1932-03-23

[Stage Direction]
Bill No 35, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Matthews.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice to

the house that at the next sitting I will move that the debate on item number 13 of the orders of the day, that Mr. Speaker leave the chair, and the previous question moved thereupon shall not be further adjourned.
Yesterday the former Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) said:
This discussion has been carried on at great length. I think sometimes the time of parliament is wasted, and we on this side are as much to blame as -those on the other side, sometimes perhaps more. But I do not believe that this discussion has been a waste of time. I believe that the people of Canada, when they are thoroughly seized of the importance of this particular resolution and of the bill to be founded upon it, will justify us in what we are doing. I would say this further, and I am speaking for myself alone: I would invite the government, if it feels that we are blocking legislation deliberately and not with the interests of the country at heart, to apply the closure, and we are quite willing to abide by the decision with regard to it.
On Friday last I considered the desirability, in view of the fact that the Easter adjournment was imminent, of giving the notice which I have just read, but I thought that possibly the situation would clarify and it would not be necessary. In view of what has transpired it now becomes essential in the interests of those who are most concerned that such should be done. In view of the fact that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King)-


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order, is this question debatable?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker is not on
his feet.


Mr. SPEAKER:: What is the point of
order?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I asked
Your Honour's ruling as to whether or not notice of a motion to be moved at the next sitting is debatable.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The leader of the government and the leader of the opposition are given a certain latitude in matters of this kind. I do not think the remarks have been over-extended on this occasion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to say when I was interrupted .that inasmuch as the right hon. the leader of the opposition had expressed so great a desire to expedite the passing of legislation which would assist those who are greatly in need, and inasmuch as we propose to proceed with closure on Tuesday next

Questions
when the house meets, it might be that in his great anxiety he will expedite the application this afternoon of the motion for closure and permit the passing of the legislation before we adjourn.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. TAYLOR:: What claims were paid by the Montreal harbour commission for shortage in the cold storage during the period from January, 1922. to June, 1926, and from October, 1926, to August, 1930?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The following information has been furnished by the Montreal harbour commissioners:
The following claims were paid by the harbour commissioners for shortages at the cold storage warehouse during the period from January, 1922, to June, 1926, and from October, 1926, to August, 1930:
1924,	January-Watt & Scott, Ltd.,
2 bags shelled peanuts, short in R.R. car, but overlooked when car contents
were checked into warehouse..	.. $40 47
1925,	February-Ivelly-Springfield Tire Co., inner tubes stolen by outside
thief; man chased, but not caught.. 19 98
1925, March-Gunn Langlois & Company, 7 crates eggs; 2 boxes cheese; 8 boxes butter; delivered on order subsequently lost	 283 12
1925, October-Hudon, Hebert & Company, 2 cases apricots, short in company's lot when last delivery ordered	 10 50
1926-	Nil.
1927-	Nil.
1928-	M. Pesner & Son, 31 lambs
wrongly delivered	
286	441929,	October-Montreal Fruit Exchange, 100 boxes ' peaches at $1.40 wrongly delivered by warehouse man J. White from Montreal Fruit Exchange lot, to fill an order for 100 boxes peaches belonging to Fruit Importers, Ltd	
140	001930,	March-Jean Ruffo, 5 crates California celery at $12, delivered to M. Brown in error lot belonging toJean Ruffo	
60	00Total	$ 840 51


ST. GODFROID, QUE., POSTMASTER
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the postmaster of St. Godfroid. county of Bonaventure, Quebec, been dismissed and for what reasons?
2.	Has a temporary postmaster been appointed? If so. what is his name and on whose recommendation was the appointment made ?
3.	Has a permanent appointment been made in that office?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes-Commissioners' report found postmaster guilty of active political partisanship.
2.	Yes-Edmond Chapados. Recommended by Hon. Dr. E. Paquet.
3.	Yes.


LITTLE CASCAPEDIA, QUE., POSTMASTER
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the postmaster of Little Cascapedia, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, been dismissed and for what reasons?
2.	Has a temporary postmaster been appointed? If so, what is his name and on whose recommendation was the appointment made ?
3.	Has a permanent appointment been made in that office?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes-Commissioners' report found postmaster guilty of active political partisanship.
2.	Yes-Pierre Poirier. Recommended by Hon. Dr. E. Paquet.
3.	Yes.


PORT DANIEL WEST, QUE.-POSTMASTER.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the postmaster of Port Daniel West, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, been dismissed and for what reasons?
2.	Has a temporary postmaster been appointed, if so. what is his name and on whose recommendation was the appointment made?
3.	Has a permanent appointment been made in that office?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No.
2 and 3. See answer to No. 1.


RESTIGOUCHE, QUE.-POSTMASTER
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the postmaster of Restigouche, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, been dismissed and for what reasons?
2.	Has a temporary postmaster been appointed, if so, what is his name and on whose recommendation was the appointment made?
3.	Has a permanent appointment been made in that office?
41761-S8i
Questions


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes. Commissioners' report found postmaster guilty of active political partisanship.
2.	Yes. Frank C. Roy. Recommended by Hon. Dr. E. Paquet.
3.	No.


CARLETON POINT, QUE.-LIGHTKEEPER
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Was Louis Bujold, lighthouse keeper at Carleton Point, Quebec, dismissed?
2.	If so, who was appointed temporarily in charge?
3.	Has a permanent appointment been made, if so, who has been appointed?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Henry Joseph E. Martin.
3.	No permanent appointment has yet been made.


PASPEBIAC, QUE.-LIGHTKEEPER
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the lightkeeper at Paspebiac, Quebec, been dismissed and who has been appointed in his place?
2.	Has a permanent appointment been made, if so, who has been appointed.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes; Arsene Poirier, temporary lightkeeper.
2.	No.


ST. GODFROID, QUE.-LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER
Mr. MARCIL:: Has Jacques Grenier, keeper of the lighthouse and signal station at St. Godfroid, Quebec, been dismissed, if so, who has been appointed in his place?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes; Philippe LeBrasseur as lightkeeper; William Edmund Sullivan as storm signal agent.


ST. OMER, QUE.-LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the lighthouse keeper at St. Omer, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, been dismissed, if so, who has been appointed in his place?
2.	For what reason was the keeper dismissed, was there an investigation held and by whom?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes, Jean Arseneault.
2.	Political partisanship. An investigation was held by Commissioner Gerard Simard.


CARLETON, QUE., LIGHTKEEPER
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the lightkeeper at Carleton, Quebec, been dismissed, if so, who has been appointed in his place?
[Mr. Marcil.l
2.	For what reason was the keeper dismissed, was there an investigation held and by whom?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes; Robert Lefebvre.
2.	Political partisanship; an investigation was held by Gerard Simard, commissioner.


C.AP ST. IGNACE, POSTMASTER
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	Was the position of postmaster at Cap St. Ignace, county of Montmagny, Quebec, advertised as vacant?
2.	If so, what are the names of those who applied for said position?
3.	What is the name of the person who was appointed to said position?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3. Vacancy advertised up to 12th March, and report not yet received.


VESSEL ST. HELIERS
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	Does the government own a vessel called the St. Heliers?
2.	If so, from whom was she purchased and at Avhat price?
3.	When and Avhere was this vessel built?
4.	What amount has been expended to date for remodelling and repairs of this vessel?
5.	What is the estimated cost for fuel daily:
(a)	when in commission; (b) when idle?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 
PICTOU, N.S., PUBLIC WHARF
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	What amount of money was expended by the government during the year 1931 on repairs to the public wharf at Pictou, Nova Scotia:
(a)	for material; (b) for labour?
2.	Who was the foreman in charge of the work ?
3.	What remuneration did he receive?
4.	On whose recommendation was he appointed?
5.	By whom was the timber for said work supplied?
G. Were tenders called for the supply of timber ?
7. Who was the lowest tenderer?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 
ABERCROMBIE, N.S., PUBLIC WHARF
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	What amount of money was expended by the government during the year 1931 on repairs to the public wharf at Abercrombie, Nova Scotia: (a) for material; (b) for labour?
2.	Who was the foreman in charge of the work?
3.	What remuneration did he receive?
4.	On whose recommendation was he appointed?
5.	By whom was the timber for this work supplied?
6.	Were tenders called for the supply of timber?
7.	Who was the lowest tenderer?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	(a) Material	
$2,195 40(b)	Labour	
1,669 00


S3,864 40
[Stage Direction]
2.	N. F. Henderson.
3.	$4.50 per day for 474 days from 16th October, 1931, to 15th December, 1932, total S213.75.
4.	District engineer.
5.	James R. Porter, Stellarton, N.S.; John Rafuse, R.R. No. 3, New Glasgow, NB.
6.	Yes.
7.	J. R. Porter.
larry's river, n.s., postmaster
Mr. DUFF;
1.	Was Simon J. Pelerin dismissed from the position of postmaster at Larry's River, Nova Scotia ?
2.	Why was he so dismissed?
3.	Was an investigation held and by whom?
4.	What was the cost of said investigation?
5.	Who was appointed postmaster or postmistress in his place?
6.	What is the age of said appointee?
Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Postmaster found guilty of political partisanship.
3.	Yes, by N. D. Murray, Halifax.
4.	$106.70.
5.	Miss Nina Theresa Murphy.
6.	23.


NOTRE DAME DU LAC, QUE., POSTMASTER
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Is the position of postmaster at Notre-Dame du Lac, Quebec, vacant?
2.	If so, has the vacancy been advertised and when?
3.	If not, why?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Advertised from 8th to 23rd of January 1932.
3.	Answered by 2.


SULLY, QUE., POSTMASTER
Mr. POULIOT:: .
1.	Who were the applicants for the position of postmaster at Sully, Quebec?
2.	How many were returned soldiers?
3.	Has the vacancy been advertised?
4.	If so, when?
5.	If not, why?


Mr. SAUVR:: 1.	Two applications already received: (a) Andrea Tardif; (b) Isidore Jean.
2.	One.
3.	No.
4.	See number three.
5.	Order in council, confirming the commissioners' report finding the postmaster guilty of political partisanship, has not yet been passed.


POINTE LEBEL, QUE., POSTMASTER
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Is Henri Granier, postmaster at Pointe Lebel, county of Saguenay, a British subject by birth or by naturalization?
2.	If by birth, where was he born and on what date ?
3.	If by naturalization, on what date was he naturalized ?


Mr. CAHAN:: Post Office Department:
1.	By naturalization, according to postmaster's statement.
2.	Bom Visan (France), 15th May, 1861.
3.	No information as to date of naturalization.
Secretary of State Department:
1.	No record of his naturalization.
2.	and 3. Answered by No. 1.


LA RICHARDIERE, QUE., POSTMASTER
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the date of the dismissal of Joseph Michaud, as postmaster of La ilicliardiere, Quebec ?
2.	Why was he dismissed?
3.	Did many persons apply for the position?
4.	If so, what are their names?

Questions

5.	On whose recommendation did the Postmaster General appoint the present postmaster and for what reasons was he given the preference over other candidates?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	September 7th, 1931.
2.	Commissioners' report found postmaster guilty of active political partisanship.
3.	One.
4.	Francois Michaud.
5.	Recommended by Mr. C. E. Dube.


ST. ELOI, QUE.-MAIL CARRIER
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Who is the mail carrier between St. Eloi, county of Temiscouata, Quebec, and the station?
2.	What is the total amount of this contract?
3.	On what date was his tender accepted?
4.	What was the amount of his original tender ?
5: Were there other tenderers?
0.	If so, what are their names and what was the amount of each respective tender?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Francois Tardif.
2.	$346.74 per annum.
3.	September 16, 1931.
4.	$366 per annum.
5.	Yes.
6.	Alfred Dionne, S275, withdrawn at the request of the tenderer; Francois Tardif, $366; Napoleon Rioux, S400; Joseph Dionne, $450.


CHEMIN DU LAC, QUE.-POSTMASTER
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	On what date was Mr. Geo. Alphonse Belanger dismissed as postmaster of Chemin du Lac, Quebec?
2.	Why was be dismissed?
3.	Did many persons apply for his position?
4.	If so, what are their names?
5.	On whose recommendation did the Postmaster General appoint the present postmaster, and why was he chosen in preference to other candidates?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	March 2, 1932.
2.	Inattention to duty and assistant tampering with mail.
3.	Two applications received.
4.	J. E. Caron, Andre Caron.
5.	Recommended by Mr. C. E. Dube, as most suitable candidate.


DENONVILLE, QUE.-POSTMASTER
Jean-François Pouliot: .
1.	On what date was Mr. Thomas Dube dismissed as postmaster of Denonville, Quebec?
2.	Why was he dismissed?
3.	Did many persons apply for his position?
4.	If so, what are their names?
[Mr. Pouliot.l
5.	On whose recommendation did the Postmaster General appoint the present postmaster and why was he chosen in preference to other
candidates?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	November 13, 1931.
2.	Removal of office to more central location.
3.	4 and 5. One applicant, Mr. Theodule Michaud, who provided a more central location. Recommended by Mr. C. E. Dube.


