunity then to express his own views. What I am quoting to-night, may I say to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth is not the judgment of the supreme court but the personal opinion of the hon. member who was Minister of Justice in 1927.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which the privy council said was of equal validity and reliance to that of a court itself to which the matter might be referred.


James Layton Ralston: Until judicially determined.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and it is not yet
determined.


Ernest Lapointe: In the matter of the
Carillon power where the federal government has rights because the canal existed at confederation. There is a difference in the situation.


Maurice Dupré: I do not care whether my
hon. friend changes his mind or not. Why should he not do so? He has a perfect right to do so; but when I hear him say he is going to challenge the words "if any" which we use in clause 4 of Bill No. 144, I take the liberty of reminding him that we are using the'very words he himself used in 1927, when speaking of the rights of the provinces. He talked of those powers and rights and
Beauharnois Power Bills

said:	Those rights, if any, are very hard to
determine, and if they are in existence are not considerable.
This is why the committee on the Beauharnois question took the trouble to insert in the first two paragraphs of its conclusions a proviso that the rights of the province must be respected. May I read just a paragraph or two: '
Your committee recommends:
1.	That the parliament of Canada take such action as may be within its power, and without prejudicing the rights of the province of Quebec, to procure the development of this project in such a manner as will best serve the people of Canada.
2.	That should the rights of the Dominion and the province of Quebec come in conflict, every effort be put forth to arrive at a satisfactory agreement, so that the project may not be imperilled by delay.
I	conclude by saying this:	The provincial
rights of Quebec I have at heart as much as has the hon. member for Quebec East.


Ernest Lapointe: Who said otherwise?
Why this attack?


Maurice Dupré: My hon. friend said a few
minutes ago that some people did not share this view. When challenged by the hon. the Minister of Public Works he explained that he did not intend to apply this remark to the members on this side of the house. But I know quite well that part of the speech of my hon. friend will be circulated through Canada and particularly in the province of Quebec. That is why I want to show exactly where we stand. Without knowing or affirming what the provincial rights are or may be, we say:	Whatever those rights are
they must be respected in their entirety. With regard to the rights which may belong to the province of Quebec we say:	Hands
off Quebec; hands off provincial rights! As soon as those rights are determined once and for all by our courts or the privy council, it will be the duty of this or any other government or party to see that they remain untouched.
On Bill No. 144, to declare certain works of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company, Limited, to be for the general advantage of Canada.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Governor in council may make orders, rules or regulations.


Robert Gardiner: Before we proceed
further, Mr. Chairman, may I call the attention of the committee to the fact that one

of the reasons why this Beauharnois project is going to be declared a work for the general advantage of Canada is that it is intended eventually to use this section of the river as part of the St. Lawrence deep waterway system. My first inquiry of the minister in charge of the bill is this:	When they deal
with this matter is it the intention of the government to take over the property rights of the Beauharnois project in so far as the canal section is concerned?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: So far as this canal
section is concerned, it is brought under the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, and the government of Canada is authorized by purchase or otherwise, even by expropriation, to acquire the lands and works appertaining to navigation. I think that is quite sufficient an announcement for the present. I cannot give an expression of opinion as to whether that will be done immediately or not.


Robert Gardiner: It is not my intention
to delay the committee. I merely desire to find out if possible what are the intentions of the government with regard to this legislation. We know that order in council 422 contains certain provisions which were made for the purpose of using this Beauharnois project as part of the St. Lawrence deep waterways navigation canal. If this Beauharnois project had been gone on with without interference, and if later this country had decided to develop the St. Lawrence deep waterway, we would have been in the position as a country of using this stretch of the canal which was owned by private interests. I cannot conceive of anything more humiliating to this country than to be placed in that position. In view of the fact that the government intend to deal with this matter I should like to get a very plain answer from the government, yes or no, as to whether, when they take over this project, it is the intention of the government to retain possession so that when the St. Lawrence deep waterway is finally developed we shall not have to pass through private property but through the property of the Dominion of Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understand that it is
the intention of the government that when the deep water canal is completed through the Soulanges section, that is between lake St. Francis and lake St. Louis, it and the works that appertain to it, which are necessary for navigation, shall be vested in the

Beauhcimois Power Bills
crown in the right of the Dominion to the same extent as the lands and canal and appurtenances of the new Welland canal are now vested in the crown in the right of the Dominion.


Robert Gardiner: That is very satisfactory, so far, Mr. Chairman. Now in view of the possibility of the government using this as a deep waterway, I come to this question: Heretofore when the Dominion government has constructed a canal in any part of the country for the use of the people of Canada, and where they have created a head of water by virtue of that canalization, it has always been the practice of governments to claim the ownership of the head of water that comes from such canalization. Is it the purpose of this government to claim the head of water because of the canalization in this case, and to use it for the purposes of the Dominion?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can say, I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is the intention of the government that the issue as to the right to use the water of the river St. Lawrence for the development of hydro-electric power will be placed before the courts either by agreement and common consent or by initiating proper action to that end. It is the intention of the government to secure from the highest tribunal of this country a clear decision with regard to this particular project as to the respective rights of the Dominion and the province.


