1932-04-01

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to bring a question of privilege of the whole house to its attention. At the close of last night's sitting the Prims Minister, having .mentioned that he would apply closure to the matter under discussion, made this declaration:
If this business is concluded some time after two o'clock, we shall then proceed with government orders and supplementary estimates.
The point I desire to raise, and I think it is of importance for future debate, is that the house has no right under the present rule to take up anything after the closure has been applied to any measure under discussion up to two o'clock. I take first standing order 39 under which closure is applied. I will not read the whole of it, but simply the concluding part:
And if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or concluded before two of the clock in the morning, no member shall rise to speak after that hour, but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I cannot understand the hon. member's question of privilege. He is talking of the application of the rules of the house. At the present moment no rules are being applied except the ordinary rules of procedure.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, with a view to helping the house in future-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.
1606	COMMONS
Agriculture Committee-Third Report


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so. My contention is that by disregarding this rule last Tuesday the privileges of the house were broken.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That was the time to
discuss it; the breach cannot be amended now. What is done is done. Even supposing the hon. member's point of order is well taken referring to former procedure it cannot ibe remedied now, and this is not the time to discuss it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: But upon the declaration made by the Prime Minister last night may I not raise the question of privilege?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is not a question of privilege at all. If at a later date any member undertakes to do something in violation of the rules of the house it is time enough then to bring up the question. It cannot be anticipated. The notice of motion for closure was not while the house was in session, but while in committee.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, for my guidance, if after closure has been decided upon the point can be raised?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It cannot be raised
academically.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I mean after the vote is taken under the closure rule and as a matter of procedure, can the point be raised that he house cannot proceed with other business?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: When the house proceeds to such business, if the hon. member thinks it is not within the rules of the house, he can raise the question.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is all I want to know.



AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand) presented the third and fourth reports of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Your committee has had under consideration an order of reference dated Wednesday, February 24, 1932, namely:
"Resolved: that all questions affecting the beet sugar industry in Canada be referred to the select standing committee on agriculture with instructions to inquire into the action which may be taken by the government, by way of customs duties, subsidies, bonuses or otherwise, either in or without cooperation with the provincial governments for promoting the prosperity of the said industry and developing the production of Canadian grown sugar, and report to this house.
Attest.
Arthur Beauchesne,
Clerk of the House."
[Mr. Bourassa.l
Your committee has called and examined the following witnesses:-
H.	Marshall-Bureau of Statistics, Ottawa, Ontario.
Dr. F. W. Grindley-Bureau of Statistics, Ottawa, Ontario.
W. R. Reek-Director of Experimental Farm, Ridgetown, Ontario.
Thos. Simpson-Farmer, Petrolia, Ontario.
G. L. Rogers-President, British Columbia Sugar Refining Company, Vancouver.
B. R. McMullen-Beet Growers' Association, Alberta.
Chas. Houston-President, Canada and Dominion Sugar Company Limited, Chatham, Ontario.
Alex W. McIntyre-Canada and Dominion Sugar Company Limited, Chatham, Ontario.
W. F. Russell-Alberta Beet Growers' Association.	*
The evidence submitted established the following facts regarding the industry:
I.	That the production of sugar beets has been carried on very profitably in certain districts of Ontario and Alberta: that the area under cultivation has increased from 25,000 acres in 1921 with a yield of 200,000 tons to
42,000	acres in 1931, with a yield of approximately 435,000 tons, and that the production of refined beet sugar has increased from 53,000,000 pounds in 1921 to approximately 100,000,000 pounds in 1931.
The amount paid to the farmers for beets in 1931 was about two and one-half millions of dollars; during the period of normal commodity prices for farm products, an average price of $7.48 per ton was paid to the farmers for sugar beets, but owing to the present low price of raw cane and refined sugar, the factories claim that they are unable to guarantee more than $5 per ton for the 1932 crop.
2.	That large additional areas, suitable for the growth of sugar beets, are available in Canada.
3.	That there are five firms engaged in the refining of sugar in Canada-The Canada and Dominion Sugar Company Limited, producing cane sugar at their Montreal factory, and beet sugar at Chatham and Wallaceburg, Ontario; the British Columbia Sugar Refinery, producing cane sugar at Vancouver, B.C., and beet sugar at Raymond, Alberta; The Ai'eadia Sugar Refinery Company, Limited, Dartmouth, N.S.: The Atlantic Sugar Refinery, Limited, St. John, N.B.; St. Lawrence Sugar Refinery, Limited, Montreal, P.Q. The last three have engaged exclusively in the manufacture of cane sugar.
4.	That during the past ten years the annual average production of refined sugar in Canada was 963 millions of pounds; the percentage of beet sugar production has varied from 6-2 per cent in 1926 to aproximately ten per cent in 1930 and 1931.
5.	That the sugar beet factories at Chatham, Wallaceburg and Raymond, are now operating at full capacity, and that no further development of the beet sugar industry in Canada is possible until manufacturing capacity is increased.
6.	That world stocks of sugar on hand are very large and that an estimated surplus of some four millions of tons urill be carried over to next year.

Maturing Obligations
7.	That there is sufficient capacity in the cane sugar refineries of Canada to refine two and one-half times the amount of sugar necessary to meet the demands of the Canadian consumers.
8.	That the consumption of sugar in the area from Winnipeg to British Columbia is approximately 225,000,000 pounds supplied from eastern Canada as far westward as the Brandon district, and from Vancouver, eastward to the Brandon district, except for the tnirty million pounds of beet sugar manufactured at Raymond, Alberta.
9.	That freight rates on sugar from Raymond, Alberta, to prairie points are from one-half to three-quarters of a cent per pound less than rates to similar points from Vancouver or Montreal.
10.	That the granting of bonuses or subsidies at present to encourage the production of sugar from beets, was not favoured by the representatives of the growers or of the refiners.
Your committee therefore recommend that in view of the existing tariff on sugar and in consideration of the substantial payments being made to agriculture and labour by the beet sugar factories at present in operation, the cane sugar refineries should undertake to provide for a gradual increase in factory facilities for the refining of beet sugar in Canada, and that, with the additional advantages in freight rates to points in the middle west, heretofore described, factory facilities should now be steadily increased in western areas where beets are grown, and thereby make it possible to produce from beets a more substantial percentage of the sugar consumption of Canada.
Your committee further recommends that if no successful attempt be made in the immediate future by the refineries to increase the facilities for the manufacture of beet sugar, the government should take into consideration steps to accomplish that end.

[Stage Direction]
Your committee has had under consideration an order of reference dated Tuesday, March 15, 1932, namely:
"Resolved: that the report of the committee on grain standards for the crop year 1931-32, in so far as it relates to Garnet wheat, be referred to the select standing committee on agriculture with instructions that the whole subject be inquired into carefully and that the said committee shall have power to call for witnesses, papers and documents and to report to the house its findings.
Attest.
Arthur Beauehesne,
Clerk of the House."
Your committee, in view of the fact that seeding operations will become general throughout western Canada before your committee shall have sufficient opportunity to inquire into and report to the house on the abovementioned order of reference; and in view of the fact that the manner of grading Garnet wheat may vitally affect the acreage sown, recommends that any change in the system of grading Garnet wheat shall not become effective during the present crop year.
Mr. SENN moved that the fourth report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) with reference to certain questions I asked him and which were answered by him on Wednesday. These are the questions:
1.	What Canadian obligations are maturing outside of Canada in 1932?
2.	How many of these (in amount) are maturing in New York?
3.	Are these all payable in gold?
4.	How many of these Canadian obligations are owing by: (a) the federal government; (b) the various provincial governments; (c) Canadian municipalities; (d) Canadian railways; (e) other parties?
The answer given by the hon. minister is certainly misleading if not inaccurate. He said:
1, 2, 3 and 4. Dominion of Canada: $55,000,000 payable in gold in New York.
He added certain observations as to the obligations of other parties. I think in view of the fact that the Prime Minister said in a recent debate that we have 81,000,000 a day maturing in New York-


Mr. BENNETT:: Not New York, abroad.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, outside Canada. I wonder in view of that if the Minister of Finance will not correct his answer.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in answering questions the government can only give that information which is within its official knowledge. Bearing that in mind, the answer to the question is correct. But I know what my hon. friend has in mind, and while we have no official figures with respect to obligations other than those of the dominion, I shall be very happy indeed to give him unofficially the information desired.



IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker,
yesterday my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) referred to a despatch which appeared in the Toronto Star in reference to the possibility of invitations to the Irish delegation being cancelled in certain eventualities. When my right hon. friend made his statement it might have appeared to some that the despatch to

Imperial Economic Conjerence
which he referred appeared exclusively in the Toronto Star and was contributed by its Ottawa correspondent. I do not know whether my right hon. friend has investigated the source from which it came, but I am informed that the article in the Toronto Star was from an international news service in New York, and that a similar article appeared in the Toronto Telegram and also in the Montreal Herald, and apparently in a number of other papers, so that its publication was in no sense exclusive, and its source in no way the Toronto Star or any of its correspondents. I mention this because I think my right hon. friend would not wish to create a wrong impression with respect to any one particular publication.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have investigated the matter further. The despatch appeared under an Ottawa date line, and I can find no other similar despatch. I have not been able personally to exhaust investigation of the various papers, but I have been told just what the right hon. gentleman says, that a despatch somewhat in the same sense-I have not seen it-appeared in two Toronto papers and in a Montreal paper. I have not yet received the clippings to ascertain whether they are the same despatch or not, but the Toronto Star despatch appeared under an Ottawa date line, and apparently it was sent from here. That being so, I thought it was important, in justice to all parties concerned, that a statement should be made in view of the fact that the correspondent of the paper I mentioned 'had seen the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs and had received the answer that I have indicated. I will try to see the clippings themselves between now and Monday if I can possibly do so to ascertain if they are the same despatch or not. I am not satisfied myself where it originated because I contented myself yesterday with believing it originated where the date line indicated-Ottawa.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	I desire to direct a question to
the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) based on a brief letter I have received from Loon Lake, which I believe has been also forwarded to the Minister of Railways. The letter is addressed to me and is dated March 26, 1932.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: Cannot the hon. member
ask his question without reading the letter?

He has just stated that the minister has been sent a copy of the letter.


Mr. McINTOSH:: AVith all due deference,
Mr. Speaker, there is a paragraph of the letter which I think should be mentioned in order to make clear the point of my question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: But the hon. member says the minister has a copy of the letter.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: All right, whatever you
say; I am quite willing to put the question now. I may say this is the fourth time I have asked this question this session; as yet I have not received a definite answer, and this letter is based on the questions I have already asked. The question concerns the steeling of 44 miles of grade between Loon Lake and St. Walburg in the northwestern part of Saskatchewan. I should like to ask the minister wha-t action he intends to take on the petition he has received asking that steel be laid on the graded portion of this line between St. AValburg and Loon Lake. This is a definite question, and I should like a definite yes or no in answer. The time for action has arrived.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The hon. member asked what
action was to be taken, and he demanded yes or no in answer. I hardly know which would be the more satisfactory to him under the circumstances.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, you do.


Robert James Manion: I think the question was
answered, so far as the government could answer it, some weeks ago. The hon. member asked this question and I told him then that the work on this line was in exactly the same position as the work on other branch lines throughout the west and throughout Canada generally. The national railways is not considering going on with practically any branch line work this year, with the exception of a small amount scattered here and there throughout the country, and so far as I know there is very little possibility of this branch line being completed this year.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: But there is a possibility?


Robert James Manion: There is a possibility of
almost anything.



BEAUHARNOIS POAVER PROJECT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I undertook to

Unemployment Continuance Act
answer to-day questions propounded by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), and the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) with regard to the Beauharnois undertaking. I had prepared to do so, but information was conveyed to me to-day that makes it impossible for me to give the answer I proposed to give, so I should like the questions to stand until Monday when, after having seen some interested parties, I hope to be able to make a statement.



AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT REPAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: Some two weeks ago I directed a
question to the Prime Minister which I wish now to direct to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), this being the first of April. When the Prime Minister, acting as Minister of Finance, presented his budget last year, he brought in certain schedules having to do with the tariff on repairs to farm implements. Because of representations made by the opposition he decided that these schedules should not become operative until after March 31. It is now April 1, and I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if those proposed schedules are now in operation, or if the government have taken care of the situation by order in council.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Pending the bringing down of the
budget I am happy to inform my hon. friend that the matter is being provided for by order in council.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday. March 31, consideration in committee of Bill No. 24, respecting unemployment and farm relief -The Prime Minister-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the order is proceeded with, Mr. Chairman, I desire to make the motion of which I gave notice last evening, that further consideration of the title and clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed.
You will observe that the words are "further consideration." Last evening it was impossible to separate one clause from another in
the discussion, since hon. gentlemen opposite thought it desirable to discuss all three clauses at the same time, notably my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). It is clear, therefore, that there having been some consideration of the measure, the words "further consideration" are correct.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sunbury):: It is moved by Mr. Bennett and seconded by Mr. Guthrie:
That further consideration of the title and clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed.
Shall the motion carry?


Mr. GARDINER:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is not clause 1 the question that is before the committee at the present time?


Olof Hanson: Technically speaking, clause 1 was before the committee, but the committee considered every clause of the bill. As a matter of fact, therefore, all the clauses of the bill have been before the committee.


Robert Gardiner: On another point of
order: Is it possible to have three clauses of a bill considered in committee at the same time? Is it not more correct to say that, in accordance with the ruling of the chair, the committee will now proceed to the consideration of clauses 2 and 3?


Olof Hanson: I do not know that I should advise the hon. member touching the suggestion which he has just made. I do not understand it to be a point of order. The question is on the motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will you please read the motion again, Mr. Chairman?


Olof Hanson: The motion is:
That the further consideration of the title and clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed.
Motion agreed to: yeas, 103; nays, 50.


Olof Hanson: I declare the motion carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The motion
which has just carried is, I take it, the application of closure to the proceedings of the committee, which means that so far as members of this house are concerned there is no longer opportunity to elicit by question and answer information with respect to the Un-

Unemployment Continuance Act
employment and Farm Relief Continuance bill, which is before the committee at the present time, or on matters incidental and relevant thereto. It is important that that should be clearly understood. We are not now at the second reading of the bill, but in committee, and as is well known, the purpose of the consideration of a bill in committee is to elicit from the government explanations as to the meaning of the legislation, the intent of the government with respect thereto, and also information as to the extent to which and manner in which expenditures under similar legislation in the past have been made. By this motion, all further opportunity to secure information of the kind is denied hon. members of this house.


Mr. STEVENS:: You have all day to-day .until two o'clock to-morrow morning.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let this be
clearly understood; there can be only one speech on the part of each member in committee. I submit that under these circumstances it is impossible to have any real or adequate discussion. One question may be asked by an individual member but that is all he is permitted; there is no way of following up the discussion in any form.
It is perfectly apparent, Mr. Chairman, that the introduction of closure in this manner at this time is not for the purpose of expediting the enactment of any measure with respect to relief, but clearly for the purpose of shutting off all discussion on the subject. May I make that abundantly clear by referring to the course of the opposition since the introduction of closure at a previous stage in the proceedings of the house. Closure was introduced on Wednesday morning, at which time the resolution was carried and the bill given its first reading. On Wednesday afternoon we proceeded with the next stage of the bill, which was the second reading, when an amendment was moved by the opposition. Had the opposition intended to obstruct, it is perfectly apparent that that was the time at which it would have availed itself of the opportunity to have its members individually speak. As the house well knows, however, there was but one speech from the opposition on the second reading, at which time an amendment was moved, setting forth in two paragraphs the position of the opposition in regard to the measure. That amendment was moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). That hon. gentleman made the oniy speech from this side of the house on that occasion, and when the amendment was voted down not another

speech was made on the second reading either from this side or from the other side of the house. Instead, the second reading was allowed to pass in order that the house might go immediately into committee. In the light of that fact it is impossible for anyone to say that action from this side of the house has been in the nature of obstruction to this measure.
May I go a step further and say that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) last night intimated his intention to introduce closure to-day, he gave the house, as will appear in Hansard, very clear evidence of the fact that he himself had received, from the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), intimation that we on this side of the house had expected to conclude the committee stage of the discussion yesterday and to proceed with the third reading of the bill to-day. The Prime Minister's words are there, to the effect that that was what he had gathered from the ex-Minister of Justice. The ex-Minister of Justice has since explained, what the Prime Minister himself will know better than anyone else, that no one on this side of the house in regard to any measure that is being considered in committee is in a position to curtail discussion completely. While most of us were hoping and expecting that the committee stage of the discussion would end yesterday, and that the third reading would be proceeded with this afternoon, yet the fact that members of the opposition twere unable to get from hon. gentlemen opposite much of the information they were seeking had the effect of prolonging the discussion further than would otherwise have been the case. And for that reason the discussion was not concluded last night. Now, notwithstanding that fact, notwithstanding that we have on Hansard of yesterday the record of the intention of the opposition as expressed by the exMinister of Justice to the Prime Minister last night and known by the Prime Minister at the time he mentioned his intention to move this motion of closure to-day, the Prime Minister comes along in the first minute of proceedings in committee to-day and applies closure, affecting all three sections of the bill, though as you, yourself, Mr. Chairman, well know, even the first section has not yet been passed. I quote from yesterday's proceedings at page 1557 of Hansard as follows:


Olof Hanson: I would ask the hon. gentleman, who knows the rules, to observe them. We are discussing section one of this bill.
As you yourself have said, Mr. Chairman, section one of the bill is the only section that

Unemployment Continuance Act
has been discussed, yet by the most coercive and arbitrary act of which a government is capable, we are being prevented from discussing sections two and three of the measure and discussing at any further length the first section.
May I direct attention to this further fact: During this parliament, this house has had very little opportunity to discuss the question of unemployment and farm relief. There was very little opportunity afforded during the special session, and at the last session it was not until the concluding days in the month of July that the government brought down its measures with respect to unemployment relief. As hon. members know there was no opportunity then to discuss this matter. This year for the first time we have had or at least ought to have had some opportunity to discuss what is involved in this ail important question.
What is the nature of the desired discussion? In the first place it is admitted by hon. gentlemen opposite that there has been an expenditure of over $140,000,000 from the treasury of this dominion for unemployment and farm relief.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should say,
along with those of the provinces.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And the municipalities.


Robert James Manion: And	the railways.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will make it perfectly clear. The expenditure on unemployment and farm relief as taken out of the taxes of the people in one form or another has totalled over $140,000,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not correct.


Robert James Manion: The money expended by
the railways was not taken out of the taxes of the people.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister
of Railways (Mr. Manion) says that the part expended by the railroads was not taken out of the taxes of the people. I should like then to know where it oame from.