RIOU, QUE.-POSTMASTER
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	WTiat was the date of the dismissal of Mr. Omer Sirois as postmaster of Riou, Quebec?
2.	Why was he dismissed?
3.	Did many persons apply for the position?
4.	If so, what are their names?
5.	On whose recommendation did the Postmaster General appoint the present postmaster, and why was he chosen in preference to other candidates?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	April 2, 1931.
2.	Removal of office to a more central location.
3.	4 and 5. One applicant, Mrs. Emile Ouellet, who provided a more central location. Recommended by Mr. C. E. Dube.


IVRY, QUE.-POSTMASTER
Jean-François Pouliot: .
1.	On what date was Mr. Joseph Morneau dismissed as postmaster of Ivry, Quebec?
2.	Why was he dismissed?
3.	Did many persons apply for his position?
4.	If so, -what are their names?
5.	On whose recommendation did the Postmaster General appoint the present postmaster, and why was he chosen in preference to other candidates?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	October 24, 1931.
2.	Removal of office to a more central location, according to the report of the Inspector.
3.	4 and 5. One applicant, Pierre Fortin, who provided a more central location. Recommended by Mr. C. E. Dube.


MONTAGNE RONDE, QUE.-POSTMASTER
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	On what date was Mr. David Lebel dismissed as postmaster of Montagne Ronde, Quebec?
2.	Wrhy was he dismissed?
3.	Did many persons apply for his position?
4.	If so, what are their names?
5.	On whose recommendation did the Postmaster General appoint the present postmaster, and why was he chosen in preference to other candidates?

Questions


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	August 27, 1931.
2.	Commissioners' report found postmaster guilty of active political partisanship.
3.	4 and 5. One applicant, Eugene Lepage. Recommended by Mr. C. E. Dube.


DENONVILLE, QUE., CHARGES OF POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the Postmaster General since August, 1930, order an inquiry in connection with the *charges of political partisanship lodged against the postmaster at Denonville, Quebec?
2.	If so: (a) at whose written request was this inquiry granted; (b) was said _ written request accompanied by many affidavits; (c) if so, what is the date, and the name of the person whose signature is attached to each affidavit; (d) on what date was each affidavit received by the Postmaster General; (e) on what date did the Potsmaster General order the inquiry?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


CHEMIN DU LAC, QUE., CHARGES OF POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the Postmaster General since August, 1930, order an inquiry in connection with the charges of political partisanship lodged against the postmaster at Chetnin du Lac, Quebec?
2.	If so: (a) at whose written request was this inquiry granted; (b) was said written request accompanied by many affidavits; . (c) if so, what is the date, and the name of the person whose signature is attached to each affidavit; (d) on what date w'as each affidavit received by the Postmaster General; (e) on what date did the Postmaster General order the inquiry?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


RIOU, QUE., CHARGES OF POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the Postmaster General since August, 1930, order an inquiry in connection with the [DOT]charges of political partisanship lodged against the postmaster at Riou, Quebec?
2.	If so:	(a) at whose written request was
this inquiry granted; (b) was said *written request accompanied by many affidavits; (c) if so, what is the date, and the name of the person whose signature is attached to each affidavit; (d) on what date was each affidavit received by the Postmaster General; (e) on what date did the Postmaster General order the inquiry?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


IVRY, QUE., CHARGES OF POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the Postmaster General, since August, 1930, order an inquiry in connection with charges of political partisanship lodged against the postmaster at Ivry, Quebec?
2.	If so: (a) at whose written request was this inquiry granted; (b) was said written request accompanied by many affidavits; (c) if so, what is the date, and the name of the person whose signature is attached to each affidavit; (d) on what date was each affidavit received by the Postmaster General; (e) on what date did the Postmaster General order the inquiry?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


SULLY, QUE., CHARGES OF POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the Postmaster General, since August, 1930, order an inquiry in connection with charges of political partisanship lodged against the postmaster at Sully, Quebec?
2.	If so: (a) at whose written request was this inquiry granted; (b) was said written request accompanied by many affidavits; (c) if so, what is the date, and the name of the person whose signature is attached to each affidavit;
(d)	on what date was each affidavit received by the Postmaster General; (e) on what date did the Postmaster General order the inquiry?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Mr. C. E. Dube; (b) and (c) written request was accompanied by written statement from Herman Tardif, dated 4th of September, 1931; (d) September 7th, 1931;
(e)	Instructions sent to commissioner 14th October, 1931.


NOTRE DAME DU LAC, QUE., CHARGES OF POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the Postmaster General, since August, 1930, order an inquiry in connection with charges of political partisanship lodged against the postmaster at Notre Dame du Lac, Quebec?
2.	If so: (a) at whose written request was this inquiry granted; (b) was said written request accompanied by many affidavits; (c) if so, what is the date, and the name of the person whose signature is attached to each affidavit; (d) on what date was each affidavit received by the Postmaster General; (e) on what date did the Postmaster General order the inquiry?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Mr. C. E. Dube; (b) and (c) written request was accompanied by statement, undated, signed by I. T. Voisine; (d) 27th January, 1931; (e) Instructions sent to commissioner, 6th March, 1931.
1400	COMMONS
Questions as Orders jor Returns


LAMY SUD, QUE., CHARGES OF POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the Postmaster General, since August, 1930, order an inquiry in connection with charges of political partisanship lodged against the postmaster at Lamy Slid, Quebec?
2.	If so: (a) at whose written request was this inquiry granted; (b) was said written request accompanied by many affidavits; (c) if so, what is the date, and the name of the person whose signature is attached to each affidavit; (d) on what date was each affidavit received by the Postmaster General; (e) on what date did the Postmaster General order the inquiry?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Mr. C. E. Dube; (b) and (c) written request was accompanied by statement, undated, signed by Isidore Ouellet; (d) 14th of January, 1931; (e) Instructions sent to commissioner, 26th September, 1931.


ST. ARSENE, QUE., CHARGES OF POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Since August, 1930, did the Post Office Department order an inquiry into charges of political partisanship brought against the postmaster at St. Arsene, Quebec?
2.	If so:	(a) upon whose written request
was this inquiry granted; (b) was the written request for this inquiry accompanied by many affidavits; (c) if so, on what date, and by whom was each of these affidavits signed; (d) on what date was each of these affidavits received by the Post Office Department; (e) on what date did the Post Office Department order an inquiry?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN


Mr. BARBER:: 1.	According to the records of the Civil Service Commission, how many employees were appointed to the inside service of the Post Office Department at Ottawa during the past three calendar years: (a) temporary; (b) permanent?
2.	According to the records of the Civil Service Commission, how many of the requests from the Post Office Department for the above-mentioned appointments specified bilingual employees: (a) temporary; (b) permanent?
3.	How many of these positions to which
employees were appointed are shown on the Civil Service Commission records as requiring bilingual qualifications:	(a) temporary; (b)
permanent?

4.	How many of these positions as shown by the Civil Service Commission records were formerly occupied by bilingual employees: (a) temporary; (b) permanent?


POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP INQUIRIES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many postmasters had to undergo inquiries for political partisanship since August, 1930: (a) each month, and (b) in each province?
2.	In how many cases: (a) each month since August 1, 1930, and (b) in each province, did the Postmaster General require a written complaint accompanied by an affidavit before granting an inquiry for political partisanship?


GOVERNMENT PURCHASING AGENTS
Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: 1. How many: (a) full time; (b) part time;
(c)	temporary, purchasing agents were there in the employ of the government in each department, on each of the following dates, January 1, 1930; January 1, 1932?
2.	How many: (a) full time; (b) part time;
(c)	temporary, assistants to purchasing agents in any and all classifications were employed by the government in each department on each of the following dates, January 1, 1930; Januarv 1, 1932?
3.	'What is the total cost of this service to the government in each department, for each of the fiscal years ending March 31, 1930, and March 31, 1931?



TEMISCOUATA COUNTY POSTMASTERS


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the Postmaster General, since August, 1930, communicate by correspondence with eel-tain postmasters in the county of Temiseouata, Quebec, in connection with certain charges of political partisanship lodged against them?
2.	If so: (a) on what dates; (b) what are the names of the postmasters; (c) what form of letter was forwarded to each of them; (d) at whose request?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. VENIOT:: For a copy of all correspondence in connection with the dismissal of C. D. Smith, of Caldwell Brook, New Brunswick, as vegetable inspector; also the evidence taken at the investigation held into the charges made against him, with the report of the investigating commissioner.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF

Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: For a copy of all telegrams received by the Prime Minister from the province of Saskatchewan, to which he referred in his statements on "Farm Relief" resolution, page 4277 of revised Hansard of July 29, 1931.

Privilege-Mr. Howard



RUISSEAU LEBLANC BREAKWATER AND ST. CHARLES DE CAPLAN WHARF

Charles Marcil: For a copy of the paylists and accounts for materials used in repair works at Ruisseau Leblanc breakwater in 1930 and 1931; also same information for works at the wharf at St. Charles de Caplan in 1931.



GREAT VILLAGE, N.S., WHARF

Mr. DUFF:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memorandums, reports and other documents, between the Department of Public Works and any person or persons in Nova Scotia regarding the expenditure of public money under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, on work on a wharf at Great Village, in the province of Nova Scotia, as well as copy of payrolls and invoices or memoranda re materials and prices thereof.



CLORIDORME-PETITE MADELEINE MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of all correspondence, contracts, reports, and other documents, relating to the contract for carrying the mail from Cloridorme to Petite Madeleine, held by M. C. Berube, of Petite Madeleine, and also a copy of all documents and letters, relating to his dismissal, and the appointment of his successor.



FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. F. TOTZKE (Humboldt):: I should like to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Prime Minister, a question based on a press despatch dated at Regina, March 21, reading:
Seed grain delivered to farmers in the drought area by the Saskatchewan Relief Commission will be inspected by ten or twelve experienced grain inspectors loaned for two weeks by the federal department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, from the Winnipeg inspection point. They will start Monday.
The drought area will be divided into districts and each will be in charge of one of the inspectors. Distribution of seed grain will be conducted at all points in the drought area, and farmers are urged to take delivery of their seed just as soon as possible.
Will the government confirm this report and give assurance that the farmers are now receiving seed grain?


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: A request was made by the government of Saskatchewan for the cooperation of the experienced inspectors of the Board of Grain Commissioners. The Department of Trade and Commerce very readily acceded to the request and instructed those inspectors to render every possible cooperation.
As regards the latter part of the despatch, the grain now being distributed-I am at present speaking from what information I have at hand-is grain that was provided for prior to a week ago. It is hoped that as soon as the measure before the house is passed, the Saskatchewan government, with the assistance of the federal government, will be in a position to complete the quantity of grain required and to make the necessary distribution in time. That depends, however, upon the final disposition of the resolution and the motion before the house.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce: has no one at all on behalf of the government as yet purchased the necessary seed grain for the west?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I gave all the information that I had at hand.


William Richard Motherwell: It was no answer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is my hon. friend's
opinion.


William Richard Motherwell: As a matter of fact the seed grain is already purchased.



PRIVILEGE-MR. HOWARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CHARLES B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke) :	On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker: last night in speaking in the house,
I made this statement as reported on page 1367 of Hansard :
The Prime Minister said time and again, in interviews throughout the country, that we were not off the gold standard nor would we go off it.
The Prime Minister immediately rose and denied the statement. I amended the statement as shown in the same page of Hansard:
That has been published in the newspapers throughout Canada.
The Prime Minister again denied it. In the Ottawa Journal of October 5, 1931, this statement appears in big headlines:
Premier Bennett declares Canada is not. abandoning the gold standard.
In the Ottawa Journal, which is his own newspaper, a Conservative paper, of December 15, 1931, this statement appears:
Premier Bennett denies dominion off gold standard.
1402	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
The Toronto Financial Post, October 3, 1931, in its editorial column on the front page, headed "The Nation's Business," speaking of Mr. Bennett, has this to say:
On the eve of Britain's suspension of gold payments Mr. Bennett announced that Canada was on a gold basis and intended to stay there.
Again, in the Ottawa Journal of September 21, 1931, this statement appears-
Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has gone far enough. He is elaborating his speech of yesterday, quoting from newspapers, reports of news of the day. As I understand the matter, this constitutes no question of privilege. The hon. member stated his position yesterday. That is enough and does not allow him to continue his speech to-day.


Mr. HOWARD:: I have received from the man who made the statement, a denial of it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Even so, that is no question of privilege entitling the hon. member to elaborate what he said yesterday. If he had been misquoted, it would be quite right for him to point out the mistake, but it is not in order for him to continue his speech.


Charles Benjamin Howard: It is a question of privilege.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is not.


Charles Benjamin Howard: In my constituency they will wonder why the Prime Minister denied the statement. The last quotation is this:
"What Great Britain may do is for the government of Great Britain to determine," said Mr. Bennett. "As for Canada we propose to maintain the gold standard."


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.
CANADIAN DESTROYER On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: A few weeks ago I had occasion to ask the Minister of National Defence with regard to the activities of our fleet in Salvador. I notice, according to today's despatch from the Port of Spain, Trinidad, that a boat crew from the Canadian destroyer Champlain quelled a riot there. May I ask what our fleet is doing in quelling riots down in Trinidad?


