1932-03-08

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. D. MORAND (East Essex) presented the first report of the special committee on radio broadcasting.
Mr. MORAND moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Unemployment Relief


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That on and after Wednesdajr the 9th instant to the end of the session government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence on Wednesday over all business except questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a question of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Gordon); in his absence however I am content to direct my question to the Prime Minister. My inquiry is based on an item which appeared in last night's issue of the Ottawa Citizen under the heading of "Protests Bringing Boys Into Canada." The article is as follows:
A protest against the proposed bringing of 500 boys into Canada during the present year from Great Britain has been made by Rt. Rev. John C. Farthing, bishop of Montreal. The bishop sent his protest to the Dominion government and the government of Ontario.
"The boys," the bishop said, "are to be offered as sacrifices to keep together immigration organizations of various kinds. Surely it would be better to disband every organization rather than keep them together at the expense of 500 old country lads."
I wish to ask if these boys are being brought to Canada with the approval of the government, if the movement is government assisted, and what guarantee the government will have that the boys sooner or later will not become part of the ranks of the unemployed, and public charges requiring deportment?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members
will agree that such a question requires notice, because obviously papers and documents must be referred to. I have heard of the matter, but an answer will be given to-morrow.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) to a statement made in the city of Victoria a few days ago by the Minister of Public Works of the province of British Columbia to the

effect that money which had been promised under agreement by the federal government had not been supplied, and that as a result thousands of men during the last four or five months have been unemployed and still remain so. I should like to ask if that statement is true?


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had notice of the question of my hon. friend, but I may say that so far as this government is concerned moneys have been sent amounting to about $3,025,000 to be devoted towards unemployment relief in the province of British Columbia. So soon as the legislation, of which notice has been given, has passed this house-if it does pass-I anticipate further moneys will be sent to that province. I have been handed a telegram dated Victoria, March 4, 1932, as follows:
Hon. H. H. Stevens,
Minister of Trade and Commerce,
Ottawa, Ont.
Press report on my evidence before commission on unemployment not correct. Have laid no blame for any difficulties in connection with the unemployment relief on federal government, nor have I any intention or reason for doing so.
R. W. Bruhn.



THREATENED DEPORTATION OF UNEMPLOYED AT THE PAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, according to press despatches a considerable number of unemployed men who are now at The Pas are threatened with deportation. Is it the policy of the Department of Labour to deport these men whose crime seems to be that they are unable to find work?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I can answer the question merely by saying no, but if occasion demanded the answer could be amplified.



IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question based on the following press report from Sarnia, dated March 4:
Great things were expected of the economic conference, declared Colonel Sutherland. But it should be understood at the outset that Canada must give as well as receive. If Great Britain gave Canada preferences; she in turn would expect to receive preferences enabling her business men to transact business with this country.

CJ\f.R. Branch Lines
I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) will be rid out of the party for uttering such heretical political doctrines, or will the Prime Minister himself be compelled to eat leeks-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas McMillan: -as a paregoric to enable him to make such a complete somersault in fiscal viewpoint as will allow him to face the approaching Imperial economic conference on sound economic lines?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has read a document which does not constitute a question.


Thomas McMillan: Certainly, it is a question addressed to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.



SEED AND FEED RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to direct a question to the government based on a telegram I have in my hand:
Distribution of seed grain through municipalities in Manitoba will burden financial resources of said municipalities far beyond their ability to undertake. Strongly urge that you use your best endeavours to have Dominion government undertake finance one-third of freight charges and assume one-third of any losses by municipalities resulting through distribution of seed grain. Provincial government has already undertaken to assume one-third in both instances.
John Bracken.
Is the government prepared to advise the house as to what action, if any, has been taken in this regard; and if no action has been taken, is the government in a position to state what its policy will be in this respect?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There will be a statement made this
afternoon, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Rattleford): Regarding the North Battleford-St. Walburg-Bonnyville branch line railway, Mr. Speaker-
An hon. MEMBER:: Another railway line
to Timbuctoo?


Mr. McINTOSH:: No, nor to Honolulumay I ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) if he is aware of the existing railway situation in northwestern Saskatchewan :
1.	That orders have been issued to the contractors instructing them to stop work.
2.	That cancellation of grading contract has taken place.
3.	That there are at least 100,000 bushels of wheat in the districts affected that will have to be hauled over often impossible roads to the nearest railway point, fifty and sixty miles distant.
4.	That hundreds of settlers for the last two years trekked into these districts from the dried-out and near dried-out areas southward on the understanding that railway construction would be undertaken forthwith.
5.	That a great deal of hardship will be endured and increased direct relief required this year if the government decides the cancellation order must stand.
6.	That by withdrawing the large amount of equipment from the district at heavy cost the expenditure involved would go a long way to grading the remaining thirty-five miles of road and completing the sixty-nine miles ready for the steel at slight cost?
And if he is, in view of all the circumstances submitted, will the minister seriously reconsider the whole question with a view to giving these far northern settlers the railway accommodation which is their just due?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: According to my information, Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the situation on that branch line this year as compared with last year. Last year the railway company notified the contractors that they were not going on with the work beyond a certain expenditure. The attitude this year is exactly the same as it was last year; there has been no further cancellation according to the information given me. This branch line is in exactly the same position as other branch lines throughout the western provinces; due to decreased earnings the management feel they can allow construction to stand in abeyance until financial conditions become better. I shall look at the question to-morrow, and if a further reply is required I will give it to my hon. friend.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: May I remind the hon. minister that last year he did reconsider the problem and very kindly brought forward an



Unemployment Continuance Act
appropriation for more work. The settlers, I have no doubt, would be pleased if he would do the same thing this year.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the third reading of Bill No. 22, to amend the criminal code (cheques without funds and grand juries).
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 21, respecting the Canadian National Railways, and to authorize additional provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1931.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
On section 1-short title.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May I ask, has this bill been approved by the committee on railways and shipping?


Robert James Manion: Yes, it has.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On the preamble.
Mr. POULIOT:: Is it the intention of the
Canadian National Railways to reduce the number of employees, or will they leave things undisturbed as far as possible?


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, the intention of the Canadian National Railways management in regard to the number of their employees is not made known to me at any time. The management have entire control of the number of men they will employ and they neither ask my permission nor discuss the matter with me in any way. I am informed that they keep on the payroll as many men as they require to carry on the operations of the road, and lay off those whom they feel they can dispense with.


Jean-François Pouliot: Have orders or instructions been given to the management to reduce their staff?


Robert James Manion: The government never
gives any orders to the railway management in regard to the administration of the road in any way, shape or form.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, it is obvious of
course from the language of the motion that it was placed upon the order paper prior to the first day of March. It will be necessary, when the house is in committee, to give effect to the principle of extending the time for the operation of the statute to May 1, by amending the words that are used.
Last year it will be recalled that this parliament enacted a statute whereby certain powers were conferred upon the governor in council to deal with unemployment and farm relief. It is well to keep in mind the provisions of the preamble of that measure, for they indicate clearly the constitutional division between the rights of parliament and the rights of provincial legislatures. The duties and obligations that fall upon provincial legislatures, under our constitution, are largely though not wholly defined by section 92 of the British North America Act. The balance, or remainder or residue of powers, including those specifically named in section 91, rest in this parliament, and it will be observed that words used in the preamble of the statute passed last year are:
.... and whereas it is in the national interest that parliament should support and supplement the relief measures of the provinces and other bodies in such ways as the governor in council may deem expedient, and for that purpose should vest in the governor in council the powers necessary to insure the speedy and unhampered prosecution of all relief measures and the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada ....
That is a very concise and clear statement of the constitutional position of this parliament. It was so stated, of course, in 1930, and was agreed upon, I think, by all parties in the house in statements made from time to time during the course of the debate. The

Unemployment Continuance Act
primary obligations rest with the municipalities and the .provinces; the duty of parliament, in a national crisis or in a great emergency, is to assist and supplement the efforts of the provincial authorities.
I mention that because there seems to have been, judging from some of the questions asked within the past few days, a very distinct misunderstanding with respect to this phase of the question. I observed, for instance, that questions were asked as to why the Dominion government did not deal with the problem of seed and fodder. Obviously that obligation does not rest upon the Dominion government; it rests, of course, on the provincial authorities, acting either directly or through the city, town or municipal authorities which have been set up.
In this regard I think it perhaps desirable, although I did not so intend until yesterday, to read to the house a statement of the law as defined by the late Lord Chancellor Haldane in two cases that went to the privy council from this dominion. One was the case in which this parliament set up the court of commerce, which was to regulate prices of commodities and deal with the rights of traders; the other was the case in which, after the war, the Dominion government conferred upon an official power to fix the price of newsprint, and it was contended by the Winnipeg Free Press that no such power rested with the parliament of Canada but that the power to regulate prices, arising out of property and civil rights, must of necessity, be a matter solely within the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities. I think it well, therefore, in order that there may be a clear statement of the position placed upon Hansard, to read a few words from the judgment of Viscount Haldane in the court of commerce case, supplemented by a brief reference to his judgment in the Free Press paper control ease.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Would
the right hon. gentleman give us the citations for those cases?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Mr. CASGRAIN:: They were not acted
upon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Suggestions were asked
for, and in some instances they were acted upon, and in others not. But may I say to the house that if all the suggestions that were made had been acted upon the exchequer would not have been equal to the demands.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Were
they more extensive than the promises that were made in 1930?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Much; they were so
extensive that no government could contemplate carrying them into effect. The ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) is saying something. May I ask him to speak up; it does not disturb me. I shall be glad to hear what he says.


Mr. VENIOT:: Especially when recommended by a Liberal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no warrant for
that statement, none whatever. Unfortunately there are gentlemen who cannot see it otherwise. For instance, the other day I was talking to a gentleman who was present at a meeting in the county of Gloucester where the ex-Postmaster General was addressing a gathering, and he held up a letter received from the Minister of Labour and said, " The provincial authorities have nothing to say about this; it rests with the federal members, and I am the man to determine it here, not they." I merely mention that-


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, since the
Prime Minister has made that statement he will give me the privilege of dealing with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not now; you will have an opportunity.


Peter John Veniot: I want the statement taken back because it is not true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman
says it is not true-


Peter John Veniot: It is not true in the way
the Prime Minister puts it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the way in which the hon. gentleman made it, it is true; let us put it that way.


Peter John Veniot: I want the right to reply
to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does the hon. member
wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister? If not, he is out of order.


Peter John Veniot: It is not correct in the
way he has stated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I trust the hon. member
will not say it is incorrect even in the way in which he said it.


Peter John Veniot: It is incorrect in the way
you state it.
902	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then let us say it is
correct in the way in which the hon. gentleman said it at the meeting in question. Now, it has been contended that the suggestions thus sought were not acted upon. Well, it was idle to expect that all the suggestions offered could be acted upon. But I believe it will be found that, regardless of political considerations in any way, shape or form, employment was given to those who needed employment to the fullest possible extent, having regard to the fact that the government determined that it would not embark upon a wholesale expenditure of public moneys merely because suggestions were made that would involve that being done. That is fundamentally clear. If all the suggestions which were made were placed before this house they would give to the country a composite picture of a desire to enter upon unbridled extravagance to an extent wholly out of keeping with our present economic condition.
Then we went to the next phase. We approached the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and the western provinces and dealt with them in the same manner. There then came up the question of determining how we could best supplement and assist the provinces in the discharge of their constitutional obligations. We sought to assist the provinces regardless entirely of the political affiliations of those who directed the administrations. Much comment has been made in this house in connection with conditions in British Columbia. That government was Conservative and the contention has been made that we did not fall in with all the suggestions made by the province. That is not untrue; it is correct because we were unable to do so. At least some commendation has come from quarters usually lacking in praise of the action taken in that regard. The province of Quebec, a Liberal government, formulated an extensive program which it sought to have carried out by the joint operation of the provincial and federal authorities and in some instances with the aid of the municipalities. These representations were canvassed and in the end an agreement was arrived at, which agreement will be laid upon the table of this house. The same applies to the province of Ontario, to the western provinces and to the Pacific province of British Columbia.
That is a method by which we endeavoured to give effect to our constitutional duties, to supplement, under the conditions which existed, the legislative power which this parliament had conferred upon it. Complaints were received from time to time. In some instances it was contended that only Liberals were being employed; in other instances it

was contended that only the supporters of former governments were being employed, and in others, that only Conservatives were being employed. In the end, to meet this situation as best we could-it being a difficult situation at best-we asked reasonably responsible men to observe and report upon the work being done, to see that the effort was commensurate with the money being expended and to see that the work stipulated for was being performed according to the terms of the contract.
I submit to this house that in the main we have had remarkable success in dealing with this problem. I will go a step further. We have expended moneys which were appropriated directly for that purpose under the control financially of the Auditor General and of all the departmental engineers responsible for such expenditure-Public Works here, Railways there and Department of Interior works here. These departments and their officials along with the Auditor General's check upon expenditures have been responsible for the work being carried on. As to the work done by the provinces, we had no power to say that it should be done at the least possible initial expense so far as the appropriation was concerned. We told them that we would not pay any part of the administration cost; we told them that the cities and towns would have to pay that. We told them that as they had shovels, picks and other facilities which could be utilized for giving effect to their undertakings, they should be used. We told the Department of National Defence that it should lend its tents and other facilities of that kind to enable the work to be carried on in the national parks. That was done. With the minimum of new material and the maximum utilization of facilities which we had, the work was carried out expeditiously. I shall not read from the report which I have because it would not be fair to those who may follow me and who have not this document before them. I had hoped that this document would have been available to all before I made this statement.
While there always has been and always will be difficulties in connection with public expenditures by reason of the fact that there are men and women who will always think it desirable to get something for no effort from government, and that to impose upon government is a virtue and not a vice, I contend that in the main millions of dollars of public money have been expended fairly since this parliament adjourned in August last until to-day. As nearly one hundred cents for the

Unemployment Continuance Act
dollar as it is possible to get in public expenditure has been obtained, and much employment has been given to those who needed it. If at times there have been causes for complaint, as there have been, we have endeavoured to rectify whatever difficulties or whatever wrongs existed as expeditiously as possible. At the end of this period we face this parliament with some sense of pride in the fact that these vast undertakings have given employment to over 300,000 men working over 6,000,000 hours. While that does not mean that each man has had long work, while it does not mean that each had many hours of work, it means that by the judicious rotation of the work and by the giving of employment for a half day or a longer period, we have been able to accord that which we started out to accord, namely, relief to a large number of those who demanded and required it. That is what we endeavoured to do and that is what we did do. Our duty and our obligation were to provide relief, and that is what we endeavoured to do through the medium of the provinces.
We did not come in direct contact with the municipalities; our contact was through the provinces because the municipalities are the creation of the provinces. A still greater difficulty became apparent in September, that is, that the municipalities and the provinces could not undertake to provide the necessary finances to enable them to defray the expenses they had incurred. Not being able so to do, what was to happen? There was only one thing, that we should lend them the money which they could not otherwise borrow. This government in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it under the statute made loans to the provinces for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their obligations under their agreements and for the purpose of enabling the municipalities to discharge their contractual obligations. This money was loaned at the rate of interest which it had cost us. In response to a question asked a few days ago there has been laid upon the table of this house a statement indicating the sums of money which have been loaned. For instance, at the end of February the province of Saskatchewan had been advanced over $16,800,000; the loans to Alberta amounted to more than $4,600,000; the loans to Ontario were in the form of advances which have been offset by accounts for which we are liable with the exception of $190,000; the loans to British Columbia amounted to $5,600,000 and to Manitoba, $3,775,000.
Those represent moneys that were advanced by the dominion for the purpose of enabling the provinces to meet their constitutional
obligations, except with respect to the province of Saskatchewan about which I shall presently speak and the province of Ontario where an advance was made which was paid by credits which they were entitled to receive under their agreement, and which credits have entirely wiped out the advance that was made.
The obligation which was not one we ourselves assumed but which was one we had to assume if the work was to be carried on, wa3 an obligation that came upon us by reason of the economic conditions that prevailed in consequence of the disruption of the financial structures of the world after Great Britain went off the gold standard. Now I ask the chamber and particularly hon. members opposite if they have any complaint to make with regard to the manner in which we have met those responsibilities. We found every one of the four western provinces, for reasons which I shall not discuss, unable to secure money with which to discharge their obligations in New York. Were we to let those provinces default, or were we to lend them the necessary money with which to meet their obligations? Is there any hon. member who will stand up in his place and say: You should have let them default. That is the problem which confronted us-default or a loan. Is there any hon. member present who would suggest that we should have chosen the former alternative and not the latter? While some hon. members may suggest that it is undesirable to make advances to the provinces under the conditions that prevail, there is no member sitting either to the left or to the right of the Speaker who does not realize the fact that if any province, however small, wherever located, defaulted, this would injuriously affect the credit of Canada as a whole, and what is more, adversely affect beyond any words that I might use, the future of the people of this country.