Robert James Manion: The Canadian Pacific
Railway Company spent a good deal of money which did not come out of the taxes of the people. That spent by the Canadian National Railways, perhaps, but the Canadian Pacific Railway, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will not
quibble over a few figures here or there. No
one 'Can gainsay the statement that more money has been spent on unemployment relief since the present administration came into power than was required to run the entire government of Canada for a period of any one year during the time of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, or for a period of any two years during the time of Sir John A. Macdonald. That gives some appreciation of the extent to which the taxes of the people are being spent for this particular purpose.
We on this side, under a sense of our obligations, have been seeking to discover how that money has been spent. As it is only a preliminary to further expenditures, we have been seeking to ascertain what policies are going to govern the action of the government in the future. I submit that the discussion of a matter of such colossal proportions and so all-important to the taxpayers of this country should not be restricted under closure within a day and a half of the time it has been entered upon. Action so extreme in character has never been taken by any British government in regard to public taxation.
I will not add more at the moment, Mr. Chairman, except to say that it would be pure pretence for us to seek to take advantage in any way of the little right which remains to us under closure to ask but one question each of the Ministry with no guarantee that we will receive an answer. I think it better under the circumstances that we seek to prevent a waste of public moneys by attempting anything which is wholly futile. I shall content myself therefore, by saying that the action of the administration at the present time reduces parliament m its most essential functions to a mere futility and a complete farce, and that we of the opposition do not intend to lend ourselves to participation in any step of that kind.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Mr. Chairman,
since the beginning of this session, or, at least, from the time that the measure now before the committee was first introduced, we on this side have sat and listened to objections of various sorts, all of which were calculated to produce but one result-to stop the measures which had been put into effect by this government in order to relieve the unemployment situation in this country. We have heard from the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Mackenzie King) and from those who sit behind him, various suggestions as to why this legislation should be balked or brought to an improvident conclusion, but we have not heard, at least up to the tune my right hon. friend took his seat, any suggestion why

Unemployment Continuance Act
the relief measures now proposed for this country should be abrogated or not considered as an obligation of this parliament. It must be illuminating to hon. members to hear day after day members of the opposition, either under the direction of my right hon. friend or at least with his approbation, giving reasons why the relief which western Canada and the country has called for should be blocked and made of no effect. The one reason for their action which I have been able to gather from what has been said by the opposition is that instead of adopting the measure now before the house they would propose a better plan, namely, that of bringing into this parliament a proposition-


An hon. MEMBER:: Spit it out.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I will spit it out and you will not like what I am going to say -which would afford an opportunity of inquiring into and arriving at some means of meeting the situation which must be faced in order to relieve unemployment.


John Vallance: This is the hon. member's last chance.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I ask the committee to judge the right hon gentleman in the light of what happened in 1924. At that time he called a conference to meet in Ottawa to deal with the very serious question of unemployment. At that time there were present in the house and in the city representatives of practically all the leading municipalities of Canada. My right hon. friend knows on that occasion he sent into his council chamber the then Minister of Labour, Mr. Murdock. What did he do? When the people from the various municipalities assembled here in Ottawa, that same gentleman, under the direction of my right hon. friend from Prince Albert, told them that the Dominion parliament had no interest whatever in the question of unemployment; that it had no responsibility to assume in connection with the matter, and that they should go home and look after their own troubles as best they could. Who will deny that? What does the record say? It says that the right hon. gentleman who now assails the Prime Minister and says that he has done nothing, while the whole country rings with the record of his achievements-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am glad my hon. friends opposite admit that. They will not deny it. While the country rings with the record of achievement on the part of the present Prime Minister, the right hon. mem-
ber for Prince Albert hopes the Canadian people will forget his lack of achievement in 1924 when he had the opportunity but let it slip, with the result that owing to his impotence nothing was done. Surely there is only one result that the people of Canada desire and that is that the man whose statements resulted in nothing shall be judged by his lack of achievement and that the man whose action resulted in everything and who now sits in the office of prime minister, shall once again prevail against obstruction, stupidity and ignorance.


Mr. NEILL:: As I have not so far taken
part in this debate, perhaps I shall not be accused of unnecessarily prolonging it. I probably shall be, but not justly. The reason I did not take such part was that I regard the matter of the extension of the act for thirty days as of far less importance than the matter concerning which I am going to ask the Prime Minister a question, which is the consideration of what is going to be done in connection with unemployment relief after May 1? There are only twenty-nine days between now and May 1 and the extension of the act will take care of that. The question that the provinces, the municipalities and the Canadian people generally are concerned with is, what provisions are contemplated to take care of conditions which will prevail after May 1. In that connection I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he will be kind enough to amplify or clarify an expression which he used yesterday, in debating the sections now before the house, because it seemed to me, on reading it, as if a few words had been left out of the record. The Prime Minister, as reported on page 1665 of Hansard, made this statement:
It may be of interest, and I think the committee should know that in furtherance of the views which I expressed a few days ago-
I take the reference to a few days ago- and he will correct me if I am wrong-to be the occasion on which he said it was his determination, as soon as the provincial legislatures had concluded their sittings, to call a conference of the premiers of the provinces to consider the question of future unemployment relief. He goes on to say:
I have despatched a message to the governments of all the provinces-
It seems to me some words are left out there. There is nothing to indicate the nature of the message. He continues:
-for the purpose of enabling us to look at this financial position clearly and ascertain to what extent it may be necessary for the dominion to secure funds-

Unemployment Continuance Act
And so on. It seems to me something, to indicate the nature of the message is left out there. The message was, I suggest, though I have no business to do so, to the effect of asking the provinces to state what they considered their commitments or responsibilities would be or what sums of money they would require. He then goes on to state:
This we hope to do within the next ten days
One would expect that to read: "This we hope to obtain"-that is a statement of what the provinces require. My question is: will he kindly explain the purport of this message and of his intention? Does it refer to calling a provincial conference which has been suggested for the near future, or was it to ask a definite statement from each province setting forth its contemplated expenditures, so that when the Prime Minister received those statements he would be in a better position, as he says, to submit to the house legislation based upon an intelligent understanding?
As the closure has been introduced and I shall not be able to put any further question, I sincerely trust the Prime Minister will give me the information I desire in the same spirit in which I am asking it, that is of getting information in which I think the whole country is deeply interested. He can turn the question aside by some cryptic expression, but I do not think it would be appropriate. What the country is vitally concerned in today is to know what steps the government is contemplating to take care of the situation after May 1.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That hardly arises out of the consideration of the sections now before the house.


Olof Hanson: Shall clauses 1, 2, 3 and the title carry?


Mr. MacINNIS:: The few words I have to say in connection with this matter I would rather utter while the Minister of Public Works is in the house, but I see he is not. I think what I have to say can be said under the matter which we are now discussing. I refer to the violation of the fair wage clause in connection with government public works in British Columbia. Unlike what has been the policy in the past, it seems to me from examples I have at hand, the government has in this instance helped in the violation of fair wage rates. As it has sent to the various organizations that work from Vancouver and that are engaged in public works carried on from that city, for their wage rates, and as it
has received them, I see no reason why it should not be cognizant of what they are. The particular matter I am taking up now has reference to contracts for wharves at White Rock and Gibson's Landing, British Columbia. This was a work in which bridge, wharf and dock builders were engaged. The rate prevailing in the Vancouver district for that kind of work is one dollar per hour, but the government rate paid on that work was only sixty cents per hour. The rate for foremen on that kind of work according to the wage scale in eifect in the Vancouver district was S1.25 per hour, but the rate for foremen which the government was paying was only 70 cents per hour. So we see that the government helped the contractors to break down the wage scale which the workers had for so many years been striving to build up. Not only that, but it seems that in order that that might more easily be done, they asked the contractors not to have different classes of workmen engaged on the job at the same time. I have here a copy of a letter from the pile-drivers, bridge, wharf and dock builders to the Deputy Minister of Labour at Ottawa, from which I quote as follows:
Re: Dominion Government Fair Wages Policy
From investigation conducted by this organization to ascertain the rates of wages paid by the Dominion government for repairs and construction of new wharves, we find that in some cases two fair wages schedules have been prepared by the Department of Labour for wharf builders, one rate of one dollar per hour, which is the established rate, and another rate of sixty cents per hour for the same class of labour.
We are advised that in order to successfully carry out this policy of reducing wages, officials have been advising all concerned to carefully avoid having pile-driving crews and wharf builders engaged on the work at the same time. This we presume was considered necessary in order that one group of employees would not be aware of the rates of wages paid to the others.
I have not much to add, but I wished to bring this to the attention of the Minister of Public Works and of the Minister of Labour. I believe that they have been advised of this situation before. I think it is a bad policy to take advantage of the economic situation to force workers who may get a few days of this kind of work to do to accept lower wages than those prevailing, breaking down the wage standards, especially when the benefit from any reduced scale of wages goes, not to the employees themselves, but to the contractors who have the contract for the work. From what I have seen of the Minister of Public Works in this house, I believe he is willing to see justice done, and I hope he will in future see that the fair wage clause in dominion contracts is strictly adhered to.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: In reply to the remarks of my hon. friend, the latter portion of which I heard but the former portion of which I did not hear unfortunately owing to my absence from the house, I can only say that it is the fixed policy of the Public Works department to obtain a schedule of rates of wages applicable to the different portions of the dominion based upon the prevailing rate in the locality. In the works which we do by contract the schedule of wages as fixed by the Labour department is adopted and made a part of the contract. The contractor is checked up from time to time and compelled to pay wages on the basis of that schedule. I understood my hon. friend to refer to two pieces of work, one at White Rock and the other at Gibson's Landing. I have no information here in detail about these works, but I believe they were done by day labour, and not under contract. Under those circumstances the department would have to adopt the prevailing rate in the locality, and that is the course that has been adopted. In the matter of relieving unemployment we are rather embarrassed sometimes by a different rate of wages prevailing on provincial work from that prevailing on federal work, and care must be taken not to get these rates too far out of line. I can only assure my hon. friend that in the future as in the past we shall keep in touch with the Labour department and that the schedules as adopted from year to year by that department wall be strictly adhered to in our contracts.


Mr. RALSTON:: In dealing particularly with section two, which has to do with the laying on the table of the orders in council which are passed from time to time, I want to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister whether or not the orders in council which have already been passed, particularly with regard to the prohi-oition of the export of gold will be renewed, and whether or not he will limit in any way the exercise of his powers. He intimated to js that he intended to insert some limitation with particular reference to the subject on which those powers -would be exercised.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If the right hon. gentleman rises to speak, I wish to quote the rule, standing order 39, which reads as follows: Immediately before the order of the day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the house be in committee of the whole, or of supply, or of ways and means, any minister of the crown who, standing in his place, shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his intention so to do, may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned or that the further 
consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, shall be the first business of the committee, and shall not further be postponed; and in either case such question shall be decided without debate or amendment; and if the same shall be resolved in the affirmative, no member shall thereafter speak more than once, or longer than twenty minutes in any such adjourned debate.
The right hon. gentleman having already spoken in answer to my friend from Comox-Alberni, I object to his replying to the member for Shelburne-Ygrmouth.


Alan Webster Neill: It was no answer to my
question.


Leslie Gordon Bell: On the point of
order, Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to you that the point of order now taken by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice is not well taken and that in any event it only amounts to an endeavour to shut off discussion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Laugh again. I
love it; I love it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I love the eunuch too.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Once again it is
simply an endeavour to ask a question in order to get it put on the record in the hope of being able to tell the country that it has not been answered.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: That is not a point of order. It is a speech.
Mr. BELL (Hamilton); I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that my hon. friend's point is not well taken.


Olof Hanson: The hon. member for Quebec
East has very properly quoted the rule. I have some doubts whether I should not have called the attention of the committee to the rule before the debate started after the motion had been carried. I do not understand, however, that the mere answering of a question put across the floor constitutes speaking within the rule. If it does, then it is a very limited and narrow construction of the rule, and it has never been so applied in this house since I have been a member of it for the last eleven years.


An hon. MEMBER:: But this is closure.


Olof Hanson: I would rule that the mere answer-

Unemployment Continuance Act
ing of a question does not constitute a speech, when a minister is replying to a question put to him by a member of the house.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Suppose I have a question to ask. Does that constitute a speech?
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Hanson,	York-
Sunbury):	We will go into that when we
come to it.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: You cannot apply the
rule both ways. It must be one way or the other.
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Hanson,	York-
Sunbury): I have ruled that the Prime Minister has not spoken in answering any question in this debate.


Alan Webster Neill: Then would it be in order
for the Prime Minister to reply to my question now?
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Hanson,	York-
Sunbury): He did. Shall sections 1, 2 and 3 and the title carry?
Sections 1, 2 and 3 and the title agreed to: yeas, 63; nays, 40.
Bill reported on division.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: When shall said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously the last opportunity that will be afforded in this house to draw the attention of hon. members, as well as the people of the country to the significance of the debate that has taken place during the past two or three weeks, and of the action which is being taken at the present time.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the third bill which has been introduced in this parliament with respect to unemployment relief. The first bill was introduced at the special session of
1930,	and was known as the Unemployment Relief Act, 1930. The second bill was introduced at the second session, and was known as the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act,
1931.	The measure which is now before us for third reading is known as the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932.
The point I wish to make, first of all, is that this is an entirely new measure. It is not an amendment of any previous measure, existent or non-existent. This fact amply ' demonstrates the soundness of the position taken by the opposition at the beginning of the debate, to the effect that, if the government intended to proceed this year in a manner similar to that in which it did in
previous years, it ought to have followed the same course, and introduced a resolution naming the measure it intended to introduce. It should not have proceeded by a resolution which required amendment, and which, when passed, could not, strictly speaking, be held to be a proper foundation for the bill now alleged to be based upon it.
The resolution, introduced by the administration, as hon. members know, was to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of 1931. As was pointed out at the time, chapter 58 had ceased to exist. We have, in this very bill which has been brought down by the ministry, the statement in the first clause that chapter 58 is no longer in existence, that it expired by lapse of time. Notwithstanding the fact that we pointed out that it was impossible to amend a measure which was no longer in existence, hon. gentlemen apposite persisted in proceeding with a resolution having that end in view and, by devious methods and rulings, contrived on the basis of that resolution to bring in this measure, which, as I have said, is not an amendment of anything but is in the nature of an entirely new enactment. I think I am right in claiming that, had the proper methods been followed, the house would, at least, have been saved many questionable interpretations and the long, tortuous and devious methods which were adopted in order to have it declared that a measure that had ceased to exist, not only had the power of perpetuating itself, but actually had the capacity to give birth to an entirely new enactment. That is what appears on the records of this house as the story of the resolution which preceded this particular enactment.
I can only express the hope that some of the rulings and decisions may never be cited as precedents by any subsequent parliament in this country. I believe the members of the ministry will themselves fee the first to blush when, in calmer moments, they review what the records disclose of the means which were taken to bring into being this particular measure.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is by no means a bill restricted to the providing of unemployment and farm relief. That fact cannot be too strongly emphasized and clearly stated. The bill which is before us at the present time, though it is called and designated the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, is not a measure confined in its provisions to farm and unemployment relief. It is really in the nature of three distinct enactments. One has to do with the providing of unemployment relief. The second has to

Unemployment Continuance Act
do with giving the ministry unlimited moneys for the purpose of expenditure in connection with relief, removing from this House of Commons all control over this expenditure and incidental taxation, and allowing the ministry a free hand with reference thereto. The third important feature is that which takes from this parliament what I believe is its exclusive right, namely, that of legislating on matters relating to peace, order and good government, and of giving to the ministry the power to exercise that right in secret session by order in council. The bill must be regarded as three distinct measures, and such opposition as there has been from this side of the house has related exclusively to that provision of the enactment which deprives the House of Commons of its control over taxation and expenditure, and to the provision which gives to the ministry absolute powers to legislate by order in council with respect to peace, order and good government, which means pretty much anything and everything.
There can be no question that at no time in the course of this whole debate has there been opposition on the part of any hon. members on this side to granting to the government what was necessary in the way of moneys for the purpose of relief, and granting those moneys immediately. I made that abundantly clear when I spoke the other evening and said that not only were we prepared to vote what was necessary for two months in the form of supply, or a grant in aid, if the ministry so preferred, but that we were prepared to vote what moneys might be necessary up to March 31, 1933. I went further and stated that if the ministry were wedded to the phraseology or to any other feature of the enactment of the previous year we would be perfectly agreeable to allowing the measure of relief to be voted under a similar enactment, provided that it did not contain the two objectionable features, the one depriving the Commons of its control over taxation and expenditure, and the other giving to the ministry absolute powers in the matter of legislating with respect to peace, order and good government.
The reason I feel it is important to emphasize that question is that apparently even yet, whether intentionally or unintentionally, a certain section of the press of this country does not correctly represent the position of the opposition in this matter. For example, I have in my hand a clipping from the government organ in this city of the night before last, referring to what transpired-


Richard Bedford Bennett: What paper would that be?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the Ottawa Journal.

. Mr. BENNETT: I did not know it by that name.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am referring to the Ottawa Journal of Wednesday last.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not recognize it by that name.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not attaching importance at the moment to the fact that this is the government organ in Ottawa; I am rather attaching importance to the extent to which a large section of the press appears, up to the present time, to have misunderstood the significance of such action as has been taken by the opposition during the course of this debate. The article is headed:	.
Liberals Fail In Effort To Kill Relief Legislation
Opposition Amendment Is Rejected 100 To 64


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hear some
hon. gentlemen opposite say "hear, hear," with regard to the statement that the Liberals failed in an effort to kill the relief legislation. I think I have made it abundantly clear that the Liberals have been prepared from the outset to grant immediately, and to whatever extent might be required, whatever was needed in the way of relief legislation. What the Liberals have failed to kill is the action of the government which deprives the House of Commons of its control over taxation and expenditure incidental to relief; what the Liberals have failed to kill is the autocratic action of the government, by the use of closure, to gain for itself the right to legislate by order in council with respect to peace, order and good government, a right which under our constitution it was never intended that parliament should be called upon to part with in any particular. That is what the Liberal opposition, despite all its efforts, has failed to prevent up to the present time.
Now may I present a point of view to hon. gentlemen opposite, to members of the Conservative party as Conservatives, which I would ask them to consider carefully before this measure is given third reading. It is an aspect which has been very much in the minds of those of us who have taken the stand that has been taken with regard to this measure; it is a point of view I have already presented in general words but which I wish to present now in concrete form. Whatever is done in this house of an important nature, becomes in course of time, a precedent. We are living in troublous times; we are living in an age

Unemployment Continuance Act
where conditions are rapidly changing, and it is quite conceivable that before many years have elapsed we may have sitting on the ministerial benches of this parliament instead of a Conservative government, that is supposed to be the guardian of all Conservative action, let us say a Socialist administration of an extreme type. Let us assume that the ministry of that day, confronted with a period of depression, decides to obtain power to secure from parliament, at a single stroke, all that it may wish to have for purposes of public expenditure on relief and social services of one kind or another, also authority to enact whatever laws it desires, quite irrespective of parliament. Where would such a ministry find precedent for such action? It would find it in the methods of hon. gentlemen opposite, find it in the action they are taking to-day.