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: The destroyer was down there in the course of her usual winter cruise. The department has not as yet had any definite report as to the incident mentioned by the hon. member.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 22, consideration of the motion of the Prime Minister that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the warmth of the
greeting which has just been extended is not directed to me personally but to the fact that the Conservative candidate has succeeded in being elected in the Athabaska by-election by a majority of upwards of 300 in a constituency in which a Conservative candidate has not run for ten years. It at least indicates that there is some support for the administration outside of this house, and in the house itself its support is quite ample for all purposes that may be required. But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a lack of knowledge on the part of those who sit to your left that there has been an election and that they are no longer in control of the House of Commons. They seem to think that they can dictate legislation and that they are to be dictators while they talk about the autocracy of others. I think I need hardly say, Mr. Speaker, that, under our institutions, minorities do not govern and that the basis of all parliamentary institutions is the rule of the majority. But unfortunately some people are very poor losers, and they cannot for a moment contemplate the possibility of the parliament of Canada being conducted unless they themselves direct it, and failing to direct it from a majority they assume that they may do so with a noisy minority. I think probably it might be well to remind them that parliamentary institutions are based upon an entirely different assumption. The gentleman who for so many years presided at the table in the mother of parliaments wrote an approving introduction to a work from which I shall read just a few lines, namely, Redlich's Procedure of the House of Commons, the outstanding authority upon the subject. Reading from the third volume of that work, page 196, I shall now give a description of what has transpired in this house during the last ten days:
Focussing once more the results of our retrospect we may arrive at certain important conclusions which will be useful in the search

Unemployment Continuance Act
for a solution of the problem set before us. The political development of our own day has laid bare-in the first instance in England, and then in nearly all the constitutional states of Europe-the conventional foundation of parliamentary government. Parliamentary conventions appear above all in the forms of parliamentary action, in the limitations to party strategy imposed by the inviolable bounds of the rules and in the tacit agreement among all who take part in parliamentary life to handle these rules in a reasonable way. It has further appeared that, though the observance of these conventions does, to a certain extent, depend upon the social character of the membership, a far more important consideration remains: parliamentary conventions are only effective, and the parliamentary government which they support is only possible, when there is an acceptance of the constitutional basis upon which state and parliament are founded. Irreconcilable parties, which oppose an existing union of states or stand for a subordination of state to church, parties which reject the whole framework of society, or which draw their life from a principle only less deep and powerful than that of religion, the principle of nationality, are all in mortal conflict-latent if not apparent, possibly unconscious for long periods 

with the conventions of parliament; they are, therefore, knowingly or unknowingly attacking parliamentary government itself, at all events in the form known to the constitution. Obstruction is, in reality, nothing less than a repudiation of the existing constitution of the country, intensified to the point of denying the right of its parliament to exist, and expressed in a conscious misuse of the forms and principles of procedure essential to the efficiency of parliamentary action. Except within these rules, conventions and forms, parliamentary work is impossible: without their protection there is no security that the political assimilation necessary for the sustenance of the parliamentary organism can be obtained. It was no mere coincidence that the assault on the British constitution by the principle of nationality brought obstruction to maturity. On looking round in Europe, wherever we see a similar spectacle, we find that it is almost always a conflict of nationalities, a struggle against existing unions of states which has brought it forth.
Mr. Redlich declares that obstruction is, in reality, nothing less than a repudiation of the existing constitution of the country, and at great length he and other writers have developed the idea by which majorities control. It is well known that in this house there is a majority supporting the administration. It is well known that it is an ample majority for all purposes and that no specious appeals for support of legislation or otherwise have been made by the government to those of independent thought for the purpose of securing their adherence to legislation that may be brought down. What is more, we have, sir, to the right of you supporters from every province in this confederation. Ours is in every sense a truly national party extending from the east to the west, supporting common
principles, giving adherence and loyal devotion to common policies. And we do not now nor do we at any time propose to truckle or ask for the sacrifice of our independence of thought in order to obtain the support of those who would retain us in power for the spoils of office.
But there is another principle, a principle that underlies the principle to which I have just referred. It is the principle as to the function of an opposition. Oppositions are essential and necessary in the development of a democratic state. They serve a great and useful purpose. To the extent that criticism is frank and thorough, to that extent they do a great service to the country. To the extent that criticism is petty, to the extent to which argument may degenerate into abuse, abuse personal in its character, it fails. To the extent to which men may set up, as they sometimes do, a man of straw for the purpose of knocking him down, an opposition fails of its end. But an opposition has a duty to perform. AVhen that duty is performed, reiteration, the re-statement of speeches upon matters that are not cognate or allied to the subject matter under consideration are not calculated to advance the interests of parliament nor yet to bring any credit on parliamentary institutions themselves. May I point out that during the long years in which the Liberal party was in opposition from 1911 to 1917 under the direction of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, never during that whole period of time, with the exception of the naval debate, to which I shall presently refer, was there a case in which any effort was made upon a resolution introduced into parliament, a resolution, I repeat, asking that the Speaker do leave the chair for the house to consider the resolution, to have a debate that extended beyond the statement of a few broad principles. Criticism has always been deferred to the bill founded upon the resolution, for the resolution declares the principle and the bill declares the details. The bill in its sections amplifies the principle. But the principle of the resolution itself, to which His Excellency the Governor General gave his approval when the motion was submitted to him for his consideration, is the foundation upon which the measure is based, and to the extent that the bill does not depart from that principle, it is correct. To the extent that it may endeavour to depart from it, it is wrong, and successive Speakers have from time to time directed attention to that fact. As I shall presently point out, in the resolution that is now before the house, what was asked was that there should be a continuance
1404	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
of an existing measure until the 1st of May, and that principle is the principle which is now before the house for consideration.
When the house has engaged, as it has, as I shall presently point out, in long and weary discussions about matters that have as much to do with the subject matter of the measure under consideration as they have to do with the quelling of a riot by the sailors of the Champlain in the West Indies the other day, when I point that out, I think that the house will agree that the time had come when we had to take the course we did with respect to this measure, and say to the house that the time has come to end this prolonged discussion about matters that have no relevance to the subject matter of the resolution.
But, sir, I hold in my hand a special report from the select committee on Procedure on Public Business, together with the proceedings of the committee, minutes of evidence and index, which was ordered by the House of Commons in England, the mother of parliaments, as hon. gentlemen remind us so frequently, to be printed on the 7th day of October of last year. And it will be recalled that the Prime Minister of England, who is also a member of our privy council, there made a statement. Let me read that statement to this house. At page 5 I find the following:
Really, what is the House of Commons itself? It consists not only of a government, but of an opposition, and they have both got functions and rights. The great right of the opposition is the full discussion of measures proposed by the government. It is there, I think, that our fundamental weakness lies. There is a doctrine that it is the function of the opposition to oppose. I have always regarded that as a crime against the state.
Those are Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's words, and they represent his opinion. He proceeds:
It is not the function of the opposition to oppose; it is the function of the opposition to oppose second readings, but once the second reading has been accepted, the only function of the opposition is to improve in its own direction within the scope of the vote that has been registered, that is, that it should have full liberty to examine on committee and report, and then to say its final word of opposition on the third reading of the bill. The opposition has no right to obstruct in the sense of making parliament barren or unproductive.
That statement, together with the statement I made a minute ago as to the fundamental principle under which parliamentary institutions obtain, is the rule of the majority which constitutes the case we make to-day for the measure that is standing in my name. Those principles I believe cannot readily be questioned. Is it a crime against the state,

as Mr. MacDonald thought it was, wilfully to oppose and maliciously to consume time in personal attacks, maliciously to consume time in making statements which must be known to be untrue, malting statements which must be known are wholly beside the question? Is it not, if his statement be correct, in the true and just sense of the term, a crime against the state that this sort of thing should continue?
I will not traverse the ground so admirably covered yesterday as to the number of hon. members in this chamber who up to this moment have participated in the debate. I will not indicate how parliament has expressed its views through its constituted members. I will not-although I say if anyone did analyze the speeches which have been made such analysis would show that they might be equally applicable to a discussion on the budget, or on a measure dealing with a question respecting our foreign relations. They would be equally applicable to one case as to the other. They must have been made for one purpose, and that purpose, it is apparent to every hon. member in this house, was to fill in the time that was taken up in making those speeches.
Having concluded that phase of the matter, in short, I desire to divert the minds of hon. members to the consideration of other matters, and to draw their attention to the measure now under consideration. This measure may be described as a resolution asking parliament to reenact chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada. That is what it is. It is not in the nature of a permanent enactment but for a period of only two months or eight weeks, some three of which have now passed. To that measure I am now going to direct the attention of the'house, so that there may be no misapprehension of the true purpose and import of the legislation. The following is the preamble to the bill:
Whereas by reason of the continuing worldwide economic depression there exists in many parts of Canada a serious state of unemployment and distress; and whereas the partial failure of the wheat crop of western Canada has intensified the adverse economic conditions theretofore prevailing; 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 to ensure the speedy and unhampered prosecution of all relief measures and the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada; now therefore His Majesty by and with the advice and consent, of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows;

Unemployment Continuance Act
Then, section 1 gives _the title. Section 2 authorizes payments at the discretion of the governor in council out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada of all such sums as may be necessary for relieving distress, providing employment and maintaining within the competence of parliament, peace, order and good government throughout Canada.
Then, in order that there may be no doubt as to what was in the minds of those who asked for such powers the further details are given:
Without restricting the generality of the terms of the next preceding section hereof, and notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law, the governor in council may:
(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;
(b)	Assist in defraying the cost of the production, sale and distribution of the products of the field, farm, forest, sea, river and mine;
(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;
(d)	Take all such other measures as may be deemed necessary or advisable for carrying out the provisions of this act;
And, for the purposes aforesaid, may expend such moneys from the consolidated revenue fund as may be required.
Mr. Speaker, those powers thus expressed have been indicated not by accident. They were learned by experience to be essential to meet the situation which prevailed, and which we believed would prevail throughout this dominion in the year 1931 and part of the year in which we are now living.
I wonder if this house will say that any doubt exists as to the desirability of those powers being conferred upon someone? Will they doubt it? Will they question it? Then, why was it that the other morning there waited upon me a delegation headed by the mayor of the city of Quebec, surrounded by representatives of that district, including my hon. friends the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power)? Why did they appear? For the reason that they asked that the time he extended within which such works as had been agreed upon between the province and the dominion for the benefit of the city of Quebec might be performed. Those works were carried on under the provisions of this statute-under the provisions of this statute, and not otherwise.
What is true with respect to Quebec city is true also with respect to many parts of
Canada. There come representations that owing to seasonal conditions it becomes essential that these works which are partially completed should not be shut down at once, but that the time within which completion may be effected under the contracts made and approvals given under this statute, should be extended. Then, if power is given by this parliament to its executive that this action be taken, not only in the city of Quebec but with respect to other communities, it is desirable that this measure of relief should be afforded. But does any member of this house suggest that a supply bill will meet that situation? Where is he? Does any hon. member in this house suggest that a single amount in a supply bill will take care of that situation? I wonder if those hon. members would explain to this house why it was that the former government brought into this house and enacted legislation based upon a resolution in connection with old age pensions? Does the old age pensions legislation impose any restriction upon the sum of money to be taken out of the treasury to meet the obligations created? It says that there shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund one half of all sums that the provinces have to pay. They do not appear in the estimates. There is no statement in the estimates with relation to it. One half of the sum has to be paid out of the consolidated revenue, willy nilly, and the province determines what the extent of the expenditure shall be-not the dominion.
Now, what difference is there between saying that there shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada a sum of money for unemployment relief, for the purpose of giving effect to contracts that have been entered into, and saying that one half of all sums expended by the provinces for the purpose of carrying on the old age insurance business shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue? Here are the words, in section 3 of chapter 156:
The governor in council may make an agreement with the lieutenant-governor in council of any province for the payment to such province quarterly of an amount equal to one-half of the net sum paid out during the preceding quarter by such province for pensions pursuant to a provincial statute authorizing and providing for the payment of such pensions to the persons and under the conditions specified in this act and the regulations made hereunder.
That is now seventy-five per cent. The parliament of Canada, then, has contracted and pledged itself to undertake the payment of three-fourths of old age pensions as pro-
1406	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
vided and defined by provincial statute. And section 7 .provides:
All sums payable to any province in pursuance of any agreement made under this act shall he payable from time to time on the certificate of the Minister of Finance out of any moneys belonging to the consolidated revenue fund of Canada not otherwise unappropriated.
Now what is the difference in principle? There the executive is given power to pay seventy-five per cent of all moneys that may be paid for old age pensions, under provincial statutes out of the consolidated revenue fund, without limitation or question. It is true that there is a provision that $240 is the limit that may be paid to any one person. But the cheque is a blank cheque. And, what is more, when the bridge to the south shore of the St. Lawrence was under discussion in the house there was passed by the former administration a statute, one section of which provided that the governor in council might guarantee the payment of all bonds that might be issued by the proper authority for the purpose of constructing the bridge. There was no limitation there; the cheque was a blank cheque, and it was filled in for a handsome sum- there is no question about that. It was filled in for nineteen and a half millions of dollars; and if you remember the observations made by the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) last evening, you will recall that he referred to the supplementary estimates, in which provision was made for payment in connection with the Montreal harbour commission. That represented the deficit which the taxpayers of Canada had to pay on the blank cheque which was taken for the purpose of guaranteeing the undertaking. Small though the transactions may be in some instances, I could increase the number of illustrations indefinitely if I so desired; but I have no desire to do more than establish this: that the principle that a blank cheque should be taken where necessary to enable the executive to discharge great and onerous responsibilities has been accepted by this parliament-not only last session in the unemployment relief act, chapter 58, but in statutes that were enacted by the late administration without reference to the opposition of that day. But it did not end there. The late administration, when it dealt with relief measures, used to take a governor general's warrant before the house met and then disburse the money while the house was still in session, instead of proceeding, as now, through supplementary estimates. There may have been a good reason why that should have been done, but that at any rate is the fact with respect to the matter.
[Mr. Bennett.)
I submit, therefore, sir, if hon. gentlemen desire a frank and fair discussion of the matter, that it is abundantly established by precedents-by precedents that have been created alike by the party that sits to the right of the Speaker and by the party that sits to his left-that wherever essential the executive shall be clothed with that power that is necessary to enable it to effectuate the will of parliament. That is also a cardinal principle of our institutions. It is impossible that government could be carried on where every item had to have reference to parliament-it is unthinkable that such could be done On the other hand, there always is the possibility of there being abuse of power; and that is what is meant by the Lord Chief Justice of England when he speaks of the new despotism, where he declared that times without number permanent officials had substituted their opinions for the will of the people. But when you have the will of parliament expressed as it was in the Old Age Pensions Act, expressed as it was with respect to the Montreal harbour bridge, expressed as it is with respect to innumerable matters to which I might refer, then there is one way and one way only by which that will can be made effective, and that is through the executive, the governor in council. And as that governor in council or that executive discharges its duties, so is the life of the government. If it fails to measure up to the high standard parliament sets, if it is not honest, fearless and courageous in the discharge of its executive duties under the powers entrusted to it, the government falls. If, on the other hand, in the exercise of the powers thus conferred upon it, it carries out its duties fairly and courageously, and for the benefit of the people affected, then it meets always with the approval of the body politic.
That, I think, is a fair statement of the position. That being so, let me ask this house fairly: What was done under this statute? What was done under this statute appears in the report that has been .tabled in this house. We had to remember that the provinces have their pride; they are not wards of this parliament. In the language of Lord Loreburn they are just as supreme within the ambit of their legislative powers as this parliament is within its. They have their pride, they have their duties, they have their legislative responsibilities; and the bounds of their jurisdiction are set by the constitution. Theirs, unfortunately, they say themselves, is the responsibility with respect to unemployment, with respect to relief measures. And it is for that reason that in days gone by we had what we called almshouses, old age homes, and various other institutions that have grown up