Robert Gardiner: I appreciate very much the answer the minister has given. I think the sooner this question is decided by the highest court in this land, and even by the privy council, if necessary, the better it will be for all concerned. The Dominion and the provinces will then know where they stand, and I am quite sure that because of that fact the relations between the provinces and the Dominion will be much happier in the future than they are at the present. I appreciate therefore very much the decision of the government in that regard.
There is another point on which I want information, and I believe this is very important. This work is going to be declared to inure to the benefit of Canada. I have heard some rumours which have disturbed me during the last few days. I never like to deal with rumours unless there is some real evidence supporting them, but in view of the nature of this legislation and the statement of the Prime Minister yesterday, would it be possible for the minister to give this house any information as to what is going to be the management of this project in the immediate
future? Is the government going to take it over and put it under the Department of Public Works in the same manner as the new Welland canal, or is the Prime Minister's statement to be taken as the attitude of the government, that this project will be handed over to the banks? Or is it possible that the government may hand it over to a certain firm in Toronto, Nesbitt, Thomson and Company, which has been rumoured very strongly within the last few days? Just what is going to be the attitude of the government? Before I take my seat may I say that I should be very sorry indeed to see the government hand this over to the banks, which have advanced certain moneys against certain bonds, or to any other company that they might select. I hope and trust that until such time as the courts have given a clear decision, the government will keep control of the project and therefore be in a position to deal with it adequately. As far as I am concerned, I am an advocate, as I think the members of this house know, of public ownership, and I would regret very much if after getting out of one difficulty in so far as this project is concerned, we stepped into another which might have to be dealt with at a future time. Is there any possibility of any of these things happening which I have mentioned, or is it the intention of the government to keep control until such time as there is a clear decision from the courts?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
suffers perhaps from the disability of not having followed, although he has been on the committee, just what the legal implications of the present position are. It is necessary to keep clearly in mind this fact. This property is the property of a private company created by the legislature of the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec has complete and absolute power to create that company, as it has done, and this parliament cannot destroy that company or take from individuals the shares of the company which they own. About that there could be no manner of doubt. That is the difficulty always of being too late. No action that this parliament can take at this moment will set aside the corporate rights of that company, or deprive its members of their property in the shares which they own. Everybody must realize that. Who is responsible for it is not now the issue. The question is: What are the facts? This government has not taken possession of that company; it cannot do so. The province of Quebec made that company and controls it. So far as the immediate
Beauharnois Power Bills

future is concerned, I can assure the hon. gentleman that I know of no foundation for the rumours to which he has referred. I have heard a great many more rumours than those which he mentioned. But at the moment this company is an entity and that entity functions by reason of the powers received from a body over which this parliament does not exercise control. The government by every means in its power will endeavour to do the following: (a) secure continuance of the enterprise; (b) secure the rights of those who bona fide have put their money in that enterprise; (c) secure proper control and management; (d) take such other steps as may be necessary when terms and conditions are fixed as will ensure the greatest possible benefit to this dominion as a whole by reason of the undertaking now being declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: That can only be done in cooperation with the province of Quebec?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Absolutely.


William Daum Euler: I do not wish to embarrass the Prime Minister, but-


Richard Bedford Bennett: You cannot embarrass
me.


William Daum Euler: He is never embarrassed.
He stated a moment ago, and I agree with him absolutely, that this is a company incorporated by the province with certain rights with which the Dominion cannot interfere. But he said he would endeavour to secure proper control and management of the company. As this parliament has no control over a Quebec-organized company, I was wondering by what means the government would secure proper control and management.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps my hon. friend
from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) was not in the house when my colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), was indicating the basis of the legislation in the other enactment; that is on such terms and conditions as may be thought desirable by the governor in council. This does not touch of course the corporate existence of the company. We will endeavour to ensure what I have indicated, . namely, proper management of the enterprise.


William Daum Euler: I presume this means that
as the government has now taken over the canal as a work for the general advantage of Canada it has a weapon in its hands which it can use for the purpose of-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Moral suasion.


William Daum Euler: That is about all.


Charles A. Stewart: Have the government now definitely decided to utilize the Beauharnois canal as a link in the canalization system.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has to be.


Charles A. Stewart: Not necessarily, because my hon. friend will remember it was never definitely decided to do so in the event of international difficulties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Subject to that.


Charles A. Stewart: I was curious to know whether the government now had definitely decided that this was to be the route. I say that because precaution was taken in the event of its ultimately being chosen the route that it might be utilized for the purpose; but if the government has decided that this, and no other route, will be chosen, I should like to know.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not think we should be asked that question to-night. As I am instructed!, the latest and best engineering advice available to the government is that this is one of the most practicable routes down through that section.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is not a relevant question.


Charles A. Stewart: I beg your pardon, it is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has nothing to do with the matter now.


Charles A. Stewart: It has a
great deal to do with it. In the event of a canal being built on -the north side of the river, and being a link in the waterways, 'then it would make a vast difference in the attitude that the government might take towards this undertaking. If it is now chosen by the government as the route which the great waterway system will take, then there is good reason for many of the things being done by this legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman surely hardly expects the government to answer that question at the moment. Having had this matter thrust upon us without having had an opportunity to consider all the details, we can make no declaration of policy beyond what is involved in what has been said. The canal is there, it is an available route, it has been treated as the one that would be used, and has been held out in the order in council as the route proper for the purpose, although not the one that the international board thought at first should be the route selected.

Beauharnois Power Bills
But it ia said to be available for that purpose and to be satisfactory because you can get a depth of water the same as in the Welland canal. The government has not expressed any settled policy in regard to the matter.


Ernest Lapointe: And the committee endorsed that as the proper route.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I forgot that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Rights of province of Quebec.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I desire to move an amendment as follows:
That section 4 be amended by striking out in the second line of the said section the words "the rights, if any," and inserting in lieu thereof the words "any rights."


Ernest Lapointe: Does not my hon. friend think that he might strike out or alter those words "for the development of hydro-electric power?" It seems to limit the rights of the province in the use of the waters to the development of hydro-electric power. The waters could be used for mills or other undertakings.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That seemed to be what the province desired, for the reason that it was the question at issue that the courts might have to decide. It was settled in that way with my friend the Secretary of State, for reasons that he will explain to him.


Ernest Lapointe: But that is a limitation, there is no doubt about it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The question of using the
waters of the St. Lawrence for watering cattle or driving an old-fashioned grist mill is not in controversy. The only question in controversy is this of the use of water for hydroelectric power, and the amendment is made at the suggestion of counsel for the government of the province of Quebec. He says:
I am prepared to advise the Quebec government that this bill is acceptable.
That is, before it was amended. He adds:
I would prefer "any rights" to "the rights, if any."


Ernest Lapointe: Of course, that does not bind us altogether.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No; but the hon. gentleman is not now expressing the opinion of the Canadian parliament so much as expressing a view that he thinks prevails in the province of Quebec. Anyway this clause cannot affect any other right than that dealt with by the general terms of the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This does not take other rights away.