Mr. BURY:: May I ask a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish
to be interrupted. It would appeal to the records of this house, to what took place in the parliament of Canada during the month of March and on April 1, 1932, and it would find there that despite a vigorous opposition by those who sought to protect the very foundations on which parliamentary government rests, and to preserve the constitution and all that the constitution stands for, the Conservative government of this day had established the precedent that a ministry may, by use of closure, secure to itself power to obtain from the public treasury whatever sum of money it wishes, naming no amount, and take to itself unlimited authority in the matter of legislation by order in council.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that establishing a precedent of the kind is a pretty serious situation, and I cannot understand how any hon. member of this parliament who takes his duties seriously and who regards himself as a guardian of the liberties of the people, can lend himself to action of the kind. That is the real significance of this whole debate. It is not a question of the voting of relief, as I have already said; that we have all been agreed upon from the beginning. But what those of us on this side have strenuously opposed is the sanctioning of a course which torpedoes all that there is in the way of established parliamentary practice and procedure, and submarines the very constitution of our country. That is the significance of the fight we have put up here and I say, Mr. Speaker, that we would be unworthy of our positions as members of this house if, recognizing the danger in the form in which I have presented 41761-102
it this afternoon, we did not exhaust every possible means to prevent the enactment of any measure that would establish a precedent of the kind.
Now may I give a further reason why it is important that we resist to the nth degree. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been citing, as one of the reasons why they should have the right ito introduce this enactment this session, the legislation that was passed last session. They say, "There is the statute of last year, and all we are asking is that we reenact what was done last year." Hon. gentlemen know very well that last year we put up as strong an opposition as we possibly could to the measure then introduced. We pointed out its arbitrary features; we pointed out its revolutionary features, but at that time there was existent, considering the period of the year when the measure was brought in, what to all intents and purposes was closure. The bill was not brought in until the month of July, after a very long session of parliament, and members could not be kept together in this house for a prolonged struggle, with the conditions that then existed. So we had to content ourselves with placing our position on record, but in doing so we in no way acquiesced in the legislation that was going through. Indeed, we did not cease our opposition until the Prime Minister gave parliament the solemn undertaking that the measure then before the house would be amended in committee so that instead of expiring on March 31 it would expire on March 1, thereby assuring to the House of Commons, when it assembled this year, full opportunity to pass a new measure which in no way would usurp its rights while parliament was in session as the measure of 1931 did, for the period when parliament was not in session.
So I say that, having had repeatedly drawn to our attention the fact that whatever is done at one session is going to be made a precedent for what may be done at another session, we have had no alternative but to continue our opposition to the present measure until the government, by the drastic action it has taken, made perfectly clear to the country that even if they had to go the length of coercion and use a weapon with which to defeat those who were fighting for the maintenance of free institutions, they were determined to use that weapon as often as might be necessary to accomplish their ends. For that reason, and that reason only, have wc ceased even for a moment our opposition to the two objectionable features of this measure to which I have referred.

161S	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
I shall not weary the house with any lengthy quotations with respect to the rights and duties of the House of Commons on matters of control of taxation and public expenditure and the rights of the house with respect to legislation; but the Prime Minister and other speakers have placed on record one or two quotations by which they support the position they have taken, and I shall therefore give a quotation or two from outstanding authorities in regard to the solemn obligation of the House of Commons touching the control of expenditures. These quotations represent the grounds upon which our opposition to the action of the present administration has been taken. The Prime Minister, in his speech at the time of introducing closure, quoted from Redlich's The Procedure of the House of Commons. I hold in my hand volume 3 of Redlich, which contains the quotation given by the Prime Minister. I am going to refer to that quotation before I conclude my remarks, but, in the meantime, I wish to quote from a page that is removed by only a few pages from the one from which the Prime Minister quoted. It is from chapter 4, ,the chapter dealing with the history of financial procedure, and it sums up in a couple of paragraphs the view of this great authority on the obligation of the Commons with respect to matters pertaining to financial procedure. At page 159, .chapter 4 begins as follows:
At the first glance there does not appear to be much to learn from tracing the history of the forms of financial procedure. The motive power in financial development is not to be found in procedure, but in the growth of constitutional principles, in the acquisition by parliament of the sole right to grant taxes and in the further evolution of the predominance of the Commons as the true representatives of the nation. We have already referred to this development, which, so far as it bears on our special subject, was completed by the Revolution of 1688.
But there is something more to say. The fundamental principle just referred to secures only one of the great functions of parliament with regard to money matters. Soon after the great change made at the end of the seventeenth century, political experience showed that a second principle must be established before the foundations of parliamentary government could be regarded as secure.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to note these words:
Before the foundations of parliamentary government could be regarded as secure

Another great principle had to be recognized, and it was this:
It was necessary to give to the Commons full and unrestricted control over the destination of the money spent, to enable parliament to [Mr. Mackenzie King.l
check its -application and to see that the expenditure corresponded to the grants made.
I ask, sir, was there ever a quotation which came to a legislative body so pregnant with meaning as this quotation comes to this House of Commons this afternoon, when, by the action of the Prime Minister and his government, the committee of this House of Commons has been denied all right to endeavour to check the application of moneys, to see that the expenditure corresponded to the grants made, and to exercise its unrestricted control over the destination of the moneys spent. Let me go on:
The working-out of this principle led by degrees to the present financial apparatus of the House of Commons. The form of a bill of supply and the division of parliamentary business between the two money committees of the whole House had long been in existence. But from 1688 onwards the development of law and practice in finance procedure took a new turn: the old framework was retained, but a new spirit _ was breathed into all the forms of financial management, especially those relating to the expenditure of the state, and the administration of the moneys placed at the disposal of the government. Hie complete realization of the idea of parliamentary control reacted upon the whole organization of financial administration, just as the vast extension of the latter determined the way in which the great task of modern parliamentary government- direct parliamentary control over the whole of the national finances-reached its present shape. The result of the whole process has been to establish in actual fact the vital principle of modern parliamentary government-that of the full sovereignty of the nation's representatives in disposing of the financial burdens borne by their constituents.
Could anything .be more emphatic as to what lies at the very foundation of parliamentary government, and which, as this high authority says, is the great task, the vital principle of parliamentary government and the greatest of all responsibilities that rest upon members of the House of Commons? Yet it is that right, that duty, that obligation which is being denied this parliament by the bill which we are asked to support at the present time on its third reading.
May I now quote from another great authority, Colonel A. J. V. Durell, C.B., in his The Principles and Practice of the System of Control over Parliamentary Grants-the leading authority on this subject. Redlich was dealing with the financial aspect. Durell, in the part I am going to quote, deals more particularly with the constitutional aspect. At page 3 in the chapter on the House of Commons he says:
'It is one of the old standing principles of our constitution that the House of Commons should control the finances of the country. That is the

Unemployment Continuance Act
right, privilege, and duty of the house. It has been achieved by means of struggles lasting through centuries, beginning from the fourteenth century down to the seventeenth century, when it was fully confirmed, and since then it has never been practically disputed.' 'Ut quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus approbetur.' The quotation by Edward I of this legal maxim transmuted it into a great and constitutional principle. In other words, the cardinal principle on which the whole of our financial system is based is that of parliamentary control, and by this is understood not the control of parliament in its constitutional sense as composed of Sovereign, Lords, and Commons, but control by the Commons alone. 'Upon this fundamental principle, laid dow'n at the very outset of English parliamentary history and secured by three hundred years of mingled conflict with the crown and peaceful growth, is grounded the whole law of finance and, consequently, the whole British constitution.'
The most ancient, as well as the most valued, prerogative of the House of Commons is the right of supreme control over taxation, to which the right to control issues is a natural corollary. The prohibition of raising taxes without parliamentary authority would be nugatory if the proceeds, even of legal taxes, could be expended at the will of the sovereign. The right, therefore, of appropriation was a logical consequence of the right of levying supplies. 'The chain of historical evidence undeniably proves that a previous and stringent appropriation, often minute and specific, has formed an essential part of the British constitution.' Though the practice of appropriating supplies, in a general sense, is of early origin, that of appropriating them to the specific purposes for which they were granted did not become an established usage until the Revolution, when the principle that 'the grant of supply, and the control of public expenditure in conformity therewith, belongs inalienably to parliament, and preeminently to the House of Commons' was formally incorporated amongst the maxims of the constitution, and in the early days provision was made for severe penalties for diversion or misapplication. The control over public expenditure which resulted therefrom has, more than any other cause, vested in the Commons the supreme power of the state. 'It is, indeed, ultimately to the power of the purse, to its power to bring the whole executive machinery of the country to a standstill, that the House of Commons owes its control over the executive. That is the fountain and origin of its historical victories over the other organs of the state; and since that power was recognized and confirmed towards the end of the seventeenth century, the House of Commons has remained, whether reformed or unreformed, whether corrupt or incorrupt, the chief arbiter of the national destinies.'
Yet, in the face of a statement of the constitutional position, suoh as is there expressed by this eminent authority, and which every one knows to be the only true position, we are being asked this afternoon by the power sought by the executive through this measure to stab the constitution of the country at the very heart and destroy, to the extent to which it may be possible to do so in the course
of a short time, the very foundations of government in this Dominion of Canada. I shall quote further from two brief paragraphs in the same chapter. The first on page 9 reads;
The supreme control of the commons over public grants, as already mentioned, necessarily demands the complete right of control over the manner in which those grants are spent. This second right must be inseparable from the first if the control over the grants is to be effective; but it is a right which was not claimed nor enforced by the House of Commons until long after the right of control over supply had been established.
And on page 10:
In its constitutional aspect then, the English system of finance and the rules of financial administration are based upon the principle of supreme control by the House of Commons, and the machinery, by which it works, has been built up, developed, extended or modified to meet the requirements of that principle.
It is this most important, most sacred and most far-reaching of all the principles which underlie British constitutional procedure, practice and government that we are being asked by the ministry of the day to violate in the measure now before the house.
That is one aspect of the constitution which we are being asked to violate by this legislation. The other is the right of parliament and of parliament only to do what may be necessary in the way of legislating. I fail to understand how hon. gentlemen opposite could have been led so far astray in their thinking on this matter as to forget the very constitution of the country. I suppose that almost every schoolboy in the land, when he begins to study constitutional questions and matters pertaining to parliament, is taught the provisions of the British North America Act. What does this act say with regard to legislation concerning peace, order and good government? I read from the British North America Act as I find it bound with these Parliamentary Rules and Forms in Beauchesne's volume so entitled. Section VI, which is headed Distribution of Legislative Powers, contains the following subsection entitled Powers of the Parliament:
91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this act) the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say,-

Unemployment Continuance Act
Then follows the enumeration with which all hon. members are familiar. Is there any word anywhere in the British North America Act which says it is lawful for the executive as distinguished from parliament to legislate with respect to peace, order and good government? Is there one clause in the constitution of our country which gives to any Prime Minister and his colleagues the right to do that which is assigned only to the parliament of Canada as a whole? We cannot afford to allow any ministry to take from parliament that which is given to it by the constitution of this country as its exclusive right and obligation. The right to legislate respecting peace, order and good government is a right assigned mot to the ministry 'but to parliament itself. As we have said repeatedly, why have a parliament at all if the ministry is to be allowed to exercise this power? Peace, order and good government include virtually everything. The ministry have so recognized this fact because under it they have amended the Bank Act and the Insurance Act, have dealt with the finances of this country, have increased the mounted police force and performed various other acts coming within the subjects enumerated as those belonging to parliament.
With the unlimited money they will receive under this bill, with the power they will have under peace, order and good government to legislate on anything they wish, they could if they so desired create a standing army to overawe this parliament, and, do so in virtue of the powers which this house is being asked to give to them by this bill at the present time. That no doubt is the kind of thing the Prime Minister would like to bring about: to establish himself as a dictator, as a second Cromwell in his day, but I say that, before we return to the days of the revolution, we shall do our utmost to prevent a reversion to any condition such as that.
Let me ask my hon. friend-I will refer particularly to the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) because I think he has some conscience in these things-how would he feel if a socialist government were in office at the present time and, under the rights claimed by the ministry of which he is a member, attempted to legislate with respect to peace, order and good government, and to deal with the very subjects with which he and his colleagues have dealt? How would he feel if they passed an order in council to amend the Bank Act without any reference to parliament? How would he feel if they said that, by virtue of a situation which had arisen, the banks of the "Mr. Mackenzie King.]
country should not longer be permitted to carry on their business under the provisions of the act which parliament had enacted; that it was necessary to amend that act, and then proceeded, by order in council, to amend the Bank Act? That is what has been done under provisions of the enactment similar to this measure.
Let us consider the question of insurance companies. How would my hon. friend view the action of a socialist ministry which said: We do not care what the law is with respect to insurance companies, we are going to pass by order in council the legislation which we think is necessary in this time of crisis to make these insurance companies do whatever we believe to be in the interests of the country.


Mr. CAHAN:: I assume my answer may
be reserved until the right hon. gentleman concludes?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should
imagine that my hon. friend would want to reserve it for a long time.
That is the position in which we are at the present time. May I go a step further? Under orders in council which have been passed by virtue of this authority to legislate on peace, order and good government, the government has dealt with the question of the currency, the gold of this country. How would my Conservative friends feel if a socialist government in office, using the precedent of the action taken by the present ministry under authority to legislate on peace, order and good government, started forthwith to have the printing presses of this country manufacture whatever money they wished and to distribute that money broadcast, giving as a reason that this was necessary in order to meet a situation which existed?


Mr. BEUL (Hamilton):: Don't worry;
there will not be any socialist government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hear an hon. member opposite say that there will be no socialist government. May I say to him that this is the kind of thing that breeds socialist governments of the most extreme type. This is the sort of thing that would provide any government with the weapons it might need in order, if it so desired, to deal in a subversive manner with the constitution and other rights of the people.


Mr. HEAPS:: Does the right hon. gentleman mean to infer that if a socialist government came into power these would be the only means it would use to achieve its objective?

Unemployment Continuance Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Leslie Gordon Bell: You bet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, perhaps the hon. gentleman will accept the word of the Prime Minister. I regret that I cannot, after what the Prime Minister said to this parliament last session. Let me give the quotation.


Leslie Gordon Bell: That is very different. His word is worth something.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Here is what the Prime Minister said in the last session of parliament, after the apposition had stressed the importance of parliament reserving to itself its right in these matters, especially when parliament was in session. My right hon. friend is reported at page 4448 of Hansard of 1931 as fallows:
Mr. Bennett: I am not without full realization of what is involved in the bill, but in order to meet my right hon. friend I will shorten the time to March 1 and make it clear that we have no desire to usurp powers as was suggested.
No desire to usurp powers as was suggested.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the reason why the date was .changed from March 31 to March 1, so that the rights of parliament would not be usurped while parliament was in session. But this year the Prime Minister brings in, a bill in which he says that these same powers shall continue, not until March 31, the date he had originally set in last year's measure, but until May 1, and for two months the powers of this parliament are to be usurped. That is the only interpretation that can possibly be put upon what this bill proposes. I asked the Prime Minister the other night what he meant when he changed the date and made that statement last year to parliament. I say that when he made that statement to parliament 'he was giving the word of the Prime Minister of Canada to the parliament of this country, and that word ought to have been respected above everything else.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I interrupt the right hon. gentleman? That word has been respected.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In what way?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just in this way. I undertook that I would not usurp the power of parliament and that parliament would be called together in order that parliament might itself extend the power, and that we would not take it otherwise.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We hear the Prime Minister now say that what he was going to do was to call parliament together so that there would be no danger- of usurping the power of parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And we did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad that my right hon. friend has interrupted. Now let us see what he said to parliament the other night, this after parliament had been called together. He made pretty plain the other evening his view of parliament, and what parliament amounted to in regard to this very enactment. My right hon. friend, in introducing closure, made a speech in which he said more ithan he intended to say, and in which he publicly revealed his mind perhaps a Mttlie more than he had disclosed it even to his own colleagues. At any rate, here are his words. I ask that they be considered in connection with the explanation, which the Prime Minister has just given, of the meaning of his words 'last session. In the Hansard of March 23, 1932, at page 1414 my right hon. friend says:
I would not ask this power-
That is the arbitrary power that he now seeks, this power to legislate by the ministry in regard to peace, order and good government apart altogether from the Commons or parliament itself:
I would not ask this power from any parliament except reluctantly, and I so stated when I introduced the resolution the other day.
I think that "I" is rather significant. "I" would not ask for this power: "I" want this power. There is the voice of the dictator, if you wish. "I" want this power and "I" am going to have it. "I" would not ask for it if "I" did not need it.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: What about "I" would not give a five cent piece?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister goes on to say:
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?

Unemployment Continuance Act
There we see what was in the mind of the Prime Minister. He says he needs a weapon. What is the weapon he is going to take?