Mr. EULER:: Were the sums that were
advanced to the provinces taken from the proceeds of the service loan?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: That includes the amounts mentioned by my hon. friend as lent to the provinces?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, prior to the end
of February. I fancy an illustration will serve the purpose of my hon. friend who has just asked me the question, as we both come from Alberta. In January, for instance, we provided $320,000 to meet the interest on the maturing New Y'ork obligation of Alberta and on the thirteenth of the same month we provided $2,822,000 for a loan also due in that city.
.	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
The province of Manitoba had an obligation amounting to 82,000,000 maturing in New York and we renewed ithe obligation for $1,000,000 and paid 81,000,000 on account. We also incurred at that very time the responsibility for paying that renewal at the date of maturity.
I now come to the second branch of our activities which arose out of the situation existing in Saskatchewan. It will be within the memory of most members of the house that on Dominion day of last year I referred to the condition which prevailed in that province. Saskatchewan is largely an agricultural province; it has a population of slightly over 900,000 souls. Seventy-six municipalities with a population numbering several hundred thousand have, for three successive seasons, been without a crop, and the soil, alluvial in character, fertile beyond words, has become so disintegrated by reason of the fibres being broken, that it is blown about by every wind that passes over the area in question. The soil that once was bright with verdure is now dark and as barren of vegetation as the floor. This, may I say to the chamber, has brought about the largest problem that the Canadian people have ever had to face. I wonder how many people at the maximum does this house think were actually fed during this winter in Saskatchewan?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: About 300,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member is
quite right-something over 300,000. I put it to my fellow Canadians if they know of any major task Canadians ever discharged with greater efficiency and less noise? It was effectually, efficiently done, and what is more, with medical services, with plain but ample food, with fuel, over 300,000 people at the maximum, or nearly one-third of the population of Saskatchewan, were taken care of in that province this winter.


Mr. DUFF:: By the provincial or the
federal government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that. In that instance we did just what I said a moment ago: we asked the provincial authorities to set up a commission, which they did, presided over by a gentleman of means who is giving his services voluntarily, assisted, I am proud to say, by a member of the profession to which I belong, who, day after day and week after week, abandoning his own business, has been giving of his great abilities to the solution of the problems that have arisen. We also had representatives there for the purpose of assisting them. If Canadians have cause to be proud of anything, it is of 
the fact that through various organizations, such as the Red Cross and other associations of that character, by the free and voluntary gifts of men and women in eastern Canada to their less fortunate fellow citizens in the west, there have been sent not less than ninety-nine carloads of vegetables, clothing, other commodities of various kinds for free distribution amongst the people in that area and other parts of Saskatchewan. The churches offered to undertake part of that work; they did it and they did it well. The other day I heard of a case where a man of some means obtained some jars of jam which were being distributed, to which it was thought he had no claim, and indeed he had none. I do not dispute the soundness of the criticism; I mention it merely as indicating that is only a small matter when one considers the large, broad question of a commisison functioning with the aid and assistance of your government, whereby upwards of 300,000 men, women and children in peace time, were provided with the necessities of life, cared for during the winter and now, at the beginning of March find themselves at least in health and strength and, I am bound to say, with an optimism and courage with respect to the future that would shame some of us who live under different conditions. I shall not go further into the details of this effort, but I have no doubt that it is one in which hon. gentlemen opposite will feel, as we all do, a sense of pride, that a condition so strange in the life of a country, that privation and suffering that might have been so dreadful, have been met as they have.


William Duff: Did the money go directly
from the federal treasury to the relief commission or to the province?


Richard Bedford Bennett: By arrangement made
with the province and with the banks we deposited the money in the banks to the credit of the relief commission, the credits being made in this fashion:
Date-1931	Amount
September 19		.. $ 500.000
October 23		
December 9		
December 17		
1932	Amount
J anuary 4		
January 21		
F ebruary 5		
February IS		
February 29		
Total		
All of which we have paid. Believing that we were but giving voice and effect to the wishes of this parliament the government

Unemployment Continuance Act
undertook the payment of 100 per cent of the relief thus afforded in those communities where there had been no crop for three successive years, because the municipalities and provinces were in such financial conditions that, I need hardly mention to this house, they could make no contribution at all. .
In that regard reference has been made to the fact that promissory notes were signed by which they undertook to repay the sums so advanced. Well, sir, I will tell this house exactly what was done, because that is one of the instances in connection with which I remained long enough in Regina to take some personal interest in the procedure, and to lay down what I conceived to be the proper rules which should govern in determining how relief should be granted. First, a survey was made of every municipality; it was not guess work, but made by men employed for that purpose who visited every settler, taking from each one a statement of what he had, of his financial position, and asking him to sign a declaration as to the truthfulness of the statements thus made. That was No. 1.
No. 2: An estimate was made by the settler himself as to what he would require, not as money, but for the purpose of meeting the demands made upon him and his family for food, fuel, clothing and matters of that kind and, sir, it was my privilege at the beginning of the year to visit one of the depots from which clothing was being distributed. When I saw the character of the requests being made, and the care with which apparently those who asked for assistance indicated their requirements, I realized that here was a people who were not taking an opportunity to provide themselves with things they did not require, but were asking those things necessary to meet only their most urgent requirements, having regard to the conditions under which they were living.
Then the question arose as to whether or not they should sign promises to repay what had been expended. That is debatable; there are those who hold the view that they should not be required to do so. I have no complaint to make, whatever view is held. However, the settlers affected were most insistent, the ones with whom we came most in contact, that they should be permitted to sign an undertaking to repay.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Do many of them not
deny that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no doubt some
deny it', but I am speaking only from what I myself was told by settlers I met in Regina. Whether or not that feeling was general, I
am not in a position to say; naturally I have to take the reports which come to me. I must say, however, I never witnessed a finer spirit on the part of men and women who had homes, mark you-good homes-who had homes which had been in their possession for ten years, fifteen years or twenty years, who had barns, sheds, fences, wells and equipment but who for three years had had no crops, whose resources were gone. They had, however, a natural pride which belongs to the race and breed from which they sprang to desire not to accept charity but to accept a loan from the people which one day they might repay. For my part I have no objection to offer to criticism and I suspect from what I heard in Regina that the relation between the loan and the promise to pay is not greatly different from that of cause and effect. I still think it was not an improper thing to do, because let me say that since August, 1930, it has been my unfortunate experience sitting at the treasury board to have placed before me at almost every meeting, anywhere from ten to one hundred cases in regard to which the commission, as the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) will remember, was set up to deal with seed grain, feed and relief expenditures made in the northwest territories and the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta during periods of time which are now long past. Some of them go back to the years 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904 and 1905, and all along the years, because as I told the house last year there have been very few years since 1870, when relief on some scale has not been granted in western Canada, when that part of Canada was still territories. For, as territories, it will be recalled they were, in a sense, wards of this dominion, and we took the responsibility which under the constitution now rests with the provinces.
We are now confronted with the next problem, that of providing the seed for the cropping or sowing of those vast areas. Of course ever since last fall we have been endeavouring to ascertain just what the future would likely be. We have received from those most vitally affected a statement as to what they believed-having regard to their knowledge of conditions and the history of the past as to moisture and the general turn of events whereby we have cycles of crops, and so on- the future might reasonably be, so far as crops in a particular area were concerned. We have asked the premiers of the three prairie provinces for their views. We have asked them what assistance they will require to enable them to provide seed and feed, and
906	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
the supplies with which to put in a crop. Then as to fuel-whether it be used for mechanical appliances, traction engines, or oats and hay for horses-whatever it may be-we have asked them to give us estimates of the cost. The province of Alberta has taken great care to endeavour to spread out their resources to the limit of their power, and their estimate is that if they are provided with $140,000 it will be sufficient for the areas which under normal conditions they would take care of but which at the present time they cannot do without some assistance. In the province of Manitoba we were advised that something less than $700,000 would take care of requirements. When we come to the province of Saskatchewan however we must consider that there are upwards of 4,000,000 acres of land upon which we have to determine as best we can, with the aid and assistance of the best experts available, what to do.
As no doubt hon. members are aware, in the United States there has been placed a limitation upon the acreage which will be seeded. That limitation is based upon what has been done in previous years. A sum was recently voted by congress for the purpose of extending credits, and hon. members will recall that something like $50,000,000 is to be made ivailable for purposes I am now discussing. A. limitation however has been placed upon the amount which may be advanced in any specific case either for food, seed, fuel or fodder.
The federal authorities feel that they are not in as good a position as the provinical authorities to arrive at a proper judgment. Therefore we have concluded that instead of doing what has been done in days gone by, merely undertaking the responsibility for seed and feed as a national or dominion obligation, we will advance the necessary moneys by way of loans to the three provinces on their treasury bills, to enable them to provide seed and feed to fulfil the requirements of their agrarian populations. It may interest this house to know that we took steps last year to acquire through the aid of Mr. McFarland- who has so generously and freely without salary or compensation given of his time in the management of the wheat pools-sufficient quantities of wheat to take care of that situation at a price which I should say is at least ten cents lower than the rate to-day prevailing. That will be of some assistance to those who have to place their crops in the soil. It will require approximately for all purposes, for seed and feed, whether you use it to purchase hay or oats, or fuel oil or gasoline to put in the crop, approximately six million 
dollars to care for the requirements of Saskatchewan.
This, then, is the situation that confronts us. I have endeavoured to indicate to the house as clearly as I could in broad and general terms, without trespassing too much upon its time, the sweep of our undertakings and the general principles that have governed us in the administration of the statute that was passed last session. But this government have had a greater sense of their responsibilities because of the fact that we were vested with larger powers. In practice, I may say, we realize now that the statute that conferred these powers upon the government without naming the amount available was vastly to the advantage of this dominion, and had it been otherwise we could not have accomplished the purposes that we did accomplish without the expenditure of much more money. That is our profound conviction, and it is the opinion of the business men with whom we come in contact.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Are the sums which my right hon. friend has said have been placed to the credit of the relief commission in Saskatchewan for the purpose of relief a part of the moneys advanced to the province, or are they contributions from the federal government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought, Mr. Speaker,
I had made myself clear when I said that the grand total of the sum advanced to Saskatchewan was $16,800,000, but of that sum $5,250,000 represented advances-all expended at this time-to the relief commission, which will not be repaid to us, and which, as I said last session speaking in this house, was a contribution made by Canada to a national emergency on a scale-may I say?-which we Canadians have never heard of before.


Mr. YOUNG:: Does that mean when those notes are repaid the money will not come back to this government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I say so far as we
are concerned, we have not received any treasury bills from the province of Saskatchewan for the repayment of these amounts, neither have we sought them.


Mr. RALSTON:: Five million dollars?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. That is a
matter for future consideration and adjustment. It was discussed at some length the other day by hon. gentlemen.


Mr. BROWN:: Is that amount represented by the notes taken from the farmers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whether or not notes
have been given for the full five million


Unemployment Continuance Act Mr. MARCIL:: What relief has been

dollars I cannot say. My own opinion would be that there are not notes for any such sum as that. But as far as we are concerned, we have advanced that money to the province for the purpose I have indicated, and, as I have said, to the extent to meet the whole one hundred per cent of cost because the province is not in a condition at the moment to make any contribution to it.


An hon. MEMBER:: To whom are those
notes payable?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I understand it, to
the commission. I was indebted the other day to the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) for seeing one of those notes for the fust time. I think it read:	To His Majesty's
government in right of the dominion.


Edward James Young: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a matter, however, that will have to be dealt with and adjusted in the future. I merely mention it in passing because at the moment the expenditure for seed and feed advances is to be covered by the treasury notes of all the three provinces in order that we may be able to meet the situation that exists.


Charles A. Stewart: In this case it is expected that all the advances for seed and relief to carry the people through the summer will be repaid by the provinces?


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as the immediate
advances are concerned, we are at the moment taking the treasury notes of the provinces and treating them all on the same basis; but, as I ventured to say the other day, and I now repeat, all this must necessarily be a matter for adjustment, but left in such shape that there can be at least no cause for complaint on the part of any person however careful he may be in regard to the expenditure of the nation's money. That is the position up to that point.


William Duff: I think the right hon. gentleman stated that altogether the federal government had advanced something like $16,000,000 to the province of Saskatchewan, and that out of the $16,000,000 some $5,250,000 was advanced to the relief commission. Am I right in saying that the province of Saskatchewan, treating it as a corporate body, would owe the federal government $11,000,000, because the other $5,250,000 was advanced to the relief commission as a separate amount and the province therefore is not responsible with respect to it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are some limitations. but in a broad and general way that is a correct statement of it in figures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The relief which in the
judgment of the provinces and municipalities was necessary to meet the situation. In the province of Saskatchewan a relief commission was set up, but broadly no relief commissions have been set up in any other province, although there has been a cooperative effort on the part of voluntary organizations with the municipalities and the provinces. The amount and extent of the relief are not matters over which the dominion exercises control, except, I trust, by way of kindly suggestion; the provinces determine what they should do.


Mr. POWER:: Is the $6,000,000 included in the $11,000,000?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Charles Gavan Power: That is a straight loan to
Saskatchewan?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a straight loan
for the present, but, as I said to the hon. member for Weyburn, all these matters must in the very necessity of things be matters for discussion and adjustment when the crisis ia passed. When we were confronted with the situation the question we had to consider was how we would meet it, whether, as was suggested by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) yesterday, by a supply bill, or in the same manner that I have indicated, namely, by extending the provisions of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931 for a further period of two months up until the first of May. Now, so far as a supply bill is concerned, I think it is fairly obvious to those who have followed me that to ask for any particular sum of money at this time in the form of a supply bill with the usual limitations that are imposed upon such measures would not meet the situation. In our judgment at any rate, having regard to our experience, it would not. Parliament is in session, parliament has the fullest opportunity to consider and criticize and deal with every step the administration takes. I am not lacking either in sympathy or respect for the views that were so strongiy urged last session, and doubtless will be again urged, against our taking the course which I am asking the house to permit us to take, namely, to declare that the provisions of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931 shall continue for a further period of two months. I do that, you may say, with some reluctance, but I do it because I believe it is the only method having regard to the neces-

Unemployment Continuance Act
s;ty for elastic provisions to deal with complex problems promptly. But I do sympathize with the views expressed in a few words yesterday by the right hon. leader of the opposition, and so I suggest to this house that we frame and add to the single section of the bill which makes the provisions of the statute of 1931 applicable for another two months, a provision whereby every order in council that is approved by the Governor General shall be laid upon the table of this house at the next sitting following its passing. That, of course, would be the next day, if the house were in session. I cannot but think, having regard to the gravity of the situation and the difficulty of dealing with it by any hard and fast rule, that this chamber will confer these powers upon this government. I would not deprive this parliament of its right to criticize freely and, if it thought desirable, destroy this administration for the improper discharge of its obligations, but I can conceive of no way in which this house can have larger powers conferred upon it than by the method I have suggested, so that in every instance it might have the fullest opportunity of dealing with these matters.
The answer is, of course, that it is done before the opportunity is afforded to criticize.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, sir, I can only
record my own experience since August last in dealing with this matter, and I do say frankly to this chamber that I know of no way by which you can deal with this difficult problem unless you have the widest discretion in an administrative sense. After all, it is a problem of administration, and I know of no method by which you could deal with these problems as problems of administration unless you have the powers I have indicated.
I will give an illustration. Last j'ear we took power to deal with peace, order and good government. In the fall it became apparent that it was vitally important that we should make our practice uniform with that of the United States with respect to the valuation of securities held by insurance companies. Many of the United States companies were doing business in Canada and many of our Canadian companies were doing business in that country. Forty-eight superintendents of insurance got together, and forty-seven of them agreed that for the purposes of valuation, the conditions being so exceptional, the average value for the last five quarters should be the governing valuation for certain classes of securities. Unless that power had been conferred upon us by this statute we could 
not have enacted the order in council, which was published in the Gazette and which all hon. members of this house no doubt have seen.