Charles A. Stewart: Ever since
I came to Ottawa I have taken the ground that the water powers belong to the provinces, and I have waged battle on that ground on a good many occasions. I do think that this to some extent restricts the right of the province to the use of the water for hydro-electric industry only. Frankly I do not think any other rights would be very much affected, because the courts will decide ultimately what are the respective rights of the province and the Dominion. But I do not see why you seek to restrict the province to the right to develop hydro-electric engineering only.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What would you suggest?


Charles A. Stewart: I would give them a general water power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was not the question at issue; there, was a single question. This is a matter which affects the province of Quebec and without their consent it is very doubtful whether we should have introduced this measure, because in a complicated matter of this kind it is very desirable not to bring about a conflict. Good will and cooperation are essential, and the province of Quebec narrowed the controversy to a single point, which was explained by my colleague, namely the rights of the province with respect to the development of hydro-electric energy as against those of the Dominion. That being the only question at issue it does not detract from or add to the other issue, and that is the only franchise this particular company obtained.


Charles A. Stewart: That is quite true, but you are creating precedents all the time, and after all my hon. friend is very fond of precedents. If the question should arise in the future, as it may, in connection with the development of power not for hydro-electric energy but for some other purpose, it will be pointed out that a precedent was created in this particular bill.
Mr. BENNETT': All that is done is to say that this is without prejudice to the rights of the province of Quebec as asserted with respect to the development of hydro-electric energy. That is all. I think any hon. gentleman who will look can see that. This cannot be a precedent with respect to Ontario or Manitoba or some other province.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not so sure that it could not be so used.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Beauharnois Power Bills
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT moved the third reading of the bill.
Mr. ARM AND LaVERGNE (Montmagny):
1	just wish to state, as a member from Quebec, that I do not believe Quebec rights are in danger in this bill. Also, I think the St. Lawrence is a dominion asset and that dominion rights should be .preserved before anything else in a question of this kind.
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and .passed.
The house in committee on Bill No. 143, respecting the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company, Limited.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Right to divert water.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I wish to move that section
2	be amended by inserting after the word "assigns" in the second line the following:
in so far as it may be within the competence of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Further diversion to be approved.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I desire to move that section
3	be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
3.	The governor in council shall not consent to any further or additional diversion by said company of the river St. Lawrence except with the express approval of parliament.
That leaves entirely open the question as to whether or not and to what extent such consent is necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Auditor General's office-salaries, including the Auditor General at $10,000 additional to 7-8 Edward V, chapter 6, $443,825.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Under the new statute the salary is a charge against the consolidated revenue fund, and this will be the last year in which it will be dealt with in this way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Loan to harbour commissioners of Montreal, with interest at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council, for such period and upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, and to be applied in payment of deficits resulting from the operations of the Montreal harbour bridge, $681,600.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This item might be reduced by payments that have been received since it was placed in the estimates, but it is unnecessary to do so because it will only mean that so much less will be required, so it might pass as it is.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for payment annually from the consolidated revenue fund of the sum of $2,000 to each minister of the crown charged with the administration of a department, the solicitor general, and the leader of the opposition, and the sum of $1,000 each to the speaker of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Commons, in lieu of motor cars and their maintenance, including chauffeurs, the acceptance of such sums not to vacate their respective seats in parliament: and to authorize the governor in council to appoint any person now employed in the public service as a chauffeur of a passenger automobile at Ottawa, whose position is abolished, to a vacant position in the public service, provided such chauffeur has been continuously employed as such for at least two years_ and that the appointment will be made at no higher remuneration than he is now receiving, $42,000.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not want to delay the committee, but I do not think this estimate should have been imposed upon the house under the circumstances in which the country finds itself just now. It is perhaps a small matter in itself and I am not going to say that the ministers are sufficiently paid without receiving a further remuneration. But this matter has been commented upon in many quarters and it creates a very bad impression. The practice of ministers having automobiles of their own has grown up without special statute, and this is interpreted as simply a disguised increase in salary for ministers and the leader of the opposition; and in the present circumstances it is a very bad way of terminating the session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should hesitate to
speak about this, but it is desirable that a wrong impression should not be left on the minds of the committee. The cost of ministerial cars last year was $47,266.52; the cost of departmental cars was some $34,000, making a total of $81,267.26; with a net purchase price for ministers' cars and others of $106,748.04. Of the 36 cars, 20 have been turned over to the departmental garage, Department of National Defence, for storage and ultimate disposal.

Supply-Miscellaneous
I have no desire that at this time in the country's history additional salaries should be granted to ministers. On the other hand,
I can speak, perhaps, with a little more freedom than my colleagues, and I am not concerned whether or not this vote is allowed, so far as I am personally concerned. But I do say this, that while cars were allowed to ministers for a long time, a practice grew up the example of which was bad, and we determined to discontinue it. But it is unfair to ask men to leave their homes and their professions, in many instances their future, and come to the city of Ottawa and live here, maintaining that position which they are bound to maintain by virtue of their office, and then find themselves, at the end of a term of office, hopelessly bankrupt. That has happened in this city. It has happened during the last few years that one of the leading ministers of the crown found himself in that position, and when he departed this life his estate indicated that that was so.
Men in politics should not be compelled to rely upon the benefaction of friends or *otherwise, so far as the duty they owe the state is concerned; and when men serve Canada for the miserable pittance they get, as compared with what they would receive if they were practising their professions-they would get twice as much-to say that they should come here and find themselves, after a term of office, with their little savings gone, with their families on the threshold of life, without much opportunity to get an education because of the cost, and then to expect them to maintain the dignity of their office, entertaining, dispensing hospitality, treating visitors as they should treat them, moving to and fro, from one place to another, maintaining cars, I do not believe that anybody would suggest that this is at all reasonable. Least of all do the Canadian people expect it, and it cannot be done on the salary that is provided.
I did consult with the leader of the opposition with respect to the matter, and I am sorry he is not here at the moment. A sum was arrived at after consultation with automobile men and garages, and there is not a member of this house who does not appreciate just what is involved. I can only say that this item does not represent the cost of gasoline and service which I pay, without any question of loss or depreciation to the car; and I do not want my colleagues, nor does anyone in this house want them, to be placed in a different position because of the accident of our circumstances. Moreover, in the end it is a saving. I ask the committee to realize that this sum of money is 22110-286
here for a specific purpose and is used for that purpose. So far as I know, it is not adequate for the purpose, but it saves the country $40,000 or $50,000 a year or perhaps a good deal more than that in the end. At least it will save $5,000 a month.
None of my colleagues will engage in this discussion and I want to be fair to them. I think most of us know that there is not a single occasion on which a charity list or some other subscription list is opened when every minister is not asked to subscribe. And if we are to have that probity in public life which has been spoken of in the house so frequently we must ait least put men in positions that will be self-sustaining, positions in which they can support themselves and their families and maintain that dignity which by virtue of the offices they hold they are bound to maintain, not because they want to but because they have to. It is not a matter of choice but of necessity. I ask the committee to pass this item as offering to the country an indication of the fact that the people do not expect their servants to serve them without being at least placed in a position that will not leave them the poorer for the services they render. The labourer is worthy of his hire, whatever may be his position. In every walk of life I know of men receive compensations in keeping with the services they give. If anyone has any doubt about that, let him look at the lawyers' bills which we pass in the estimates, or at those bills entailed in connection with the recent committee. I speak strongly about this, although I have no personal interest in it; but I believe it is the fair thing to do by men who serve the state on either side of the house, giving of their best to the country. And it is better than the indiscriminate use of automobiles in the manner that grew up out of the war. This is in the interests of the country. It represents a saving to the people and is a fair recognition of the fact that you do not expect people who serve you to be poorer in consequence of that service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries-further amount required pending the final adjustment of staffs by the department and the Civil Service Commission, owing to the transfer of natural resources, such sum to cover allowances to those retired and salaries of those retained, $100,000.
Mr. OHEVRIER:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to delay the committee at this late stage, but I am very sorry to see that the administration has not seen fit to include in