An hon. MEMBER:: And we are going to give him the weapon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but it is a weapon to beat your own back and to destroy your own rights. It is a weapon which takes away from the constituents you represent in this parliament their right to be represented and heard here with respect to all the laws that are passed. That is the weapon you are giving. Now, may I read further what the Prime Minister said, having discovered wbat was in his mind:
What is a man who has no instrument for his protection in the midst of the strife of brigands?
As the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) said the other day, he did not suppose that hon. gentlemen opposite would think that that reference was to themselves, because they are the Prime Minister's support. They give him the power, they are the ones that give him whatever enactment he likes. The Prime Minister said:
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.
Note that exception, Mr. Speaker-"except through a bill in parliament." The Prime Minister says he would be without a weapon except through a bill in parliament. What does that mean? Is not a bill in parliament the only weapon that any ministry ought to have the right to use?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what we are getting. The bill is here.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is not a bill
enacted by the people's representatives the only weapon a ministry should have, not the excepted weapon. Is not that the only weapon which the ministry should have? My right hon. friend says:
Without this power we should be without a weapon which could be used except through a bill in parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And we got the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I challenge
anyone opposite to refute this statement. Up to the present time, when a ministry has wished power for any purpose, it has come to parliament and secured the necessary legislation for a specific purpose-not for the purpose of obtaining a weapon that can be used in each and every direction, not for the

purpose of getting a weapon that if need be can be used against its own following; it has stated its position to the Commons and the Senate and made such an appeal to reasonableness as would enable it to get the legislation it needed. Here, Mr. Speaker, we are confronted with the difference between government by force and government by consent. With respect to law or government, in the matter of sanctions, there is no alternative except that of force or consent. The Prime Minister says: I will not carry on government by consent of parliament, I am no tgoing to be controlled by legislation, to be enacted by parliament, I am going to secure a weapon that will enable me to govern by force, a weapon that will render me independent of legislation altogether, independent altogether of parliament.
Let us go a step farther. Hon. gentlemen opposite may be a little surprised when they come to realize the extent to which the Prime Minister went in supporting his view. In giving reasons why the authority of parliament should be usurped, what did he say in the next sentence? Let hon. members listen to this:
-and with the strange views that obtain in these days there is no assurance that the mind of the government would be sufficiently strong to secure consent for any measure it might introduce.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now, I ask you, Air. Speaker, is there anything left? The Prime Minister says-this refers to his own following.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it does not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are the
majority, they have got the power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister tells us now that it refers to parliament. Very well. He says: I feel that today parliament would not do the things I want to have done. Therefore, I am going to take this power to do what I please, whether parliament is in session or not. That is the position, that is the only meaning the words can have.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You have taken it away
from its context.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, you have segregated
it from its context.
Air. A1ACKENZIE KING:	I will bring
the sentences all together afterwards. In the meantime let us have no doubt about it

Unemployment Continuance Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a distortion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is the
position. Notwithstanding that my right hon. friend has a majority in the House of Commons, notwithstanding that he has a majority in the Senate, notwithstanding that, so far as party influence goes, he has a majority in "both houses, he says: With the curious notions that are going about to-day, I do not believe I could get consent for the things I want to do; therefore I am going to get this right to do what I please by order in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what was
said. What was said was that you could not get consent for legislation by bill that might protect this country in point of crisis, and therefore recourse had to be had to this bill in order that parliament might protect itself against just such ideas. That is what was said. ,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, we will
let the Prime Minister's words speak for themselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I go a
step farther. Ever since there has been a parliament, when a ministry had to deal with a question, it had to subject itself to the laws of parliament, and, if it wished additional powers for any specific purpose, it had to get those powers from parliament. Why should the present Prime Minister be given powers that the great prime ministers of the past, Macdonald, Mackenzie, Laurier, Borden, never even thought of suggesting that parliament should give them? We have not a situation of the sort to-day that demands, such extraordinary powers on the part of a government. Let us go a step further with the Prime Minister's statement:
And from what we know and have seen, we should certainly be opposed -with respect to consent.
In other words, he says: We know that parliament would not give its consent to what we say is necessary. Therefore, we are going to get this power in order to do what we please without consulting parliament. But may I point out the significance of the next sentence. Up to the present time, my right hon. friend has been referring to the House of Commons. But parliament consists of the Senate as well as the House of Commons. What does he say about legislation which requires the consent of the Senate?
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.
In other words: We do not propose to allow the Senate, which is on a par with the Commons in authority, to have any voice in the legislation that we want, we are not going to listen to them, we are not going to permit them any authority.


Leslie Gordon Bell: You were going to abolish them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister has abolished them in this legislation. He has abolished them effectively. He states he will not even allow their voice to be heard in legislation which may be necessary. Now, Mr. Minister of Trade and Commerce, so there may be no mistake as to the sense, let me read this passage, which I believe will go down in history as the most extraordinary assertion of autocratic intention ever made by any prime minister in the world.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is wholly distorted from its context.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The quotation discloses clearly his belief in force rather than consent in the matter of government-


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and which for that reason I will repeat.
I would not ask this power from any parliament except reluctantly, and I so stated when I introduced the resolution the other day.
Here I make a slight hiatus.
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 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. '
I think I did the Prime Minister a kindness when I read the passage section by section instead of reading it as one paragraph. I must thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce for causing me to give the paragraph in its complete and concise form.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The right hon. gentleman did not read it in a concise way. He left out a very substantial portion in reading the alleged paragraph.
1626	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What did I
leave out? I left out something for the sake-


An hon. MEMBER:: For the sake of
fairness.


Leslie Gordon Bell: And generosity.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I left out
something that was non-essential.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will give the whole of it, then. It will be found at page 1414 of Hansard of March 23:
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.
Here is the portion I left out:
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.
Then he goes on:
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 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.
There is the entire quotation.


Leslie Gordon Bell: You read Hamlet with Hamlet left out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This makes
perfectly clear the point of view not only of the Prime Minister, but apparently the contaminated point of view of his colleagues as well.
As though that were not enough, Mr. Speaker, what have we witnessed since? In order to secure this power, this weapon which will enable the ministry to ignore parliament, which will render them independent of parliament whether parliament is in session or not, what do they do? They make use of the one coercive measure which was enacted

for legitimate as well as coercive purposes, but which was never intended to be used as a weapon wherewith to gain a weapon for an administration which would render it independent of parliament. They are seeking powers which will enable them to coerce parliament, and in order to get that power they use coercion as a means to that end. They bring in the weapon of closure, and with that weapon they strike at the very heart of this House of Commons thereby stifling all further discussion on a great question having to do with the very foundations of parliamentary government and the constitution of our country. They say, "We will not even allow you to discuss in committee matters which relate to the control by parliament of expenditures; we will not allow you to say another word in regard to this right, under the peace, order and good government provision, which we are claiming, to be independent of parliament and to legislate as we please, whether parliament is in session or not. They have used the weapon of closure twice in the course of a short debate in order to end all discussion and debate on the most important question which has engaged the attention of parliament since this ministry was formed. If ever in this world there was evidence of an autocratic power used to the 'nth degree, we have it in what we are witnessing at the present time.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that, with the position as hon. members of the house must now see it, if they have sought to follow the matter at all, they should consider very carefully whether they are going to vote for the third reading of a measure brought to its present stage by closure, and which will enable the ministry to usurp the powers of this House of Commons to the extent to which this measure does. It is no longer a question of the rights of minorities. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been talking about that, and minorities have their rights. This is a case where a minority should fight for its rights. But this is not a case where the rights of a minority only are at stake. It is not even a case of the rights of the majority though the rights of the majority are also at stake. This is a question of the rights of parliament itself and all that parliament stands for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And that is government by the majority.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right hon. friend can just keep quiet for a moment, I will be obliged to him. The mere mention of the rights of parliament causes my right hon. friend to burst forth with an interruption. So

Unemployment Continuance Act
foreign to his mind has become the rights of parliament that he cannot bear even to hear the word mentioned without interrupting immediately. I want to make it perfectly clear again, Mr. Speaker, that the battle that has been put up in connection with this measure is not merely over the rights of minorities or the rights of majorities; it is true that it has to do with the rights of both; rights, which in the case of the majority no less than in that of the minority are threatened, it is concerned with the rights of something greater than either, namely, the rights of parliament and all that parliament stands for in a free country.
Now may I conclude what I have to say by referring to the quotation the Prime Minister gave this house when he was making his address in introducing the closure. My right hon. friend read a passage from Redlich which he said portrayed what had been going on in this house during the preceding two weeks, and he gave that quotation to the house as representing the true point of view in the matter of what among other things, constituted obstruction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hear my right hon. friend say "hear, hear." I think anyone reading that quotation will see that what the Prime Minister said about it applying to what has taken place in this House of Commons in the last two weeks is perfectly true, but what the Prime Minister did not see and apparently does not yet see is that the essential features of the quotation apply to himself and those who have been supporting his point of view, and not to any one or to anything that has been done on this side of the house. Let me read the quotation, it is from volume 3 of Redlich, at page 196:
Focussing once more the results of our retrospect we may arrive at certain important conclusions which will be useful in the search 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.
I say those words do not apply to an opposition or to a government. They apply to all members of parliament, and if they mean anything at all, those words mean that you cannot carry on the business of parliament
unless you observe the conventional rules with respect to parliamentary procedure in the control of finances and everything else; unless you follow the accepted rules you cannot do any business at all in parliament. That is the exception we have taken to the action of hon. gentlemen apposite. We have said their action strikes at the very foundation of parliamentary government. Redlich says that, if you strike at the foundation of parliamentary government, you cannot do anything at all in parliament, because everything done by parliament is based on the assumption that, by the common agreement and consent of all assembled together in a parliament, you have regard and respect for the conventional foundations of parliamentary government. Let me read the words once again:
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.
What is 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.
I ask hon. members of this house if the rules have been handled in a reasonable way with respect to the resolution on which this bill was founded, and with respect to the stages by which we have arrived at the present consideration of the measure itself. Redlich goes on to say:
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.
Could anything be more emphatic than that?
.... 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.
The constitutional basis on which this parliament is founded is the right of the Commons and the Senate to pass legislation, and for the Commons and the Senate alone to exercise that right, not for that right to be usurped by the ministry of the day. If you

Unemployment Continuance Act
take away the constitutional basis, as Redlich says, nothing further remains that is worthy of consideration.
Redlich goes on to say.
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 [DOT]-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.
Let me read the pertinent words:
Irreconcilable parties

are all in mortal conflict-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.
The reference was to the Irish party taking the position that Ireland would not be a part of the government of Great Britain and Ireland. That was an irreconcilable position: you could not have a party taking that position and at the same time have government carried on under parliamentary authority. It was in conflict with the basis of government; and, knowingly or unknowingly, the party that took that position was attacking parliamentary government itself, at all events in the form known to the constitution. Now, what is another irreconcilable position?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why does not the right
hon. gentleman read on? He is purporting to quote extracts from the leader of the government's speech. Why does he not read the next clause? Why does he stop right there?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I stopped at
the end of the paragraph.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My right hon. friend did not; he stopped in 'the middle.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend please allow me to finish this part?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The right hon. gentleman gives partial quotations and builds up an argument which is a distortion of the position taken by the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I appeal to you to keep order in this house so far as the ministry is concerned. I am reading a quotation from Redlich which the Prime Minister gave the other day. I am explaining it, and am fully fifteen minutes away from the point on which the Minister of

Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) was interrupting me. If he wishes to make an interruption of the kind, he can do so when the subject is concluded; he need not break in at a point which he sees is beginning to tell against the ministry.
Let me indicate another irreconcilable
position. A position which in British politics has been irreconcilable with constitutional government for three hundred years, and we might as well recognize that fact at once. A party that takes the position that parliament must be supreme over the executive is taking one stand, a stand which I submit is the only one that can be taken in accordance with the constitution and with parliamentary government. A party that 'takes the position that the executive must be supreme over parliament is taking a position which is irreconcilable with everything that relates to constitutional government. And that is the position which hon. gentlemen opposite are taking.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not care in what form it presents itself, whether it relates to unemployment relief or to any other question, what hon. gentlemen opposite are asserting in this measure, the third reading of which we are asked to pass, is that we shall agree to the doctrine that the ministry is supreme over parliament; that parliament shail part with its rights of control in matters of taxation and public expenditure; that parliament shall part with its right to legislate upon peace, order and good government, and leave these things to the executive itself to do with in secret cabinet council as it pleases. This position is irreconcilable with anything in the nature of constitutional government, and a party that takes a position which is irreconcilable with the constitution is destroying the very foundations of constitutional government.
Let us see now what Redlich says with respect to obstruction. It is to be found in the next sentence:
Obstruction is. in reality, nothing less than a repudiation of the existing constitution of the country-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: intensified to the point of denying the right of its parliament to exist


Henry Herbert Stevens: Exactly what you are
doing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and expressed in a conscious misuse of the forms and principles of procedure essential to the efficiency of parliamentary action.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Exactly what you have done for a month.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shut up.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen say "hear, hear". I ask, is not that exactly what the ministry is doing in this particular measure-what, by their attitude, has been taking place all through this debate? Let me read that sentence again:
Obstruction is, in reality, nothing less than a repudiation of the existing constitution of the country-
Is not that what hon. gentlemen opposite are doing?
Mr. STEVEN'S: That is what you are doing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The constitution of the country requires that laws with respect to peace, order and good government shall be enacted by the Houses of Parliament, the sovereign and the people's representatives, and not by the governor in council; but hon. gentlemen opposite say no, these powers are for the executive and so they are striking at the very constitution of the country.
-intensified to the point of denying the right of its parliament to exist.
That is exactly what hon. gentlemen opposite have done. They have intensified repudiation of the constitution to the point of saying, "We do not care whether parliament is in existence or not. We are to have all the money we wish, to spend as we please. We are to have poweT to pass whatever legislation we like, and 'parliament may go to blazes, so to speak, so far as we are concerned." That is the position of the ministry at the present time, "expressed in a conscious misuse of the forms and principles of procedure essential to the efficiency of parliamentary action." All through this debate, there has been a misuse of the forms and principles of procedure essential to the efficiency of parliamentary action.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Look at Hansard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say, therefore, that we have, in this statement of Red-lioh's, a true statement of what has been taking place, but applicable to the ministry of the day and its followers, who are prepared to let the powers of parliament be usurped by the executive and not to those who from the outset have been upholding proper constitutional procedure. Let me take the next paragraph :
Unemployment Continuance Act
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.
This all but concludes the quotation which the Prime Minister cited as the one which should guide this House of Commons in its procedure. When this debate is over, when hon. gentlemen's minds are free from their present party prejudice, if they are capable of any reflection, if they have any regard for the constitution, if they care in the least for parliamentary methods of procedure, if they think that the constitution which has been the outcome of centuries of struggle in order to secure the freedom of the people, is something that should be preserved, let them read- over what the Prime Minister himself has quoted to the house as a picture of what has taken place in this chamber in the last three weeks, and, in their heart of hearts, ask themselves to the actions of which party in this house that quotation applies. We, on this side of the house, have done our utmost during the course of this debate to endeavour, as members of a party, but primarily as members of parliament, to uphold "the rights of this House of Commons, to uphold the constitution, and to uphold proper parliamentary procedure. We have come now to the last moment in which it is possible to say a further word in support of these great principles upon which all freedom in this country rests-security for the future as well as for the _ present. I appeal to hon. members, on this, the third reading of the bill, the last opportunity they will have of recording where they stand on these great fundamental principles, to forget their party prejudices and show by their votes that they regard as more essential than all else the maintenance of proper parliamentary procedure iu all matters pertaining to control of taxation and expenditure by the peoplle's representatives in parliament, and that they regard as more sacred than all else the maintenance of the constitution of the country, and of all that constitutional government seeks to secure.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not taken any part in this debate which has continued for several *weeks, because I have been convinced from day to day and night to night that the best answer which could be given to the addresses of hon. gentlemen opposite was to publish those addresses to the whole country and let the country judge.
I know something about the history of this country; with the exception of not having
1630	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
been intimate with Mr. Mackenzie and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I have known personally, and have had intimate relations with every Prime Minister of Canada since the British North America Act was passed. I stated one day, I believe, that although but a child at the time I could remember the procession during the celebration of the first Dominion day in Canada. I sat many years ago in the press gallery when Sir John Macdonald led the government and Mr. Blake and his colleagues led the opposition. I do not think that in the whole history of government in Canada there has been a Prime Minister who has consulted more closely, readily and assiduously with his colleagues than has the present Prime Minister since he assumed office.
I have sat in this house night after night since the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) denounced the colleagues of the Prime Minister and I have heard one hon. member after another almost spit forth the most opprobious epithets with respect to the members of the cabinet; I have had experience for some fifty years on the boards of companies and corporations, I have mingled with other men in my professional and business career and I say without a shadow of hesitation that I believe the Prime Minister has consulted with his colleagues in the government and with his party in the house more closely than any Prime Minister who has preceded him. That consultation has not been for the purpose of imposing his views upon his colleagues, because I do not believe that even the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he was Prime Minister of this country was more considerate of the opinions of his colleagues or was more open to reasonable argument .ind discussion.
What is the basis of constitutional govern-nent in this country? It is that the government shall be responsible to parliament and that parliament shall be responsible to the people. In no act of this government has it assumed any responsibility whatever except to carry out by way of administration the authority which parliament has vested in the government.
If my right hon. friend seeks a comparison between his regime and the regime of the present government, let him direct his attention to this fact. Since I have been in parliament I have protested time and time again against the powers taken by his government whereby they were enabled by order in council to make rules and regulations, to end the franchises of every dominion trust company

in this country, to prevent any insurance company from carrying on its ordinary business at will, and against the hundred other ways in which his government usurped what he now calls the legislative functions of parliament. If he will come with me to the office of the privy council-the records are as open to him as they are to me-for every order in council which this government has passed which partakes of the nature of legislation, I will show him one hundred similar orders which his own government passed legislating upon the most important and intimate matters of our political, social and commercial life.
The right hon. gentleman now assumes a position which will not be his to occupy for a long time. He once occupied the position of Prime Minister of this dominion, and among those who watched his career on many occasions none were more sympathetic than I. I saw the stress and strain under which he at times administered the affairs of this country without a majority in the house to support him in measures in which his own policies were involved in direct controversy. The right hon. gentleman has forgotten entirely that he is no longer the Prime Minister of this country. He has forgotten entirely that this country has repudiated him, his policies and his party and that he no longer exercises authority in this house. It appears to me that during the last three weeks the right hon. gentleman has been attempting, by the exercise of force, to dominate this parliament in which he represents a minority only. The force which he has used is just as physical and brutal as that which 'has been used to usurp constitutional government at any stage of British history, only he is confined to the use of his own physical force, to his power of speech and his ability to sustain that speech throughout many hours of debate. He returns to the same debate three or four times and repeats and reiterates the same arguments until the house can no longer refrain from exhibiting its-what shall I say?


An hon. MEMBER:: Disgust.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: its disgust. Perhaps that may not be considered parliamentary.
The right hon. gentleman speaks about parliament, the constitutional practice in parliament, the supreme control of parliament and the control by a majority of parliament, and then about the supreme control of the House of Commons, assuming that that supreme control is vested solely in himself and the gentlemen who sit about him. The control of parliament has passed from the right hon. gentleman.