Unemployment Continuance Act
under the aegis of the provincial governments for the purpose of giving effect to the constitutional obligations of the provinces, the counties and the municipalities. What did we do? We did the very thing that the opposition would have done had it been in our place- at least I trust and believe so-namely, entered into negotiations with the provinces, because our contact was not with the municipalities, not with the counties, but with the provinces. We could not deal with the creations of the provinces but with the provinces themselves. They make their agreements, determine the measure of their financial obligation and responsibility, and we determine the extent to which we will assist them. These obligations were expressed in writing. Agreements were drawn up. A subcommittee of the cabinet considered them; the cabinet as a whole considered them. In other words, the executive which this parliament has set up for that purpose considered these matters. The agreements were entered into with all the provinces, and I ask hon. members of this house if they do not think in the main they worked out fairly satisfactorily. I tried to say the other day, and I repeat in no spirit of boasting for a party, but for a people, that no people numbering ten millions, inhabiting half a continent, have ever had to face the problems we faced last winter. At one time we had nearly five hundred thousand men, women and children receiving assistance in one form or another, not unemployed but people who had lost their all, people who were holding on to their homes without being able, from the soil about them, to get any sustenance or return. That was not confined entirely to one province, and I pointed out the other day that the people of this country were so proud, shall I say, of the achievements of their fellow citizens that various eastern provinces shipped carloads of goods west to assist those who were more needy than themselves, and in doing so they did great good to themselves as well as to others. Perhaps the greatest good they did was to themselves.
Therefore we ask you to impose this test: Has this act worked fairly well, this part of it? Has it been in the main satisfactory? Has it given you, each one of you, and your people that measure of succour and assistance, through constituted channels, that you wished it would? What say you? I have not yet heard anyone in this house or out of it say aught but that it has been in the main successful. Mark you, I am not one of those who believe we are going to get perfection under such conditions.	There have been
errors and mistakes of judgment; in one or two instances there have been more than that; there have been cases where individuals have strayed from the narrow pathway and taken advantage of conditions as they should not have done. It has been charged that political considerations in some instances have prevailed. I can readily understand why in some places, where there are political parties in power in the provinces opposed to the party in power in the dominion, there may be constant suspicion and distrust. In the western provinces where we had neither a Liberal nor a Conservative government in power, we had our difficulties. There were the little suspicions and jealousies of United Farmers against a Conservative or a Liberal or some other party man, but in the main, taking human nature as it is and making allowances for it, I submit to this house and to this country that this legislation has worked remarkably well.
That being so, what would be the most natural thing in the world to do? Would it not be to ask the parliament of Canada to renew this measure for a time? Presently I shall indicate until what time and why the time has been fixed in this way. It has been said that nothing was contained in the speech from the throne with respect to this legislation. Of course it was not; why should there be anything of that nature in the speech from the throne? The statute was then in operation. The government determined that it would renew the statute, and for how long? It was not to be renewed until after this parliament had ceased to be in session, but for a period of time during which parliament would still be in session, until the first day of May, now less than six weeks distant. Why was that done? It was done because it is desirable that this whole question should be thoroughly canvassed and that there should be known to this parliament as well as to the people of Canada at large just what it is proposed to do in the future. It was nothing new to me to learn that in the province of Saskatchewan substantial numbers of people had to be taken care of until harvest time; it was no news to me that in other parts of Canada similar conditions obtained and, sir, now that the matter has been adverted to, I might state to this house that in January last I made it my business to endeavour to ascertain just as nearly as a man might what were conditions in various parts of Canada as to the operations of this act, and as to the future. I am bound to be frank with this house when I say that in many of the provinces there was expressed the
1408	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
view that they had expended sums of money on public undertakings that almost went as far as they could go, and there were municipalities that expressed the same view. It was my proposal, as it still is, that just as soon as these provincial legislatures concluded their labours, I should ask the premiers of all the provinces of Canada to come here that we might confer together for the purpose of ascertaining just what, with the expiration of the operation of this bill, which is to be resurrected or revived, would be essential for the purpose of enabling us to discharge our larger duty in assisting the provinces in the discharge of their constitutional obligations.
Is that fair? Is that a reasonable thing? Is it something which would be in the mind of any Prime Minister as the proper thing to do? It must be remembered that the recital of the measure indicates that, the constitutional obligation being that of the provinces, we are giving them assistance because of the general economic conditions that obtain throughout the world, and we believe we should confer with them as to how the situation may be best met. Notwithstanding all that has been said as to the values of autocracy and dictatorship, I still propose to do this.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: It should have been done a year ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may say I counselled with the premiers of the provinces myself a year ago. I went west after this parliament prorogued last session and discussed the situation with the premiers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I saw representatives of the province of British Columbia. I discussed the matter with a representative of the province of Ontario, and a representative of the government of Quebec came to this city and discussed the matter with the government. The premiers, or the representatives of the premiers, of the maritime provinces also came here and discussed the matter with the government, and everything that has been done has been done by arrangement and agreement with the provinces through their constituted authorities, namely their governments, without regard to their political faiths or the political complexion of their followers.
So, sir, I submit to this house that in asking for a renewal of this statute until the first of May we are following the course which reasonable and prudent men would follow, and unless there is some evidence of abuse or malfeasance, some reason cogent and powerful why authority should not be again vested in the executive, I submit that this parliament

should do so. Despite what has been said, the governor in council consists of the cabinet of the country, a committee of this House of Commons, sir, of your fellow citizens and your co-members in this chamber, together with one ex-Prime Minister of Canada who sits in another chamber of parliament. Is it suggested that these gentlemen have no minds of their own? Is anyone so extravagant in the use of language as to assert that these gentlemen are without opinions, or having opinions have not the will to assert them and the ability to express them? Who, knowing the gentlemen who sit beside me, knowing their views upon all public questions, knowing their interest in their own provinces, for a moment will think that they have hesitated to express their views and to make known their opinions? The answer given to our application for a renewal of the power thus entrusted to the executive has been that it is a dictatorship and an autocracy; that it is a one-man government and that these gentlemen about me must not be trusted.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentlemen
who say "hear, hear" will not discuss these matters with the members of the cabinet and hold any such opinion. I think it will be admitted, even by the most critical, that they are well able to hold their own in any discussion, at least with their opponents. I think it will be admitted, perhaps grudgingly, that man for man they are gentlemen who have opinions and who hold them with a tenacity and conviction equal to the tenacity and conviction with which hon gentlemen hold theirs. To assume that these men suddenly lose their identity in council and forget their being and become mere recording machines is, of course, not only an insult to the gentlemen themselves but a reflection upon the intelligence of those who assert it.
I have indicated why we ask that we should be given the powers I have suggested, but there is another reason why this statute should be renewed, a reason which has to do with the conditions which at present obtain. There is still hope in the hearts of the people of the west and of the people in other parts of this country. We have faced great difficulties and have had great obstacles to overcome, and yet the courage, the enterprise and the faith of the people appear to be still equal to any demands which may be made upon them. The people of western Canada are facing another seasoD with high hope, they are going out to sow seed upon the soil knowing not whether it will give them a return or whether

Unemployment Continuance Act
it will be as it has been too often in the past. Because of the reasons I have indicated, we have not been able completely to control the situation.
The provinces have insisted upon our providing them with seed grain, with feed and with fuel in the way of coal, gasoline, kerosene or fuel oil for their traction engines. They have indicated their requirements and I believe I freely expressed the will of the Canadian people in July last when I said that we would endeavour to treat this national calamity on a basis at least worthy of what we had done for communities not within our own territorial jurisdiction. We have done that. It was suggested this afternoon that the seed grain has been bought and paid for. The position is that the seed grain has been bought but it has not been paid for.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why not? For the
simple and obvious reason that we did not want to lose the interest on the money. We provided that delivery should be taken when the requirements of the farmer and the agrarian became apparent. What is more, this seed has been bought at a lower price than would have been expected, having regard to the conditions which obtain in the country.
Arrangements were made in connection with the matter at a time when the resolution was pending before the house. There is a limit to what the provinces can do, in fact there is not an hon. member from the western provinces who does not know that the only way in which the provinces can finance^ this situation is by loans made from the dominion treasury. We have assisted them up to a point; we have no authority to do more. Until we receive from this parliament the authority contained in the renewal of the statute we have no such power and the provinces will not be able to obtain the grain without paying for it. That is the position.
May I proceed a step further? The suggestion has been made that we should set a limit on what we might require. We have found in practice and by experience that by not having placed a limit upon the measure of last year we saved this country millions of dollars. That is the considered judgment of the best business men in Canada. The bankers and great commercial men had their doubts at first, but they have been free in their expressions of opinion that by reason of this fact we have been able not only to supervise but to insist upon a measure of economy which otherwise would not have prevailed.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) referred to certain matters in connection with the administration of this relief act in one of the provinces. If he has any complaint at all to make, it is that we have not agreed to a reckless and extravagant expenditure of public money. In order to correct a misapprehension, may I say here that the hon. gentleman and one or two others have suggested that a commission should be appointed in each province to deal with these matters. I tried to make it clear the other day that this parliament has no power to create a commission to function in provincial matters within a province-that is the business of the province and the business of no one else. As long as the province have their pride and their jurisdiction they cannot be made wards of this dominion. A commission was set up in Saskatchewan, but it was set up by the provincial administration. It is true that we exercised supervisory control, and even more than that, we put in an accountant for the purpose of checking and rendering assistance to see that the greatest economy possible was practised in this time of stress.
One step further. Does or does not an emergency exist in this country? A year ago this house said it did; in August last it said it did. and in the speeches of the right hon. the leader of the opposition and other hon. members it has been said that such a condition does exist. If that be so, have we not the right to ask that in view of these extraordinary conditions the powers which we have safely and decently exercised during the last few months should be continued for the next six weeks? Is that fair? It has been suggested that there is some ulterior motive behind the desire that this statute be revived. I say here on behalf of the government that I know of nothing in connection with this statute that is contemplated or that is not known to this house at the moment. I know of nothing, but I do not know what might happen in twenty-four hours, as I shall indicate presently. There is no desire, there is no knowledge of any projected so-called legislation, about which I shall presently speak, or of any orders in council; there is nothing but a sincere and earnest desire on the part of a committee of this house, supported by a majority of this house in a constitutional fashion under the institutions created and built up, to see to it that their fellow Canadians are made as comfortable as possible under the conditions which prevail.
May I remind this house that we expressed some mqpths ago the hope that no man,