Supply-Miscellaneous

the supplementary estimates something in the way of relief for those who have been let out from the Department of the Interior. I thought at one time that this matter was being favourably considered, especially the suggestion that five years should be added to the length of service of those who had not reached thirty-five years of service. To have done this would have served a very useful purpose. I had other observations to make on this item, but I will defer them until next session.
The Prime Minister is very much concerned, as it is his duty to be, about unemployment, and I hope that he will find some way of using some of the money which has been appropriated to-day in an endeavour to relieve the situation in Ottawa. Six hundred employees have been let out, and when their families are considered the total number affected would amount to probably 2,500. This has caused a tremendous disturbance of ecenomic conditions in this city, as a large number of merchants, dealers and others have thereby also been affected. These employees have been let out without notice and I trust the administration will give their case favourable consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The observations of the hon. gentleman have been noted and his representations have not been overlooked. However, it is impossible to deal with this matter until such time as we have ascertained to what extent the other departments of the service will be able to absorb these employees. If the hon. gentleman sees fit between now and next session to make such representations as he may be advised to make on behalf of those for whom he speaks, they will be looked into and if possible consideration will be given.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I thank the Prime Minister for his very considerate reply.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries-to provide hereby for the continuance in office of G. W. Dawson as departmental purchasing agent, grade 5, from February 13, 1931 to March 31, 1932, $1.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a case where the gentleman involved is beyond the age of seventy. As he is continuing in the service, the vote of $1 is to indicate that no order in council is being passed. This vote is being put in the estimates in order to*show that parliament is giving its approval of this action.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Alan Webster Neill: There are a number of works urgently required throughout the province, and I hope that advantage will be taken of the sum voted for unemployment in order to complete some of these requirements. Much of this work would be in the nature of a stitch in time; if it is not done to-day it may prove to be very costly in the future. This work would supply employment to the local people as well as to make much needed repairs of wharves, floats and so on.
To provide for payments to the railways in connection with movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor general in council and for the cost of administration thereof, $1,428,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is superseded, because of its wording, by a new item which appears in the estimates which were submitted this morning.
Item dropped.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
To provide for the administration of the Income War Tax Act, 1917, and amendments thereof, and authority for this purpose to create positions and make appointments, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, and the said positions and staff so appointed are hereby wholly excluded from the operation of the said act-further amount required, $350,000.
To provide for expenses of maintenance of revenue cruisers and for preventive service- further amount required,	$150,000.-Total,
James Layton Ralston: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: He is not in very good
health to-day and he has retired, but I am familiar with the matter.


James Layton Ralston: I wish to refer to a matter that came up the other night with regard to the dismissal of an officer in the provincial service, concerning which I spoke to my hon. friend, and he said he would have the matter looked into. Since then I have received a return. I am sorry at this late date to have to take up the time of the committee to bring the matter up, but I shall take only a moment. This is the case of a man named Norman MacDonald, in Pictou, Nova Scotia. The minister stated the other night that this man was a very efficient officer in every way. He seems to have been appointed in May, 1927. On March 19, 1931, a certificate was given by the hon. member for Pictou to the minister as follows:
I have personal knowledge that Mr. Norman MacDonald, preventive officer at Trenton. N.S.,