Unemployment Continuance Act


An hon. MEMBER:: Forever.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know if it is ever to return to the Liberal party, but if it should I should be only too glad to see my right hon. friend as the leader of that party and acting again as the Prime Minister of this country. However, I do not think that the hair-splitting controversies into which the right hon. gentleman has entered during the past three weeks will ever restore to him the confidence of this country.
Parliament must assume and exercise its rights, and by closure we are simply exercising by a majority vote in this house, which must always prevail, the constitutional right of a majority in this country and in parliament to express its will in the legislative enactments of parliament. The mother of parliaments has exercised time and time again the right which is being exercised in respect of this bill. We are not proceeding one step beyond the constitutional procedure which has found expression in imperial enactments. We have not set aside one single precedent or tradition which the right hon. gentleman assumes to revere so highly. We have by the constitutional right of closure prevented the right hon. gentleman, who, by physical force, by loud speaking, by the opprobrious and brutal epithets which he has hurled across the the floor of this house-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I respect the
Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) very much as a gentleman, so I ask him what are the opprobrious and brutal epithets, and whether those are terms he has a right to use? My hon. friend is speaking a little hastily.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Hansard of this
afternoon alone is full of them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My right hon. friend perhaps does not realize the epithets he used.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I ask whether
or not that is a proper term to be used by any hon. member, and whether my hon. friend should not retract the words he has used.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My hon. friend asked the question first. He used the word "dictator."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: "Dictator" is a perfectly proper word to use.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is an entirely opprobrious and brutal epithet to apply to the Prime Minister of this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I ask whether the words "opprobrious" and "brutal" should not be withdrawn by the hon. gentleman.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the words "brutal" and "opprobrious" are not parliamentary, but the leader of the opposition asked the Secretary of State to name those opprobrious and brutal epithets, or the epithets which he considered to be so, and the Secretary of State has done that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The word to which he has referred is "dictator." Does your honour regard the word "dictator ' as opprobrious and brutal?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I did not understand the Secretary of State to have finished his enumeration of the epithets.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would not be disrespectful in any way to the right hon. gentleman. I applied the word "brutal" to an epithet and not to himself. I have no intention of being disrespectful, because I respect the right hon. gentleman as a former prime minister of Canada, one who has occupied the highest position which his fellow countrymen and parliament can confer upon him. But some consideration must be allowed to those of us who have sat here during the last three weeks and heard epithet after epithet hurled against us by the right hon. gentleman and those with whom he is associated. He has been the leader in doing this, and I tell him that the words which he has used and applied to the leader of the government, the words which he has used and applied to the colleagues in the cabinet of the Prime Minister, are unworthy of one who has occupied the high office of prime minister of Canada. If he wishes at some future date to ensure that respect for the dignity of that high office which he always desired when he held it, and which was happily given to him by those who then sat on that side of the house; if he ever wishes to resume that position of high dignity in the commons of the country, he ought to cease to use such language as he has used this afternoon in this debate. The right hon. gentleman says that this is government by force. I ask him to reflect upon his own conduct during the past two or three weeks. Does 'he think the reiteration of those arguments which he gives hour by hour and day by day have any intellectual influence upon the house or the country? Does he think he is persuading the Canadian people to accept his views rather than those which have been expressed by the Prime Minister, his colleagues and those supporting him? Does he think the form of argument which he has used in parliament is persuasive and convincing? I think not. What the right hon. gentleman is attempting
1632	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
to do is by forceful expression, forceful action
and persistent debate, which has no reference whatever to the issue before us, to compel the house to accept the will of the small minority that surrounds him. That is government by minority, and when it comes to government by a minority attempting to exercise parliamentary rights and privileges, toy constant reiteration and abuse of parliamentary privileges such as we have heard, there is no remedy except that which was adopted years ago by the mother of parliaments and which is exercised there day after day and week after week in the ordinary legislative proceedings of their house, and that is to invoke a closure which affords a proper time for argumentative debate but precludes a minority from exercising its physical force so as to prevent parliament from registering its decision on the question at issue before it.
My right hon. friend says that parliamentary government depends upon the rules of the house being handled in a reasonable way. Of course we agree with him in that, but has the right hon. gentleman during the past two or three weeks handled the rules of the house in a reasonable way? Has he been reasonable in the procedure which he has adopted? Can he justify, before the Canadian people or even before his associates and followers in the house, the course which he has adopted? I dislike to say this, but it is obvious, and I say ^ to the right hon. gentleman that, so persistent has become his effort to preclude the majority from expressing its will that when he has spoken in the house on recent occasions, the most intellectual of his followers have abandoned their seats and gone to their rooms rather than listen to his reiterated arguments. Under the rules of the house handled in a reasonable way, hon. gentlemen have full opportunity to endorse those views which are usually expressed through the leader of their party who has wide and ample experience and a habit of speech that is extremely facile. Then if there are others who wish to speak, let them express their opinions, but why have this constant reiteration hour by hour, until not only parliament but the reading public of the whole country are as I said-


An hon. MEMBER:: Disgusted.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -well, disgusted. I do not know whether that is parliamentary or not.
My intention in rising was to point out to the right hon. gentleman that in imperial legislation there are many precedents where this same procedure which he calls the revival of dead statutes has been followed by means 
of legislation expressed in almost exactly the same terms as those which are found in the bill before the house. As I should like to refer to this matter at some length, might I ask that it be called six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 37, to incorporate the Fort Smith-Fitzgerald Railway Company.-Mr. Irvine.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Prime Minister) for the third reading of Bill No. 24, respecting unemployment and farm relief.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose I was about to proceed to say with all sincerity that with regard to the form and content of this bill now before the house I have a larger responsibility than merely that of a member of the ministry, because I think that my own suggestions were carried out with respect to the form and content of this measure. In making those suggestions I was well within the limits of parliamentary practice in vogue in the parliament of the United Kingdom for many, many years. I have not the time to cite many precedents, but here is one to which I would like to direct the attention of the house. ,
In the year 1921, chapter 67 pf the statutes of the United Kingdom for 1921 was passed. It was an act with this title: "An Act to make further provision with respect to the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund and with respect to rating and to the finance of certain local and public authorities." It was in the nature of an act for providing ways and means for relieving poverty in the metropolitan district. That act, by subsection 4 of section 1, provides :
This section shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, and no longer.
This statute therefore expired on the 31st of December, 1922, and yet on May 17, 1923, the parliament of the United Kingdom enacted

Unemployment Continuance Act
chapter 6 of the statutes of 1923, entitled "An act to extend the duration of and amend certain provisions of the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, 1921, and the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1921." That act was passed on the 17th of May, 1923. Section 1 of that act reads as follows:
1. Section one of the Local Authorities (financial provisions) Act, 1921 (which provides for the temporary extension of charges on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund), shall continue in force until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, as if in that section for the words "thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-two," there were substituted the words "first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-four."
The measure which is before the house follows by the terms of the amendment now proposed exactly the form of this remedial statute from which I have just quoted and which extended for more than one year the previous provisions of two acts of 1921, for the relief of the poor and emergency provisions for the relief of distress and suffering, which were then no longer in force.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has my hon. friend the resolution which preceded that English bill?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not looked up the resolution preceding the bill, but I am not concerned with the resolution because there is absolutely no doubt that when the resolution preceding this measure was introduced it was introduced before the expiry of the act. In the case cited the resolution, which preceded an amendment for the revival of what my right hon. friend would call a dead statute, must have been preceded by a similar resolution. Anyway I will state this, for' what reputation I have in parliament, that the procedure which was followed on that occasion and the content of the amending measure which was then enacted establish a thoroughgoing precedent for the bill now before the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend will look at my remarks of this afternoon, he will see that I said that the form in which this bill was presented and its content were perfectly regular, and what the government ought to have done, if it intended to do as it had the years before, was to proceed in that way from the start. I took no exception to the form and content.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I cannot follow my right hon. friend through his many tergiversations, because I have listened to him repeat over and 41761-103
over again that we could not revive a dead statute, that we could not amend a dead statute.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said you could revive it, but that you could not amend it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You can revive it by an amendment, as these precedents I have quoted conclusively show. I do not really know when to take my right hon. friend seriously in this debate; for he has adopted so many attitudes pro and con.
There is another matter to which I would like to direct the attention of the right hon. gentleman. I have heard his great leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and the right hon. gentleman himself, frequently extol Mr. Gladstone as one wb*>
assisted in a very large way in developing responsible government under parliamentary institutions in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I have before me the British parliamentary debates for the session of 1882, under date of February 20, and I find at page 1124, that when Mr. Gladstone introduced into the parliament of the United Kingdom the new rule of closure, he stated very frankly and fully the grounds on which he based the adoption of that rule. At page 1138 he says:
It is difficult, I believe, to find a single instance of a great legislative assembly which has not found it necessary to adopt some rule for the purpose of placing in the hands of the assembly itself the power of restricting the duration of debate.
He then proceeded at page 1140:
And here I come to what is commonly called obstruction. It is not a very easy matter to define obstruction, and I will not attempt to define it for anyone but myself. I will only give my description of it. To me it appears to be the disposition either of the minority of the house or of individuals to resist the prevailing will of the house otherwise than by argument.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I ask the right hon. gentleman, as one who all his life admired the great Liberal leader and has often extolled Liberal principles as enunciated by him, to apply the words of Mr. Gladstone to what has transpired in this House of Commons during the last three weeks.
Then after referring to obstruction by lengthy speeches and reiteration of arguments Mr. Gladstone proceeded to say, at page 1144:
They are not merely most powerful means of obstruction; they are not merely most powerful means of inflicting suffering on the members of this house. They are totally incompatible with the dignity and credit of this house.
Grievous as they are, they are almost as ludicrous in the eyes of the community as they



Unemployment Continuance Act
are grievous. The whole idea of the conversion of night into day, the disruption of the common order-already hard pressed by our ordinary proceedings-in which time and business are distributed, and the exhibition of a great and powerful assembly in such an attitude before the community, almost amounts to a degradation and depth of insult offered to the house such as, I must say, we ought to endeavour to wipe out.
Proceeding further, he said:
We-
That is, the government of which he was the leader.
We propose that this decision shall be taken on what we think the only sound principle and under what we think the best and most adequate safeguards. There is but one sound principle in this house and that is that the majority of the house should prevail.
In emphasizing his remarks on the following page, he says:
But God forbid that we should see so vast an innovation introduced into the practice of this house, applicable to our ordinary procedure, as would be a rule of the house under which the voice of the majority was not to prevail over that of the minority.
And then he says in closing, page 1150:
I trust that the house will always continue to appreciate-I would almost say worship-* liberty of speech, and that it will continue to tolerate, for the sake of liberty of speech, the licence of speech which mocks and counterfeits that liberty of speech. But, however large its fund of patience, and however wise that patience may be, I hope it will not carry that tolerance to such a point that it shall of itself become the grossest of all the vices of a legislative body, and that it shall reach a point where it will inflict upon the House of Commons an incapacity for the discharge of its duties.
I submit to the right hon. gentleman that the conduct of the opposition, with which he himself has identified his party, his policy and his vigorous personality, comes under the denunciation which I have quoted from the Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone.
I find in A. G. Gardiner's life of Sir William Harcourt, who was with Mr. Gladstone in that crisis, a reference to the same topic. With regard to the necessity of closure the author said:
Harcourt took a stronger view than some of his colleagues, and circulated a long memorandum to the cabinet insisting that it was "essential to secure to a majority the right to prevail which lies at the bottom of parliamentary institutions."
Then as he developed his argument, he said that he wished to make:
"An emphatic assertion of the right of the majority."
And these are the words quoted:
To recognize in one-third or one-quarter of the house an absolute right ... to postpone 
indefinitely the decision of a question is, in my judgment, to give a formal consecration to the principle of obstruction. . . . Why is it to be assumed that the minority will not abuse their veto when it is taken for granted that the majority will abuse their cloture. . . .
I could spend the entire time available even to the leader of the opposition in making similar quotations from eminent Liberal leaders of the past.
But the right hon. gentleman says if we follow the precedents established in the mother of parliaments we must look forward to the time when there may be socialistic control of this parliament of Canada. I do not wish to refer to myself personally-I have passed the age of threescore years and ten and I appreciate very keenly that my mentality, my prejudices and my predilections are bom of the times in which I have lived and the vicissitudes of my own personal life-but I do not look forward with any fear or shrinking to the development of socialistic institutions in this country on a proper basis. I recognize that the strain and suffering through which we have passed and are passing has already borne fruit in remedial measures, socialistic in their tendencies, and those who are younger than I may well look forward to the time when those whose views are more socialistic than mine will assume the reins of government in this country. When they do they will assume the reins with the voice of a great majority of the Canadian people as manifested at the polls, they will assume office under our parliamentary institutions, not by force and violence, not by bullets and bayonets, but by the voice of the democracy of this great country. In that democracy, although I shall not live to see its development, I have the strongest possible confidence, and I think it would be a shame indeed if any minority in this house at any future time should attempt to thwart the views of the people, should attempt to thwart necessary and essential socialistic reforms by such procedure as we have witnessed in this house during the past few weeks.
I have had very few personal antagonisms in this life, and the right hon. leader of the opposition knows that I have no personal hostility to him. If in the heat of debate-
I have not yet reviewed the Hansard report -I have said anything personally discourteous, I humbly ask to be forgiven. I know he has played a great part in the history of this country. I have no doubt that after he has passed into that bourne whence no traveller returns, his youthful followers in this house and the country will erect statues

Unemployment Continuance Act
to his honour in the market places. But when they review his political career, as they will in the future, I hope they will forget the episodes of the last three weeks, because they can only look back on them with humiliation and a strong sense of sad regret.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall the resolution carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On division.
Spotton,
Sproule,
Stanley,
Stevens,
Stewart (Leeds), Stewart (Lethbridge), Stirling,
Stitt (Nelson), Sullivan,
Sutherland,
Swanston,
Tetrault,
Thompson
(Simcoe East),
W ppop
Weir (Meifort), White (Mount Royal), Willis,
Wright.-68.
++NAYS


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question has not
been put. This is the third reading of the bill.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion was for the
third reading.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And we desire to divide the house on it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: All those in favour of the resolution will kindly say "Aye."


Richard Bedford Bennett: The motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Those opposed will please say "No."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In my opinion the
Messrs:
Abeam,
Beaubien,
Blair,
Bouchard,
Boulanger,
Br asset,
Brown,
Butcher,
Chevrier,
Donnelly,
Gardiner,
Hanson (Skeena), Heaps,
Hepburn,
King, Mackenzie,
Lapointe,
Maclnnis,
Mackenzie
(Vancouver Centre), MacLean,
Maephail (Miss), McMillan
(Huron South), Motherwell,
Neill,
Parent,
Reid,
Sanderson,
Spencer,
Totzke.-28.

(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief whips.)
Messrs:
" ayes " have it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We desire to divide the
house on the motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Call in the members.


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


Mr. COTNAM:: I was paired with the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Hurtubise). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the motion.


Mr. SAUVE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Seguin). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the motion.


Mr. MURPHY:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the motion.


Mr. MULLINS:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howdem). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


John Vallance: I was paired with the
hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. TUMMON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. St-Pere). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I was paired with the
hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SPENCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion. [DOT]


Mr. ILSLEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Port Arthur-Thunder Bay (Mr. Cowan). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. ROWE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SHORT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Ivenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. COOTE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Beynon). Had I	voted	I	would	have	voted	against	the
motion.


Mr. BOWEN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Asskuboia (Mr. McKenzie). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. IRVINE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. POULIOT:: I was paired with the hon. member for	North	York	(Mr. Lennox).	HadI	voted	I	would	have	voted	against	the
motion.


Mr. PERRAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I	voted	I	would	have	voted	against	the
motion.

C.N.R.-Finance


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Giroueurd). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ARSENAULT (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Thauvette). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Bennett moves,
seconded by Mr. Guthrie, that the bill do now pass and that the title be as on the order paper.
Motion agreed to on division.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 34, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1932.
He said: This bill is the Canadian National Railways financing act of 1932, to permit the Canadian National Railways to issue securities for the year 1932 totalling §61,500,000, which represents the estimated needs of the national roads from the government of Canada for 1932. The bill comprises three chief items. There is, first, the net income deficit, made up of $42,500,000, not including any interest owing to the government of Canada. In view of the fact that often the total needs and various other items of the National Railways financing are confused, may I say, rather for those outside the house than perhaps for the information of hon. members who have studied the railway question, that the deficit referred to in this bill relates to the deficiency in earnings to pay not only operating expenses but interest due on the fixed bonds of the company, having been purchased in the past by the investing public.
The deficit last year was over $50,000,000, which corresponded to the estimate this year of $42,000,000; and including the eastern lines it was over $60,000,000. It is quite possible, in view of the continuing decrease in earnings of the Canadian National Railways, that the estimate of $42,784,000 for the coming year will be found to be an underestimate, because the railways, both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific, and in fact all the roads on this continent, are to-day earning less
than they earned at the same time last year, which was a record low year compared with many past years.
The second item in the bill is for equipment, $11,681,000. This is, in a sense, a new item in the bill for financing the Canadian National Railways, because in the past that money was borrowed under what was called the Philadelphia plan, twenty-five per cent being put up in cash, the other seventy-five per cent being borrowed from bankers in the United States and paid over a period of fifteen years. Owing to the international financial situation of the present day, however, the whole of this amount of nearly $12,000,000 must be borrowed from the people of Canada through the Canadian government.
The third item is for construction and betterments, amounting to a little over $7,000,000. That is made up of capital expenditures, such as terminals, stations, branch lines, hotels, bridges and so forth.
Briefly, these three items represent the total of $61,500,000 in this bill, the details of which will be given when the bill reaches the special committee on railways and shipping, which deals with the financial needs of the Canadian National Railways. When the bill is before that committee the officers and, if necessary, the directors of the system will be called.
This bill calls for $61,500,000, but in order to present as clear a picture as possible of the situation, I must point out that this sum, the estimated needs for the coming year, does not represent the entire requirements of railways and shipping for the year, because there is another item of $10,000,000 which will be necessary in the coming year for the maritime freight rates and for steamship needs. So that the total estimated requirements for 1932 appear at the present time to be some $71,000,000, which does not include, of course, anything for the Hudson Bay railway. By way of contrast, I should point out that the figure for 1931 corresponding to that $71,000,000 was $112,000,000, nearly $10,000,000 per month, including, of course, capital expenditures. But at any rate, the money had to be supplied by the government of Canada, or by bonds guaranteed by this government. The $112,000,000 last year, which I have contrasted with the needs of 1932, was made up of four chief items. I shall place on Hansard a complete statement of these items for the information of the house. In brief, however, these four items-I will not go into details at this stage -are these.
First, there was the final estimate of last year, which was higher than the estimate made
C.N.R.-Finance
[Stage Direction]
at the beginning of the year and which totalled, for the year 1931, $87,000,000. The second item was eastern lines deficit and maritime freight rates reduction of twenty per cent, which, in round figures, amounted to $10,500,000. The third item was merchant marine and Canadian National steamships, amounting, in round figures, to $1,500,000; and finally, the statutory items consisting of branch lines, Toronto terminals, Montreal terminals and so forth, which accounted for another $13,000,000. These items make up a total of $112,000,000.
The statement as to financing requirements is as follows:
Financing Requirements
As provided for C.N.R., C.G.M.M. and C.N.
(West Indies) Steamships for year, 1931 Final Estimates
Net deficit	$ 52,255,676 04
Refunding of securities	
9,791,690	74Acquisition of securities	
200,000	00Additions and betterments.. ..	6,759,105	66New equipment	
14,883,665	26Discount on securities	
3,946,786	49C.V. resources	
633,155	26
Total railway budget for 1931.$ 87,203,768 93 Department of Railways and Canals
Appropriations
E.L. balance of deficit	$ 8.712,762 30
E.L. 20 per cent M.F.R.A.. ..	1,885,000 00
Total eastern lines	$ 10,597,762 30
C.G.M.M. 1931 deficit	$	444,285 53
C.N. (W.I.) S.S. 1931 deficit.. 916,568 53
Total S.S. operating	$ 1,360,854 06
Statutory Authorities
1929-32 branch lines	$ 5,076,707 40
Toronto terminals	 1,036,403 10
Montreal terminals	
6,022,380	07Northern Alberta	
395,000	00St. John and Quebec	
250,000	00Discount suspense	
279,243	51Total statutory railway.. ..$ 13,059,734 08 Statutory C.N. (W.I.) S.S..	43,451 88
Grand total for 1931.. ..$112,265,571 25
Up until a short time ago it was customary to make an annual review of the railway affairs of the country. Up to the time of the appointment of the special committee to deal with railways and shipping a review of the railway financial situation was given by the Minister of Railways. That was discontinued, I believe with some loss to the house, some loss to the country and perhaps even some loss to the committee itself. This committee has done excellent work in investigating details of the accounts and making
fMr. Manion.]
recommendations to the house, but to some extent its work is disconnected and disjointed, and for this reason it seems to me that a dispassionate and non-ipartisan statement on the railway situation cannot help but be of use. After all, this situation to-day is the greatest problem facing Canada; it embraces what has been described as Canada's second national debt.
I shall endeavour to make my remarks as clear and simple as possible, but I must point out that simplicity and clarity with regard to an immense question of this kind are not altogether easy to achieve. The huge figures involving vast debts to the lending public, enormous accounts against the railways by the government itself, the interest on the public and government debt, the amalgamation of lines and different obligations make this question a difficult one to explain clearly. However, I shall endeavour to make my explanation as simple as possible so that any ordinary citizen of Canada may be able to obtain a good grasp of the situation.
The difficulties which face the railways have been due largely to four causes. The first and chief cause is the fact that in the early days we built a second and third transcontinental railway when a second would have been amply sufficient. Two transcontinental railways would have been sufficient, but we went on and built a third. We have in Canada a sparse population with an immense railway mileage, so much so that this country has the largest mileage per thousand of population of any country in the world. The density of traffic, both passenger and freight, is so slight as to make this fact the chief cause of our troubles at the present day.
The second cause, which has not been mentioned so much but which has been forced upon me by my study of the question during the last year and a half, is the fact that the railways have been endeavouring to reach out for passenger traffic and have been forgetting that freight traffic should be their first concern. As a result of this desire for passenger traffic there have been built luxurious hotels, terminals, trains, steamships and so forth; tens of millions of dollars have been spent in this way when it would have been wiser had the railway companies realized that freight traffic should be their chief business.
To my mind the third cause is motor competition, which might be termed unfair competition. I do not think that the railways of this country should have to face the competition of private companies operating their motors, buses and trucks for profit upon publicly built highways while the railways