1410	COMMONS
Unemployment Contimiance Act
woman or child should be hungry during the past winter and that there should be no occasion for the civil disturbances which have been apparent in other countries. It is a matter of some pride and satisfaction to think that, in the main, has been accomplished.
Let me proceed to the second branch of the case. We have, it is said, asked for power, while parliament is in session, to pass orders in council for the peace, order and good government of Canada. The ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) thought it was under that provision we dealt with the problems connected with the grain trade and the sale of wheat. If he will look at the statute to which I have just referred, he will find that one of the specific subdivisions of section 3 was to enable this dominion to guarantee repayment of moneys, and in furtherance of the powers thus specifically conferred and in pursuance of the understanding if the grain was not sold, the order in council to which he has referred was passed. But we did decline, as the house is aware, to guarantee a fixed price for grain. If there are fair-minded men who are not unwilling to bear tribute to at least the business acumen of their fellows, I think, having regard to the experience of the United States Farm Board, they will conclude that we were at any rate sound business men. That, I think, can be said with safety.
Now we come to the second branch of the case. I have heard appeals made to high heaven to save the shattering constitution from destruction. I have heard for twenty minutes a peroration from an hon. member who appealed to all the history of the past and the hope of the future to save Canada from destruction at the hands of this government. I have heard hon. members say that never, never, never had such a thing been done before. What would happen, we were asked in frenzied tones, if such an effort were made in Great Britain? What would the mother country say if any such effort as this were made?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, ohl


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad hon. gentlemen opposite, not having heard themselves, now understand how it sounds. Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, recalling the words of his countryman, will say:
O wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us.
With apologies to the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan). If the house will be good enough to turn to chapter 48
IMr. Bennett.]
of the statutes of Great Britain, an act passed on September 30, 1931, they will find that the mother of parliaments not only gave power to the executive to deal with problems to which I shall presently refer, but gave it to them on the distinct understanding that it must be exercised in thirty days while parliament was still in session. Listen to these words:
An act to authorize the making of orders in council for the purpose of effecting economies in expenditure falling to be defrayed out of public moneys and improvements in the arrangements for meeting such expenditure.
(30th September, 1931.)
Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: -
1. (1) During the period of one month after the commencement of this act, His Majesty may, in respect of the services specified in the schedule to this act and in respect of the remuneration (otherwise than by way of pension assessed before the commencement of this act) of persons in His Majesty's service, make such orders in council as appear to him to be expedient for the purposes of effecting economies in the expenditure falling to be defrayed out of the consolidated fund, out of moneys provided by parliament, or out of any fund established by the enactments relating to any of the Baicl services, and of effecting improvements in the arrangements for meeting such expenditure; and, in particular, without prejudice to the generality of the said power, any such order may make provision-
(a)	for altering the respective proportions in which expenditure in respect of any such service is to be defrayed out of any fund so established as aforesaid and out of moneys provided by parliament and for making transfers and adjustments between any such funds or between any such fund and any other statutory fund;
(b)	for imposing duties on local authorities in connection with the administration of any such service;
(c)	for increasing the contributions to be made to the unemployment fund, and for securing that, as from the date on which the treasury cease to have power to make advances for the purpose of meeting deficiencies in that fund, any such deficiency shall be met out of such moneys as may be provided by parliament for that purpose;
(d)	-
And I ask my hon. friends who, in their frenzied appeal, talked of this legislation in the terms in which they did, to listen to these words.
(d) for the modification or termination of statutory or contractual rights, obligations and restrictions subsisting at the date when the provisions of the order take effect.
That, it is true, was a national government. That, it is true, was a government in Great Britain. The act -continues:

Unemployment Continuance Act
(2)	The minister designated in any order in council made under this section, may make regulations for giving effect to the provisions of that order in respect of such matters as may be specified therein.
(3)	Any order in council or regulations made under this section shall, as from such date not earlier than the first day of October nineteen hundred and thirty-one as may be specified in the order or regulations, have effect notwithstanding anything in any enactment.
2. This act may be cited as the National Economy Act, 1931. [DOT]
There is a statute passed by the mother of parliaments, a statute that enabled the executive, while parliament was in session, to set at naught contracts and to deal with matters notwithstanding any enactments, to impose new duties, fresh obligations, to vary the sums of money and contributions to be made by various people, and in furtherance of that power, they did those things. The reason given was that there was an emergency. The reason given here is that there is an emergency. I do not give the reason: it has been given by members who have spoken in the house. Then I ask: In the face of that legislation because of the emergency, imposing upon the executive while the house was in session the obligations which I have indicated; in the face of the fact that there has been no abuse of the powers conferred upon this executive during the past months, why should there be hesitancy in granting those powers for the next six weeks? But in England, where they have had longer experience than we, it might be well to remember that a debate on a resolution such as this is forbidden; the rules do not permit it. There is no such debate; the resolution is not debatable. The British act was passed on September 30, 1931, and the ministry was charged with responsibility with respect to named subjects and here they are:
Education.
National Health Insurance.
Police.
Unemployment Insurance and Roads.
These being the services with respect to which orders in council might be made under the act. When that bill was passed, the resolution upon which it was predicated was not debatable. The House of Commons acted promptly; the measure was made effective speedily and all those cuts in salaries about which talk has been had in England, including unemployment insurance, teachers' salaries, police, work upon roads was done by the executive, under power given to them, while the house was in session, and they were to exercise it while the house was in session. I feel this: when an old country such as that 41761-89i
with a population of 40,000,000, where liberty and regard for liberty are valued as they are takes such measures as these, it might, well be said that in this new country we could surely afford in time of emergency to follow their example. But we have there the conception that Mr. MacDonald has indicated of what the duties of an opposition are, and that to oppose for opposition purposes only is a crime against the state.
Now let us proceed a step further. What did we do under the provisions respecting peace, order and good government? I have not time this afternoon to review the difficulties which the government has had to experience during the last six months. All I can say is this, that no man in this house need envy the position of any cabinet minister under present conditions, and I think none does. At least, I think some are grateful that they have not responsibility. But leaving that, may I say this? We were confronted with this one problem for example-and I will put it to the house promptly-the export of gold. I am not going to go over the whole ground again, but have the members of this house realized that unless by adequate and appropriate legislation we could deal with that situation, the gold reserves of this country would have fallen to ten million dollars, and then probably to nothing? Let me give an illustration. A group-perhaps I should hardly say a group; I will say men-in Seattle and in New York, I will take only those two points, conceived the happy idea of gathering up large quantities of Canadian bills selling at a discount, or they come in here with American funds and buy our Canadian bills at a discount, so far as they are concerned. They then go to the Receiver General's office and ask for legal tender, which means the promise to pay of the Dominion of Canada, and under the law the Receiver General had [DOT] to pay them, or else we default; one or the other. As a matter of fact, when they are presented at the Receiver General's office, under the law they have to be paid in gold, or we default. In one instance fifty thousand dollars was presented by a gentleman, and the department had no option. That was the very start of things. The gold had to be found. Hon. gentlemen probably saw the figures as to gold running down. A few days later this gentleman tried a million dollars. Fortunately the long distance telephone made it possible for people who had some influence with him to stop him. Then I was confronted, for I was then at the Finance department, with this problem:	How can I stop this? The law
said that when our metallic coverage dropped
1412	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
below a certain point I had to go into the open market in this country or outside, anywhere I could obtain it at any price, and buy gold in order to keep up our reserves. That was my obligation as Minister of Finance. The provisions of the Finance Act provide for making a proclamation, in the case of an insurrection or war. But as a matter of fact, all we had to do was to frame our order in council prohibiting exportation under the provisions respecting peace, order and good government. Then, as the gold could not be exported, there was no point in cashing the bills and having gold that you could not do anything with except redeposit it, and the situation became normal.
There were other matters connected with the marketing of the 1931 crop of grain in this country which had .to be dealt with. There were other matters, and we dealt with them. There were matters .connected with the insurance companies and -with the banks. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) was very wrong yesterday in saying that we fixed the price of securities. That is not what was done. What was done was this: We said that for the purposes of the balance sheets the banks and insurance companies might value their securities at certain figures which were specified. That was a proper exercise of power, was it not?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was it not a proper exercise of power to say to the banks which had bought the securities of this dominion that for the purposes of their balance sheets they could value those securities at the price at which they bought them?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I think in fairness to me the Prime Minister should state that I did not criticize that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know that .that has anything to do with my argument, but I thank the hon. gentleman for agreeing so heartily wdth me and I trust that he will vote accordingly. That was an exercise of the power that was conferred upon us. I said the other day, and I repeat, that I was very reluctant to ask this house to renew that power while the house was in session. I was reluctant, but, sir, my colleagues and myself discussed this matter very thoroughly and very often. Does any gentleman in this house think for a single moment that those who sit with me as the council of His Excellency the Governor General get any satisfaction out of the carrying of an added weight of responsi-

bility? I wonder if they think there is any joy in standing up to be the target for abuse by any person who desires to throw abuse because one is trying to serve one's country. I wonder if they think that my colleagues and myself who labour, not eight hours a day or sitxeen hours a day or eighteen hours a day, but often twenty hours a day during the last six months, find any satisfaction in that except it be that it will be of some benefit and value to the country. *
I have listened with the utmost amazement to some of the statements that have been made in this house as to why we should not be entrusted with this power. An hon. gentleman yesterday resumed his seat after I had heard him state that we should not be entrusted with this power because we had increased the mounted police. We did. We made a bargain with certain provinces by which we assumed responsibility for the policing of those provinces, and for which we are being paid. We increased the number of the police, and increased it for other reasons as well-the peace, order and good government of Canada-that there should be no possible chance of the breaking up of those institutions which this country has regarded so highly.
The hon. gentleman went on to say that we provided machine guns. Not a single machine gun is owned by the mounted police. The hon. gentleman said that we had bombs provided for the mounted police. So there were. They were tear bombs to escape the possible charge, if there be a riot or insurrection or difficulties, that the most humane methods were not used for the purpose of quelling it. The constables of Canada, having met, recommended that in such cases tear bombs would be highly desirable, and we supplied our police with numbers of them. Those are the bombs we had.
The hon. gentleman went on to say that we spent $20,000 on a secret service, going around listening to Liberal members to ascertain what their statements would be. All I can say is that the hon. gentleman had great suspicion of himself or else a very poor regard of his fellows if he thought that their utterances would be worthy of suspicion. Let us go a step further. That was put in an order in council for the purpose of taking care of a situation that developed in British Columbia in connection with the Doukhobors who had declined to make returns to the census enumerators, as no doubt most hon. gentlemen read in the press. Not a single cent of that money has been expended. That is the secret service to which the hon. gentleman referred.

Unemployment Continuance Act
There was a further charge that we were not entitled to confidence because of what had transpired about these buildings on a given day when it was said that a hunger strike was to march upon this capital. Well, Mr. Speaker, it does afford me some satisfaction to say to this chamber, and especially to the member who made that statement as to why confidence should not be reposed in us, that we did receive large numbers of communications from various parts of Canada indicating that on a given date there was to be a march upon this capital. In addition to that they were to take possession of this chamber and there promulgate demands against this parliament and the Canadian people, the hour for their visit being fixed at three o'clock. I mentioned the matter to my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), in whose department control of the mounted police lies, and he, without in any way indicating what steps should be taken, communicated to the commissioner of police the information that if the evidence was to be relied upon a very large number of tpeople would come here. So, without knowing how many might come, the commissioner of police placed fifty policemen about these buildings,- fifty. Twenty were in their usual uniforms with revolvers at their sides; thirty were mounted, without rifles and with wooden batons so that in the event of difficulties the crowd could be pushed aside without hurt, as has been demonstrated so often in cities like London, and elsewhere, where mounted police have been so usefully employed. There was no armoured car. No tanks are owned by the mounted police of the government. The only armoured car was the one belonging to the Department of Finance which conveys securities from the express office to the parliament buildings.
Now, I put it to this house and to this country as to whether or not we do not owe at least that duty to every man, woman and child in Canada. Who would do less than to take adequate precautions for the purpose of preventing a mad charge upon this chamber, at three o'clock for the purpose of enabling people to express their opinions?


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was what was said; that was what was to happen. It may well be that the hon. gentleman, who laughs so loudly and who later attended in a delegation which appeared before me, thinks there is no likelihood of it. I myself shared the view that it was not likely such action would be taken. But he who is in a public position and discharging
a public trust is recreant to his duty and guilty of malfeasance if he does not take every precaution a prudent man would take to safeguard the interests of the people. I believe that the intelligent judgment of the Canadian people will support such steps being taken.
One other incident was mentioned as to why we are not worthy of further confidence, that to have the police about these buildings was a very un-British act, and that such things would not happen in England. I wonder if any hon. member happened to be in Great Britain during the time of the suffragette movement? I -wonder if any hon. members attended Westminster in those days I wonder if they noticed how many fifties there were- not ones and twos-looking after the situation?