Supply-National Revenue
was guilty of active political partisanship prior to and during the last election contest and, as a member of parliament, I ask for his dismissal on that account.
On March 22 the recommendation went forward for his dismissal. On April 2 he received notice of dismissal and on April 11 he sent to the commissioner of customs this letter:
I wish to acknowledge receipt of departmental letter of April 2 advising me that an order in council was passed dispensing with my services as a customs-excise enforcement officer on account of active political partisanship during the recent federal elections.
This notice comes as a shock to me, as I have not taken any part in politics, and I have always done my duty without fear or favour, as an examination of my record will show. I think this order is neither fair nor just and I appeal in all fairness that I be reinstated in the service and given a fair investigation.
I am sending a copy of this letter to the Hon. R. B. Bennett, Prime Minister; Hon. E. B. Ryclcman, Minister of National Revenue, and A. T. Logan, Divisional Chief Customs-Excise Preventive Service.
Yours respectfully,
Norman MacDonald.
Then telegrams were sent, not by Mr. MacDonald or by personal friends of his, but by the social service council and by Mr. H. R. Grant, President of the Nova Scotia Temperance Association, protesting in the strongest terms against MacDonald's dismissal. On April 15, Mr. H. R. Grant wired the commissioner of customs as follows;
With reference to recent dismissal Preventive Officer Norman MacDonald social service council of Nova Scotia believes charge of active political partisanship cannot be substantiated. Request impartial investigation.
On April 14, the previous day, a longer telegram was sent, which is on the file, in which the Social Service Council of Nova Scotia protests against the dismissal of preventive officer MacDonald as follows:
The Social Service Council of Nova Scotia protests against the dismissal of Preventive Officer Norman MacDonald, who since his appointment has been doing excellent work in Pictou, Antigonish and Guysborough. The charge against him is active political partisanship. From information we have we know the charge is unfounded. His dismissal would give satisfaction to the liquor interests and the baser element of the people of the province, and would outrage the moral sense of the law-respecting citizens. We further protest against the dismissal of any officer in the preventive service without an impartial investigation.
MacDonald ceased duty on April 15, the next day after this .telegram was sent. A further protest was sent by Mr. Grant on May 13 when he wrote to Mr. Breadner, commissioner of customs, as follows. I am 22110-2661
leaving out the first part where h.e refers to Mr. Breadner's telegram:
I now write to ascertain if although "it is not the practice in such cases to have an investigation" an opportunity will be given Mr. MacDonald to produce evidence that he has not violated section 55 of the Civil Service Act.
We respectfully protest against the regulation of the Civil Service Commission, which empowers an individual member of parliament to be prosecuting attorney, judge and jury in such cases, and we ask for an impartial investigation.
In behalf of the Social Service Council and Temperance Alliance of Nova Scotia.
Yours sincerely,
H. R. Grant,
General Secretary.
On the 22nd April MacDonald sent in to the department; a statutory declaration as follows:
I, Norman MacDonald, of Trenton, Nova Scotia, ex-customs-excise enforcement officer, appointed permanently by order in council passed on the 21st day of December, 1929, do solemnly declare:
That by departmental letter dated April 2, 1931, I was notified that an order in council had been passed dispensing with my services as customs-excise enforcement officer on account of active political partisanship. This notice was a complete surprise to me as I have not taken any part in politics in any way whatsoever at any time whatever since my appointment as such customs-excise enforcement officer, or since my temporary appointment to said office, made June 1, 1927, or for a long time prior thereto, and I have not at any time whatever while a servant or employee of the Dominion of Canada or any department of the government of the Dominion of Canada taken any part whatever in political activities of any kind, and I have always done my duty without fear or favour, and I submit that a fair investigation of my record as an officer will substantiate the facts herein set forth and show that I have had a record for efficiency at least a good deal above the average.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
Norman MacDonald.
Declared before me at New Glasgow, this 3rd day of May, 1931.
A. Johnston Chisholm.
A commissioner of the supreme court of Nova Scotia authorized to take affidavits to be used in the supreme court of Nova Scotia.
What I am asking my right hon. friend, who has h,ad a letter addressed to him regarding the matter, is that under the circumstances shown him, an investigation should be granted to this officer into the conditions of the case. Not only has this man given his own declaration, but we have had three different protests from the Social Service Council of Nova Scotia. The minister himself said that he
Supply-National Revenue

was an efficient officer in every way, and the other night he intimated that he was very sorry to lose this man's services. The hon. member lor Pictou thinks this man was guilty of political partisanship. He should be given an opportunity to defend himself in view of the fact that he has gone on the stand, as it were, and made a solemn declaration that he was not guilty of political partisanship.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member raises a question that this house dealt with on a previous occasion. It will be recalled that one of the then ministers took the responsibility of making a declaration similar in terms to that which was made by the hon. member for Pictou and action was taken by his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, upon such recommendation. The house decided then by a majority that this was the proper course to take. Under those circumstances there seems to be no reason why the rule thus established should be departed from. Where a member has pledged his word that a condition exists, the action taken upon it one should not say is irrevocable; but action at any rate has been taken upon it, and it is a matter between the member and the constituency which he has the honour to represent in the house. That has been the action previously taken by this house. What action it may take in the future I cannot say, for I have not had the opportunity to do more than just look through the correspondence and see that the facta were as I have indicated and as the hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth has clearly indicated from correspondence. The matter can be further considered, but I have no opinion beyond that which I have just expressed.


James Layton Ralston: I would urge my right hon. friend in the strongest way I can to reconsider the case in view of the representations that I have received. I do not think the case to which he refers is on all fours with the case I put before the house. I do not think there was a denial of the act in that case. The question was whether or not the acts constituted offensive partnership, but the acts were not denied. Here the acts are specifically denied, the man says he is innocent, and he is backed up by people who know him and his services, and he is backed up as well by the minister. I do submit that he ought at least to have a trial because after all the rule with regard to members certainly is only a rule of evidence; dismissal is made under section 55 of the act, which must be

on proof of active partisanship. I ask my right hon. friend to consider not only carefully but favourably the ordinary application for an investigation.


Mr. CANTLEY:: The member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) brought my name into this matter on a previous occasion, and has done so again to-night. I asked for the dismissal of Norman MacDonald, preventive officer. Yes, I certainly did, and I was fully justified in doing so. My action was taken at the urgent request of prominent Conservatives, my political friends, who were fully aware of the rabid and excessive political partisanship of the man known to be such and by them resented for years. While my action was taken as stated, it was, as of necessity it had to be, on my own definite, personal knowledge and in conformity with section 55 of the Civil Sendee Act.
As to the demand for an investigation, that is not a matter for me to decide and I can only refer my hon. friend to the proper authorities. May I suggest, however, that MacDonald and his friends, including the hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth, might perhaps be well advised to drop their demand in that connection.
Of olden time, a judge in Israel contracted a matrimonial alliance with a Philistine woman of the Clachan of Tinmath. The men of the place being poor sports, lacking in imagination and devoid of honour, meanly and cowardly secured information by fraud and threats which wTon them thirty shirts and thirty changes of raiment. This brought from the victim of the fraud the classic: "If ye had not ploughed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle." The friends of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, with much the same high sense of honour, obtained access to correspondence marked "private and confidential." This they lacked the intelligence to understand and jumped to the erroneous conclusion that my action had been undertaken solely on the suggestion of some of my friends and not on my' own personal knowledge.
If the hon. ex-minister wishes to further ventilate the matter, I shall be glad to accommodate him and, in that case will submit some facts to the house as to the action of his friends both prior to and after July 28, 1930, which, peradventure, will cause him and them to regret his action. He and his friends may need thirty shirts and thirty changes of raiment, but they will not get them from me. If he thinks he can, I sav "Lead on MacDuff."