C .N.R.-Finance
have to build very expensive highways of their own. The publicly built highways upon which these motor buses and trucks operate are built to a certain extent by the taxes paid by the two great railway systems. Therefore, this is unfair competition.
The fourth cause of the present depressed condition of the railways of Canada is the world business set-back which has taken place during the past three or four years. Not only have the railways in Europe been faced with decreased traffic, but the same applies to the railways in every country and more particularly to those on this continent where such immense distances are traversed by the lines.
There are a couple of points which I wish to draw to the attention of the house and which it would be well to keep in mind in discussing the financial position of the rail' ways. In the first place, there must be kept in mind the public debt, that is, the debt owing on bonds bought by the investing public, the money being used for the extension of the Canadian National Railways. This debt to-day amounts to $1,280,000,000; the interest thereon in 1931 amounted to $57,000,000, over $1,000,000 per week, of which $37,000,000 was payable in the United States. Four-fifths of the total debt of $1,280,000,000 was guaranteed by the government of Canada on behalf of the people of Canada. The people of Canada are responsible not only for this four-fifths which has been guaranteed by the government but also for a large proportion of the remaining one-fifth. The interest upon this obligation must be paid unless this country takes the position of repudiating its debt, as Russia has done.
This is the main figure in the financial picture of the Canadian National Railways, but there is another figure which at times gets mixed up in the picture-and until it is eliminated it should be mixed up-I refer to the Dominion of Canada account. This account as appearing on the books of the Canadian National Railways totals to something over $1,360,000,000. It is made up mainly of three items; loans from the Dominion of Canada amounting to a little over $605,000,000, interest accrued upon these loans amounting to $350,000,000, and appropriations for Canadian government railways amounting to $405,000,000. The last item covers the moneys expended upon the construction of the Intercolonial, Prince Edward Island and National Transcontinental railways.
Charles-Philippe Beaubien: That was before the
national system came into being.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is quite
right; much of this money was spent before the Canadian National Railways came into being. The National Transcontinental and the Intercolonial are to-day being operated as part of the national system.
Suggestions have appeared in the press that there should be a refinancing of this system. I have read in some outstanding papers that if a proper picture was drawn of the financial position of the Canadian National Railways, then these railways would be able to pay their way. This suggestion is applied particularly to the $1,360,000,000 making up the government account. The greatest amount which has ever been proposed, even by the railways, to be wiped off has been between $600,000,000 and $800,000,000. This proposal was made in 1928 to the Hon. Mr. Dunning when he was Minister of Railways. The fact is that if that $600,000,000 or $800,000,000 were wiped off no actual benefit would accrue to the Canadian National Railways because not one cent of the principal or of the annual interest has ever been paid. Even if the total amount of $1,360,000,000 were wiped off it would make no actual difference to the financial position of the Canadian National Railways. I repeat, neither the principal nor the interest has been paid by the National railways and, in my opinion, I do not think one cent will ever be paid back to the government.


Mr. BROWN:: Is the interest being added year by year to that amount?


Robert James Manion: Interest has not been
added on the total amount of $1,360,000,000, but it has been added to an item which is part of this amount, to the $600,000,000 advanced during the past few years to the Canadian National Railways and subsidiary companies. This interest amounts to some $32,000,000 annually and has been added on the books of the company but has not been added in the public accounts of the country.
I want it clearly understood that even if the whole $1,360,000,000 was wiped out it would make no difference to the financial position of the Canadian National Railways. I make that emphatic statement because it has been said so often, by men who Should know better, that if all or a part of this amount owing to the government was wiped off, then the Canadian National Railways would be in position to pay its way. As a matter of fact, of the $1,360,000,000, $600,000,000 to $700,000,000 was actually put into capital expenditures of the railways that I have mentioned, so that is absolute capital expenditure on behalf of
C.N.R.-Finance

the national railways or their present subsidiaries or component parts operated by the management. If one were to wipe that off, it would clear the picture, but at the same time it would not improve the capital position. I have under my hand a letter which Sir Henry Thornton wrote me a year ago and which I intend to put on Hansard in order to save time. I shall read just a couple of sentences. We had discussed this question a number of times and I asked his opinion in regard to it. He wrote me as follows:
With reference to the revision of our financial structure which has been under contemplation for a long time: I feel it would be an unwise thing to present it to parliament this session because the present depression and state of the company's finances necessitate an entire review of our previous recommendations.
He gives other reasons and then he closes the letter as follows:
For all of these reasons I think it inadvisable to bring this very complicated question before the next session of parliament.
That was written a year ago, referring to last session. Since that time Sir Henry Thornton has not given me any other opinion than that, and I have no reason to think he would suggest at the present time that this should be wiped out. That is a matter of opinion which can be decided when the whole matter of the report of the Royal Commission on Railways and Transportation is made to parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but is this some new method he is adopting of placing documents on Hansard? I have noticed he has handed two or three sheets to the Hansard reporter.


Robert James Manion: I explained my intention. My right hon. friend has done the same thing for many years, and there is nothing wrong about it. It has always been the privilege of a minister when he is making a statement to the house, instead of reading a lengthy document, to place it on Hansard. I said a moment ago that I was going to place this letter of Sir Henry Thornton on Hansard. I thought I would save the time of the house by doing so without reading the whole of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend forgets that this can be done only by consent of the house. He has not asked for consent. I hope now that we have concluded the discussion on unemployment relief, we may get back to some consideration for the commons.
?Mr. Manion.1


Robert James Manion: May I tell my right hon. friend I sincerely hope we can, and hon. gentlemen opposite need the lesson much more than we do on this side.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend wants the consent of the house, he had better ask for it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There seems to be some misunderstanding. Documents are put on Hansard only if read in the house, except by consent, as the leader of the opposition has said. It has been the custom, when the budget is brought down, for the Minister of Finance to put on Hansard certain financial statements, schedules or tables, without reading them in full,-


Robert James Manion: It has been the custom.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: -by consent.


Robert James Manion: It has been the custom for ministers to do so, certainly by consent; but I took it for granted that my right hon. friend would not object. If he objects, I shall read the whole letter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let the hon.
gentleman ask for the consent of the house. That is all.


Ernest Lapointe: Ministers usually ask for leave of the house.


Robert James Manion: I am sorry I have hurt the susceptibilities of the leader of the opposition, and if he will permit me I shall place the letter on Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: The letter is as follows:
Montreal, Quebec,
February 20, 1931.
Dear Doctor,-
With reference to the revision of our financial structure which has been under contemplation for a long time: I feel it would be an unwise thing to present it to parliament this session because the present depression and state of the company's finances necessitate an entire review of our previous recommendations. Furthermore, the outlook for the future is, at the moment, so uncertain that it is almost impossible to make any precise prognostications.
I imagine the next session will be a very busy one with unemployment, tariffs, government finances and highly contentious questions that there will not be sufficient time to consider in a mature way so important a question as the revision of our financial structure. Also, our own directors are quite unfamiliar with our very complicated financial problem. It will take them some time to become acquainted with it, and I cannot present for your consideration anjr proposals until our directors have had an opportunity of forming their own conclusions.

C.N.R **-Finan ce
For all of these reasons I think it inadvisable to bring this very complicated question before the next session of parliament.
Yours sincerely.
(Sgd.) H. W. Thornton.
Now that I have mentioned the figures, the magnitude of the whole railway problem will be readily appreciated by anyone. It is easily seen that the whole financial structure of the country is impinged upon and even endangered by the immensity of the figures of this Canadian National debt. That is particularly well seen if one would remember that it was not until 1900 that the figure of $50,000,000 was reached in the whole revenues of the Dominion of Canada. This whole question is still more complicated at the present time by virtue of the fact that two-thirds of the interest on this Canadian National Railway debt is owing in the United States, and because of the premium upon United States funds in the last three or four months of last year, it cost the Canadian National Railways something like $1,000,000 to $1,250,000 in premiums on United States funds in paying the interest which they paid in that country. In future, as regards loans, including this equipment loan which I have mentioned, the money will have to be raised altogether in Canada until the premium on United States funds is either wiped out, or until our money reaches more to a level with that of the United States than has been the case for the last few months. What makes the situation more difficult is the fact that in 1931 the revenues of the Canadian National Railways were below those of any year since 1919. Yet, if you look at the interest owing by the Canadian National, it has increased between 1919 and 1931 from $28,000,000 to $57,000,000, or an increase of about S29,000,000. Even, therefore, without government interest of any kind, and with an allowance being made for the difference in deficit or profit in the two years, 1931 was worse than 1919 by $14,000,000. Even if you take the peak year of 1928, when the Canadian National Railways earned more than they ever did in any other year of their history, that year would have been short of interest to the public in 1931 by something like $8,000,000, and besides that there would have been nothing for reserve fund or for any other needs.
When we came into power in August, 1930, we found the condition which I have described, not quite as serious as that of 1931, but getting towards it. The revenues were dropping ominously, and the interest charges were increasing. The revenues dropped from 1928 to 1930 by $54,000,000, and as we were not
in power until the last four months of 1930, we naturally could not in any way be criticized for that. I might add that in the last two months, January and February, 1932, the Canadian National Railways were not earning operating expenses. What made the situation worse was the fact that when we came into power in the beginning of Auaust, 1930, there were railway committals amounting to $158,000,000, over which in a general way, we had no control whatever. That amount was a balance of committals made in the previous year, 1929, when a series of committals amounting in all to $270,000,000 was made, including temporary finances, budget, maritime freight rates, branch lines, terminals, railway purchases, equipment and refunding, the refunding amounting to $9,000,000. I have named just some of the outstanding items. The federal net debt before the war was only $336,000,000, so that a series of committals amounting to $270,000,000 in one year naturally made the Canadian National Railway picture a pretty serious one. As one of my colleagues suggests, of course these committals had to be approved by the government of the day. The condition we found being as I have described it, it seemed to me as Minister of Railways that the facts had to be told to the public, because our role was the unpopular one of showing the Canadian National Railways that we felt every reasonable economy should be practised in the operating of that road. That was our duty not only as a trustee of the people of Canada, indeed, as a trustee of the Canadian National Railway itself, but as friends of the road and as loyal Canadians. It seems to me that when the Canadian National Railway attains the position where it will not need to ask for either cash or guarantees from the people of this country, then, and not till then, should the parliament of Canada fail to examine carefully all the expenditures of the road. Therefore we insisted at that time that the road must be run as economically as possible, remembering always that the efficiency of the road must not be impaired. That was a necessary duty for the self-preservation of the Canadian people, of the Canadian government, and of the financial position of this country and the railway itself.
The details of the economies to be effected were left largely to the management themselves, and they cooperated. We appointed a new board of directors, and I wish to pay them the compliment of acknowledging their cooperation with the management and with ourselves in doing everything that could be done to see that these immense yearly ad-
C.N.R.-Finance

of Railways from various sections of western Canada, from my own section, from Dauphin, from Saskatoon, from Rainy River and from other quarters, but I remember those four particularly. The charge was that we were forcing the Canadian National Railways to divert freight traffic to the Canadian Pacific Railway, thereby cutting down the earnings of the Canadian National Railways and adding to the earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway. This charge became so general in some papers and was so generally believed by the men of the Canadian National Railways, that Mr. Warren, western vice-president and general manager of the Canadian National Railways, issued a statement from Winnipeg under date of December 2, 1931:
That the Canadian Rational Railways is diverting grain traffic to the Canadian Pacific Railway in the west, as implied in recent newspaper correspondence and current rumours is emphatically denied to-day by A. E. Warren, vice-president, who upon his return from a business trip to the Pacific coast, issued the following statement:
It is clearly contrary to sound reasoning for the Canadian National to throw away business at any time, let alone in these times, when this company, in common with all railways the world over, is fighting to secure its share of the traffic offering, and nothing as suggested in the reports has occurred. Rather, the movement of grain by the Canadian National for some weeks has been such that the company was able to put back into service a goodly number of employees, to assist in the transportation of this increased movement.
That was wired by Mr. Warren to all the western newspapers. May I say there has been no politics injected into the Canadian National Railways. Sir Henry Thornton takes that attitude in a statement which he issued in the last few weeks, and which I think most hon. members have read. He points out what is true, that the management controls the roads. Our role has merely been to point out to the management where we thought they could improve conditions to the advantage not only of the road but of the people of Canada. May I say quite frankly that even in the most prosperous days of the Canadian National Railways many of these economies of which we are now bearing the brunt should have been put into force.
The management of both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways have stated to me that freight rates in Canada are the lowest in the world. In fact Sir Henry Thornton in a letter to me states that if the same freight rates prevailed in Canada as prevail in the United States, the earnings of the road for the past few years would be from 315,000,000 to 326,000,000 greater annu-

ally. I wish merely to point out that we cannot have very low freight rates, luxurious passenger accommodation, unnecessary services, and branch lines running to our back doors, and at the same time maintain the railways in a condition of solvency. Let every Canadian do his best to help both railway systems get back on their feet, remembering that better times mean better services. We should all realize that the accumulation of past mistakes has endangered the financial structure of the whole dominion. We should also remember that this is a Canadian question-a question bigger than any party, bigger than any government. We have on the northern half of this continent ten million people endeavouring to develop it, and there is a limit to the taxing possibilities of that population in an area such as ours.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: We must also remember, that in 1931 we had to finance 3300,000,000, not one cent of which had to be taken care of before the war. That 8300,000,000 was made up of interest on the war debt, on pensions and soldiers' services of various kinds, Canadian National Railway needs, and unemployment relief. We majr perhaps bear in mind that when normal times come, as we are all hoping they will come in the near future, these trials through which the railways have been passing certainly ought to be helpful to them, because in hard times all of us, including railway executives, learn something of the fundamentals of sound business. So far as the future is concerned, it seems to me that with a reasonable return to business and commercial normalcy, with a fair attitude by the people of this country in their demands not only as to capital expenditures, but as to railway rates, and with care, caution and economy on the part of the management of our railway system, we may look to the future with hope and confidence.
But because of the serious condition in which all our railways found themselves, it is within the knowledge of this house that we appointed a royal commission to look into the transportation question. In discussing that question it is well to remember that the commission was suggested by Sir Henry Thornton himself before the railway committee last session. His recommendation was endorsed by the committee, and its report was adopted unanimously by this house. The public and the press took the attitude to a large extent that such a commission should be appointed, and as a result there was appointed a most

C.N.R.-Finance
distinguished commission made up of big men in business, big men from various walks of life in our own country and other countries, men of such reputation that they would be beyond the influence of anyone, if anyone had the temerity to try to influence them.
May I briefly give the names and positions of these commissioners, in order to complete the record. The chairman is Mr. Justice Duff, who I am told by many lawyers is perhaps the most outstanding member of the judiciary of this country. Then there is Lord Ashfield of England, who made an enviable record in transportation matters not only in the United States but in England as well. There is Mr. Loree, president of the Delaware and Hudson Railway, who told me that even during this period of depression he had not found it necessary to lay off one man throughout his whole service. He has an outstanding reputation in railway matters in the United States. There is Sir Joseph Flavelle, whose reputation as a business man is known throughout the country. Then there is Mr. Beaudry Leman, late president of the Canadian Bankers' Association, who was an outstanding engineer before he became a banker. There is Doctor Webster of Shediac, New Brunswick, who had an international reputation in the medical profession in both Scotland and the United States, and finally Professor Walter Murray of the University of Saskatchewan. I mention these gentlemen because it is worth while to have their names and their standing upon the record, and incidentally I may say that so far as I can find out, of the five Canadian members of the commission three were originally Liberals while two were originally Conservatives. I am not trying to define the politics of the men from other countries; I mention this because it shows that in naming this commission we were not attempting to pack it in any way but were appointing a commission worthy of the name, which would be big enough and strong enough to go into this whole question and make a report which we hope will offer a real solution to the transportation problem of this country. If they can do that certainly they will deserve the gratitude of the people of Canada.
In closing may I just say that in view of the condition we found when we came into office, I submit to this house that the attitude we have taken has been eminently fair and has worked in the interests of our country as well as the interests of the Canadian National railways.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, during the winter
most settlers and sons of farmers work as lumbermen and make a living by cutting railway ties. I remember very well that Sir Henry Thornton once declared before the committee on railways and shipping that he was ready to purchase ties from any settler who made application to him, but now things seem to be a little different. I credit my good friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) with all sincerity; I listened with great attention to his remarks with regard to the purchase of ties, particularly what he said yesterday, but there is one point I should like to bring to his attention.
Apparently this year the settlers have met with some good Samaritans called the Stada-cona Sales Company. Public rumour says that this firm, or association, or company is composed of Mr. Maher, a Conservative organizer, a certain Mr. Bolduc, and perhaps a certain Mr. J. S. Royer, and rumour adds that a director of the Canadian National railways is also a member of that firm. I cannot testify as to the truth of that rumour, but that is what is being said. That firm, the Stadacona Sales Company, is a toll gate for ties, eatables, provisions and supplies which are used in Quebec; they make a rake-off on every Canadian National and federal contract. I make that statement as a member of parliament. This organization is something like the Russian selling organization which is located in New York, the Amtorg Trading Corporation, but in any case it is very well known. They get the cream of every Canadian National railway and federal contract which has to do with the province of Quebec.
These were the people who exploited butter for political purposes during the last election, and now they are exploiting preserves in their grafting propensities. There was a great jam and preserve factory in Ontario conducted by Mr. E. D. Smith, whose contracts with the Canadian National have not been renewed; is it because it was selling its products too cheaply? On the menus of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways there are many kinds of preserves, jams, marmalades and honey that are sold for 15 cents a portion. When we ask the waiter if he has something better than the 15 cent brand he answers that he has. It takes him about five minutes to get it; he has to go to the cupboard, the vault or the strong room of the dining car, and then he returns with an individual portion such as I have in my hand. I have two jars here, the one full and the other empty, and
C.N.R.-Finance

I may tell my friends that the empty one is better than the full one, because there is nothing bad in it. My hon. friend from Compton (Mr. Gobeil) will be glad to hear the name on the label of this jar, because it is something like his own. The label says it is wild strawberry preserve guaranteed pure.