Charles A. Stewart: Are you
sure you are right in that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am perfectly certain
that no one will question the fact that when you begin to deal with hundreds of millions of dollars, and when you remember that it is not the values of to-day that concern the policyholders but the values in future, based upon what money will earn and what it is necessary to set aside for the purpose of meeting liabilities in the future, to place a value based upon the average value for the last five quarters, as they did, with our companies doing business in the United States and their companies doing business here, was but to say that there should be some measure of certainty and uniformity in fixing values in the most important matter with which we as a government had to deal at the moment. We must remember the magnitude of the sums involved, and the fact that the happiness of the people may be in some sense disturbed by any condition arising that would bring about a disturbance of the stable foundations on which these institutions have been built Unless we had possessed that power we could not have passed that order in council.
Now I put it to the house whether or not there is an element of grave risk if such a power, is not vested in the executive at a time of great flux and change in the economic conditions of a country. The possibilities of abuse are always present in the minds of a parliament-


Ernest Lapointe: Just one question. Apart from this order in council respecting the Insurance Act, which virtually amended that statute, were there any orders in council passed under that peace, order and good government provision of the statute of last year, amending other acts of parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As far as orders in
council amending acts of parliament are concerned, I have nothing in mind at the moment. There may be something of which I cannot think just now, but all the orders in council will be laid on the table at an early date, and an opportunity will be afforded for the discussion of them. The reasons, of course, for the particular order in council to which I referred, which was published in the Gazette and which no doubt the hon. gentleman has read, were not only the conditions to which I have referred but also a judgment of the

Unemployment Continuance Act
privy council which was delivered in October, and also the necessity for providing uniformity.
Let me put it this way: If an insurance company has a mortgage, it is still regarded as an asset at its face value, as a mortgage. However, with shares and bonds, the value fixed is the average value for the last five quarters, which was considered fair by the insurance superintendents to whom I have referred. There are other matters that arise from time to time. What we seek by this resolution is authority from this house to continue until the first day of May the provisions of the statute which was enacted last session. It confers a wide discretion upon the executive; I said so last year, and I repeat it now. I am not one of those who do not understand and appreciate the attitude of mind taken by the opposition with respect to this question, but I do say with some degree of pride and satisfaction that although that statute came into force in August and we have administered it ever since, you will have great difficulty and indeed I think you will find it impossible, sir, to point to any case in which there has been an abuse of authority under it or where there has not been an honest administration of its provisions. That I believe I can safely say.


Mr. DONNELLY:: The right hon. gentleman referred to the $6,000,000 for feed and seed in Saskatchewan. Has he made any estimate of the money which will be required to provide relief for the unemployed and the distressed in this dried out area until they get a crop, which will be about September 1 next? If so, could the Prime Minister give us the amount of the estimate, and tell us whether provisions have been made to look after these people?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a most difficult thing to do; it depends so much upon the season, the production of vegetables and so many other things which my hon. friend, living in a part of that area, knows as well as I know. The government and the commission are unable to express, in terms of dollars, their view at the moment of what may be required, although they believe that with the opening of spring they will be able to do so, and I trust that between now and May I may be able to give this house a fairly reasonable and intelligent estimate of the position. I think the hon. gentleman knows quite as well as I do, if not better, how difficult it would be at this time to give that estimate in dollars and cents.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is to be the policy of the government with regard to provinces other than Saskatchewan after May 1?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not a question which at this time I can answer; that must be dealt with later. There was one other matter which I am reminded was dealt with by order in council; that was the question of the export of gold. I thought perhaps that was well known to all hon. members of the house, but that is another case. It was mentioned the other day in answer to a question. The passing of an order in council prohibiting the export of gold except under licence was done under the provisions of the statute. That occurs to me as I pass on, and that became very essential for reasons I think I made quite clear to the house the other evening.
I cannot, Mr. Speaker, usefully add more to the explanation which I felt it incumbent upon me to make to this house in asking that you do now leave the chair that the committee may consider this resolution. I am reluctant, in the constitutional sense, to ask for the continuance of these powers; I am not reluctant on any other ground. And if I knew of any other method which I believed would accomplish the end we have in view, of assisting in the fair discharge of our obligations, I would not ask this. But after the most careful thought that I have been able to give to the subject-and I will welcome any suggestions that others may offer towards the solution of the problem- I know of no way, except by this method, whereby we can assist the provinces and supplement the work they have to undertake, and at the same time have ready at all times the executive power which would enable us, if the occasion arose, to deal with the situation on a competent basis. It is for that reason that I commend this resolution to the favourable consideration of the house, realizing that I have taken much longer time presenting these various matters to the chamber than I had expected, but realizing also that the house required of us some account of our stewardship in the discharge of the great responsibilities that rested upon us in view of the wide discretion and the great powers which were committed into our hands.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure the
house and the country will appreciate the lucid and comprehensive statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has just made of what he very rightly terms the stewardship of the government in its administration of the

Unemployment Continuance Act
statute of this parliament respecting unemployment and farm relief. I could not help feeling, as my right hon. friend spoke, that the responsibilities of office are having a wholesome and chastening effect upon him, and that he is beginning to realize that, in many courses of action which have been taken in the past, he would have been wiser had he then entertained and espoused with the zeal he has done to-day the views he has expressed to the house this afternoon. May I say that, with most of what my right hon. friend has said by way of exposition I have no exception whatever to take. I can only regret that when he occupied the position of leader of the opposition and the government of the day was seeking to defend the treasury, as he today is seeking to defend it, he did not then join with us in expressing agreement in the view we then put forward as to the respective responsibilities of the municipalities, the provinces and the Dominion, for those views were precisely the same as the views which to-day he says the present government entertains.
May I also express regret that during the period of the general election, when my right hon. friend was appealing to the electorate, and particularly when he was dealing with this all important question of unemployment relief, he did not then put forward, as the government of the day put forward, the view of the respective relationships and obligations of the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities, in the way in which he has stated them this afternoon. I might go further, and say that I regret that at the special session of parliament, and at the last session as well, when we were presenting some of the points of view which he has presented with 6uch force and eloquence to-day, my right hon. friend did not at that time accept the view we were urging upon the government. Had he done so, the country to-day would be in a very different position, and the federal treasury would have to its credit an amount very considerably more than it has at the present time.
My right hon. friend opened his address by enlarging upon the jurisdiction of the dominion and the provinces respectively in the matter of unemployment relief. He cited from decisions of the privy council as rendered by the late Lord Haldane in the board of commerce case, and in the case of newsprint prices, each of which judgments was mentioned in order to emphasize the point which the right hon. gentleman was seeking to drive home, namely, that with respect to matters of unemployment relief the obligation in the first instance was 
a provincial obligation, and that, so far as the federal government was concerned, its part in the matter was that of supplementing the provinces and coming to their aid, only when the provinces themselves were unable to cope with the situation. May I remind the house that this was the position which we, as a Liberal party, when in office, took from the outset. It was the position we took during the period of the campaign. And it is the position we have taken since we have been on this side of the house. If there has been a different position taken, if my right hon. friend has stressed the point that the emergency has been of a national character, bo great as to necessitate the exercise of powers by the federal government much wider than would otherwise have been the case, he himself has been the one to put forward that point of view and to press it to the extreme he has. I want to make quite clear that at last, after dealing with this problem of unemployment relief for a year and a half, my right hon. friend now states a position which he asks us to support, in direct opposition to the view as stated by him when he was on this side of the house, during the general elections, and when he first came into power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope my right hon.
friend will not think I am interrupting him, but the language I used a year ago I have in front of me, exactly as I used to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Those who
have heard my right hon. friend will have no difficulty in seeing the accuracy of what I have said as to his presentations. Indeed, as my right hon. friend was reading the judgment of Lord Haldane, and when, in particular, he emphasized the point that the federal jurisdiction overrode that of the provinces only in a time of emergency in .the nature of war, I was somewhat surprised that it did not occur to his mind at that moment that with respect to the statute passed at the last session of parliament, we on this side of the house urged that very reason as one why the enactment should not be adapted. We pointed out that the statute passed at the last session, giving to the government powers to deal by order in council with peace, order and good government, was one which could be justified only in time of war, insurrection, invasion and that as a matter of fact, even in time of actual war, the government of Sir Robert Borden had never sought to obtain from this parliament powers as extreme as those which the right hon. gentleman asks that this parliament should enact. To-day he is asking us to reenact the very statute

Unemployment Continuance Act
to which we took exception in such strong terms at the last session of parliament. I say to my right hon. friend that, when he asks us to-day to reenact the statute passed at the last session, we must confront him with the argument which he himself has presented this afternoon as one against taking that particular course. There does not exist at the present time an emergency equivalent to that of actual or threatened invasion or war. There does not exist the condition which, according to the judgment of Lord Haldane, is the only one which would justify giving to the government the powers which the Prime Minister is asking under this particular act. So much for the first part of my right hon. friend's remarks.
May I say to my right hon. friend that when he was speaking to the public of this country about the cries of little children, about what he termed the smug complacency of the then Prime Minister who he said was deaf to the cries to heal their pain, which were being made to my right hon. friend as a Canadian and as a Christian, he was not stressing, as he has done to-day, the jurisdiction as between the provinces and the dominion in the matter of unemployment relief. Being in power to-day, instead of making his appeal to the human needs and aspects of the situation, he gives as consolation to the hungry and starving two judgments of the late Lord Haldane.
I come now to the next point with which my right hon. friend dealt. He spoke of the loans which this government has made to the provinces since September last. In dealing with that point, he said that the government's action was based on the alternative of either making loans to the provinces or of allowing the provinces to default in their obligations. He asked the house whether the government was not in the right in making the loans, instead of permitting the provinces to default. I say to my right hon. friend that if, before making the commitments which he has made with respect to the expenditure of public moneys, he had accepted the suggestion made from this side of the house at the special session, and again with particular emphasis at the last session of parliament, and had called a conference of the dominion and the provinces to discuss their financial relations, he might not have been obliged to make the loans he has made during the last few months, and he certainly would not have been obliged to make them to the extent to which they have been made.
My right hon. friend must surely recall that when he and his colleagues were introducing measures to provide for the voting of large sums for unemployment relief and for the reenactment of grants in aid to the provinces for technical education; when they were introducing legislation with respect to old age pensions, construction of highways, and other matters, we on this side urged strongly that before making commitments which involved so considerable a drain on the federal treasury, the government call the provinces into conference and discuss with them the whole financial situation of the provinces and the dominion. Hon. gentlemen opposite must remember that, because it was very strongly stressed from this side. If that suggestion had been followed, if that course had been adopted, the situation to-day would be very different from what it is. I think it is an open secret that, in dealing with the provinces, my right hon. friend told the premiers or provincial treasurers that, with respect to expenditures which they were making, he in control of the federal treasury and of the government of Canada would not countenance loans to them beyond a certain point unless they discontinued some of their expenditures and curtailed in many ways the outlays of public money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think that is
correct; I recall no occasion on which that was so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my right hon. friend say that in no case did he put pressure upon the provinces to curtail expenditures which they were making?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a different thing.
I never made it a condition with any province that they should curtail any specific expenditure. I understand that their banks told them that they had to balance their budgets; that is as far as I know, but I certainly did not impose any conditions except that we should have vouchers indicating what the expenditures were for.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right
hon. friend did not caution the provinces with respect to expenditures, I think he failed to discharge his duty as he should have discharged it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a different
' thing from saying I did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am somewhat surprised to hear my right hon. friend take exception to a course of action which I think so highly commendatory, and which I for one would approve as being the right course to take.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman said I imposed conditions.
9*2	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I never used
the word "conditions."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The word "conditions" came out of my right hon. friend's mouth when he was seeking to offset what I had said. I did not use that word at all and my riaht hon. friend knows I did not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know my right hon.
friend did; he said that I had told them that they could not get money unless they did so and so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say anything of the kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Every hon. member in
the house heard it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hansard will
show what was said. Hon. gentlemen on this side have as good hearing as hon. gentlemen opposite, and they know that what I said was that it was an open secret that my right hon. friend had put pressure upon the provinces to seek to curtail some of their expenditures. I think that is what he should have done, and I am very sorry to hear him say that he did not do it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what was
said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it is to be understood that provinces like British Columbia are to be free to spend public money in any way they please and are, notwithstanding, to get all they want in the way of loans from this parliament, then we are embarking upon an expenditure of public moneys which is wholly indefensible. If the course I suggested has not been taken, it should be taken, and the provinces given to understand that, if their expenditures are unwise or injudicious, they must be curtailed if they expect to have their revenues supplemented by loans from the federal treasury to meet an emergent situation.
My right hon. friend spoke, next, of the province of Saskatchewan, and he dealt with what he described as the admirable manner in which relief had been administered in that province. He stressed the splendid service which had been given by the unemployment relief commission, and he drew the attention of the house to the fact that the federal government made its contribution to the province by means of a cheque payable to the unemployment relief commission. He stated that this commission had carried out the work of unemployment relief in cooperation with the province and the municipalities, and in addition to what was being achieved by voluntary co-
operation, and that it had used all the safeguards it could in the matter of protecting public expenditure.
If an unemployment relief commission has worked so successfully in one province in connection with the expenditure of public moneys for relief, why has not my right hon. friend adopted, before this, the suggestion which has been made over and over again from this side of the house of having an unemployment relief commission deal after the same manner with dominion unemployment relief? Instead of giving to the governor in council the power to spend money at its will without consultation even with parliament, why are we not doing what was done in Saskatchewan, particularly when, as the Prime Minister says it has, the example has so much to commend it? I say to my right hon. friend that even now he should adopt that course, notwithstanding the fact that he has not adopted it up to the present time.
With the example of Saskatchewan before him, instead of coming and asking this parliament to give to the government the power, by order in council, to grant unemployment relief and relief for distress in rural areas, my right hon. friend should establish immediately an unemployment relief commission, composed, as I stated the other day, of representatives of the different economic interests involved. This commission should be given the power to do what may be necessary and this parliament should make its cheque payable, through the executive, to the relief commission, which body would transmit to parliament a full statement of the manner in which the money has been expended. I say that it is no longer defensible to ask parliament to vote further sums to the governor in council when, out of the lips of the Prime Minister himself, we have the declaration that unemployment relief has been better administered under a relief commission in Saskatchewan than has been the case elsewhere.
I stress that again, and in speaking of it, may I point out another feature? It seems to me most unfortunate and indeed lamentable that, after having spent millions of dollars, as the federal government has done, upon unemployment relief, as a result of the legislation of the special session and also that of last session, we have nothing at all in the way of accumulated information which can be put at the disposal of parliament to guide us in regard to this great subject of unemployment relief.
If a 'commission of the character which I have mentioned had been appointed over a year and a half ago, or when the government