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Suffragettes or policemen?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Policemen. I wonder if they realize that? I merely mention the suffragettes because it goes to indicate how easily misconceptions and misunderstandings may arise.
There is one other matter to which, in all fairness, I think I should refer, because during the progress of this debate it has been mentioned more than once. The suggestion has been made that we are unworthy of support because on a given date an hon. member was voted down without having an opportunity to introduce a bill. Sir, I am delighted to make to this house an explanation of that incident. On the Friday preceding that Monday the Supreme Court of Ontario by a unanimous judgment decided that the evidence given at the trial of certain communists with respect to their having illegal and unlawful assemblies indicated that according to their evidence they were under the direction of Moscow, that moneys were being made available for purposes of their propaganda, and that they themselves had preached the doctrine of force. The chief justice of that court, speaking for all his brother judges, delivered a judgment which I trust every hon. member in this house has read, in which he reviewed the evidence and sustained the convictions and sentences. That took place on a Friday. On the succeeding Saturday telegrams began to reach me, and by Monday the numbers of telegrams had greatly increased. Two things were demanded:	First, the repeal of section
68, that section under which the convictions were made, and secondly, the release of the prisoners who had been taken to serve their terms of imprisonment.
1414	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
I have in my hand a very considerable number of these messages. They seem to be inspired from a common source, because the expressions in all were practically the same. Here is one from Kirkland Lake:
This organization demands federal government receive delegation. Stop. Meet demands repeal section ninety-eight criminal code Canada. Jugoslav Branch Canadian Labour Defence League.
M. Klubrcher,
Secretary.
Here is another:
This organization demands federal government receive delegation. Stop. Meet demands repeal section ninety-eight criminal code Canada.
C.L.D.L., P. Repuska,
Chairman.
Then, here is one from Hamilton:
Repeal section 98 release the working class prisoners.
Czechoslovak Branch of C.L.D.L.
I shall not take time to read more of them. I brought with me only a small number in case any question should arise, because I felt I should make the explanation I have made concerning the telegrams which bore in upon the government demanding the repeal of section 98. In case of such a repeal the release of the prisoners must follow, because if a section were repealed to-day men who had been convicted under it yesterday could not very well be kept long in prison. I believed then, as I believe to-day, that it was not in the public interest that we should enter into any discussion with respect to the matter.
It may be charged-it was charged-that this is the act of a dictator or an autocrat. But, sir, I ask any hon. member of this house charged with the responsibility of office, receiving demands such as this, whether he would be promoting the interests of this country, the peace, order and good government of Canada and the Canadian people, if he were in any sense to show other than the firmest front to any demands made in the terms and under the circumstances these were made. I mention that matter because it has been given as one of the reasons this government should not be entitled to support or should not be further entrusted with power. I say and I desire to repeat that nothing but a sense of the gravest responsibility on the part of this government is responsible for the suggestion that the words "peace, order and good gov-srnment'' should be maintained.
I am going to put this to the house: The right hon. leader of the opposition has said that when parliament is in session all we have to do is to pass a measure. How long have we been endeavouring to pass a resolution?

How long? Hon. members say, "Oh, but you may count upon consent being given." Remember this: One member of this house can prevent the rules being set aside. And one member thus being able to prevent the rules of this house being set aside, I ask any hon. member here whether he does not believe that occasions have arisen and may arise when you cannot wait six days nor five for the purpose of taking the steps that may be necessary.
I do not believe that under the provisions with respect to peace, order and good government it will be necessary between now and the first day of May to enact any orders in council. I do not believe it will. My colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) says-routine, the continuance of existing orders in council where that may be necessary. I meant in the way of fresh orders in council, apart from routine in connection with the business of the country. Sir, during the war they were legislating in the east block every day while parliament was in session, and the War Measures Act was maintained in force several years after the end of the war. The Defence of the Realm Act in England, known as Dora, was kept in force in England for years after the end of the conflict, and the other day I looked into the last volume, a volume twice as large as the one I hold in my band, containing orders in council of all sorts dealing with almost every phase of the life and activities of the country-its political life, its civil life, its social institutions.
Now I go a step further. I would not ask this power from any parliament except reluctantly, and I so stated when I introduced the resolution the other day. But, sir, after discussions between my colleagues and myself, and taking into consideration the views expressed to us by others who look at the matter dispassionately and from the outside, dare we as a government, charged with the tremendous responsibility in this emergency of caring for this dominion to the best of our ability, be without that power? We have said, no. We do not believe that this power will be called into play; nay, more, we sincerely and fervently hope that it will not be. But, sir, what is a man without a weapon in the midst of armed force? What is a man who has no instrument for his protection in the midst of the strife of brigands? Without this power we should be without a weapon that could be used except through a bill in parliament; and with the strange views that obtain in these days there is no assurance that the

Unemployment Continuance Act
mind of the government would be sufficiently strong to secure -consent for any measure it might introduce. And from what we know and have seen, we should certainly be opposed with respect to consent. Then the matter would go its weary way, for there is another chamber to be considered before legislation is enacted; and in the meantime the injury may be done.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Almost anything. What
about the gold standard? Could anyone have foreseen that Great Britain was going off the gold standard?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, all I can say is, I hope that the hon. gentleman used his prescience to good advantage. But if he was as wise as he now suggests I can only say that he was one of very few on the American continent who foresaw what would happen.
I will give him firsthand information on that point. One at least of our great institutions sought information on that point only a short time before and the answer was that there was not the slightest likelihood of any such event occurring; and after the loan was made from the United States and France it would indeed have been a wizard who could have foreseen it. I recall meeting the president of one of the American financial institutions who happened to be in Berlin on the Sunday following the day on which the bank of England had gone off the gold standard. It was not then public; the announcement had not been made. A director of the Reichsbank told him that it was so and he telephoned through to Newport in America, and that was the first information which his partner in America had that such an event had taken place. We heard it late on Sunday night; when the message was decoded it was well on in the evening. If the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) foresaw it, he might at- least have done me the honour of telegraphing me.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If the
right hon. gentleman had read Einzig's "The Fight for Financial Supremacy" and "Behind the Scenes in International Finance" he would have foreseen that some of the leading European economists predicted this very thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot see what relation the Einstein theory has to the gold standard.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not Einstein, Einzig.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I only mention this as one illustration of the necessity for action being taken promptly. Could we have called parliament together with gold depleted and reserves gone?


Mr. EULER:: Was it not possible under the Finance Act to prohibit the exportation of gold?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not unless you declared a position that no one, having regard to the credit of the country, cared to take, and which bankers felt would be exceedingly disastrous to the country-insurrection, war or other conditions which the hon. gentleman will see if he takes the trouble to look up the act. That was the real difficulty. I put to the house, therefore, the question whether it is unfair or unreasonable to ask for such powers between now and the first of May.
I may say to the house what my intention is.
I have discussed it with my colleagues and I see no harm in intimating that, instead of asking for the right to pass orders in council with respect to peace, order and good government after the first of May, we shall specify the statute with respect to which we believe it may be essential in a time of crisis to enact reasonable regulations or orders in council.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: A slight improvement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be a very great improvement. As I have said in this house repeatedly, you cannot deal with emergent conditions on the basis on which you deal with everyday conditions. The only difference between us is that hon. gentlemen opposite, while with one breath they say that an emergency exists, with the next state that you must be governed by non-emergent regulations. While on the one hand they say that the conditions of a crisis exist, on the other hand they say that it is nothing but ordinary, humdrum political warfare. That is not our position; and with a full consciousness of exactly what is involved in the observations I have made, my colleagues and I are firmly convinced, although we hope and believe that [DOT] there will be no occasion to use the power asked for, that we dare not. go forward during the next six weeks without having such power conferred upon us. And it is not for selfadvantage; it is not for personal aggrandizement; it is not for the purpose of advancing our political fortunes; and it certainly is not for the purpose of giving us any greater com-

Unemployment Continuance Act
fort and ease. If we do it, we do it for the reason that they did it in England with parliament in session. If we do it, we do it for the public weal. If we do it, we do it in order that the integrity of the country may be maintained in the greatest national crisis it has ever known.
Last night the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) having realized the seriousness of the position in which he had placed his party, made up his mind that the proper thing to do was to escape, if possible, by saying "If you will do what I want you to do, all will be well." If hon. members will look at his observations they will find that he said, "If hon. gentlemen will do so and so, mention $10,000,000, $50,000,000, $100,000,000, or $200,000,000, the bill will be passed. If they will yield their viewpoint to ours, although it is true we are only a minority, all will be well. Let us be the dictators; let us be the autocrats; let us say what shall be done. Give up government; subordinate your views to ours; abrogate the functions of parliament and we will govern." The people of Canada thought differently in 1930, and so far as their will has been recorded' since, apparently they still think differently.
I observed that the right hon. leader of the opposition spent a great deal of time showing how great was his anxiety that this bill should pass; in fact his anxiety was so great that at one time I thought that in his heroic struggle to enact it he would exhaust' himself, so great was his anxiety for the public weal, so great and desperate his efforts on behalf of Canada, the unemployed and the seedless farmers in the west. But when we analyse it all it resolves itself into this: First, that there has been delay. I should like to make clear just what were the circumstances. When we came into this house on February 4, we contemplated, of course, the necessity of asking for an extension of time in connection with this bill, and we assumed that it would pass as a matter of course, from the fact that it had worked out fairly satisfactorily, and that no complaints of any serious character had been made. It was a great surprise to me when I found the right hon. leader of the opposition expressing himself in the terms he used. But I could not go forward for this reason: We put upon the order paper on February 23 a notice that we would ask for the extension of this bill until May 1, just as it stood. But in fairness I realized that hon. gentlemen opposite were' entitled to information as to the administration of the act. For instance, on March 1 
I find that the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) asked when he might expect the' return of the orders in council passed by the government. To use his own words, the hon. gentleman stated:
May I ask the Prime Minister, before the resolution is proceeded with which he has placed on the order paper for the purpose of extending that statute from March 1 to May 1, that there be brought down all the orders which have been passed thereunder since last year, so that we can discuss his resolution intelligently.
In reply I said:
It is intended to lay upon the table of the house all orders passed under the authority of the statute to which the hon. gentleman refers. They comprise a considerably large number of orders in council, and the report which the Minister of Labour proposes to table will cover them all.
It will be seen at once by the house that it was difficult to give that information at the end of the month, because undertakings were proceeding, and it was necessary that action should be taken from time to time in connection with the payment of accounts due provinces and in connection with the undertakings we were carrying on. We had the galley proofs of that report for weeks, but that report had to be brought up to date in order to make it complete. It will be recalled that on the very day that I rose in my place and moved that the Speaker leave the chair in order that the house might consider the resolution, the Minister of Labour laid that report upon the table. I apologized to the house at that time because a greater opportunity was not given for consideration of that report before the motion for consideration of the resolution was made; I meant that, because I believed it desirable that hon. gentlemen should have an opportunity to see from the report just what we had done.
That was the real reason for the delay. Had I thought there was any likelihood of difficulty arising on that score I could have easily given that explanation. It is true that Senator Robertson's illness contributed to that delay, for reasons which I think every hon. member of this house will realize. Many of the agreements had been made by Senator Robertson and he desired certain information contained in the report of Mr. Hereford to be communicated to him. But, sir, when the time elapsed and, in the language of the right hon. leader of the opposition, the bill became a dead thing, it was not necessary or essential as a matter of law to have a further submission of the resolution to the committee, for the reason that the resolution as originally submitted was for the extension of the bill for two months, and the