Mr. GOBEIL:: What is wrong with tha/t?


Jean-François Pouliot: When my hon. friend
from Compton speaks he does so with a sour mouth. I thought he must have been eating pickles, but perhaps he was eating this kind of preserves; is it just as sour as pickles? At any rate, this Stadaeona Sales Company found a great commercial genius in the town of La Patrie, Quebec, and La Patrie goes well with the Canadian National. I do not know whether it is a lady or a gentleman-it is simply J. Well, J. might stand for Juliette or for Joe; it might stand for John or Jack. I do not know. There is mystery in a name; as Shakespeare said, "What's in a name?" At any rate, this viscous, luxurious compound purports to be a preserve of some sort. On the principle of Canada first, the Canadian National Railways ordered some of this viscous compound, notwithstanding that there are excellent and cheaper preserves made elsewhere in Canada. I see there is a preserve put up by the E. D. Smith Company, and if I am not mistaken, that Mr. Smith is a member of the Senate-a very distinguished gentleman, an excellent senator. Everyone who has tried Mr. Smith's preserves swears that they are excellent, and the price is only 15 cents. But 'this atrocity costs 10 cents more, which represents an increase to that extent over the legitimate profit that Mr. Smith enjoys. I am glad to note that so many ladies are listening to and appreciating this advertisement which I am giving Mr. Smith's article. Mr. Speaker, here you have a surplus of 66.66 per cent, representing so much graft, and travellers must pay for that. I will sit down in order to allow the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) to tell me whether he knows who manufactures this stuff.


Samuel Gobeil: When you finish your speech I will answer.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the hon. gentleman
tell me that? Will he tell me whether it is a lady or a man? I will sit down so that he may reply.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the hon. gentleman
concluding his speech?


Jean-François Pouliot: By no means, Mr. Speaker. As I say, this 66.66 is graft, and all the time

the Smith Company, who sell a very good preserve, are being penalized and we have to accept this viscous stuff as a substitute. I do not know whether my hon. friend from Compton is interested in the manufacture of this jam. The hon. gentleman is a paragon of virtue in this house; no one is as honest as he is, and as my hon. friend from Belle-chasse (Mr. Boulanger) observes, we do not want to see the hon. gentleman die from eating this jam. Certainly I do not want him to poison himself; I do not want to see him commit suicide by eating this stuff; but I shall be more sorry to see him commit murder by inducing other people to eat it. I want my fellow Canadians and my friends to live as long as possible. I do not want to see them dying from eating such stuff. Now there is something else. If these strawberries are sold by a cooperative of farmers of Compton county, may I ask whether all the farmers of that county share in the profits that are derived from the sale of that stuff? If so, I will not complain provided that the product is of acceptable quality; I am sure it would then be. As I say, I do not know whether the hon. member for Compton has anything to do with its manufacture; I do not accuse him of that. But I should like him to tell me, if he is going to speak, where that jam is made-it is really not jam; it is not as thick as jam but quite viscous. First of all, where is it made? In what house is it made? Perhaps it is not made in a house; perhaps it is made in a barn. I should like him to explain also, if he can, how this preserve was made in the wintertime. Incidentally, I must say that the hon. gentleman apparently has a wonderful memory, because I see him taking no notes at all although I am asking him a number of questions, and if he does not reply I intend to put my questions again when the bill is in committee. I am notifying him in advance, so that he had better take notes of the questions I am putting to him. Another question which I hope he will be good enough to answer is this: Did he recommend the sale of that stuff to the Canadian National Railways for their trains and hotels and even for the restaurant here? I should like to know that.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman understands, of course, that purchases of all kinds for the Canadian National Railways are made by the management itself; we are not even consulted in the matter. I mention this merely to inform him that we have nothing to do with such matters as he is dealing with.

C.N.R.-Finance


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister will permit me to remind him that up to the present moment I have said nothing offensive with reference to himself, and what is more, I do not intend to say anything offensive about him.


Robert James Manion: That is all right; I wasn't suggesting that.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let me say to the minister, however, that in my opinion the management of the Canadian National Railways was wrong in buying this stuff. I am criticizing this as a purchase made by the management, and whether the purchase was made through the Stadacona Sales Company or through any other concern, the cold fact remains that this atrocious compound has been bought by the Canadian National Railways and, what is worse, has been bought at a higher price than would be paid for preserves of better quality. That is all. But what I find most extraordinary is this, that in this part of the country at present it is pretty hard to pick strawberries, and yet we find that this preserve has been put up during the winter. We had a very mild winter, it is true; December was exceptionally mild, and one or two strawberries were found here and 'there. But surely people cannot find strawberries in wintertime to make jams and preserves. Certainly you could not pick enough strawberries to sell to the Canadian National Railways for all the people who travel on their trains.
An bon. MEMBER:	Does not the hon.
gentleman know that we have ever-bearing strawberries in greenhouses?


Jean-François Pouliot: If they came from greenhouses I am sure the price would be at least 75 cents. But this does not purport to be made from greenhouse strawberries; they are wild strawberries. Apparently they grow in the fields, under the snow, for this preserve was made in January. In the case of the parliamentary restaurant I could not believe that these strawberries were purchased last summer to be used this winter, but I was told that the purchases of preserves by the Canadian National Railways were made in January. The strawberries themselves probably have to be purchased in June because in December or January the fields are covered with snow and nothing can grow.
I do not know if this one manufacturer is related to the hon. member. When he is present in the house perhaps he will tell us who recommended that this product be used, when the company first started to make preserves, how large their kettles are and so on. To use an American expression, it will be interesting to hear about the melting pot and to find out what quantity of jams or preserves have been sold and at what price.
The jars used by E. D. Smith and Company are of the same size and shape as those put up by the other company. The label may be a little different but everything else is the same. One is sold for fifteen cents while the latter is sold for twenty-five.
The hon. member for Compton is very scrupulous. He told me the other day that he was defending the millionaires. Is he one in making? He told me also that I was fattening myself at the expense of the country, but I have never done that. I wonder if he is any relation to lord bacon, Sir Joseph Flavelle? That gentleman is an important personage in the city of Toronto and perhaps through him the other fellow might sell more preserves.
Down in my constituency are many people who for years have been faithful employees of the Canadian National Railways. This company now comes along and says it has no money and some of these employees are sent back home. They are being deprived of work while such contracts, as those to which I have referred, are being carried out. I know the Minister of Railways is doing his best, but such practices are unfair. There are 50,000 people in my constituency, several hundred of whom work for the railway company. Some of these men have had the honour to drive the trains upon which the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), the Governor General or Sir Henry Thornton have ridden. For this service they received letters of appreciation, but that is all. Some of these men came from the country, others from the different villages; they established themselves and attempted to bring up their families as good citizens. Now they are being deprived of work because the company has no money'. I remember the first session of 1930, when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated that he considered it was his duty to prevent unemployment, and he told Sir Henry Thornton to keep on as many men as possible. When this government came into power there were fewer unemployed than there are at the present time. The Minister of Railways has just said that the Canadian National Railways must practise economy. We agree with him, but at the same time we cannot approve of the railway increasing the number of unemployed.
I receive letters every day from people who have been deprived of their livelihood,
C.N.R.-Finance

and yet money is being wasted on contracts similar to the ones to which I have referred. I do not know who is responsible for this, but I ask the minister to see to it that he is dismissed at once. These contracts should be cancelled and those people who have been put out of work because economy was to be practised should be reinstated at once.
Last year the minister and I had our little tilts, but I have learned that he was not responsible for the trouble in my constituency. Another hon. member was responsible for this, and I intend to confront him with these facts upon his return. It is my duty to defend my people; that is why I am here. When our people are in distress and when we are here to look after unemployment relief, it is our duty to fight for their interests. I do not wish to be disagreeable to anyone. In times of prosperity I would not mind anyone making some money by selling preserves in the right manner, but in times of distress, when people are in such trouble, one should see to it that the trouble ceases and profiteering is stopped.


Samuel Gobeil: I do not for one moment propose to answer such an uncalled-for and silly statement as we have been obliged to listen to from the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), except to say that during the last four, five or perhaps six years one of my brothers in La Patrie has built up a little private trade in wild strawberries put up in cans. I have not the full information in regard to the matter; I hope the hon. member brings it up before the railway committee and between now and then I shall endeavour to get full information. The only thing I can say to the house to-day is that it came to my knowledge about a year ago that my brother received a sample order. Of course I am no merchant, but I imagine these sample orders are shipped on the understanding that they will not be paid for unless they are satisfactory. That is all I have to say for tonight, and if my hon. friend wishes to bring the question before the railway committee I shall certainly endeavour to get the particulars so as to be able to state the facts.


Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton):: No
more important bill has been brought before the Commons than that which the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) has introduced to-night. He has given us a very fair and clear explanation of it, and had he not been prompted by one of his colleagues, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), one would have had very little fault to find with the character of his speech. One or two 
matters discussed by the minister, however, induce me to refer very briefly to his remarks.
The first is the point raised by him that the conditions in which the government, on taking office, found the railway was due to a certain extent to the methods of the late Liberal administration. May I point out to him that during all the years since the Canadian National railway system has come into being, there has been annually appointed by the house a committee consisting of various members from all sides, Conservatives, Liberals and Progressives, and that each year, certainly since I have been a member of the house and of that committee, we have brought in a unanimous report on the Canadian National railway estimates and other matters which it has had to consider. Those of the Conservative party who sat on the committee had every opportunity to criticize the methods of the railway or of the government or the expenditure, had they seen fit to do so. The minister, while a member of the opposition, had every opportunity to criticize the committee's report when it was brought in, but I do not remember a single occasion when either the minister or any member of the present government or any other hon. gentleman on that side criticized the committee's report when it was presented to the house. Therefore I say to the minister he is hardly fair to the late administration when he blames it for the condition in which the Canadian National Railways found itself when he took office.
The other point on which I wish to speak for a moment is in connection with the royal commission appointed by the government. It is true that this commission was recommended by the committee of last year. I am glad also to find that the minister gives the committee credit for making various recommendations as regards economy and that those recommendations have been followed by the railway. But when he speaks of this commission; when he eulogizes the various appointees of it and goes out of his way to say how impartial the commission is and that he knows not whether its members vote Grit or Conservative, that is not the main question in which we as Canadians are interested. What we are concerned in is the report that these men will bring in, and had the minister not raised the question I do not think any hon. member would have discussed it until the report is brought in, at which time we can judge whether these men are of the high character that the minister has given them. If newspaper reports of various

C.N.R.-Finance
statements made at Winnipeg, Ottawa and elsewhere are true, it seems that the commission will not be very favourable to public ownership in this country. One-has only to recall that Mr. Loree, whom the minister extolled a few minutes ago, said at Winnipeg that he had never found any government that could carry on business on a competitive basis. We recall that Sir Joseph Flavelle, I think in Ottawa, severely condemned public ownership. I think we should reserve, until the report is brought in, the question regarding the character and type of these men, and I do not think the minister should at this time have introduced the subject matter of the royal commission.


Robert James Manion: I did not discuss public ownership or anything of that sort. I just want to point out to my hon. friend that he has not mentioned Professor Murray, who I understand is an out-and-out public ownership man. I do not know what the others are.


Ernest Lapointe: It will be a minority.


Robert James Manion: It may not be a minority. I do not know what the others are. I think we might leave the projected report out of the discussion.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I think so too. The reason I criticized the minister was that it was he who introduced the question of the royal commission and sought to spread a halo around the heads of the men whom the government has seen fit to appoint.


Robert James Manion: I stated merely that they were distinguished men; that is all.


Ross Wilfred Gray: And that they were impartial in the way they voted. My point is that We shall judge these men by their report and I am quite prepared to leave the matter over until it is brought in. I do not think it should be discussed further at this time.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: I should like, for information, to ask a question of the minister. It might better be asked in committee, but I want to prepare him so that he may be able to give the answer then if he cannot do so now. The debt of the government of Canada was given as one billion three hundred million dollars. I would like to know what amount is included in that charged up against the old Intercolonial.


Robert James Manion: The Intercolonial-if I may be permitted to reply, as this is out of order -is included in the figure for government constructed roads with the Prince Edward Island Railway and the National Transcontinental. The figure for the three of them is given at about four hundred million dollars.


Peter John Veniot: Are there any interest charges in the books of the government against the old Intercolonial? I would like to know what the Intercolonial cost and what amount is actually charged against it as a government obligation. I ask that for this reason: The old Intercolonial is included in the pact of confederation and Canada itself did not furnish all the money for its construction. Whatever money Canada did furnish for the construction of the old Intercolonial should not be entered up in the books of Canada as a charge against that enterprise, because it was part of the pact of confederation which united Upper Canada with the maritime provinces. The Intercolonial was constructed for the purpose of giving an Atlantic outlet to the business of Ontario and Quebec, and if this is charged up against the Intercolonial it means just that much more overhead which must be taken care of. I wish the minister would look up that information and be prepared to give it when we are in committee.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to take a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, to make a few observations. I would not have taken advantage of this opportunity to-night had it not been for the fact that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) has brought the matter to my notice.
The minister took occasion to discuss the question of the commission investigating the railways and to eulogize its members. Like my good friend from West Lambton (Mr. Gray) I would have preferred to remain quiet on this question until we had the commission's report before us, but I am not so sure that the minister's remarks with respect to the commission will do much to placate the feelings of the railroad men themselves with respect to the commission. The minister knows that representatives of the railroad men of the country requested that he appoint one of their members to the commission to represent them, but he failed to do so. No matter what recommendations the commission may make, if they affect anyone in the slightest degree they must certainly affect the lives of the railroad men and their families more than any other section of the Canadian people, and yet the railroad men are the only ones without representation on the commission. Let me tell the house, because the Minister of Railways himself and the government know the fact full well, that twenty-one general chairmen of the Railroad Workers' Unions, representing
26,000	railroad men in this country, have protested to the government with respect to certain members of this commission. They have

C.N.R.-Finance

this to say, and I am now quoting from the Montreal Star of December 2, 1931:
"Honourable R. J. Manion,
Minister of Railways,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Sir, on behalf of 21 general chairmen representing engineers, firemen, conductors, trainmen and telegraphers over 26,000 in number on Canadian railroads, have noted with surprise and sincere disappointment a reference in today's press to the possibility of your government considering the appointment of Sir Joseph Flavelle, of Toronto, as a member of the commission to investigate the Canadian railway situation. I am instructed by this committee to advise you on their behalf that Canadian railroad men would be overwhelmingly opposed to the appointment of Sir Joseph Flavelle on this commission because in our judgment he has always found himself unable to exercise a reasonable view of the rights of individuals as contended for by organized labour and workers generally and to implore your government therefore to refrain from making this appointment."
The above telegram was also sent to the Minister of Labour, who replied by wire on November 14.
A similar telegram was also sent to Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, Prime Minister, and on November 16th, Hon. Geo. H. Perley, Acting Prime Minister, advised that you were replying to our telegram of November 13, and that he concurred with your reply.
On November 19, we received a letter from you, which we noted was dated November 14, and the next day the press carried notice of the appointment of the commission to investigate the Canadian railway situation.
We now desire to reaffirm our position as outlined in above telegram, and also to express on behalf of the 26,000 Canadian railroad workers whom we represent, the dismay and disappointment which they and we feel in the appointment on this commission of the member named from the United States. Our reasons are as follows:-
1.	The gentleman named is now and has been for more than a quarter of a century known and noted by organized labour as its most bitter opponent.
2.	He has by his continued opposition to anything emanating from, or connected with organized labour, made it impossible to secure adherence to wage agreements on his own line.
3.	He has been ever ready to lead a battle or opposition against organized labour, its views and its claims, when others were doubtful of the justice of such course.
4.	He is the only railway chief executive on this continent (in our judgment) who requires and insists on employees of the various classes on a portion of his through line, working for lower wages than similar classes of employees on the remainder of the line this being done on the pretext that those employees, who are underpaid, are on a separate chartered railway. We refer to the Napierville Junction railway in the province of Quebec, a part of the main line of the Delaware & Hudson railway from Montreal to New York.
5.	Some months ago this gentleman prepared and submitted a grouping plan for consideration and adoption by the Interstate Commerce Commission, in which the Delaware & Hudson railway was proposed as the dominating com-

ponent part of the group. That proposal was treated by the Interstate Commerce Commission and by other railway operating heads as it deserved.
Thus, in our judgment, you have placed on this railway commission, the most pronounced opponent of labour's rights and claims in Canada, and a similar choice has been made from the United States.
We know that not only the men in the classes specified above, but practically all of the more than one hundred thousand railway employees in Canada will be seriously disturbed by the appointments referred to.
Labour expects no special consideration but does hope for reasonable unbiased judgment where its interests are vitally concerned, as in this case.
I have the honour, on behalf of these 21 general chairmen, to be, sir,
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) J. B. B. Ward,
Chairman of
General Chairman's Conference Committee.
These men, Mr. Speaker, are not politicians. They are divided about equally-


Robert James Manion: But the protest came in after the commissioners were chosen.