Unemployment Continuance Act
came into office, that commission, if composed of the right personnel, as it might well have been, would to-day have 'bad a fund of information which it could place before a committee of parliament with respect to the whole problem of unemployment relief, information the like of which could not have been obtained in any other way. A commission of that character would have been in a better position than any other body to advise parliament as to the considerations of which account should be taken in the enactment of a compulsory unemployment insurance measure. But, while we have spent our millions of dollars, we have practically nothing to show for them, except the report which will be brought down indicating the total amount of expenditure, the total addition thereby to the public debt, and the way in which it was made. It is not, however, yet too late to do something that will be helpful to parliament and to the country in the way of acquiring that special information and knowledge, which should be gathered for the use of parliament at subsequent sessions, and which at the same time will safeguard further expenditures in a manner which, according to the Prime Minister's own statement this afternoon, is the best of all.
Those, I think, were the main points to which my right hon. friend referred, until he caime to the concluding portion of his address. There he indicated the problem with which the government is at the moment confronted. It is the same problem that confronted the government at the special session. It is the same problem which confronted the government at the last session. The only difference is that we have had now an experience of a year and a half which we had not at the outset, and that experience certainly ought to guide us with respect to action which should hereafter be taken. My right hon. friend was quick to recognize that there are very strong reasons why, with parliament in session, there should not be given to the governor in council power which might, with plausible excuse or reason, be asked for in times when parliament is not in session. I wish to speak with particular reference to that aspect for I do not like to witness the gradual elimination of the duties and functions of the Commons, one might almost say, the disappearance of parliament itself through the surrender of its rights and responsibilities to the executive and a parting with their control over expenditures on the part of the people's representatives in this house.
But, before I go into that, the most important phase, may I say a word or two about the measure which is now before the house. The motion is:
That the house go into committee of the whole to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor.
Chapter 58 of the statutes of 1931 is an act to confer certain powers upon the governor in council in respect to unemployment and farm relief, and the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada. The section to be amended is section 8, which reads:
This act shall expire on the first day of March, 1932.
As I pointed out the other day, this act expired on the first day of March, 1932. When I spoke last on this measure, it was the first day of March, and I was prepared to leave it an open question as to whether the act would expire at midnight of that day or whether it had expired at midnight of the previous day. I think the latter view is the correct one, hut, at any rate, there can now be no question about the act having expired. Therefore, chapter 58 of the Statutes of Canada, 1931, which we are now being asked to amend, no longer exists. That statute is as dead as a door marl. How can parliament be asked to amend a statute which does not exist? How can we be asked to amend an extinct, a dead, a defunct statute? Parliament can revive a statute; it is possible for the ministry to bring in a bill reenacting an old statute, but, in the form in which it is now before the house, the resolution is asking parliament to do something which it is impossible for any parliament on earth to do.
It is not befitting the dignity of parliament, it is a contempt of parliament that it should be asked to amend a statute which no longer exists, and I wish to state at once that we on this side must take very strong exception to the House of Commons attempting to proceed in any such way. After all, we have responsibilities in the matter of the precedents which we set in this parliament. Surely my right hon. friend is not going to associate his name with a precedent that will mean that, hereafter, any hon. member will be wholly in order if he brings jn a bill to amend some statute that is no longer in existence, some enactment that has disappeared into the limbo of forgotten and abandoned things. If we have power to amend this statute, which was passed last session and which expired on the first day of March, any hon. member can, with propriety, introduce into the house a bill to amend any enactment that has been passed by this parliament at any time since it came into being. When the commissioners revise



Unemployment Continuance Act
the statutes and discard old enactments that have ceased to exist, they are at least supposed to be serving a useful public purpose, namely to keep, in a form which will be readily accessible, those enactments which are alive, which still have the force of law. But this statute has no longer the force of law. It is, as I have said, no longer in existence. I protest against the introduction of this resolution, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will take the position, as the presiding officer of the house, that in the form in which it is presented it cannot be entertained.
In saying that, let me make this perfectly clear. I am not raising this objection as a merely technical one. I am raising it, as I have said, because I feel that the precedents which are established in this house are allimportant, and that members of the House of Commons incur a very grave responsibility in countenancing precedents which should not be set. To make clear that this exception is not being taken on merely technical grounds; that we are not trying to obstruct the voting of any moneys which may be necessary in order to give the provinces the needed loans that my right hon. friend says he now proposes to give them, let me say again as I said yesterday: If my right hon. friend will drop the resolution which is now before us and ask his Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) to come to the house this evening with a supply bill indicating the amount of money which the administration feels it will be necessary to have in order to meet the situation between now and the first of May, or the period during which parliament may be in session, if he will take that course, and move that the rules be suspended so that such a supply bill can be speedily passed through the house and sent over to the Senate, we of the opposition will cordially join with the government in agreeing to the suspension of the rules, and will seek to expedite the passage of such a measure through the house to-day. I make an urgent appeal to my right hon. friend,-who as Prime Minister surely has an appreciation of the responsibility involved in the setting of a precedent, who surely venerates British parliamentary institutions and would like to have them upheld- I appeal to him at this time not to be responsible for a controversy in this house over the method of doing something which all of us, regardless of the parties to which we belong, are prepared to assist the government in doing and say should be done, particularly when that controversy relates only to the taking of a right course, and the avoidance of a course which hitherto has not been taken 
in this parliament, and cannot be countenanced under constitutional practice and procedure, as we have sought to uphold them.
I know my right hon. friend has power through parliament to revive a dead statute; he can bring in a bill to provide that a certain enactment, known as chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, be reenacted. I say that that course will have to be taken before he can obtain the relief he seeks. Relief cannot be obtained under the terms of the resolution before us. Again I urge the ministry not to create a controversy, particularly when delay might only serve to cause added suffering to many people throughout 'the west and in other parts of Canada. There need be no delay whatever. As I have said we can expedite a supply bill to the extent of having it pass this House of Commons to-day, if the ministry wishes to proceed with it in the regular manner in which all supply is granted by parliament.
Moneys required for purposes of unemployment and farm relief should be voted in a manner similar to the regular votes of supply in the House of Commons. May I compare the resplution now before us with the resolutions of the two previous years which have preceded bills for the purpose of securing from parliament relief for the unemployed. The first measure of the government opposite with respect to unemployment relief, and which had to do with the granting of public moneys, was preceded by the following resolution introduced in this house on September 10, 1930, during the special session:
That it is expedient to provide that a sum not exceeding twenty million dollars be appropriated and paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for the relief of unemployment in constructing, extending or improving public works and undertakings, railways, highways, etc., that will assist in providing useful and suitable work for the unemployed, all as set forth in a bill founded on this resolution.
At that time hon. members on this side of the house took exception to the government proceeding by waj' of a special bill rather than by the customary way of bringing in a supply bill. We drew attention to the fact that the House of Commons should exercise control over expenditures, and, if a supply bill were brought in, a certain amount of money would be voted for use until the beginning of the new fiscal year. Had a supply bill been introduced, the government would have been in a position to meet all its obligations. At that time we urged the government, in the expenditure of large sums of public money, not to depart from the long established practice of proceeding in the regular way through a supply bill. We also
MARCH S, 1932	915
Unemployment Continuance Act
drew attention to the fact that, according to the practices of parliament, not only should the expenditure of the amount named be confined to the fiscal year, but the specific purposes for which the moneys were required should be set out. Had the government voted a sum necessary or sufficient for the period of time for which it was required, pending the regular session of parliament the amount named at -the outset would never have been permitted to assume the proportions set forth in the bill. There never would have been a suggestion of $20,000,000, but, as I said the other day, the amount required would have been about $4,000,000.
Having secured this vast sum of $20,000,000, the government when it came to parliament again found it very difficult to name any sum which would be required, and for that reason they went further than they had previously gone and asked us to vote a blank cheque. The first resolution was a departure from the practice of parliament, in that the amount required was not voted as supply is ordinarily voted, for the period only of the fiscal year or part of a fiscal year. Having obtained the $20,000,000 the government made commitments with respect to the greater proportion of that money for expenditures, not in the last part of the fiscal year 1930-1931, but for the next fiscal year. Those commitments led to the expenditure of millions of dollars which otherwise would never have been spent. My right hon. friend takes pride in these actions of his government. I say, that they wasted public moneys through the manner in which they made commitments for its expenditure during the spring, summer and fall months. Those expenditures would never have been what they were had the government followed the customary procedure of asking parliament, the peoples representatives assembled, for the amount required for the fiscal year, and for that period alone. Having made that mistake twice, do not let us repeat it a third time.
At the time the government took that course, we pointed out that, if parliament once departed from constitutional procedure, one could never tell to what lengths such departures might lead. Our representations at that time proved to be true with respect to the measure brought in at the following session. At this point, I shall read the resolution introduced at that time, and ask hon. members to contrast it with the one to which I referred a few moments ago. The first one named a specific sum of money, specific objects or works upon which this money was to be spent At least it had that virtue. The next year, however, what there was of virtue in that 41761-58J
regard in the first resolution was entirely lacking in the second and in the bill based upon it.
The resolution introduced on July 27, 1931, was as follows:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to confer certain powers upon the governor in council in respect to employment and farm relief; and for the maintenance and peace, order and good government in all parts of Canada; and to authorize the governor in council to expend for the said purposes out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums as may from time to time be necessary.
Here was a resolution which went very much farther than the original resolution. The first unemployment legislation enabled the government to make commitments beyond the fiscal year; in that particular it was bad enough. The measure I have just read, however, gave the government power to spend any sum it pleased, and, to all intents and purposes, it substituted the executive for parliament during the period of time to which it applied. It took out of the hands of parliament altogether the control of the public moneys that were being spent. Now, that is a very serious thing. Let me repeat: the second measure took from parliament altogether, from the time that parliament ceased to be in session to the time of its reassembling this year, all control of public expenditures with respect to anything that might be said to have to do with unemployment relief and with the relief of distress. That was an extreme step, a step, I think, the like of which has never been taken in this or any other parliament.
But what is now being proposed? That step was defended a year ago on the score that parliament was then about to prorogue, that the unemployment situation would exist throughout the winter, that the government must be given a free hand to deal with it. Parliament was not in the mood, nor, had it the time when the measure was introduced, to consider as carefully as it should have the consequences of a step of the kind. But parliament is in session now, and we are being asked to do, for the period of time that parliament itself is in session, something to which we took exception with respect to the period during which parliament would not be in session at all. I say, Mr. Speaker, there can be no excuse for any action of that kind. We might as well abandon parliament altogether. Why are we assembled here if while the people's representatives are in session the ministry is to get power to do, by order in council, anything it pleases?
Stop for a moment, and look at the bill more closely. It asks that this power be given for the months of March and April;

Unemployment Continuance Act
that is, up until the first of May. I assume this parliament is going to continue in session at any rate until the first of May. I have my suspicions whether the government has not in mind the adjournment of parliament on the first of May, if we are not in a position to prorogue at that time. I repeat, parliament is now in session. Why should any power be given to the government to do by order in council what can be done in the regular way by parliamentary enactment? We cannot permit a step of that kind to be taken, if it is at all possible to prevent it. We do not wish to obstruct the government in any legislation they may have in mind. We do not wish to add an hour's delay to their obtaining any sum of money that they may consider necessary to meet existing needs; but we cannot countenance a step which means giving the government power to do by order in council, while parliament is in session, the thing which parliament itself alone should do. It is an indignity to parliament itself that any such power should be asked for.


Ernest Lapointe: Contempt.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why should
members of parliament assemble here at all, unless it be amongst other things to exercise some control over the expenditure of public moneys? That is the fundamental basis of everything we hold dear in the way of responsible government. We cannot jettison the whole institution of responsible government just because the Prime Minister says it is going to be difficult for him to make up his mind what amount of money is needed.
My right hon. friend says there never was a problem as great as the problem with which Canada was faced last year. As I have pointed out, my right hon. friend has a way of saying, as well as doing, the extreme thing. Surely the problems with which this country was confronted during the period of the war-*


Richard Bedford Bennett: We never had 100,000
people hungry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend still holds the view that the problems confronting his government are greater than the problems which Sir Robert Borden had to contend with during the period of war. I can never entertain that view, nor do I think any hon. members on the other side will ever agree with their leader in that respect. But Sir Robert Borden never asked parliament to do what the Prime Minister at the present moment is asking parliament to do. Sir Robert Borden asked parliament to vote, year by year, what was needed to maintain the armies at the front and to meet all the expenditures

that were essential in connection with the war. He called a special session of parliament in order to obtain in a regular way the money that he required. He did not at that session ask that the House of Commons should give his cabinet power to pay out of the treasury what moneys they might consider necessary during the next few months or during the period of the war. He named the required amount. He was perfectly frank in saying: This amount may not be sufficient. It may be too large or it may not be large enough; but, if it is not large enough, I will bring parliament back, and I will obtain authority for further expenditures. Now, my right hon. friend has parliament in session. He does not need to summon parliament again to get an additional sum for the purposes for which he now requires this money. He has indicated this afternoon that something like, I think, $7,000,000 will be required for the purpose of loans. Well, let him ask for $7,000,000 for the purpose mentioned and we will vote it. If, between now and the first of May, he finds $7,000,000 will not be sufficient, let him come back and tell us it is not sufficient and say what additional sum he requires. But I submit he has no right, while we are assembled here, to ask for a blank cheque to do as he pleases by order in council.
But the act he desires us to reenact goes very much further than the voting of public money. Look for a moment at the act, the provisions of which we are being asked to renew at the present time. There are really three distinct measures in one in this enactment. I pointed that out last session when the government was asking us to pass it. There is a measure for unemployment relief. There is also a measure for farm relief, and a measure to confer on the government certain powers with respect to the "peace, order and good government of Canada." At the time, we took exception to these three distinct measures being passed as one. However, they were passed. But now, while parliament is in session, we are again being asked to give to the government three separate enactments in one for this period of time. I think my right hon. friend can hardly have considered the real significance of the action he is asking parliament at the moment to take.
With respect to the "peace, order and good government" clauses of this enactment, last session, I drew attention to the fact that the language was taken from legislation passed during the period of the war, that it was the language of the War Measures Act, which conferred very wide powers upon the government. But I drew attention to the further fact that the enactment, which originally conferred those wide powers on the government

Unemployment Continuance Act
of the day, made it very clear that those powers could only be exercised in case of actual war or invasion, or insurrection, real or apprehended, and that they could not be exercised at any other time or for any other reason. Last session my right hon. friend secured from parliament the right to exercise at will, during the time parliament was not in session, those powers which heretofore had never been exercised except during a period of war, insurrection and invasion. Now he comes to ask us to allow him to exercise them while parliament itself is in session. I say, Mr. Speaker, that we, as members of the House of Commons, responsible to the people of this country, cannot surrender every obligation that is imposed upon us to protect their rights. My right hon. friend read from Lord Haldane's judgment paragraph after paragraph which asserted that, even with respect to such a comparatively small matter as that of over. riding the jurisdiction of a province in certain particulars, it could not be done by the government except at a time of actual war or of an emergent situation that was so grave as to make it appear that war was already upon us. At the time I took down the words quoted by my right hon. friend from the judgment of Lord Haldane, and they were "a sufficiently great emergency such as that arising out of war." That was the only occasion mentioned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or famine.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Famine connected with war.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Famine need not necessarily be connected with war.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The words were "a sufficiently great emergency arising out of war."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or famine; the word
famine is there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon.
friend read two judgments; at any rate whether it was war or war-famine; both have to do with war or with situations arising out of war. I do submit, Mr. Speaker, even if it might 'be necessary for anry reason to give the government of the day power to deal with certain matters by order in council when parliament is not in session and when it might necessitate a delay of a month or more before action could be taken by parliament, there can be no excuse whatever for conferring that power upon the government while the representatives of the people surround the ministers of the crown in parliament assembled. So I say to my right hon. friend that we must strenuously oppose the legislation in the form in which he is seeking to introduce it.	*
May I briefly summarize our position, as I have endeavoured to state it. With the object which the government has in view, namely supplying public moneys for purposes of relief, we are in complete accord and agreement. We are ready to leave to the judgment of the ministry itself the amount it may need for the purpose of dealing with unemployment relief, the supplying of seed or the meeting of any other need which would come within the provisions of the legislation proposed. All that we ask is that the ministry bring in a supply bill indicating the amount they wish to have for the general purposes, and allow us to vote the required amounts in that form. We take exception to the course the ministry seeks to follow, first of all because it asks us to do something which is impossible. I am going to appeal to you if need be, Mr. Speaker, to give your ruling on that point: to decide whether or not the resolution which is before the house is one which this house can entertain, asking us as it does to amend a dead enactment. I say we cannot do it; we should not be asked to do it; and it is an indignity to be asked to do it. But, assuming that the government should get around that difficulty by introducing some other resolution which will revive this dead enactment, assuming they do so and then ask us to amend it, we will have to take exception to doing so for the reason I have mentioned-that it overrides the customary procedure and that there is no necessity therefor, since parliament is here assembled and at a moment's notice can, if what is suggested is right and proper, do anything the ministry wishes it to do.
My right hon. friend says he will lay on the table of the house the orders in council that are passed the day after they are passed. We want to know the contents of an order in council, not the day after it has been passed, but the day before it is passed, and the representatives of the people have a right to such knowledge. If my right hon. friend thinks it is necessary to have money for some particular purpose, let him come to this house and ask for supply for the required purpose and give us a chance to discuss the matter. If we approve of the measure proposed we will pass it, but we cannot surrender the right to control public expenditure, and we cannot pass over all the powers, the dignities, the rights, and the responsibilities of the House of Commons to an executive which wishes to place itself wholly beyond the control of this legislative body.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Geary):: Is the house ready for the question?