Supply-Miscellaneous-Coal


James Layton Ralston: All I say to my hon.
friend is that after the assurance which he gives I am sure that he will welcome the investigation, and I am sure the Prime Minister will grant it now. That is all I am asking for. My hon. friend seems satisfied with that, and I am.


Thomas Cantley: Under the act to which
I have referred and under the conditions existing I understand that he is not entitled to an investigation. I saw his affidavit. He denies doing certain things, but there are many other things which he does not deny which he did do.


William Daum Euler: There is an amount of $350-, 000 in this item which constitutes an increase under the Income War Tax Act. I think that is an increase over anything that we have had in the last four years, and I should like to know what is the reason for it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That $350,000 is provided for the purpose of enabling the auditors to carry out the very work that was suggested by my hon. friend to-day in connection with the income tax and other revenues. It is thought that closer investigation will bring to the government of the country greater revenue. The officials assure us that with the expenditure of this sum of money they will be able to recover this year ten times the amount thus appropriated. They did ask for half a million dollars. There are only seven months left of the fiscal year, and this amount of $350,000 gives them $50,000 a month to carry on their investigations. One matter alone in which they are now interested would net to the treasury a sum at least three times the amount thus appropriated.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-to provide for payments in connection with movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council and for the cost of administration thereof, $1,428,000.
Alan Webster Neill: Under this item a bonus is
to be paid on coal mined on Vancouver island for export and the bunker trade. I wish to ask whether it provides for a bonus at the rate originally contemplated of 25 cents per ton, or at the rate of one dollar per ton which I had some reason to hope the Prime Minister might agree to on further consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Twenty-five cents a ton is the sum provided for under this estimate.


Alan Webster Neill: Then I must take up ten
minutes of the time of the house. I have seen a lot of time wasted to-day and this
is not going to be wasted. It will take me a great deal longer if there are interruptions. This is one of the occasions, Mr. Chairman, when you can show yourself by keeping order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is pretty hard in
certain circumstances.


Alan Webster Neill: What does that mean?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The circumstances
the hon. member referred to.


Alan Webster Neill: When this matter was up before I was particularly careful to make no kind of political or other attack or criticism on the government. I merely pointed out that their policy was such and so, and that it apparently stopped short when it came to Vancouver island. Now that the government have definitely decided against us I still do not propose to waste the time of the house in reproaches against the government. It is a local matter, and while constituting a very bitter grievance it does not interest the members in the east. Also I want to lose, no possible opportunity and to close no door through which we may still get relief.
I want to refer to three or four items. The Prime Minister, speaking the other day, said that it was one thing to be asked for aid to prevent an industry going to disaster, and another thing to encourage a. new and thriving industry. I would point out that the coal mines on Vancouver island will average some forty years in age. Ten minutes before the Prime Minister made that remark his supporter from Cape Breton South, where the coal mines have been in operation for something like two hundred years, made the remark that the industry in his district was a dying industry-I have the Hansard here but I shall not take the time to quote his exact words-and must be rejuvenated or it would perish, and he congratulated the .government on taking steps to prevent it dying; that was the word he used. If his argument is good and sound, and I admit that it is in regard to Nova Scotia, the same argument should be equally applicable to mines not one-fifth part of their age in British Columbia.
There are two matters which give me still some hope that the Prime Minister may give us at any rate some relief, in the matter of which I am speaking. While speaking of these coal mines at Nanaimo and in Cumberland he commented on the fact of how hard up these, miners would be this winter. He said that the tales of poverty and destitution that had been told to him would almost justify the bonus of one dollar per ton which we wer?
Supply-M iscellaneous-C oal

asking for, being given by way of a relief measure. Further, speaking directly to me, he informed me that his policy was a national policy and that wherever it was necessary compensating adjustments would be made. I tell him that here and now is the hour and the moment at which the compensating adjustments should be made, and this is the place in which to make them. They are obviously due now.
There was another feature in connection with this matter in respect to which I think a mistake arose in the. Prime Minister's mind. It was in connection with lignite. At one place he said that in his opinion the lignite to which I had referred, coming into British Columbia from the state of Washington, was not true lignite, and therefore the matter was at an end.


George Gordon: You mean from Bellingham?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, and from Newcastle in the state of Washington. He said that it was not lignite. In a sense that is true, but unfortunately it comes in as lignite. You cannot tell the difference between lignite and bituminous coal by looking at it. You must have some rule of thumb or scientific method of finding out the moisture content. I agree with the Minister of Mines that it is not lignite, but bituminous coal, but it is coming in and will continue to come in as lignite.


George Gordon: What is the difference between bituminous coal and lignite?


Alan Webster Neill: The difference is in the moisture content.


George Gordon: How much difference is there between the two?


Alan Webster Neill: It may be half of one per cent. When it was necessary to make a dividing line between lignite and bituminous coal-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is six per cent or over.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, if it is six per cent
moisture content or over it is classified as lignite, and if it is a fraction under six per cent it is classified as bituminous coal. That is the point I want to make. It is not the coal that is wrong; it is the definition. It is no use saying that that is not lignite because it is, so long as it comes in under the definition of lignite. What is needed to be changed is the definition, which was wrongly or carelessly made a number of years ago. I have the records here. I allude to one which the minister can Check up. There was a special committee in 1926 investigating the coal resources of Canada, and on June 9, at page
Mr. Nelli.]
179 will be found a reference to lignite and a description of the difference between it and bituminous coal. Dr. Oamsell, the Deputy Minister of Mines, was giving evidence. I tried to pin him down. I asked him what was lignite, and he said bhat it was coal containing about ten per cent moisture. The definition says only six per cent, but I say that it was carelessly drawn at the time. Then I have statements from Mr. McLeish, who is one of the officials of the minister's department, and he says that it is quite possible, as the scientific classifications of coal are not sharply defined, that parliament if it so desired- the department itself could do it-could quite justifiably adopt seven per cent as the limiting point for lignite coal. The British Columbia chamber of commerce suggests eight per cent.