Peter Heenan: I will leave the record to speak for itself. I got the letter which I have just quoted from the Montreal Star, and the railroad men say no. But taking the minister's own word, has 'he and the government no more regard for the lives and living conditions of the railroad men of this country than to appoint a commission of this kind without the railroad men having a single representative on it? I notice that the minister in his remarks took credit to the government and to his department for practically everything that was favourable with respect to the Canadian National Railway.


Robert James Manion: Oh, no.


Peter Heenan: On the other hand he has credited to the management everything of an unfavourable character. He tells us of our railways looking for the wrong kind of traffic, as if our railway managements were not the best in the world. Then he told us of the economy committee and that the Minister of Railways himself is represented on it, and he cited the economies that committee has put into effect, amongst them the ten per cent cut in wages.


Robert James Manion: I did not. The economy committee I quoted as cutting down capital expenditure. The economies the hon. member referred to were effected by the management, and I said so. I do not wish to be misquoted.

Supply-Department oj Justice


Peter Heenan: At any rate, he quoted quite approvingly the ten per cent cut in wages.


Robert James Manion: I did not discuss it.


Peter Heenan: He commended the men
for taking the cut in a loyal way.


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


Peter Heenan: I know how those men took that reduction; they took it the same as the opposition took the bill passed by closure	this	afternoon. They	took	thereduction because they had to do so or strike. In	that	instance I agree	with	theminister that they were loyal, for rather than tie	up	the commerce of	the
country they took the wage reduction. But it is a peculiar situation, and I know the railway men see it as I do, that every time there is a Conservative government in power they have to accept a reduction in wages. I am not suggesting at this time that the government has anything to do with it, but in 1921, just before the Conservative government left office, the railway men had to take a twelve per cent reduction in wages, while between 1926 and 1930 they got between six per cent and nine per cent of that back, but now, with the advent of another Conservative government, they have to take a further ten per cent cut in wages. That speaks for itself.
I could not let the minister's remarks approving of the commission he appointed pass without comment. I do not know any of the gentlemen, but -these twenty-one general chairmen know all the executive heads of the railroads of the American continent, and theyv know who are antagonistic to the ideals of labour. No one in this house, I am sure will stand up and say that railway labour and their representatives are not as fair and reasonable a body of men as can be found anywhere on this continent. Therefore when they make a protest of this character it should be heard. I wish to put myself on record as protesting against this government appointing a commission without the men having a representative on such commission any recommendation of which, however slightly it may affect our railway operations, must in turn affect the lives of the men working on those railways and their families more than anyone else, yet they are the only class of people who have not representation on the commission.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on railways and shipping.
417«1-104J

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Maloney in the chair.
Yukon territory-miscellaneous expenditure, including salaries and allowances of court officers, etc.-further amount required, $1,000.
George Gibson Coote: We have not been able to
hear what particular business is being carried on.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: These are the supplementary estimates for the past year, brought down the other day.


Peter John Veniot: As I understand, these
supplementaries are to make up the difference between the estimated expenditures voted last session and the actual expenditures during the year.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.	*


Mr. YENIOT:: Which shows that in order to meet the administration of justice you now require $1,000 more than was estimated and voted in 1931.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: That being the case, I
should like to have an explanation from the Prime Minister. On March 30, 1931, when introducing the supplementary estimates, he made the following statement:
No department has the right to allow its officials to exceed the estimates voted by parliament. This principle has been clearly established, but in spite of this fact such estimates were exceeded without the knowledge of the ministers. The time has come when rigorous steps must be taken to prevent a recurrence.
When the Prime Minister had these estimates before the house I drew attention to the fact that I did not think what he had stated could be -carried out. I see now that in making that remark I was quite right, because -these supplementaries amount to $2,242,474.83.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is including the railways.


Peter John Veniot: It should be $1,059,474.33?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: The Prime Minister assured the committee at that time that a new system was to be adopted, and that great care would be exercised in seeing that there was no overexpenditure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And there was not.
Supply-Department of Justice


Clarence Joseph Veniot: And that in future we
would not be called upon to vote supple-mentaries in the same manner as we had been in previous years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And you are not.


Peter John Veniot: It appears to me quite
singular that the Senate expenditure for the year ending March 31st, 1932, could not be better estimated. I see $12,000 is required under item 300. So the estimate was far afield.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a bit.


Peter John Veniot: Then I find under public
printing and stationery a further amount of $7,250. I well remember that the Prime Minister made quite a speech on the question of printing, that the cost should be reduced, and that so and so should be done. He claimed at that time that in the Post Office Department expenditure on this head had been accumulating from year to year, and he said that it would not happen in future.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has not.


Peter John Veniot: Why do you want the
extra $7,250?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all for this parliament.


Peter John Veniot: What the right hon. gentleman says is quite true, but we were told that there would be no repetition of this in the future.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There has not been.


Peter John Veniot: Then the figures must be wrong. Then we have an over-expenditure in
connection with the House of Commons of $63,124.33. Surely that could have been estimated more closely.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I should like to ask my hon. friend how the government can estimate how long a session of parliament will last.


Peter John Veniot: The last session of parliament lasted just over four months. I am sure the acting Minister of Finance at that time-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the Minister of Finance.


Peter John Veniot: I beg your pardon; I am sure the present Prime Minister, with all the ability he professes to have and the close attention he says he has been giving the business of this country in order to see that economy is practiced, could have made a closer estimate than this. Then our contribution to the League of Nations requires $32,000 more.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is easy to explain.


Peter John Veniot: I should like the explanation. Then we have some miscellaneous items, including a loan to the harbour commissioners of Montreal amounting to $22,400. I wonder why this is put in the supplementary estimates; was there no other way of doing it? I can understand the expense in connection with the Toyal commission on transportation. The government was not quite sure whether or not that commission would be appointed, and when the appointments were made provision had to be made for expenses.
What I am trying to direct the attention of the committee to is the very decided stand taken by the Minister of Finance of that day, that in future under his eagle eye this house would not be required to pass supplementary estimates at the beginning of the session. This reminds me of one point, which I will touch only briefly now because I intend to take it up when the budget is under consideration; I refer to the great difference between the revenue estimated by the Minister of Finance of that day and the actual revenue of last year. Later on I will take some time of the committee to discuss that matter. I am glad the Prime Minister has rid himself of the burden of the Department of Finance; I hope the present Minister of Finance will make a better guess at what will be required for the future than the former minister made last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the financial statement is given the hon. gentleman will find that more money has been saved in the departments, as compared with the estimates made, than has been the case for many years pash If my hon. friend will be good enough to direct his attention to the items of' which he spoke he will see that the first item is with respect to the administration of justice. A trial had to be held in the Yukon in connection with an event that had not happened when the estimates were prepared. It cost something over $1,000, and $1,000 is required to discharge the balance in connection with that trial. No estimate could have covered that expenditure.
With respect to the next two items, covering legislation and public printing and stationery, totalling something over $90,000, the extra expense arose from parliament sitting longer than was anticipated.


Peter John Veniot: What was the anticipated
length of the session?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The usual length. In
addition, parliament met in February this

Supply-Department of Justice
year, and the charge against the appropriation was for the month of February and March. The item for public printing and stationery is in connection with the unusually large number of documents that had to be printed, arising out of the many matters coming up in the House of Commons that could not be foreseen at that time.
Then there is an item with respect to pensions and national health, which the hon. gentleman did not mention. In these cases it was the custom formerly to issue governor general's warrants, but in this instance it was known and perhaps should have been stated that the estimate would not cover the expenditure. The reasons given by the officials of the department as to why the previous administration had made these expenditures by governor general's warrants, before the house met, are very excellent reasons; that was done in order to lessen the expenditure. In this instance, however, owing to the severity of conditions, the appropriation was not nearly sufficient, and the passing of legislation is involved in order to provide for this large sum.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is that
for the ordinary payment of pensions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; there is a surplus
under the estimate with regard to ordinary pensions, as the Minister of Finance will disclose at the proper time. This represents provision made for necessitous pension cases, and the amount varies from year to year. It was known that the expenditure would be in excess of the estimate, and this was provided for previously by governor general's warants, for reasons I need not mention since the hon. gentleman who has just spoken was a member of the previous administration.


Peter John Veniot: Is it still done by governor general's warrants?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. The next two items result from the unfortunate exchange position, which could not readily have been foreseen. Our contribution to the League of Nations, if my memory serves me aright, is payable in Swiss gold francs, and it required this extra sum to make good the exchange required to make the payment. With respect to the other item of S3,000, while there was a surplus under the Paris vote it was not sufficient by $3,000 to take care of the exchange situation.
The item at the top of page 3 is one which I should not have thought the hon. gentleman would mention. This represents an obligation placed upon the country by reason of the guarantee of bonds to the extent of
$19,500,000 for the Montreal harbour commission, there being no limitation placed in the statute.


Peter John Veniot: I just asked if this could not have been done in another way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Outside of the $875,000
with regard to pensions the total supplementary estimates amount to less than $200,000, of which $35,000 is represented by exchange operations. This leaves less than $165,000 required by way of supplementary estimates for last year, and over one-half of that sum is represented by the printing of reports and proceedings and so on of the commons and senate. I think if the hon. gentleman looks through the records he will not find a similar case for many years. There has been no accumulation to carry forward to another year. At the proper time my hon. friend will find that millions of dollars less than the estimates were expended during the last fiscal year.


Peter John Veniot: I hope the right hon. gentleman will be able to keep up that record.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure my successor
will be able to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Loan to harbour commissioners of Montreal, with interest at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council, for such period and upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, and to be applied in payment of deficits resulting from the operations of the Montreal harbour bridge-further amount required, $22,400.
George Gibson Coote: Will the Prime Minister give us some information about the cost of this bridge as compared with the estimated cost? Has any investigation been made with regard to the large increase which I understand is shown in connection with the construction of that bridge?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The estimated cost of the bridge as given in this house was $6,000,000, and the guaranteed bonds are $19,500,000. The report of Price, Waterhouse & Company indicated how the money was expended. It was expended for the construction of the structure, for the purchase of real estate and for the payment of fees, commissions and inspections in connection with the construction of the bridge. I do not think that at this particular time I can give the hon. gentleman a history of the matter, for I have not the papers with me. Suffice it to say that it has
1654	COMMONS
I	Supply-Miscellaneous
placed upon the Dominion government an obligation which has to be met from time to time, there being no promise that in the immediate future the structure as a toll bridge will pay interest on the 819,500,000. I may say that further investigations are being carried on to ascertain why the expenditure was so great.


George Gibson Coote: Will some other opportunity be given during the session to discuss the matter, or will the Prime Minister at a later I date give some further statement to the house in connection with this bridge?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think-I am speaking subject to correction-that in the main estimates there is _ provision for this matter, which will afford an opportunity for discussion.


George Gibson Coote: Is the report of the auditors in connection with this bridge available to members of parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not available to members of the house. It was made to the department and merely indicated how much money had been spent for various purposes. The investigations that have been carried on are not as to how much each portion of the structure cost but as to why it cost that much money, and that investigation has not been completed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the Prime Minister later on give an itemized statement to show how the amount was arrived at?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If, as I think, the matter can be referred to by reason of there being a small item for interest in the main estimates, I shall be glad to give the hon. gentleman such information as I possess in that regard. I cannot, however, furnish the other information mentioned.


George Gibson Coote: When the investigation is
completed, will the report of the investigators be available to the house?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot answer that at the moment because part of it is being carried on by the investigators without the submission of any report. I have not myself received a report, except verbally as to a portion of the expenditure.


George Gibson Coote: I believe there is an opinion which is very general throughout the country that some public statement should be given as to the reason for the great increase in the expenditure over what it was estimated that the bridge would cost. I hope the Prime 
Minister will be able to give that statement to the house when this investigation is completed.


Mr. SPENCER:: Is the investigation which is taking place departmental or through a commission?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No commission has been appointed. Price, Waterhouse & Company made a report as to the divisions of the total cost of the structure. That is to say, they indicated how much went for steel, how much went for land, how much went for law costs, how much went for commissions, for interest during construction and matters of that kind. All that was carefully examined. The rest of it has been a departmental inquiry, and I do not think it is in the public interest to indicate further the character of the investigation carried on for the purpose of ascertaining why the structure cost $19,500,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Expenses of the Royal Commission on Transportation (governor general's warrants of December 9, 1931 and February 4, 1932), $35,000.
Ross Wilfred Gray: Is this the $35,000 referred
to by the Minister of Railways for expenses in connection with the commission?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Ross Wilfred Gray: In his speech the hon. gentleman gave the names of the commissioners, referred to the excellence of their service and commented upon the impartiality of the views they entertained. I have already made some remarks with respect to Mr. Loree and Sir Joseph Flavelle. One of the gentlemen referred to by the minister was Lord Ashfield. I wish to quote briefly from The Statist of London, England, of February 27, 1932, in which there appears the report of a speech made by Lord Ashfield, and I do so to show the impartiality of this particular member of the commission. Speaking with reference to the underground electric railways group, Lord Ashfield says:
The change of government which ensued upon the national crisis affected the fortunes of the London Passenger Transport bill, upon which, however, the proceedings can be resumed in the present parliament at the stage at which they were discontinued in the last parliament, if a motion to that effect is proposed by a minister of the crown and passed by the House of Commons.

Supply-Governor General's Warrants
What I wish to emphasize is the following:
There I must for the moment leave the matter, only remarking that I hold as strongly as ever that there can be no true and permanent solution of the problem of London passenger transport without a unification of ownership, administration and finance, in capable and independent business hands, extending to all the local passenger transport undertakings * within a widely defined London traffic area.
I leave it to this house whether public ownership is or is not on trial before the commission.


George Gibson Coote: Will the Minister of Railways or the Prime Minister advise the house whether it is expected that the report of the commission will be available before the end of the session?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I notice in one of the
papers a statement that the promise had been made in the speech from the throne that it would be. If hon. gentlemen will look at the speech from the throne they will find that this is not so. A hope was expressed that it might be so. At the moment I cannot answer the hon. gentleman as to whether the report will be ready or not. We, as a government, cannot do more than assist the commission in meeting any request it may make for information, and provide them with the facilities they may ask for in order that they may carry forward and complete their examination. Beyond that I cannot at the moment go, for it will naturally depend upon when the house rises whether or not the report will be available. If the house were to sit long enough, I have no doubt the report would be complete; but having no knowledge as to when hon. gentlemen opposite will permit the house to rise, I aim not in a position to indicate when the report may be available.


Ernest Lapointe: Is there a possibility of the government acting on the report under the provision for the peace, order and good government of Canada contained in the bill passed this evening?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Inasmuch as the peace, order and good government provision will expire on May 1 and I have no reason to believe that the report will be made by that time, I think the hon. gentleman will admit that his question was intended more as an indication of his humour than as a desire for information.


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend has
given us an indication that there will be a new bill presented before the end of this session which will be an improvement on chapter 58 of the statutes of last year. Before that bill is drafted perhaps I might tell my right hon.
friend that we will have strong objections to make to his securing the authority to settle the railway problem of Canada under the provisions of peace, order and good government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may say I agree wholly and entirely with the hon. gentleman.


Robert James Manion: I do not think the remarks of the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray) should be allowed to pass without a reply from myself. The statement which he quoted from Lord Ashfield was an ordinary business comment referring to the transportation system of the city of London, England; it no more referred to the transportation problem of Canada than it did to the canals on Mars.


Ross Wilfred Gray: It showed his views.


Robert James Manion: He was speaking in ordinary business terms. As a matter of fact, Lord Ashfield has done extraordinary work for the government of England and at the present moment is regarded as close to being a government representative in connection with the transportation work in that country.
I referred to the commission in order to complete my statement, but I made mo reference to the ideas of its members in regard to public or private ownership. I toll the committee quite frankly that I have no idea as to the feelings of the members in this regard. Mr. Loree has been quoted before, and it might be naturally concluded that he would tend toward private ownership because for many years he has been the head of a fairly large privately owned railway company. But on the other hand, as I pointed out earlier in the evening, Professor Walter Murray is an openly avowed public ownership man. I know nothing whatever as to the feelings of the rest of the members. Sir Joseph Flavelle was quoted by a previous speaker as being a private ownership man. As a matter of fact, Sir Joseph for some years was a member of the board of the old Grand Trunk Railway, appointed by the government of that day. I do not remember at the moment just which government it was that appointed him.


Ernest Lapointe: The Union government.


Robert James Manion: That government was made up of very good Conservatives and very good Liberals, so that he was appointed by a combination of both.
These men, outstanding in the business and professional world, were selected as a royal commission to deal with the railway problem of Canada. I doubt whether a more outstanding or abler commission has ever been appointed in this country.

Supply-Governor General's Warrants


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why was act a labour man appointed?


Robert James Manion: For the same reason that an agriculturist was not appointed-there was no attempt to have class representation on the commission. If that was to be considered I think it must 'be admitted that agriculture, which supplies a large proportion of the freight of the railways, should have been represented before labour.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They should have been; why were they not?


Robert James Manion: Simply because it is not necessary that every class in Canada should be represented on every commission appointed. The commission was very representative, and I am sure it will give a fair deal not only to labour and to agriculture but to all other classes in Canada.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not agree with the hon. minister when he says that this is not a class commission. I should say that men like Sir Joseph Flavelle, Mr. Loree and Lord Ashfield certainly represent a particular class in the community.


Robert James Manion: What about the other members?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not familiar with the other members. I submit that a representative of labour should have been appointed to this commission. If the government wanted to bring someone from England, there were other men besides Lord Ashfield who possessed a very thorough understanding of transportation. I 'have in mind a former Minister of Transport, Mr. Herbert Morrison, who was a member of the cabinet of the Labour government. This gentleman knows as much about transportation as any man in England. If it was thought necessary to bring Lord Ashfield from England, I think another man like Mr. Herbert Morrison should have been brought also to represent the other viewpoint in that country. I contend that the viewpoint of labour should have been represented on this commission. I do not think it was necessary to go outside of this country to find men who understand the railway situation. We have quite capable men in Canada, and if a representative of labour and agriculture had been on the commission it would have been able to give a better interpretation of the Canadian viewpoint.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Maloney in the chair.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31,	1932, the sum of
81,059,474.33 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 39, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1932.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, April 4, 1932