Unemployment Continuance Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I ask for a
ruling on the point I have raised, as to whether this House of Commons can entertain a resolution which asks for the amendment of a statute which does not exist.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it will be
within your memory that when I began my observations this afternoon I directed attention to the fact that the resolution bears the date of February 26. At that time it was a proper motion; the statute did not expire until March 1, but as an amendment is not competent until after you, sir, have left the chair, the motion being that you do now leave the chair, the amendment could not be made until the house went into committee on the resolution. That is the position.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Even if
Mr. Speaker did leave the chair would an amendment then proposed to a defunct statute have any force?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that. I
said it would be necessary to amend the resolution to make it conform to what is the principle, namely, to extend the provisions of the statute until May 1. Inasmuch as the statute has now expired, different words will have to be employed than would have been used prior to the first of March.


Mr. BOURASSA:: You will revive the
statute?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


Ernest Lapointe: May I direct attention
to the fact that a resolution such as this has to be submitted to His Excellency the Governor General for his approval. I do not see how it can be amended after that, unless there is a new resolution submitted to His Excellency.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The rule is this, that if
there is no departure from the principle it does not require resubmission. If, on the other hand, the principle of the measure is different, then it cannot be so amended. Inasmuch as this is subsequent to the date of expiration it follows that the language will be different, but the principle is that the provisions of that statute will continue to be operative until the first day of May.


Ernest Lapointe: But the date is the very essence of this resolution.


James Layton Ralston: I want to make another
point in connection with this point of order, and it is this: My right hon. friend suggests

that because this resolution was on the order paper on February 26, before the statute actually expired, therefore it would be effective to extend the old statute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I said just the
opposite.


James Layton Ralston: I thought that for the
last two or three days my right hon. friend has been suggesting that he is trying now to extend this statute rather than to revive it. I want to point out to him that after this resolution is passed it will be only the foundation for a statute which will have to be passed subsequently and assented to by His Excellency the Governor General. After it is assented to, it will have effect only from the date of assent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Unless it is retroactive.


James Layton Ralston: That is my point. If it
is made retroactive it will cover a greater expenditure than is covered by the resolution now before the house, because the present resolution only covers expenditures from the date of assent to May 1.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no.


James Layton Ralston: I submit to my right hon. friend that that is the situation. This resolution does not purport to be retroactive; it only purports to clear the way for a bill which will come into effect on a subsequent date, after being assented to by His Excellency, and that bill will provide for expenditures from the date of assent to the first of May. I say if my right hon. friend wants to make the bill retroactive he will require a new resolution, because this resolution is not wide enough to cover it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just putting monkey
glands in a corpse.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, Mr. Speaker; a point of order has been raised. Your honour was asked to decide whether or not this House of Commons can entertain the resolution which is before the house at the moment and which states that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend a certain statute. That statute does not exist. The point which is being respectfully taken by the opposition at the moment is that chapter 58, which this resolution seeks to amend, does not exist, having expired on the first of March; therefore as the matter now stands this House of Commons could not amend it if it wished to, because it cannot amend something that does not exist. My

Unemployment Continuance Act
right hon. friend, speaking a moment ago, said that a notice was put on the order paper a few days ago-February 26, to be exact. That was a notice of motion for leave to introduce a measure; but this House of Commons never gave its consent, during the period of time the act was in existence, for the introduction of such a measure. I am quite prepared to concede that if, before the expiration of the act, this house had given leave to introduce the measure, the mere fact that we had not been able to complete all the stages of the bill before the time named for the expiration of the existing statute had elapsed would not be a reason why the proposed measure should not continue to be considered. But I do submit that when the House of Commons itself did not give any leave to introduce a measure of the kind, and in fact has not yet given leave, because the measure has never been before us, we cannot be asked at the present time to amend something that does not exist. That, in a word, is the position. No leave has been given to introduce the proposed bill; no leave has been requested to introduce it until to-day, which is eight days after the act which it is proposed to amend has expired. In the circumstances, we submit that the ministry cannot or should not be permitted to proceed with the measure.


Mr. RHODES:: May I say one word on the point of order. I think we are all agreed upon this point: that when this notice of resolution was placed on the order paper, and was in order, if it had been moved at any time prior to the first of March it would have been perfectly competent for us to proceed with it and the objection which my right hon. friend and those who agree with him have raised could not have been raised. But, I submit, the point is this: that the principle underlying this resolution was that there should be made available after the first of March the provisions of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act; and when this notice was given it was a question of continuing the act. I am at one with my hon. friend when he says that you cannot amend an act now out of existence, but that is a mere question of verbiage, for an amendment could properly be made to this resolution in committee, confirming the principle underlying the resolution when original^ placed on the order paper. I submit that the message of His Excellency covers that very point, and it seems to me it brings the question of order down to a very narrow compass. It is as to whether it is competent for us now in committee to amend the resolution to give
effect to the principle which was contained in the resolution when it was originally placed on the order paper, a change in verbiage being necessary by reason of the fact that we have passed the first of March when .the old act expired. I submit under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite competent that the motion that you do now leave the chair be put, and that an amendment in accordance with the suggestion made by the Prime Minister can properly be made in committee of the whole, where alone it can be made.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) obviously concedes that the resolution as it is is out of order-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


Ernest Lapointe: -because he suggests
that it should be amended and be drawn up in proper form when it goes to the committee. The Prime Minister also said that. May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the resolution is out of order it cannot go to committee; it must be ruled out of order. Moreover-I repeat this because your honour was not in the chair at the time-a resolution such as this has to be submitted to the Governor General and approved by him, and it cannot be changed unless it is submitted to His Excellency and a new resolution is brought to the house. The Prime Minister says, "Yes, if it is another principle." But it is another principle under the circumstances, because the very essence of this resolution itself is the date mentioned therein. I submit that if it is out of order at the present time it cannot go to the committee.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: On the point of order I
must take exception to the statement made by my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), who says that I made the statement that this resolution was out of order. I did nothing of the kind.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Inferentially.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I argued that it was quite in order. That was my whole argument, and unless I fail to understand the English language I thought I had made that abundantly clear, from my point of view at least. The whole point of the resolution is as to whether the principle is being preserved. It is a question of verbiage and nothing else, involving an amendment which could be called for in committee arising out of circumstances which did not exist at the time when the notice of the resolution was placed on the order paper.
320	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act


James Layton Ralston: I want to take issue with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) with regard to what he suggests is the principle of the resolution. This resolution is presented to the house on the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General, from whom, on the advice of the ministry, all recommendations for money bills come; and a request has come from the crown that we should amend an act which was passed last session by striking out the word "March" and substituting therefor the word "May." Obviously that amendment will be effective only from the date His Excellency approves of the bill which is passed, founded on that resolution, and therefore the principle of the resolution which is now before the house is that His Excellency desires and recommends, through his ministry, that this house shall vote such moneys as the government may see fit to authorize by order in council after the date of the passage of the bill founded on the resolution. I am pointing out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my hon. friend, that if it is suggested, as the Prime Minister does suggest, that as soon as this bill is in committee we are going to make it retroactive and have it cover sums of money from the first of March up to the date of the passage of the bill, then that is a different principle from the one which has already been recommended and submitted to the house on the recommendation of His Excellency. In other words, as a consequence of the bill being made retroactive, a very much larger sum may be voted. When you are speaking of the principle of a money bill you are speaking of the extent of the money to be voted as well as of the purpose which it is to be applied. I submit, therefore, that the resolution is out of order if, as both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance suggest, it contemplates being made retroactive from the first of March.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I point out, in answer to my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), who asserts that in the message from His Excellency all that was asked was that the word "May" should be substituted for the word "March," my hon. friend has misapprehended the entire purport and reason for a message at all. It is that His Excellency approves of the expenditure provided under a money bill. The question of May or March is a mere question of verbiage and detail.


James Layton Ralston: It has an effect on the
amount of money.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is trying to argue that you cannot spend as much money in seven weeks as in eight. I may say to him that I could spend as much in one day as in two months. There is no force whatever in that argument. My hon. friend is trying to turn his argument in two directions. In the first place, he says that His Excellency agreed to the word "May" being substituted for the word "March," and that the act shall be extended for a period of two months. In the second place, he takes the ground that if this resolution is amended it will mean that there will be a week with respect to which the measure will have to be made retroactive, thus covering the very ground agreed to by His Excellency in the first instance. My hon. friend argues that a further message will have to be sent to His Excellency to ask that he agree to the first week in March being covered. I submit my hon. friend is arguing against himself : he should withdraw either the first or the second portion of his argument, because taken together they are not tenable. The sole question before the house at the moment is whether your honour shall or shall not leave the chair-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: -for the purpose of the
house going into committee to consider a certain resolution.


Ernest Lapointe: That is out of order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The question of the legality of the resolution can be determined in committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I assume that when this resolution was submitted to His Excellency there was then in existence chapter 58 of the statutes of last year, and I assume that on the advice of either the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) His Excellency was apprised of the exact section of this resolution which was to amend an existing statute of Canada involving the expenditure of money. I think the house is entitled to know whether or not His Excellency has been apprised that this House of Commons is to be asked to approve a resolution to amend a statute which has expired since the approval of His Excellency was first obtained.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think the Minister of Finance is as dull as he would have us believe. I did not suggest in any way,

Unemployment Continuance Act
shape or form that His Excellency had ever approved or recommended to this house a resolution which would be the basis of a bill to support the spending of money from March 1 to May 1. What I did say-and I repeat it-was that all His Excellency has agreed to is a resolution to cover the expenditure of money only after a bill founded on the resolution becomes law and has received the approval of His Excellency.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The Minister of Finance
(Mr. Rhodes) has anticipated my ruling, the only ruling possible in the matter, as I see it. The motion now before the house is that the Speaker do now leave the chair-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: For a specific
purpose.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: -for a specific purpose.
When the house has gone into committee and undertakes that specific purpose is the proper time to raise the question as to whether or not this resolution is in order. I refer the house to standing order 60 which reads:
If any motion be made in the house for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint;-
That has been done.
-and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote do pass thereupon.
It is not in order to now pass upon the terms of the resolution which it is proposed to discuss in committee. All that can be done by the house is to go into committee of the whole to consider the resolution as read, at which time it may do anything it pleases. In my opinion the time has not arisen to decide whether or not the proposed resolution is in order; the only motion before the house is that the Speaker do leave the chair, and that motion is in order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If your
honour's view is that the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair for the house to consider something which is not within the jurisdiction of parliament is in order, then I must take exception to your honour's ruling and appeal therefrom. I regret to have to do this.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Bennett, seconded by Mr. Rhodes, having- moved that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor.
A point of order has been raised by Mr. Mackenzie King that the resolution is out of order. The Speaker having decided that the only motion before the house is that the Speaker do now leave the chair, which is in order, and Mr. Mackenzie King having appealed from said decision, the question now is: Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?


Mr. SHORT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). Had I voted, I would have voted that the Speaker's ruling be sustained.


Mr. STINSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Bruce (Mr. Hall). Had I voted I would have voted that the Speaker's ruling be sustained.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Cayley). Had I voted I would have voted that the Speaker's ruling be sustained.


Peter John Veniot: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted that the Speaker's ruling be not sustained.


Mr. MacLEAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones). Had I voted I would have voted that the Speaker's lulling be not sustained.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). Had I voted I would have voted that the Speaker's ruling be sustained.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted I would have voted that the Speaker's ruling be not sustained.


Mr. DUPUIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. McDade). Had I voted I would have voted that the Speaker's ruling be not sustained.


Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Bell). Had I voted- I would have voted that the Speaker's ruling be not sustained.


Mr. FERLAND (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dupre). Had I voted I would have voted that the Speaker's ruling be not sustained.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette). Had I voted I would have voted that the Speaker's ruling be not sustained.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Unemployment Continuance Act
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, in the debate on this resolution I submit to hon. members that everything in connection with the whole history of unemployment and farm relief is open for discussion. I think hon. members will find in the resolution now before us, innocent looking though it is, more objectionable features than Were to be found in the monstrosity of last session which passed under the caption of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act.
In effect, the suggestion now is made that we should reenact the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act as from the date the bill to be founded on the proposed resolution becomes law, namely when it receives the assent of His Excellency the Governor General. Hon. members will have to consider whether, after the experience they have had in the last year, they are content in effect to put upon the statute books of the session of 1932 an act in the terms of the unemployment and farm relief act of last year but expiring on the first of May next.
In the year 1930 the need, as it was represented throughout the country, was for relief and adequate measures to deal with and to remedy unemployment. Everywhere on the hustings and at various meetings addressed by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) promises were made that unemployment would be ended. No suggestion was given at that time that there could be any doubt about it; no qualifications were attached ini any way. The statement was made that unemployment would cease and that work would be available for all who were willing to work.
When at the special session of 1930, however we came to consider the medium through which this relief was to be accomplished, we were met with a proposal, not carefully considered and capable of meeting the situation having regard to the various avocations to be considered, but comprised in a bare, bald provision to the effect that there should be contributed out of the consolidated revenue of Canada the sum of $20,000,000 for unemployment relief. Owing to the fact that the present Prime Minister wanted to go immediately to attend meetings of the Imperial economic conference, parliament passed the measure. At the same time amendments were made to the tariff changing not only the schedules but giving to the governor in council many of the powers of parliament with regard to the valuation of goods for duty purposes.
Winter passed; unemployment was not relieved, but became greater than before; so
that in the session of 1931 we were met with a proposal that measures for unemployment relief should be given a new lease of life, and that the bill which the government is now attempting to resurrect, and which was to enable the Prime Minister to carry out his pledges, should be passed. That bill was passed-a bill giving to hon. members occupying the treasury benches all the powers of parliament, so far as the exercise of legislative and administrative jurisdiction was concerned, and containing no limit as to the amount which might be spent. In other words, the powers of parliament and the unlimited resources of the treasury of Canada were taken into the hands and keeping of the cabinet. During the .past year that act has been in operation. One might have expected that during that time the government would have gained sufficient experience to enable it at this time to come before the country and make a proposal which would deal in a businesslike way, with our unemployment situation. Instead of that however we have before us what at first sight would appear to be an innocent resolution, an innocent amendment, reminding one of the old game we used to play at school, but instead of rubbing out "x" and putting in "o" we are now rubbing out "March" and putting in "May". The purpose of the bill is to vest in the members of the government of Canada until the first of May those wide powers to which I have referred. One might have imagined the government would have realized that a large number of people in Canada have only the commodity of labour for sale, and that in some way or other, with its vast powers and the ability it is supposed to possess, the government would have made it possible for those labouring men to dispose of that commodity in exchange for wages.
When the right hon. gentleman was sitting on this side of the house I have heard him make statements constituting not a suggestion of policy, nothing definite as to what he would do, but consisting for the most part of this phrase repeated over and over again: "Statemanship is not so barren but what a solution can be found for any problem which presents itself." At other times when my right hon. friend was asked what his policy was he has quoted those words of Gladstone of which he seems to be so fond.: "When I am called in I will prescribe." He has been called in. An opportunity has been given to him to prepare the prescription. In this year of grace 1932, after sixteen months trial of makeshift legislation, at a time when the life of a bill is about to expire, there is put on the order paper of this house a suggestion

Unemployment Continuance Act
that such bill be renewed for a period of two months. What does it mean? The meaning is that my hon, friends opposite have not been able to work out a solution for the problem; it is a confession of defeat and an admission that they do not know what to do. Like Micawber they hoped that something would turn up, that times would get better and that unemployment might decrease. But conditions did not inprove; from day to day they became worse, and finally one day in council meeting someone said: "The Unemployment and Farm Relief Act is running out; what will we do about unemployment?"-and the casual answer was "Oh, well, let us extend the old act for a couple of months." That is the policy which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and his cabinet bring before the country at this time. After the promises which have been made, after the undertakings which have been given, after the support which has been received, after having had a comfortable majority on that side of the house in order to work their will and do whatever they wish, yes, and with the whole power of parliament in their hands, they have to confess: The best we can do is to renew the note for a couple of months in the hope that something will turn up.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: And they are late
at that.