George Gordon: What effect would that
have on the movement of coal so far as we are concerned?


Alan Webster Neill: As regards coal going from
Alberta to the United States?


George Gordon: Any place.


Alan Webster Neill: If it was judiciously done it would keep tiheir coa'l out and allow our coal to go into the United States.


George Gordon: What does the hon. member mean by "judiciously done"?


Alan Webster Neill: Not making it either ridiculously high or ridiculously low, as it is at present. If it were put at eight per cent it would probably exclude Bellingham coal. I have the records here of the coal coming in from the United States and the moisture content runs from 6.1, 6.2 and so forth. The definition could be changed to exclude Bellingham coa'l from Canada and allow southern Alberta coal to go into the United States.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the item carry?


Alan Webster Neill: No, it is not carried, and
I consider it a piece of gratuitous impertinence, Mr. Chairman, for you to say so when a member is on his feet and speaking.
Unless the definition is changed this coal must come in as lignite. If the definition were Changed it would help us materially. It would then come in as bituminous and carry a duty of 75 cents per ton. That would give us that trade, which amounted last year to 17,000 tons, not a very big amount, but still quite an item.
The other matter about which I think the minister was inadvertently mistaken was this. He stated that doing away with this lignite

Supply-M iscellaneous-Coal
would do away with the grievance that I was alleging in connection with the countervailing duties. That is not so. The coal is not classified simply as coal when it goes into the United States, but as lignite or bituminous or anthracite, and a duty on one would not affect 'the other. There are two situations, the bituminous coal situation and the lignite situation. The lignite coal came in for years free of duty. The Finance minister in his budget the other day put on a duty of 40 cents a ton. Later he took that off, so we are left exactly as we were before, with no duty on lignite entering Canada and no duty on the Canadian products entering the United States. It would help us if it was classified properly and made liable to the bituminous duty.
The bituminous coal situation was this. We paid a duty of 50 cents a ton going into the United States, on a countervailing basis. When we raised our duty from 50 cents to-75 cents a ton, automatically, without any action by congress, the Americans raised their duty to 75 cents also. That cuts off a trade for us, not of 17,000 tons, but of 48,850 tons. That was the shipment of that class of coal into the United States last year. I am entitled I think to say that we will certainly lose that trade. I shall not give the figures now because I gave them before, but it means a loss of about $270,000 a year. It is easy to find the remedy. It would be to put the duty back on again, but the Finance Minister cannot do that without upsetting the whole fabric of his fuel policy. It would affect the situation in Nova Scotia. I do not ask him to change the duty again. The obvious thing to do is to give us a compensating adjustment, as he readily can, to take care of the injury we suffer by the operation of this policy. I am still slow to believe that the Prime Minister, once he understands the matter thoroughly, will refuse to remedy this grievance, especially as he is committed to a policy that demands precisely this action. The increased duty on coal in the east and the increased subsidy with respect to railway transportation call for a compensating adjustment which, as I say, we have not been given. He may help us with the lignite, but that is a small matter; the main thing would be to raise the bonus to $1 a ton. He has denied that request, but even yet there is a possibility of helping to some extent by giving this bonus of $1 a ton out of the relief fund. That would be a cheap way of doing it, because it is far better to keep men working steadily at fair wages, even though they work only three
days a week, than to cut them off completely and have to give them a dole. So I say the money could be taken out of the relief grant with great satisfaction and benefit.


George Gordon: How much'will the mines get under the present bonus?


Alan Webster Neill: They will get about $25,000 and lose a trade of $293,000. Of course this aid by way of relief would not be so satisfactory to us as assistance given under the other policy, for this reason: Coal mines are not like corner grocery stores; they must lay their plans for months and years ahead, and if this money were granted out of the relief fund it would be liable to peter out next November, or certainly next March because this act does not operate after that, whereas the policy applied to the eastern and Alberta coal mines runs until 1932, so it would not be nearly so satisfactory. Still, as a drowning man grasps at a straw, certainly it would help us and would relieve the situation there during the coming winter, so I would earnestly implore the Prime Minister to give this request his consideration.
I have only a word more to say, and I am going to quote the Prime Minister. As I said before, he stated that conditions there would almost warrant this money being taken out of the relief fund, and further he said that where adjustments were necessary they would be granted. A day or two ago the right hon, gentleman spoke about the bonus on wheat being a compensating adjustment for the taxes the wheat growers paid through the higher tariff. This is exactly the same situation; I am asking for a compensating adjustment for the loss we have sustained through the increased duty on coal, which cuts us off from a profitable market in the United States. Curiously enough the price of a ton of coal represents twenty bushels of wheat; the bonus on twenty bushels of wheat comes to $1, and we are asking a bonus of $1 a ton.
If some measure of this kind is not introduced it cannot be denied that the government has been unfair to the industry and unfair to the district. I think in all moderation I could go further and say they have been untrue to the promises made at election time and to the very pronounced and definite pledges given in their platform. I know there are occasions when prime ministers, governments and sometimes candidates make promises in all good faith which they are unable to carry out because of subsequent circumstances, but that is not so in this case
Supply-Quebec Harbour
COMMON;
The government of the day has found a remedy for the coal situation in Canada, but it has not been applied as far as British Columbia is concerned. I can see no excuse for them; they have the support of the provincial government and of a very large number of public bodies. The responsibility must be with the government. I have done my best and I am willing to believe the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) when he says he has done everything he can. The result is in the hands of the government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loan to the Quebec harbour commissioners for the construction of harbour improvements and terminal facilities, including renewals and repairs, additional to the amount authorized by the Quebec Harbour Loan Act, 1928, notwithstanding the limitation expressed in the last phrase of section 2 of the said act, but to be otherwise subject to the provisions of the said act, $500,000.
Ernest Lapointe: I am heartily in favour of this item and supported the request for it. Of course one of the main arguments in its favour is that it will help relieve unemployment in the city of Quebec. I am sorry the Minister of Marine is not here, but my colleague from Quebec city, the Solicitor General is here, and I would like him to give me the assurance that Liberal unemployed will have a chance to work on the harbour works as well as Conservative unemployed.