Unemployment Continuance Act
revival of the bill by appropriate legislation accomplishes the same purpose. There is no departure from principle. The same principle is maintained, namely the extension of the bill for two months, now only six weeks.
But let me go a step further. It was suggested last night that we were making illegal payments. May I point out that some difficulty has arisen as to the construction to be placed on the original measure, chapter 58, and no bills are being paid. I think the suggestion made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) in connection with the Anditor General has been misunderstood; it should not have been given the^ meaning which was attached to it by the right hon. leader of the oposition, but just the opposite. There is a doubt, and rather than endeavour to force our views upon any official of the government, no accounts have been paid, and no orders in council have been passed. There was one order in council passed on March 2, with respect to which it was thought there was clear authority, but some question has been raised about that. So we have Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces all looking for money under this bill.
A supply bill would not meet that situation, because these grants are not grants in supply; the measures never begin:	"Most gracious
sovereign." These are grants in aid, made upon terms and conditions and agreements, just as a few weeks ago we passed a statute in this house whereby we made a grant of 8100,000 to the city of Ottawa. It was not in a supply bill; it was surrounded with terms and conditions upon the fulfilment of which the right to the money depended, and so in these measures providing for these payments there are terms and conditions and contractual obligations all of which are mentioned in the agreements and the discharge of which is essential for the purpose of creating the obligations thereby established. There is no analogy between a supply bill and this measure. To say, "I will give you a supply bill," would be like saying, "You ask for bread and I give vou a stone." Indeed, it would be like saying, "If you do this, I will do that." A supply bill does not meet the situation; it does not meet the terms, the conditions and the obligations, contractual and otherwise, that surround the agreements that are the basis of the general administration of the act. It is for that reason that we are unable to avail ourselves of any suggestion such as that made from the other side last evening; it is for that reason that the Old Age Pensions Act is in the terms in which it appears; it is for
that reason that the grant to the city of Ottawa is in the terms in which it appears; it is for that reason that the grant to the battlefields commission is in similar terms. These could not be covered by supply bills; these are no part of the annual charges upon the revenues of the country; these are no part of the grant which is made to the sovereign in a supply bill, which begins, "Most gracious sovereign." These are parts of grants in aid, which are based upon the observance of conditions and contractual obligations.
That, sir, is the reason why any talk of a supply bill is nothing more nor less than a mere effort to disguise what is the real issue. The real issue is a simple one: Shall the Canadian parliament, through a government supported by a majority in this house, be permitted to reenact, by proper words, the legislation of last session for the purpose of affording relief to the unemployed, and seed grain, food and fodder to those who require it so urgently in the province of Saskatchewan?
I will not trespass upon the time of this house to review, as I had intended, the various statements made in connection with this legislation beyond restating, first, the point which was taken as to the delay and, second, the question as to its constitutional character. Viewed in the light of the legislation enacted by the parliament at Westminster, and in all these cases, the great difficulty is that the opposition fails to realize that these are not normal times. This is not the time for playing high politics, or low politics, and we are in the judgment of the people as to which it is. I will not say more.
However, there is one statement to which I think in all fairness I should allude, and that was the statement with respect to the introduction of a bill and the suggestion that that matter had been settled between His Honour the Speaker and myself. I had no more knowledge that that was on the order paper than has an unborn child. I saw it there and the observation was made, whether by the Clerk or the Speaker, I do not remember, that it should not be there and that was all I knew about it. No one knows better than the right hon. the leader of the opposition that if it were properly on the order paper it could not be removed except by a motion to remove it. No motion was made, and it follows therefore that it was nothing but an inadvertent accident that it found its place upon the order paper. It disappeared without my having any communication, directly or indirectly, with the Speaker

Unemployment Continuance Act
or the Speaker with me. I assume it was a mistake in connection with what had taken place the preceding day.
With respect to the delay and the necessity for it, and the fact that the discussion on the resolution had reached a day past the first day of March, I will not say more than that that necessitated only a very simple thing; it necessitated the use of the appropriate words to enable the principle of the legislation to be made effective. In the first instance, all that had to be done was to say that notwithstanding a certain fact the statute shall be taken to have continued to be in force until the first day of May. In the second instance, all that had to be done was to substitute for the word "March" the word "May." There can be nothing in the point suggested as to the necessity for a second submission to His Excellency the Governor General because the rule is that this is unnecessary as long as there is no departure from the principle. During the brief moments at my disposal since the chamber rose last evening, I took the trouble to satisfy myself upon this point.
There is one thing to which I desire to refer, and that is that the discussion on the part of many hon. members has centered about the Prime Minister. I noticed last evening that the right hon. the leader of the opposition associated himself with those attacks in these words:
And I say, if for no other reason than, as shown here the other evening in the most conclusive language, because of the stand which he himself has taken in dealing with the House of Commons in many matters, this house will never surrender to him rights which have been won for the people through their representatives.
In associating himself with the personal character of <the attacks made upon the leader of the government, the right hon. gentleman has substituted abuse for argument. I desire to say to this chamber that I am perfectly content, I have no protest to make or complaint to urge. It is wholly within the rights of hon. gentlemen who have contributed so greatly to this debate and to the elucidation of the difficult problems with which we have had to deal in this time of crisis to substitute abuse for argument, but I had some little doubt as to whether or not one who so prided himself upon his love of tradition and his regard for the high amenities of debate and the principles of British institutions would associate himself with the virulence of the attack made the other evening. However, the right hon. gentleman has seen fit to do this, both publicly and in this house, and I am glad to know that the attack which seemed 
to be the personal animadversion of one member was the considered attack of a party.
The motion made yesterday by the Minister of Agrioulbure (Mr. Weir) that this question be now put was made in anticipation of any amendment which might be made by hon. gentlemen opposite. We had been advised [DOT]that they contemplated making an amendment at the appropriate moment, and in order that the matter might come to an end, the previous question, which involved an opportunity for further speaking on the part of those who had spoken, was moved. This was moved for two purposes; first, that there would be no further amendments and, second, that an opportunity might be afforded to the Canadian people to ascertain whether the discussion was of the kind that readily should be looked for, or indicated merely an effort to prevent the will of the people being made effective through their representatives in this parliament. There need not be much doubt, in view of what transpired yesterday, as to the controlling factor in the minds of those who sit opposite. However, we are content.
The procedure of this house provides a method whereby the will of the majority can be made effective against the autocratic dictation of a minority, and of that we have given notice. We propose to pass this legislation with the aid of the rules provided, in order that those who are entitled to its benefits shall receive them, and for the reasons which I have given, that facing the next six weeks of trouble and difficulty in a great crisis, the time has come when there is necessity for a clear power being vested in the executive to meet a situation which we hope will not arise but wjiich may arise. We will go forward to our task undeterred by the abuse of our opponents or by the efforts on their part to substitute the will of a minority in government for that of the majority. By constitutional practices and privileges this government will be bound, and having a clear mandate from the Canadian people and a clear majority, not being required to be either cajoled or coaxed, we will discharge our duties to the best of our ability as earnest men who are entrusted with power from the Canadian people.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: Mr. Speaker, after the references we have had to Lord Loreburn and Lord Hewart, after the self-pity which has been manifested by the leader of the government (Mr. Bennett) both for himself and for his colleagues and after the renewed pledge to go forward or perish in the attempt, let us go back to the question before this house. Let us examine

Unemployment Continuance Act
whether the Prime Minister has given any valid reason why the government should, as the price of doing its duty by the unemployed in this country extort from parliament a measure to disfranchise the electors and to take away their right to regulate taxation and to say for what purposes expenditures shall be made.
My right hon. friend has strayed a long distance from the question and, as usual, has been most informative in connection with matters of fact and of administration. He has lowered his Voice and appeared to take us into his confidence in regard to certain matters; but after all, when somebody reads his speech or has listened to it, will he not turn from his Hansard or from having heard it and say: For just what reason does the government want to insist on resurrecting the monstrosity of a year ago?
Iam going to deal with a few of the alleged reasons that my right hon. friend has given, but one will search in vain the pages of Hansard to find a real and valid reason for my right hon. friend insisting on the legislation which he forecast in the resolution that was put on the order paper some time ago.
There is one reference he made to what my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) said last night. The Prime Minister intimated that this could not be done by way of supply. He knows as much about parliamentary institutions as possibly does anyone in the house, and I say to him-and I do not think he will contradict me-that he could bring down a supply bill to-day providing an amount in the terms of this measure for the purpose of relieving unemployment and that on the offer which the leader of the opposition made last night, it could be passed in half an hour and become law. Everything which has been done with regard to which he says the western provinces have been so complimentary, could be done under such a bill. After all, what does my right hon. friend really mean when he says that the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act has been reasonably well administered? He is no more proud than we are of the fact that he used that act for the purpose of valuing the securities of insurance companies. He is not a bit more proud than we are of the fact that he stepped outside of the Finance Act and under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act prohibited the export of gold. I do not think he takes much pleasure in having invoked the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act for the purpose of adding to the strength of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Those were, he says, extraordinary measures. We have had mixed up with Lord Hewart and
the suffragettes the idea that "The bogeyman will get you if you don't watch out." There is an emergency abroad in the country he says, war and insurrection and .invasion and that is the sort of thing for which legislation of this kind is invoked.
Before I forget it my right hon. friend time and again referred to a statute which was passed at Westminster in September, 1931. In it, as he claims, he finds the precedent for what he proposes this parliament shall do. Let us look at the statute which he read a few minutes, ago and consider the real effect of the legislation which we are proposing to pass here. This proposed legislation is to provide in effect that the government shall have all the powers of the dominion parliament to legislate in respect of peace, order and good government even although parliament is sitting. It will have an unlimited right to draw upon the public funds for all purposes within the ambit of those very broad and general terms. What is the British act to which my right hon. friend has referred and which he says is his authority and a great precedent from the mother of parliaments? It is an act for the purpose of effecting economies in expenditure and it provides that:
During the period of one month after the commencement of this act-
I shall skip a portion of it because my right hon. friend read the whole of the first section.
-for the purposes of effecting economies-
Watch this:
-in the expenditure falling to be defrayed out of the consolidated fund, out of moneys provided by parliament, or out of any fund established by the enactments relating to any of the said services, and of effecting improvements in the arrangements for meeting such expenditure.
The money must first be provided by parliament or out of some fund established by statute. Not a dollar is to be paid out under that statute, it is only providing for an administrative rearrangement of the expenditure in connection with the five departments which are named:
Education.
National Health Insurance.
Police.
Unemployment Insurance.
Roads.
Even that is going to be in force for only one month.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


James Layton Ralston: It says:
During the period of one month.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: They must pass the
orders within the month.


James Layton Ralston: It says:
During the period of one month after the commencement of this act, His Majesty may, in respect of the services specified . . . make such orders in council as appear to him to be expedient.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


James Layton Ralston: It goes on:
(3) Any order in council or regulations made under this section shall, as from such date not earlier than the first day of October nineteen thirty-one as may be specified in the order or regulations, have effect notwithstanding anything in any enactment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is in force yet.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend does not derive much comfort out of that statute when he invokes it for the purpose of attempting to show that the British parliament had given to its government the sort of power which he is proposing under this resolution. I thought that was probably the strongest thing he said by way of reason, but when we look at the statute, we find it is simply one for administrative purposes, for reassignment of duties between different departments, for effecting economies and reducing expenditures.
I am sorry I have not the time that my right hon. friend had. What other matters were dealt with by him? He spoke of the Athabaska election. Although he professed to be speaking from such a high plane in dealing with unemployment generally in Canada he commenced by congratulating himself and his party on the victory' they have achieved in Athabaska. He spoke at the same moment of the -rule of the majority. Of course he remembers that his candidate, when he comes to parliament, will hold his seat by virtue of about one-third of the votes of that constituency.


Mr. MANION:: And the Liberal candidate
got one-quarter.


James Layton Ralston: Yet my right hon. friend talks about the power of the majority and rails against the autocratic rule of the minority. What is he going to say to his friend from Athabaska when he comes to this parliament? The Prime Minister said half a dozen times-and I shall not take much time to deal with this point-that the legislation had worked well. We have dealt with this point during the debate; we have shown the deficiencies in the legislation and in the administration, and when the matter comes to committee, we shall have more to say about it. But in any respect in which the
rMr. Ralston.]
legislation has worked well, it has done so
simply because he had the money to spend and under the suggestion made by my leader last night, my right hon. friend can spend money just as well as he could under the statute he seeks to resurrect. Is there any particular virtue or merit in this statute which would enable -him to go further than he could if 'he put the same words into a supply bill and had it passed by the house in half an hour? Is there any reason why my right hon. friend whose heart bleeds so for unemployment at this time, instead of making a two-hour speech in connection with the matter, could not have introduced a supply bill, had it passed quickly by the house and then sen-t a telegram to Saskatchewan this very afternoon stating that the money was voted? He has not given any reason. He has mentioned two or three possible emergencies. Parliament is here should an emergency occur. Other parliaments are dealing with the same situation as that which presents itself to us. We are not so timorous as my right hon. friend would endeavour to have us in the face of situations in this country. We have met them before and we shall meet them again. We do not want my right hon. friend legislating over in the east block in 'the morning when we are here in the afternoon to pass any measures that may be necessary. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) reminds me that we are told the government are working twenty hours a day. We do not deny that; we realize they are having a difficult time, but they are giving themselves a great deal of unnecessary work in connection with these matters. If the Prime Minister would take the legal, constitutional, decent-I use that word in the legal sense- wav of doing these things, he would not have half the trouble he has had in trying, if I may use the expression, to "bull" this iniquitous resolution through, regardless of what the result may be.
My right hon. friend rather twitted my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) with regard to the fact that he had asked for money in connection with unemployment relief this month. I know that it seems difficult to get it into the -minds of our friends across the wtay, but can we not get into their heads what not even the Prime Minister, much less the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) seems to understand, namely, that everybody agrees to the voting of more money and the money can be voted in a minute if the government really wants the money. My right hon. friend seems to think the argument is about the relief of unemployment, but we are all agreed on the relief of unem-

Unemployment Continuance Act
ployment; there is no question about that at all. The question is whether my hon. friends opposite are going to be allowed to say to the unemployed and the people of this country who need relief: We will do nothing for you unless in addition to the money that is required parliament gives us all the powers of parliament. In other words, unemployment relief is made a mere incident to the demand which is being made by hon. gentlemen opposite for power, and unlimited power. The time they say is one of national crisis, but such times I would point out were lived through by Macdonald in the old days when he occupied the position of my right hon. friend, and such times were lived through by other Prime Ministers, and they did not have to ask for these extraordinary powers. The Prime Minister could only quote the war time as a time when such powers were delegated to the government, and I would remind him, if reminding is of any use, that even in war time there was a definite limit placed on every bill voting money for the purpose of carrying on the war, and as I am reminded, at that time a specific sum wlas voted every year.
My right hon. friend in an endeavour to special plead a little bit in the matter of a blank cheque trots out some statutes, and he says in effect: Here are some statutes which indicate that we have been given a blank cheque before. But he knows better than that. He knows that the Old Age Pensions Act is not on all fours with this measure, and it does not need a lawyer to draw the distinction between them. The Old Age Pensions Act is an act to appropriate from year to year, practically in perpetuity, a sum which is never exactly known but is always capable of assessment, a sum which was limited in the act to so much per person, and a sum which is granted only after a certificate has been forwarded that a certain expenditure has been made by the province. That has nothing to do with the proposal before us, which is that for the purpose of exercising unlimited power the government gets unlimited grants of money.
My right hon. friend also mentioned the Montreal harbour bridge, and his followers cheered lustily about that. I have the bill before me relating to the Montreal harbour bridge. That bill does not provide as the statute which is to follow this resolution does for the building of a wharf or some other structure down in Nova Scotia, and at the same time for the building of a grain elevator or the construction of a highway in British Columbia. It provides for the construction of one specific
work, and for that work alone, a definite work across the harbour of Montreal, a bridge, and it provides that the harbour commission is authorized to build it. The only comfort my right hon. friend can get out of that, if there is any comfort in it at all for him, is that he says the governor in council-that is inferentially, because it says His Majesty- is authorized to guarantee the bonds issued by the commission for that undertaking.