James Layton Ralston: And as my hon. friend
remarks, before the renewal comes the note is overdue. One would have thought that when this session was called early in February, and the figures showed that unemployment was even worse than it had been-I am sorry to say-when that situation appeared one would have thought that the very first piece of legislation to be put on the order paper by the government would be something in connection with unemployment. What do we find? The Juvenile Delinquents Act has to be amended and that is trotted out, the Destructive Insect and Pest Act has to be passed through all its stages, and investigations have to be launched about this, that and the other thing because somebody happened to make faces at somebody else; all these things are dealt with, but no action is taken with respect to the vital question of unemployment until February 26, three days before the act ran out-at that they had to count on leap year, and then this resolution is put on the order paper. Its purpose, as I said before, is simply to scratch out "March" and put in "May." Possibly by that time parliament may be prorogued. But that is the way the unemployment problem has been

dealt with by the government. Some member of 'the government woke up to the fact that they were pretty nearly at the end of the month and made the bright and original suggestion:	We will run the act along until
the first of May.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the act itself, because having had this experience the government knows what that legislation has enabled them to accomplish. Judged by the test of experience I submit that the legislation has proved to be pitiably inadequate and futile as a practical measure to relieve unemployment. I submit further that the cost has been extravagant and the expenditure wasteful. I submit; thirdly, that, due to lack of proper supervision, in many cases the relief has not reached those for whom it was intended.
Let me deal first with the results accomplished in the way of providing practical employment. The only statement we have is that which was made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) on February 23rd in connection with the debate on the amendment by the ex-Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) to a motion that your honour leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply. This afternoon the Prime Minister in proposing the resolution gave us a comprehensive and lucid statement, as it was quite properly characterized by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), with regard to the operation of the act. But after all this was only a general outline, and even yet we have not been advised what the government knows with regard to the actual experience and the details of its administration. The only information given to us is to be found in the figures which were furnished by the Minister of Labour a couple of weeks ago in which he told the house that there was spent in 1930 870,472,832, of which the federal government's share was 817,372,848; and that in 1931 the aggregate expenditure was 876,426,387, of which the federal authorities spent 832,822,847.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to correct the hon. gentleman-not spent; authorized.


James Layton Ralston: I .thank my right hon. friend for the correction. The country, then, has been- committed to an expenditure of $146,899,219; that is the total of federal, provincial and1 municipal expenditures, as I understand it, less 850,195,695, which has been spent or undertaken to be spent by the federal government, leaving a balance of $96,703,524 for expenditures undertaken by the provinces. So that in round figures the federal government has spent, or committed itself to an ex-

Unemployment Continuance Act
penditure of $50,000,000; the provincial and municipal authorities, $100,000,000. Here is where my difficulty comes in. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister says that there are commitments for some of this; some has not been spent-how much I do not know. Can my right hon. friend give me any information with respect to the amount expended?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not half has yet been expended; if that is what the hon. gentleman means.


James Layton Ralston: Not half of the federal commitment-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has been spent.


James Layton Ralston: Has the labour been performed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not entirely. The position is this: at the end of the year the provinces took an inventory of the situation with the municipalities to see what works might not be continued; and in the light of the knowledge which is now before the government one half probably of the $32,000,000 has not yet been expended.


James Layton Ralston: I find it very difficult to deal with the matter, Mr. Speaker. I shall have to deal with it on the figures furnished by the Minister of Labour and as they appear in the Labour Gazette; then my right hon. friend and his colleagues can point out any inaccuracies in my calculations. I think the Minister of Labour did say the amount had been spent, and I take it the labour had been performed, but possibly cheques had not been issued. The difficulty is to find what was spent and what employment was provided. If you look at the Labour Gazette of September 31, you will find that up to August 31, 1931, there had been 327,990 men employed doing 7,228.744 so-called man-days' work. According to the statement made by the Minister of Labour the other day from August 31, 1931, up to January 31,	1932, there were
334,301 men employed for 7,415,973 man-days. That means that for that first period every man worked an average of 22 1/20 days -dividing the number of men into the number of man-days; and for the latter period, up to January 31, 1932, there were provided 22} days for each man, or a little over 44 days' work per man during the combined periods. Therefore as a result of this unemployment relief measure, during the period from October 1, 1930, to January 31, 1931, roughly four hundred working days, there has been supplied only three days' work out of a month to the men who have been given employment. Am I not correct in saying that the act has proved
to be pitiably inadequate to provide employment for the great number of men who are out of work? I think any measure which could not provide more than three days' work a month for the number of men who apparently are idle is a measure which has not succeeded to a very great degree in satisfying the undertakings which were made by the Prime Minister at the time of the election.
That is the result as far as the provision of employment is concerned. It means that work was provided for ten per cent of the time for six per cent of the population of Canada by this measure which was to provide work for all who were willing to work-work and not doles-and which was to end unemployment. Now let us look at the cost, and here is where I find some difficulty, because my right hon. friend the Prime Minister says it is not all expended as yet. However, taking the amounts as given by the Minister of Labour the other day, I find that there was spent or committed for some $146,899,219 by federal, provincial and municipal governments.


Mr. STEVENS:: And railways.


James Layton Ralston: Did the Minister of Labour say anything about railways?


Robert James Manion: I did not speak at all.


James Layton Ralston: No; my friend the Minister of Labour was the one who gave the figures, and I did not hear him say anything about railways. As I say, there was spent some $146,899,219. To employ all those men at 83 per day for the 14,000,000 odd man-days- that is, combining the two groups of man-days of about 7,000,000 each, you would have spent something like $44,000,000 instead of $146,000,000. Someone may say the difference is made up by the cost of materials. It is a pretty large percentage for materials-that is, if you assume that $100,000,000 out of the $146,000,000 was spent on materials. Possibly it may not have been spent, as my right hon. friend says; we only have the statement made by the Minister of Labour, but this fact remains, that to pay those men $3 a day for every day they worked would have cost $44,000,000; and the next fact is that according to the Minister of Labour we have committed ourselves to spend, or have spent, some $146,000,000, or three times the amount spent for labour. Possibly much of that went for materials, but does anyone say that those who produced the materials are necessarily those for whom employment should be provided? This money was a special vote for the purpose of providing employment for

Unemployment Continuance Act
those specially in need, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it has got a long way beyond that when we have spent $100,000,000 more than would actually be necessary to pay the men for every day worked under this scheme.
Now, with regard to the effect, the other day my right hon. leader quoted figures to show that there is a decreasing line of index figures of employment in practically every vocation; that we are without rejuvenation of industry, notwithstanding the tariff; that we are far from being back to the days of 1927 or 1928, or even 1926 as far as employment is concerned. I could give, Mr. Speaker, many figures which are published in the statement of the Bureau of Statistics, but I will content myself with placing on Hansard just one series of figures which appear in the February statement, just issued. I refer to the index numbers of employment by economic areas, and I will give the figures for five dates, January 1, 1930, January 1, 1931, February 1,
1931,	January 1, 1932, and February 1, 1932. For the whole of Canada the employment figure on January 1, 1930, was 111-2; on January 1, 1931, it had gone down 10 points, and was 101-7; on February 1, 1931, it had gone down another point and was 100-7; on January 1, 1932, it was 91-6, and on February 1,
1932,	it was 89-7, which does not show much success in providing employment as far as industry is concerned. Someone may ask what figures I can give with regard to employment generally, with regard to the labouring classes. I have inquired, but I am unable to find any survey made by this government since last September which would give us any idea of how many unemployed there are in this country at this time. There was an estimate made of something like 330,000, I think, in September last, but from that time on we have had no information whatever and no one can tell. But I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if anyone needs to have statistics quoted to show that there is unemployment in this country at the present time. All you have to do is ask the federated charities; ask the Red Cross; ask the relief societies; ask the citizens' committees; go out on the street, and you will know whether unemployment has been lessened or whether it has been even improved as a result of the legislation we are asked to renew.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the scheme has failed as far as providing work for any great number of men over any sustained period is concerned; it has failed as far as cost is concerned; it has failed because the figures of employment have gone down instead of increasing; it has failed to show any improve-
ment in the unemployment situation, and lastly the scheme has failed also in that in a great many cases it has not reached the people for whom it was intended. To-night I do not propose to go into a number of individual cases, but I want to make a statement with regard to some cases which have come to my notice and which have been brought to my attention, in order to indicate at least in some instances what has happened with regard to this money. Cases have been brought to my attention in which men with bank accounts were given employment; men in good circumstances have been given work in connection with unemployment relief. One case brought to my attention was that of a man so well off that he was able to loan money to the school section. Work has been given single men with no responsibilities whatever. Men of this kind have been taken on in connection with unemployment relief work in the section of the country which I happen to represent, and they have kept out of work sons of widowed mothers who were the only support of the family; returned soldiers in need; men with large families of from five to nine children who had to get help from their neighbours. These have not been allowed to work, while men of the class to which I have referred have been taken on these jobs supposed to have been provided for those most in need.
I am not suggesting that this has been universal; I certainly hope it has not, but I am saying that it has resulted from the lack of supervision which I brought to the attention of the former Minister of Labour myself. I came to Ottawa to see his officers in an endeavour to have these things run in such a way that those who needed work should have it, but I am sorry to say that at least in a number of instances that idea has not been carried out. I think the right hon. Prime Minister perhaps has not grasped the situation when he speaks in generalities and says that by and large the thing has been well done. The individual we have been trying to reach is the man hard up, the man down and out, the man who is destitute, the man whose family is in need. It does not do him any good to say that a large part of the money has been well spent, or something like that. The thing is that he has been left off the job; his family are in want and have to be helped by neighbours, while others in good circumstances are taken on.
That situation could be cured only in one wayr. It could not be cured with people staying here in Ottawa and issuing orders. It could not be cured by passing orders in council; one such order in council was passed.

Unemployment Continuance Act
The only way to cure it is to evolve a system whereby the work in the community will be dealt out and apportioned by some independent body like the Red Cross, the overseers of the poor, a citizens' committee or something of the kind which knows conditions in that locality and is able to say, "This man is in a more needy position than the other man and we do not care anything about the man's race, colour, politics or religion. Unfortunately that has not been done; all the orders in council that were issued from Ottawa, and all the supervision that was attempted to be carried on from here did not help one little bit to get that man who needed work a position, so long as the actual dealing out of the work, the apportioning of the work, was left to the local patronage committee in the particular neighbourhood where the work was going on.
Now that is what has taken place; that is the complaint I have with regard to even the number of men mentioned here who are supposed to have got work. There were a good many of them who were in a very much better position financially than many of their neighbours who were refused work because of political partisanship on the part of those who actually had charge or took charge of selecting those who were to be taken on. And it could not be otherwise so long as you had, in a great many cases, men who needed work kept standing outside a Conservative government committee room, waiting to hear whether or not their names were going to be put on the pay-roll in connection with the job. So long as that was the situation you could not have a fair distribution of the work. In many cases this was not done, but in many cases it was done; and I say, regardless of the fact that hon. gentlemen who occupy the government benches may have had the best intentions, the result has been that in many instances the work has failed to go to those for whom it was intended.
I brought to the notice of the Minister of Labour some of these very matters and asked him to investigate it; I asked him whether he would not appoint someone altogether outside the realm of political patronage. In connection with an ordinary public work, if the friends of those in power happen to be put on the job, very well; I am not making any complaint. But when money is voted for people who are unemployed and destitute, and an order in council is passed providing that the money shall be given to those who need it, the government cannot go too far in seeing to it that that intention and that
spirit is carried out and that those should be given jobs who are in need of work.
What is suggested to be done here is that this act which has not worked out in practice, shall be resuscitated, resurrected and once more put into force. My right hon. leader has shown more clearly than I can why this piece of legislation should be rejected at this time and why the suggestion which he has made should be accepted with regard to assisting those in want. Last year we protested and warned our friends that this was not the sort of legislation to pass in the year 1932. We pointed out that there was no need of taking the powers contained in this act. Well I remember the night the Solicitor General, a member of this government, dared us to vote against the bill. He intimated that if we voted against it it would be said that we were taking the bread out of the mouths of women and children, and he dared us to oppose the bill. We did not vote against the bill but we protested as strongly as we could and told him that notwithstanding the fact that it was against our ideas of responsible government we would vote for it in order to see that the object at which it aimed would be accomplished. That evidently has been taken as a sign of weakness. As my right hon. leader suggested this afternoon, the government should not ask us to do it again. An offer has been made whereby money will be provided without stint to take care of the present situation, and I submit that the Prime Minister and his government should seriously consider that offer. What is the situation? It is proposed now that we shall pass an act vesting all the powers of the federal parliament, as to peace, order and good government in Canada, in hon. gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches, and that, forsooth, while we are sitting in this House of Commons, sent here supposedly by the people to represent them under the constitutional prerogative which is theirs, while we are actually sitting here our friends on the treasury benches may be over in the east block passing an order in council to send an expeditionary force to China under the provisions of that act. While we were actually assembled that might be done. An hon. member suggests that this is preposterous. It may be preposterous; nevertheless that is the exact position. And what is more-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
doesn't mean that, of course.


James Layton Ralston: I do.
928	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does he know nothing
about the Militia Act and the calling together of parliament? '


James Layton Ralston: I know about the Militia Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then why make that
statement?


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will
read the Militia Act he will see that it provides that parliament shall be called together. But parliament is here already, and the Prime Minister and his government can, if they see fit, send an expeditionary force such as I suggest. They can do more than that. Under the rules as to peace, order and good government they could if they so desired-I know they would not do it, but this serves to indicate how preposterous this legislation is- pass a regulation to the effect that any of us who did not bow and take off our hats as we passed them should be guilty of an offence against the peace, order and good government of Canada and liable to a fine of a thousand dollars or imprisonment for three years. It is done in Italy, as my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) says. I suggest this merely to show how preposterous it is to think of our vesting in hon. gentlemen opposite all the powers we are supposed to exercise when we represent here the people of the country. But my right hon. friend will say, "Hold on. What we will do is to bring in the order in council which we have passed in the morning and lay it on the table of the house in the afternoon and tell you we have done it." What good will that do? Suppose they make a treaty; well, it has already been done, and they are merely locking the stable after the horse is stolen. My right hon. friend knows that in England they have passed the Abnormal Imports Bill, giving the government power to make certain regulations with regard to certain imports; and they have been so careful about it that the government is required to lay the order in council on the table of the house and if it is not ratified within twenty-eight days it ceases to be law. The Prime Minister does not even offer us that sop in connection with this legislation. He proposes to be able to pass orders in council and will merely lay it on the table and tell us it has been done. That is not constitutional government, and there is nothing at this time that requires the passage of any such legislation.
A good deal has been said about the blank cheque. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I only want to refer to a rule with which you are

more familiar than the rest of us. We are asked to pass a bill giving to our friends unlimited power to vote unlimited amounts of money. Here is the rule which governs us in matters of this sort-standing order 61:
All aids and supplies granted to His Majesty by the parliament of Canada, are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the house, as it is the undoubted right of the bouse to direct, limit, and appoint m all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
That is the power we want to exercise, to direct and limit, to prescribe limitations and qualifications of the grant. But my hon. friends opposite propose that we shall give up that right entirely and hand it over to them, even though we may happen to be in session at the time.
The Prime Minister regaled us this afternoon with a few decisions of the privy council with respect to constitutional matters. I am not going to deal with them now, but with all due deference to him I do not think they had a great deal to do with the discussion in connection with this bill. They did indicate that the War Measures Act had been held to be intra vires of this parliament. No one is suggesting that this act is not intra vires in the wide terms in which it is framed. My right hon. friend read a passage to the effect that the government had some discretion in deciding whether the time of emergency had actually come. But let me read to him a decision with regard to the rights of the House of Commons and the limitations upon the executive with respect both to the taxation of the people and the expenditure of the people's money. This was a case that occurred in England during the war, and it came under the Defence of the Realm Act. A regulation had been made whereby the food controller could regulate the sale and distribution of *milk. The food controller had imposed upon one particular individual a tax of two pence per gallon in connection with the distribution of milk in a certain area, and the individual had agreed to pay. Upon being advised afterwards that it was unconstitutional and ultra vires the individual refused to live up to his agreement and the result, in short, was that the crown failed to recover. Why? Because if an act does not in the most express terms give away to the executive the powers of parliament, those powers shall be held not to have been surrendered. The following is a passage from the judgment of Lord Atkin:
No power to make a charge upon the subject for the use of the crown could arise except by