George Gordon: One hundred per cent.


Maurice Dupré: Is the question addressed
to me? I am not the Minister of Marine, but I may say that certainly we will do as well as my hon. friends did when in power; we will treat everyone with the same justice.


Ernest Lapointe: This is a question of
helping the unemployed; I should like to know whether they will be considered. I am a little afraid, because since the last election many Liberal workers have lost their jobs there.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is that possible?


Some hon. MEMBER:: Good.


Ernest Lapointe: Somebody says "good," but I would not like to think that money voted for the relief of unemployment would go only to Tories.


Maurice Dupré: If the Liberals were put out of their jobs I may say that in 1921, in 1925 and in 1926 Conservative workmen also were put out of work, but that is not the question. The unemployed will be dealt with justly, irrespective of political creed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Mr. Neill.1
Experimental farms, $2,325,000.
William Richard Motherwell: May I ask a question with regard to item 112?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Item 112 has been
carried.


An hon. MEMBER:: You cannot carry
them in that way.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: No one objected when it was called.


William Richard Motherwell: I object, just for a moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: These estimates have
been discussed very much longer than any other agricultural estimates have been discussed, and if this is to continue I do not intend to attempt to prorogue- on Sunday morning.


William Richard Motherwell: I was just going
to ask the Prime Minister whether he wished to prorogue to-night. If he does I am not going to stand in his way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thank the former
Minister of Agriculture. I did mention the matter to his leader and it was thought we might be able to do so, but time is passing very rapidly, and the deputy of His Excellency was asked to come about eleven o'clock. Many edreumStaniees combined, perhaps, to take up more time than was expected; for instance, I promised two of my hon. friends an opportunity to discuss some other matters. If it is desired that the house should sit on Monday I will accommodate myself to that desire; otherwise if we can dispose of the business in the next few minutes we might prorogue to-night.


William Richard Motherwell: I am not going to take the responsibility of holding this house over until Monday, nor am I going to take the responsibility of engaging in this midnight farce. A proper discussion of these items cannot be undertaken in this way, so I am just going to let the chairman call the items out and the Prime Minister call them "carried" while I sit by, look on and behold the procession go by.


Richard Bedford Bennett: , I am sorry I cannot let that remark pass; I should like to do so but I cannot, because of the government. No items have been more fully discussed in this house since I have been here than those of the Department of Agriculture this year.


William Richard Motherwell: I beg to differ with my right hon. friend. They were discussed on four different days; there was one return

Supply-Experimental Farms
asked for having to do with the total production of milk for the last ten years, and that return was not supplied to the committee until the fourth day. When it was supplied by the minister the discussion ceased.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: That is not a
correct Statement. According to Hansard it was asked for on May 28 and was produced on May 29.


William Richard Motherwell: It was produced
on the fourth day after being asked for.


Mr. DONNELLY:: In regard to the time
taken in discussing these agricultural estimates, I do not think there is any more important subject to discuss. We spent most of our time in committee discussing this question of dairying; I think if we did spend three days it was well spent, and we can spend a longer time at it. There are many other things that should be taken up and discussed, and I do not think it should be left to the last minute of the last hour of the last day to bring up the rest of the estimates of agriculture and ask us to put them through in two or three minutes. They should have been brought up some days ago. We spent time in other lass important discussions, and this all important question, a question of importance to the greater part of the Dominion, should not be dismissed summarily.


John Vallance: The next item has to do with live stock. The present Minister of Agriculture has announced on various occasions a new agricultural policy along live stock lines, and it should be fully discussed. We have not discussed in committee the marketing of farm products. No report has been concurred in by this house and no opportunity has been given to members who are particularly interested, representing agricultural constituencies, to deal with the subject in the manner in which it ought to be dealt with. I am absolutely in agreement with the hon. member for Willow Bunch.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I move that the committee rise and report progress.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This cannot possibly go on. I think the right hon. gentleman will agree that more time has been given to agriculture this year than in any year, at least since I have been in the house. Agriculture has been the subject of study by a special committee and all these matters have been
under consideration. If hon. gentlemen have taken up more time on one item than another, the blame cannot be put on the government. This house has not sat after eleven o'clock except on two occasions, and the business has been conducted in a proper and orderly manner. I do not, therefore, propose to have the house prorogued when hon. gentlemen say that they have not had an opportunity for discussion. They have had an opportunity and if they have not taken advantage of it they cannot blame the government. I have the pages of Hansard taken up in discussion, and for every page covered by the whole of the government forces two pages have been covered by the opposition. That is the record. Under these circumstances, if hon. gentlemen say that they desire an opportunity for further discussion of agriculture on Monday, I shall certainly move that the committee rise and report progress. If they are satisfied with the discussion that has taken place in the special committee, in this house, and in this committee, then I wrill endeavour, although it is difficult, to prorogue the house before midnight.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Some days ago it was intimated that an opportunity would be afforded to discuss the tariff items of last September. There are some members who wish to discuss those items and who will not be able to do so. It is not my intention to take up the time of the house but I do want to commend to the Prime Minister the address delivered on June 12 and also the address of June 15, and to ask him to consider the remarks that were made then. The condition has not changed since that time; in fact, it has become worse. If you read the newspaper reports since that time you will see that the people of this country are in a worse position possibly than they were then. I ask the Prime Minister to consider those addresses and to take proper action, as he has intimated that he will do, under section 18 of the act which he has passed at this session of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Olof Hanson: Mr. Chairman-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: When shall the committee have leave to sit again?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Next sitting.
*1516
Business oj the Home



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Richard Bedford Bennett: I move the adjournment of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will it be eleven o'clock on Monday or three o'clock in the afternoon?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to move that the house stand adjourned until either eleven o'clock or three o'clock, as the right hon. gentleman thinks his friends desire. If they wish to talk from eleven o'clock to one o'clock, discussing the items, very well; if not, the house will meet at three o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon, friend has shown his capacity to make decisions. He had better say which


Richard Bedford Bennett: Eleven o'clock, so that hon. members may have an opportunity to discuss the estimates on agriculture.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This house stands adjourned until Monday morning at eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, August 3, 1931.