Henry Herbert Stevens: With no limitations.


James Layton Ralston: But the limitation is in
the work itself. That is expressly specified, and every expenditure under the act is required to be approved by the governor in council before they guarantee the bonds, and as my hon. friend from Quebec East suggests, the money is owed by the harbour commission, and so far as I know the commission is a debtor which probably can pay, and I do not think there will be any difficulty about the government collecting the money or any danger of its being called on under its guarantee. So that instance also goes by the board.
My right hon. friend quoted one more instance, the relief of pensioners. I submit, with all due respect to him, that .that is almost too puerile to mention in connection with a measure of this kind. The relief of pensioners, as my right hon. friend knows, is the subject from time to time of governor general's warrants because it is difficult to know just how much money as wanted. Further I would point out that even this year my right hon. friend who was not going to have any supplementary estimates at ali from last year, who was going to see that the departments kept within their appropriations, laid on the table supplementary estimates amounting to something like $700,000 for the relief of pensioners. What has that to do with the measure with which we are dealing to-day? Nothing whatever, but mentioning all these irrelevant things helps to make people feel that the Prime Minister must have a vast store of information and gives them the impression that he must know what he is talking about. Many references are put on the record and people feel that they must foe arguments or the Prime Minister would not make them. They do not know him as we do. He often makes the worse appear the better reason. He substitutes information for argument, information which while very interesting does not contribute much in support of the particular thesis he is presenting at the time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


James Layton Ralston: No, the Minister of
Agriculture said it. He was advised by the premiers of other provinces-I thought my right hon. friend would not assent to the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in those terms.


James Layton Ralston: These are the words of
the Minister of Agriculture-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think not.


James Layton Ralston: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.

Unemployment Continuance Act


James Layton Ralston: The bill originally was
for March 31; the right hon. gentleman opposite admitted that to have the bill run to March 31 at a time when parliament was sitting would be a usurpation of powers, and therefore he limited it to March 1. What was the situation? The situation was that last year parliament met on March 12. I have no doubt my right hon. friend expected that this year it would meet about the same day, and he was content that the date of expiry of the bill should be coincident with the meeting of parliament. He indicated plainly that if this bill were in force this year while parliament was sitting there would be a usurpation of the people's rights.
In the light of what is now proposed I should like again to read from the statement made last year by the right hon. gentleman:
I will shorten the time to March 1 and make it clear that we have no desire to usurp powers as was suggested.
Now what does he purpose doing? I shall paraphrase his words, "I will lengthen the time to May 1 and make it clear that we do desire to usurp the powers, as was suggested." This is the right hon. gentleman who brushes to one side a constitutional question and says there is nothing in it, but who last year promised this parliament and country that after March 1, 1932, that monstrosity passed last year would not be upon the statute books.
My right hon. friend has given a number of instances in which he says extraordinary powers might be useful. There have been pointed out time and again the possibility of the extraordinary use of such powers, uses which would be quite within the letter and the spirit of the statute. Instances were given the other night. Let me remind the house that, if this bill becomes law, until May 1, with parliament sitting, my right hon. friend and his government if they liked could disfranchise any member who dared to criticize the government. Sitting over in the east block he could pass an amendment to the elections act. He has already amended the Insurance Act and he could amend any other statute. He has probably looked into this aspect of the matter or he would not have come here at all; but I am not so sure that if he had taken time by the forelock, if he had thought of it in time, he might not have succeeded in perpetuating himself by amending and extending the act by order in council before it had expired. Evidently he did not want to take that chance. He came here on February 26 and asked for what he calls a renewal of the act, but it is not a renewal.

He speaks of a continuance of the act, but as we have pointed out to him, there is going to be a definite break between March 1, when the act expired, and the date when the new act is assented to, and my right hon. friend will not have any legalization for what has been done in the meantime.
I am trying to dig out all the reasons I can which have been given as to why this particular bill should become law. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) said that they needed the machinery provided under this bill; he says that this machinery is necessary, because there would be less disturbance if it were kept in operation. Let me ask: Is there any machinery in the world that would be changed in connection with the expenditure of the money whether it were spent under an ordinary parliamentary vote or under this statute. There is a director of employment, and he would still spend the money if it were voted under a supply bill founded upon estimates, just the same as he would spend it under this act. There are still subdirectors of employment in the different provinces; there is still the Department of Labour; exactly the same machinery would be used in either case, and the same kind of dollars would be paid out. I am afraid that in some cases the same sort of men would be employed in connection with the work, but I am sure there would be no change nor would there be any dislocation because of the fact that the money did not happen to be voted under this act but under an estimate passed by committee of the whole house and subsequently included in a supply bill. The only machinery wanting under the old act is provision for a director of peace, order and good government, and I think my right hon. friend will probably take care of that office himself. There is no need of any more machinery; there is no fear of dislocation of any kind or description. Canadian dollars are Canadian dollars no matter how they may be voted, but my right hon. friends demand that these Canadian dollars be accompanied by a complete surrender of all the rights of parliament and of the people.
I have spoken of the delay which has taken place, and in the moment or two left me I want to point out the situation in which my hon. friends opposite find themselves to-day. As a result of an absolute, callous indifference to this question of unemployment, as a result of the way in which hon. gentlemen opposite have treated it since the election this is the situation. The act has expired. A resolution was put on the order paper on February 26 but was never touched or mentioned by the

Unemployment Continuance Act
Prime Minister until March 8, and the debate has been going on since that time; and the position in which my right hon. friend finds himself to-day is that he had to have his Minister of Agriculture move yesterday that the question be now put. And this afternoon the right hon. gentleman has himself put on the gag by giving notice of closure on Tuesday next. What is the situation so far as supply is concerned? To the motion to go into supply an amendment has been moved by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan), the former Minister of Labour, which motion has not yet been disposed of. Going into supply automatically is blocked for this reason, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) has given the house an undertaking that the government will not proceed with any supply involving the ten per cent cut in civil service salaries, and the only estimates that are left to be considered are estimates of that kind. My right hon. friend will therefore find it necessary to dispose of the debate on deductions or reductions in civil service salaries before he can proceed with supply. And this jam, the position in which my hon. friends opposite find themselves now, is due simply to the delay and the indifference which they have manifested in connection with unemployment from the first of the session, when the matter should have been introduced and dealt with. Moreover, as my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) points out, the financial year ends on March 31 next, so that probably the government will be coming to us for interim supply, because the voting of supply has been blocked by their own neglect and delay. Now that is a nice situation in which we are to break up as we go home for Easter.
I suppose my right hon. friend will not take any personal assurance from me, but I wish to give him one, and I believe I can get support for it if he still wants money for the relief of unemployment in Saskatchewan. And, by the way, I take the position that Saskatchewan is not the only province that needs unemployment relief. The people of my constituency and my province are in need of relief also. The fishermen there are in sore straits and need relief in the worst way. The only thing they have got so far is an extra lobster season to give them the great privilege, bless your heart, of six weeks' lobster fishing in the bleak months of December and January. That has been the extent of the unemployment relief they have obtained, with the addition of small works in connection with breakwaters and things of that kind. No real attempt has been made to
assist the fishermen. Now my assurance to my right hon. friend is that we will stay here this evening and pass-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And it is now five minutes to six o'clock.


James Layton Ralston: I am suggesting-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Talk a little sense anyway.


James Layton Ralston: I am suggesting to my
right hon. friend in all seriousness that we are quite willing to stay, but he does not want money to relieve unemployment; he wants power. Unless chapter 58 is handed over to my hon. friends opposite they will not take the money to relieve unemployment. That is the position. My right hon. friend must admit that there is no need of chapter 58 in the next six weeks. As a matter of fact, there is very little in chapter 58 which he required in the last year. But it has been a good thing for him to have in his hands, as he himself says-a weapon; that was the word he used. But, Mr. Speaker, we are still living, at least we thought we were living, in a democratic country, whose people send their representatives to parliament to take part in the discussion of all legislation. But, from what has been taking place, I do not know what the Prime Minister wants parliament for. I do not see why if we should reenact chapter 58 there is really any need of the House of Commons. He can sit over in the east block and do everything that parliament could do. Why bother with parliament at all? I am going to repeat the suggestion to the Prime Minister, nevertheless.


Ernest Lapointe: We can come back at
eight o'clock.


James Layton Ralston: If the Prime Minister
wants money for unemployment relief in Saskatchewan, he can have it, and we will stay here until he gets it. Once more, however, he laughs; once more he receives the suggestion with levity. Let me tell him, however, that I am as serious in this suggestion as I can possibly be. If my right hon. friend would open his heart and tell us exactly what he thinks, I am sure that he is as sick as anyone that he ever thought of asking for chapter 58.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He certainly is not.


James Layton Ralston: He knows that chapter 58 is no good; his supporters have told him it is no good. I have no doubt .that in the caucus [DOT]held this morning they told him pretty freely

1420	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
and plainly that they thought he was making a mistake in hanging on to chapter 58, but apparently he is going to do so.
Now, Mr. Speaker, just this last word: My right hon. friend, I take it from the way in which he received my suggestion, is not going to stay to-night and is not going to take the money from us. He is going to let the unemployed wait until after Easter, until the dragooning process is put through and parliament is forced to vote this money in his way and in no other.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did I understand my hon. friend to say, " Take the money from us?"


James Layton Ralston: Yes, that is right, from parliament. We are parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minority is going to hand out the money?


James Layton Ralston: We are parliament, and
that minority argument does not carry my right hon. friend very far. Every hon. member here is a part of this House of Commons, and every man has an equal right to participate. While my right hon. friend's reference [DOT]to the government as a committee of this house may be correct in point of fact, really the government are advisers of the representative of the crown, who happen to be members of this house. The right hon. gentleman has admitted that my right hon. leader was right when a year ago and at the special session as well he suggested conferences. My [DOT]right hon. friend intimates that clandestinely, or apparently not openly, he has had some of *these conferences with the provincial premiers, one at a time. I suggest to him that in spite of the twenty hours a day he and his government are working, no more proper thing could be done during the Easter recess than to have a conference called here at Ottawa. We might even adjourn for a day or two longer in order that the Prime Minister might have the benefit of the combined brains and business judgment of people of various walks of life who know something about unemployment relief, who know what conditions are in different parts of the country, who are nonpartisan and who are actuated by only one [DOT]motive, and that is to relieve distress. I believe if he does that it will be possible to bring in a measure which will really implement the promises which he made.
I say this bill does not and has not, in the experience we have had with it, in any way met -the promises made by the Prime Minister. It has been ineffectual; it has been inadequate; it has been expensive; it has been extravagant. I want to repeat what cannot be repeated too often, that the money
rMr. Ralston.]
can be made available in the shortest possible time for the relief of unemployment if the Prime Minister really wants to relieve distress. I say, however, that as far as this side of the [DOT]house is concerned, we do not propose to surrender the right of the' people to control expenditure and taxation, which is one of the bulwarks of British institutions. We are not going to hand over the fortress of responsible government without a struggle and we refuse to be a party to this enactment unless by force of the gag invoked by a ruthless parliamentary majority. I tell my right hon. friend that he has forgotten the unemployed altogether in his avarice for power. I believe my right hon. friend would gladly retrace his steps if he had those steps to take over again, because he is coming to realize that his very success in forcing this measure through will be his defeat.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order, until Tuesday, March 29, at three o'clock in the afternoon.
Tuesday, March 29, 1932