Unemployment Continuance Act
virtue of the prerogative or by statute, and the alleged right under the prerogative was disposed of finally by the Bill of Rights. It may be convenient at this stage to remind ourselves of this statute, an act for declaring the rights and liberties of the subject.
I ask my right hon. friend to listen to this of course there is no personal- implication intended. The judgment continues:
After reciting that the late king, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges, and ministers, employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate . . . the laws and liberties of this kingdom ... by levying money for and to the use of the crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by parliament . . . all of which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm, the lords and commons declare that levying money for or to the use of the crown is illegal; and pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the above declaration are the true ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom and shall be strictly holden and observed . . . and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all times to come, all of which their Majesties are contented and. pleased shall be declared and enacted and established by authority of this present parliament and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm for ever, and the same are by their said Majesties by and with the advice and consent, &c., declared, enacted and established accordingly. Though the attention of our ancestors wras directed especially to abuses of the prerogative, there can be no doubt that this statute declares the law that no money shall be levied for or to the use of the crown except by grant of parliament. We know how strictly parliament has maintained this right- and, in particular, how jealously the House of Commons has asserted its predominance in the power of raising money. An elaborate custom of parliament has prevailed by which money for the service of the crown is only granted at the request of the crown made by a responsible minister and assented to by a resolution of the house in committee. By constitutional usage no money proposal can be altered by the second chamber, whose powers are confined to acceptance or rejection.
and note this Mr. Speaker,
"Similar elaborate checks exist in respect to authority for expenditure of the public revenue, both in respect to obtaining the statutory authority to expend money and to obtain the executive acts necessary to place the money at the disposal of the spending authority."
And there he goes on to speak of "the historic struggle of the legislature to secure for itself the sole power to levy money on the subject, its complete suocess in that struggle" and "the elaborate means adopted by the representative house to control the amount and the conditions and purposes of the levy." That is the principle which I invoke here. I submit that this decision goes the full length 41761-59
of intimating how far parliament may insist on its ancient rights to regulate, to limit and to qualify grants of money. I say that the bill proposed to be introduced will be in direct contravention of the principles laid down in this -case and which have governed our responsible institutions for hundreds of years.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part to-night in this debate may I say that I do not think there has been a question before this house for years which included in its make-up so many angles which any Liberal would like to discuss. In discussing this question of the administration during the past year of unemployment and farm relief, may I touch upon a point or two raised this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). He made the statement that there must be a clear line of demarcation between dominion and provincial jurisdiction, and went on to argue that apart from the promises made in 1930 the policy of the government since coming into office has been to deal with this unemployment problem and this relief question largely in a municipal and provincial manner. It is true the federal government has taken action but that action has been anything but purely national action and, therefore, the promises and pledges given to the people in the elections have not been adhered to. I am at a loss to know just where the Prime Minister stands on the question of jurisdiction, provincially or nationally, because he has made more than one pronouncement in this house which has left considerable doubt. Sometimes he stands for the supremacy of the provinces, sometimes he stands for the supremacy of the dominion, and at other times he throws the one-into the other and tells us that the both combined can do practically anything as far as the public funds of -the -country are concerned.
Apart from the constitutional question, there is a moral obligation devolving upon the Prime Minister and his government, but that fact was by no means emphasized this afternoon strongly enough. The Prime Minister dealt with the taking of notes from those granted relief; he argued that these notes were taken so that the relief need not be considered as charity. The danger is that these notes will constitute a political hold upon the individual during elections, and this is a danger to democracy and to the wise expenditure of public funds. I am opposed to that principle and I do not believe the government will gain one cent by the taking of these notes from the destitute farmers in western Canada.



Unemployment Continuance Act
These men, once they understand the situation, will do their best to repay the government if they ever should have money, and I believe that they would pay the government more willingly without a note than they will with one. Much of this money will never be repaid, so why have notes signed? That is a question which will have to be explained so that destitute western farmers from whom these notes have been peremptorily demanded will know exactly the reason why they have had to give them.
This afternoon the Prime Minister admitted that in asking for approval of this resolution upon which a bill will be 'based he was asking for authority outside of the ordinary authority constituted in any Canadian parliament. That is an important admission. It is so important that it brings before us the whole development of responsible government in this country. I am one of those who say that apart from the development of constitutional government in this dominion, there is not much else nationally worth while. If we throw to the winds the results of the fight our forefathers made to win the rights of responsible and representative government in Canada, we have not much left. In 1840, when we were handed a constitution, and when the right of responsible government was won in this country, we thought we had passed forever any days like those through which we are now passing; we thought the question of responsible government was settled for good, although in 1843 it was taken away and then restored in 1849. But from 1849 on we did not think the head of any government, Liberal or Conservative, or whatever the party-in power might be, would ever, at least in our national legislature, dare infringe upon parliamentary usages and powers as was done last year and as is being done now.
Therefore I say that it devolves upon us on this side of the house to oppose any move for any authority that we do not think is necessary, any move to take away from parliament any sovereign authority it possesses, any move to take away from the members who are here their rights under the constitution, because those rights have been guaranteed and have been handed down to us from generation to generation. Consequently, although we on this side of the house are prepared to vote without any delay or procrastination, any amount of money that is absolutely required for seed and feed, yet, if the Prime Minister of the day will not so arrange his legislation that the idea of giving the executive too much authority is eliminated, nothing is left for us to do but to oppose such unwarranted autocracy and to oppose it to the bitter end.

In speaking on the question of unemployment, I think it might be well to get a historic perspective of unemployment conditions in Canada during the last few decades. Prior to 1896, after the Conservatives had been in power, almost eighteen years from 1878, what were the conditions in this country? We know commerce was at a low ebb; we know that industry was practically strangled; we know that deficit after deficit was shown by the government of the day every time the house would meet, and we know that the great west was not even opened up under the high tariff of the past. We know Canada was discouraged and by 1896 the 'business of the country was almost at a standstill. Then the people of Canada took it into their hands to deal with the question of unemployment, to deal with a tariff machine the working of which had baffled the Conservatives, and questions that the powers of the day could not successfully face themselves. At that time the people of Canada defeated the government that was then in power and put a Liberal government in its place. What was the result? For the next number of years unemployment disappeared; there was no unemployment from 1896 to 1911. There was progress all along the line, industrially and commercially, and Canada developed and progressed as never before.
Then in 1913, under a Conservative government again, we find unemployment coming to the fore. We find another depression which lapsed when the great war began. But in 1920 and 1921, after Conservative rule for ten years, unemployment conditions again developed in Canada, and before the people could acquire control of the situation we had deficits as in days gone by. In 1920 there was a deficit of 892,000,000; in 1921 there was a deficit of $81,000,000, so that you have in two years a deficit of almost $200,000,000. Along with these deficits there was unemployment. Commerce was at a standstill as previously; industry was not developing, and consequently the country was not progressing nor was it as prosperous as it should be. Again the people of Canada took things into their hands, and in the election of 1921 the government of the day was defeated and the Liberals were returned to power.
The Liberals remained in power from 1921 until 1930. What were the conditions during those nine years? It did not take long for deficits to disappear. From 1924 on there were no more deficits. Trade grew as it had never grown before. There was prosperity abroad in the land. Unemployment disappeared and was an unknown quantity for nine years. The reason was that there was

Unemployment Continuance Act
in power a party that had a Liberal policy, a policy that tapped the resources of the world and linked Canada up with them, that tapped the resources of the empire and linked Canada up with them, a policy that encouraged trade within the confines of the dominion.
It might be well to point out that prior to 1930, even though times were prosperous and conditions were good, a very important world situation was developing and that world situation, so far as strangling trade is concerned, was caused by the erection of tariff walls practically all around the world. The erection of those tariff walls produced such a situation in the markets of the world that every nation was out for himself, out for the principle of economic nationalism, out for the principle of self-sufficiency, which in the last analysis always proves wrong. In this case it proved wrong too, helping to develop an international situation that was dangerous. What did our opponents say? They said:	Here
we have a party in power and a situation developing and we are going to hold them responsible for the whole thing. In 1928 and 1929 they went across Canada from ocean to ocean, and what did they say? They blamed the condition that was developing upon the Liberal prime minister of the day, upon the Liberal party, upon the policy of the Liberal party. They said:	Unless you remove this
party from power; unless you have a change of policy; unless you have Conservative high tariffs rather than Liberal trade treaties and Liberal low tariffs, you are going to have national destruction follow in the train of the party in power-follow in the wake of Liberalism. So they went from one part of Canada to the other, and by their talk and exhortation and declamations they practically undermined trade, commerce and industry in the dominion, with the result that by the time the election took place in 1930 a situation had developed that was somewhat dangerous. What did they assert? They asserted: This is not a world situation; this is a national condition, and it has been brought about by the policies of the Liberal party, by the Liberal party as a governing force in Canada, and therefore that party ought to be defeated. They went out in the election; they carried that fight into the election, and there is no question that they made a political football of unemployment.
In May, 1930, the unemployment index in Canada was practically 9 per cent, whereas in the United States it was 20 per cent, and in Great Britain 14 per cent. For the next two or three months that unemployment index remained practically stationary. After the 41761

59^
promises and pledges of hon. gentlemen opposite were broadcast throughout Canada and reached the minds of all the Canadian people, after the promises were held out to thousands and thousands of people with the argument that they would be given jobs and that about a billion dollars would be spent to give them jobs, unemployment grew apace. Never before in the history of Canada did it grow with such rapidity. The result was that conditions became worse and worse until the time of the special session of parliament when there were 200,000 unemployed.
What policy do we find hon. gentlemen opposite evolving to meet the unemployment situation? We know they did only one thing, they had only one policy, a policy sixty years old, the national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald involving high tariffs, restricted markets, exploitation of individuals, and so on. They said, "If this cannot cure unemployment, nothing will." So they went to work and raised the tariff wall sky high around Canada, they did exactly what the other nations of the world had been foolishly doing; they played the high tariff game to the limit and it is no wonder to-night that we find they have sown to the wind and reaped the whirlwind. Moreover, their action taken during the special session of parliament in 1930 was repeated in the regular session of last year. Last year they deliberately raised the tariff, schedule after schedule, where lower tariffs had1 been in effect for years.
So to-day we have a situation in Canada whereby unemployment is gradually becoming worse; thousands upon thousands find themselves out of work. On August 1, 1930, the employment index was 118; that was a time immediately after the election. On December 1, 1931, the employment index was 99-1; on January 1, one month later and in the year 1932, employment had dropped down to 91'6. On February 1, only a few days ago, the employment index was only 89-7. So the pendulum, so far as employment is concerned, has been swinging down dangerously from 118 to 89-7.
What about unemployment? When the Conservatives assumed power on July 31, 1930, unemployment was rated at 9-2. On December 1, 1931, it was 18-6-double the amount it had been a year before. On May 1, 1930, the figure was 9; thus unemployment had increased only -2 per cent in two or three months. Let us, however, note the increase since that time. From about 9 per cent the index has gone to over 18 per cent-actually to over 21 per cent on January 1, 1932-in
932	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
other words unemployment in Canada has more than doubled. This question arises: What policy has the government to meet the unemployment problem?


Mr. SPENCE:: Let us hear your policy.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am asking for yours.


James Houston Spence: Give us yours.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: 
Wesley Ashton Gordon: How can they haul their
products over impassable roads?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: They try to do it. I
ask if that is a fair and equitable policy? Those settlers are doing pioneer work, they are driving back settlement miles and miles into the north country, and the productiveness of its soil will furnish traffic sufficient to pay every cent of the capital expenditure for railways. I claim the time has arrived when those settlers ought to be given their just dues in a railway sense-they should be given the railway facilities that will enable them to develop that northern part of Saskatchewan and make it the garden of prosperity, which it will certainly become if the settlers there are given a fair deal. Thousands of settlers have gone into that northern area until to-day it is the hope of Saskatchewan. If railways are not built through that fine section of country, will you tell* me how the people are going to carry on? It cannot be done, that is all.
There is another aspect of the problem that I might bring to the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). Relief camps have been established in that northern area. If last fall before the cold weather came on the Dominion government had seen fit to put those men to work on the sixty-nine miles remaining to be steeled and the thirty-five miles remaining to be graded, that railway would have been completed. But time was wasted, the situation was dilly-dallied with, nothing was done, and now we are told that no more railways are to be builL-that the Canadian National Railways are hard up; but meanwhile the Canadian Pacific may go on with their branch lines.


Robert James Manion: Are the Canadian Pacific building any branch lines?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes.


Robert James Manion: What are they building at the present time?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: They have built the line from Debden to Meadow Lake.


Robert James Manion: What are they building
now?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: They are building a line from North Battleford to Shellbrooke, and no intimation has been given that they are going to step work.
Now, I am going to touch on the question of unemployment, for the reason that in 1928 the report of the committee on industrial and international relations on insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity was accepted unanimously by this house. Many hon. gentlemen opposite were then sitting on this side, and having allowed the report to go through unchallenged they accepted the principle of unemployment insurance. The subject was further dealt with in 1930, when the committee brought in a report which after a spirited debate was endorsed by the house. One part of the report recommended that the principle of insurance against unemployment be endorsed, and also the principle of financing, namely, contributions by the state, by the employer and by the employee. The committee stated that it was no use to inaugurate a system of unemployment insurance unless a number of the provinces cooperated. The committee stated further that they felt the need of statistical data on unemployment and employment and recommended that at the next census provision should be made to secure such data.
When that report was before the house the then Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Liberal party endorsed it, but only after a long debate on an amendment that was defeated did the opposition allow the main motion to be accepted on division. That meant they were opposed to the report-to
.	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
the principle of unemployment insurance they supported the year previous. But what is their position to-day on the question? At the present time we find the right hon. gentleman and his party asserting they are on absolutely different ground. Now, they say they are in favour of unemployment insurance. Last session, on April 29, the right hon. Prime Minister gave a statement to the house and to the country on unemployment insurance. And what did he say? Here is the position that he and his party took on that occasion:
I repeat that we have the power to appropriate the money we collect to any useful purpose this parliament may determine. The parliament of Canada may determine what shall be done with the moneys collected from the taxpayers.
All right, if they can do that without regard to the question of respective jurisdiction so far as unemployment insurance is concerned they can do it just as well with regard to the relief of unemployment. There is no need for the provinces and the municipalities to have got hopelessly muddled up in the matter. Further, he said:
This government is anxious and willing to promote in every possible way the advancement of social legislation along the lines suggested.
What a different position from that taken by him in 1929. Then he opposed the resolution, he would not let it pass except on division. In 1931, two years later, he favours it, and not only so, but says he favours the advancement of social legislation along the lines suggested. In conclusion he said:
I say to him-
That is, to the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), who brought in a resolution which was debated and later withdrawn after the Prime Minister made his statement.

on behalf of the administration that at the earliest possible moment consistent with obtaining information that is essential to make any measure of insurance worth while, we will use that information for the purpose of preparing and submitting to this house a measure embodying the views I have expressed.
There you are; the Prime Minister is here on record as being in favour of unemployment insurance; he is on record as saying that all he was waiting for was information which was to be obtained through the census taken last year. If that is the position of the government and of the Prime Minister in connection with this great problem, why has not something concrete in the way of unemployment insurance been submitted to this house? Why have we not heard a word about this

question since last year? The Prime Minister said he was in favour of it; presumably he spoke for the government also, but there has not been a move made, not a step taken, not a thing done for months, with the result that conditions are getting worse. My own opinion is that something constructive must be done at once or conditions will get worse than at present, and they are serious now.
What are they doing in the United States in connection with this problem? They are in a worse mess industrially than that in which we find ourselves, because of their high tariffs and because of their false policy of restricting markets, all of which they have carried on and daringly gloated over for the last eight or ten years. Are they sitting down, doing nothing? Are they exhibiting a smug complacency towards the problem? Are they satisfied to continue to vote money for the payment of doles? Are they content to follow the practice of the past, or are they out to evolve a definite policy in order to solve the problem, not only industrially but socially as well, and having in mind the benefit to the economic structure of the nation? They are not resting on their oars at all; they are taking some action. I should like to see the government of the day in Canada do the same thing or, if the policy adopted or about to be adopted by some of the states is not suited to this country, let the government dig up something that will be satisfactory, something to mark progress, to show that the government is in earnest in attacking this problem by some other method than the payment of demoralizing and pauperizing doles.
In six of the eastern states of the union, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio, they are attacking this unemployment problem in earnest. The governors of these states appointed an interstate commission to investigate unemployment and make a report. That investigation has been held; that report has been presented to at least one of the governors, the governor of New York State, who has sent the report to the state legislature asking that it take action. There is one important point in that report-namely, that of compelling each industrialist to build up a reserve, holding him responsible for stabilizing employment within his own industry-to which I should like to refer, as showing the way they are attacking this problem of unemployment in the republic to the south of us. Great Britain and the nations on the continent of Europe have approached it in a slightly different way by pooling the contributions of the

Unemployment Continuance Act
state, employer and employee, but they have made progress. Canada has done nothing in either direction. Canada has made no move. Although the government said they would do something, they have done nothing, aimed at nothing and apparently hit it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman has spoken for forty minutes.


Mr. J. L. ILSLEY (Hants-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take exception in the strongest possible manner to the resolution now before the house. I do so for several reasons, the first of which is that it leaves entirely unsettled and undetermined the principle of the unemployment and farm relief policy of the government of Canada. This government has been in power since the middle of 1930. They started out with a more or less well defined policy for the relief of unemployment through the construction of public works, but of course that policy was not new. I can remember hearing it advocated in this house during the last parliament, when the country was enjoying a very considerable measure of prosperity. There were a few members who said that in days of great surpluses we should not construct public works on an extensive scale but should lay up our money against the day when we would have adversity, and then we could spend it for the relief of the unemployed for whom we might have to provide.
When the government came into power they adopted that as their policy; at the emergency session of 1930 we were asked to vote and did vote $20,000,000 for the relief of unemployment. From that time until the end of the fiscal year on March 31, 1931, something more than $17,000,000 was either expended or appropriated for the relief of unemployment, and almost that entire sum was devoted to the construction of public works. The policy of constructing public works in order to relieve unemployment has certain apparent advantages. In the first place it gives wages to the unemployed and provides purchasing power which otherwise they would not have; in the second place it provides a market for materials, and in the third place it gives a stimulus to business in the localities where the works are carried on. At present in the United States of America there are many prominent public men who advocate the adoption of a similar policy, but the federal government of that country has not seen fit to do so on any large scale.
During the last few months there has been a considerable amount of discussion in the
papers and before the public as to the advisability of continuing the policy of spending money on public works for the relief of unemployment. It is urged 'that this is a most expensive policy; it has been pointed out that since	last	August	for	every man-dayof work that has been supplied the unemployed of	this	country, something like $10has been spent by our various governments. If we consider the statement of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) we find that it works out to about this figure. Speaking in the house during a debate a few days ago the minister gave the total amount spent from August 1,	1931,	to the	end	of February ofthis year,	and he also gave	the number of
man-days of work during that time. The result of those two figures, as I have indicated, shows that not this government alone but all governments in Canada, federal, provincial and municipal, have paid about $10 for every man-day of work that has been supplied.
The financial papers particularly have taken exception to that policy. A fair example of the criticism one finds in those newspapers is found in the Financial Post of November 14, 1931, under the heading The Nation's Business. This is what the Post says:
There is an idea that all this huge expenditure of government funds is creating prosperity. It is doing nothing of the sort; it is creating a worse crisis than the one it is designed to relieve. One may question that the expenditure of public money is even adding to the total of jobs that are available. We are given extensive figures to show how many men have been put to work on relief programs. But we will never know how many of these men are being denied the privilege of working at their regular jobs or on new private projects because the threat of high taxation and the freezing up of bond markets is holding back normal business development. Many institutions in Canada have large buildings planned and will go ahead with them as soon as they can see light; but they will not be able to see light so long as our governments endanger the credit basis of the country by their unchecked spending schemes. It may indeed be that every government job created now causes a private job to disappear.
Hence agitation has arisen, more or less extensive, for an alteration in the policy of the government. A policy is now being urged upon the government of confining our assistance to direct relief alone, a policy of curtailment of public expenditures, thrift, economy, reduction of the civil service, reduction in the salaries of the civil service and a decrease in expenditures on public works to the irreducible minimum. My criticism of the government, and it seems to me that it is an unanswerable criticism, is that the government, from the very time it assumed office, has never pursued
936	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
consistently either the one policy or the other. It seems to be in a muddle and has no cleareut conception of what the policy of this country should be, whether it should be a policy of expenditures or a policy of retrenchment. I suggest, therefore, that before the Prime Minister comes before this house, as he does to-day, and asks for a renewal of the dictatorship mandate, so-called, he should lay before the house the fundamental principle-I do not mean the details-upon which he proposes to proceed during the coming months.
I said that the government has not been consistent. Let me illustrate what I mean by that. We appropriated something over $17,000,000 between the emergency session of 1930 and the end of the fiscal year March 31, 1931; but when the public works estimates were brought down in the following spring we found that in the estimates for 1932 there was a decrease in the appropriations for public works as compared with the preceding year of $17,694,166.31. That is to say, while with the one hand the government was spending about $17,000,000 on the expenditure theory for the relief of unemployment and the relief of depression, it was curtailing expenditures in the Public Works department alone to the extent of a little over $17,000,000 on the thrift, eoonomy and retrenchment theory. In other words, what the Department of Public Works was doing the Department of Labour was undoing; or, if you like to put it the other way, what the Department of Labour was doing the Department of Public Works was undoing. There has been no consistency in the government's policy.
The Prime Minister reaffirmed the expenditure policy at the end of the session of 1931. At the end of July or August 1, 1931. he came before the house and, in asking for the very bill which we are asked to extend today, he said that the government would continue its policy of constructing public works for the relief of unemployment. And he told us in this debate this afternoon that a great many expenditures on public works had been made in various parts of Canada. Moreover, when the Public Works estimates were up not long ago the Minister of Public Works justified certain isolated projects in various constituencies of the dominion on the ground that they were necessary for the relief of unemployment. I do not want to go into that particularly, but one that will occur to us is the Haileybury breakwater expenditure of $45,000 which was justified on the ground that it was necessary for the relief of unemployment. But at the same time, in the public works estimates for the year 1933,

we find a reduction in public works appropriations as compared with the previous year of $10,120,000 odd. So that we see that the policy of the government has not only been inconsistent from the time hon. gentlemen opposite took office, but it has not been uniform in various parts of Canada. It varies from place to place and from time to time and at the same time. It is impossible for the government to make any progress if they concurrently pursue two entirely incompatible, inconsistent and contrary policies. Moreover, before the Prime Minister asks the house to give him another blank cheque and to give to his government power to legislate for the Dominion of Canada, he should say by what principle he is going to be guided. What is the principle that is to guide him with reference to these expenditures in the future?
I have another objection to the resolution, and that is that it does not take into account certain emergent situations which are arising in various parts of Canada. We know that there is an emergent situation in the west; there has been since the very serious weather conditions of the year 1931; and the government has taken hold of that situation and has been careful to meet it to the best of its ability. But situations are arising elsewhere which should be brought before the House of Commons-not before the members of the government, the cabinet council, but before this House of Commons. Very little has been said by members from the maritime provinces about conditions in that part of the country. I gather the impression, from persons with whom I have talked, that they think that the maritime provinces are in a comparatively prosperous condition. I was pleased to hear to-day that Quebec and the maritime provinces did not require any direct assistance to their governments from the federal government, while this fact was not true of any other province in Canada. But let me say to the Prime Minister, to the government and to this house-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is
wrong with respect to Ontario. Ontario did not either; the two and a half millions was advanced merely for work that had been done.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Prime Minister made
an explanation this afternoon regarding Ontario, the significance of which I hardly caught. I understood that there was a small sum advanced to Ontario, but the right hon. gentleman's explanation is, of course, accepted, although it has very little to do with my argument. What I want to say is something about conditions in the maritime provinces. In those provinces, apparently condi-

tions are getting worse. I wish to refer particularly to the situation which has arisen recently in the coal industry. In the month of January or December the government of Nova Scotia appointed a commission to investigate conditions in the coal industry in that province, and that commission brought in their report on February 19. The report revealed an exceedingly serious state of affairs, and when I say exceedingly serious I mean just that. The recommendation of the commission was that 2,000 men must go out of employment permanently. It means that something must be done for these men and their families, representing a population of 10,000. To give an idea of the seriousness of the situation, let me read a statement issued by Premier Harrington of Nova Scotia on February 19, 1932:
The royal commission examining into the coal industry of the province has filed its report, and in view of the importance and urgency of the matter I am giving it publicity at once so that all our people may realize that we are faced with one of the most serious situations that has ever confronted Nova Scotia.
The report of these capable and independent commissioners makes it clear that it is not a choice as between a wage reduction or not for the miners, or whether some miners shall be laid off by certain pits being closed,

it is the vital single question of whether coal mining in Nova Scotia can be continued as a major industry at all.
Towards the end of the statement the following appears:
It is the purpose of the government immediately to cooperate with the federal government in an effort to work out a plan through which the least possible hardships will result to heads of families and their dependents affected by the reallocation proposals now recommended.
My submission is that a matter of such importance as the reorganization of the coal industry of Nova Scotia should de dealt with by this parliament and not by order in council, which is the power that the government is asking for by the resolution presented to-day. I am more familiar with the conditions existing in the agricultural industry in my province-I come from an agricultural constituency-than I am with those affecting other industries. The condition of agriculture is becoming gradually worse, and in all probability a situation wil arise necessitating relief for agricultural distress in the maritime provinces. This matter is one of sufficient importance to call for the united consideration of this house rather than for action by order in council. I object to delegating to the government my responsibilities as a representative from the maritime provinces; I prefer to attempt to exercise to the best of my ability
Unemployment Continuance Act
those responsibilities, having been elected for that purpose and having that duty vested in me under our constitution.
I submit that the most serious objection to be taken to this resolution is that a violation of the constitutional rights of the members of this house is being sought by the government of the day. It is hard to find words strong enough to characterize the action of the government in attempting to put through this resolution. It was bad enough in the emergency session of 1930 to ask for a vote of $20,000,000 for works which were not specified; it was worse in the session of 1931 to get from this parliament a blank cheque and legislation which set up a dictatorship between sessions, but it is infinitely worse for the government to have the temerity to come before this house and seek to perpetuate that dictatorship while parliament is in session,
This matter was up for discussion during the latter part of July and the first part of August, 1931. At that time we objected to certain features of certain sections of the act. The first objectionable feature with which we dealt was that no limitation was placed upon the powers of the government. Section 4 of the act reads as follows:
The governor in council shall have full power to make all such orders and regulations as may be deemed necessary or desirable for relieving distress, providing employment and, within the competence of parliament, maintaining peace, order and good government throughout Canada.
In other words, the government was granted all the powers of parliament itself. It means that a bill passed by this house and the other chamber and assented to by His Excellency may be repealed the next day by the government sitting over in the east block or wheT-ever it functions. They are permitted to go fair in the face of the wishes of this House of Commons; they can pass an order in council repealing legislation which the house has adapted. There has never been anything so outrageous in the history of this country. It may be said that they would not do that, but we can point to many instances where something almost as bad has been done between sessions, and to this I will refer a little later.
The second objectionable feature in the act was that there was no limitation either of the amount which could be expended or of the purpose for which it should be used. Section 2 reads as follows:
There may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund such moneys as the governor in council in his discretion may deem expedient to expend for relieving distress, providing employment and maintaining within the competence of parliament, peace, order and good government throughout Canada.

Unemployment Continuance Act
The third objectionable feature was that power was being granted to create new crimes, to set up extraordinary courts and to prescribe new and unusual modes of procedure. Section 5 reads:
All orders and regulations of the governor in council shall have the force of law and shall be enforced in such manner and by such court officers and authorities as the governor in council may prescribe, and may be varied, extended or revoked by any subsequent order or regulation;
That is, the right of trial by jury might be taken away, or might be granted where it was not applicable. The section continues:
-but if any order or regulation is varied, extended or revoked, neither the previous operation thereof nor anything duly done thereunder shall be affected thereby, nor shall any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, accruing or incurred thereunder be affected by any such variation, extension or revocation.
The fourth feature in the act to which we objected was that by implication it granted power to repeal existing legislation. Section 3 reads:
Without restricting the generality of the terms of the next preceding section hereof, and notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law, the governor in council may,-
The section goes on to outline the powers granted notwithstanding the provisions of any other statute. It is clear that under this section the government has power to repeal by order in council the legislation of this parliament.
These were the main objectionable features which were pointed out when the act was passed. If there was any justification for such sweeping legislation it was because of the nearness of prorogation, but certainly there is no justification to-day, when we are practically beginning a new session, for the extension of that legislation. At that time we said that the act attempted to take away from parliament matters which should be under its exclusive control, that it established a virtual dictatorship, that it violated the basic principles of the control of parliament over national expenditure, that it was more sweeping than the war measures of the government of Sir Robert Borden, that it was a piece of despotism without parallel in the history of Canada, and that it was the worst piece of autocratic power which a Prime Minister or government of this country had ever attempted1 to assume. All that was true, and it is doubly true to-day when similar legislation is being sought while we, the duly constituted and elected representatives of th* people, are
f vlr. Ilsley.]
assembled here and ready to discharge our duties.
I do not know upon what grounds this legislation can be justified. I understood from the Prime Minister yesterday that to-day he would give us some reasons why he would prefer to take this course rather than to proceed in the regular way by means of a supply bill. I listened to his address this afternoon but the reasons were not forthcoming. He said nothing in his speech to indicate where the advantage would be in proceeding by this method rather than by a supply bill. The only measures which he forecast were measures of expenditure, the only amount which he mentioned was one not exceeding six or seven millions of dollars. If the right hon. gentleman desires merely to spend a few million dollars, why does he not name a sum abundantly sufficient to cover his requirements? If he did, we in opposition would be willing to vote that amount. What reason is there for taking to himself and his colleagues the power to legislate? What reason is there for taking from us the power to do that which by constitution we are elected to do? None whatever has been suggested. Why should the government have power to amend and repeal this and the other act and then come to parliament and say: it is a fait accompli; there is the order in council; the thing is done and you can like it or lump it; criticize if you will, but it is all over. No reason was given by the Prime Minister this afternoon and I suggest no reason can be given. Last summer certain reasons were advanced. First, he said that between sessions he did not know how much money he would require. The answer made to him then is the answer we give him to-day: Make the sum large enough and we will vote it. To that very reasonable proposal he turns a deaf ear; for reasons that have not been given, he rejects it.
Last summer another reason advanced for the passage of this legislation was that all sorts of things might happen before the next session. The Prime Minister did not know exactly what might happen. He thought there might be some agitation in the country; he hinted at some disaffection among the labouring people, and that it might be necessary to take these extraordinary powers in order to deal with that situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say any such
thing as that-not in those words.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Of course not in those
words, but the Prime Minister said it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Read what I said.

Unemployment Continuance Act


James Lorimer Ilsley: One never quotes a person's
words precisely. I gave exactly the meaning of what the Prime Minister said, and I was exceedingly careful in so doing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Read it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: These are the words of the Prime Minister:
In that regard the measure provides for the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada. It is not for a moment to be thought that an insignificant number of strongly vocal persons shall be able so to affect the populace of this country as to make it impossible for us, in cooperation together as Canadians, to work out our destiny. I say that class, happily, is few in number. But in this present situation they now see an opportunity propitious to the prosecution of their pernicious political doctrines. This is a land of freedom where men may think what they will and say what they will, so long as they do not attack the foundations upon which our civilization has been built. But as we have freedom, so have we justice, and it is not just nor right that now or at any other time we should permit such action by words or deeds as may tend to unsettle confidence in the institutions and customs under which we live. Most of our legislation is framed upon that assumption.
And so on. That, in effect, is what I stated in the house a few minutes ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now, will the hon. gentleman say that there is anything in that quotation where the word "labour" is used? Will he say it is there?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Certainly it is not there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, he made a statement which is untrue. That is all.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Prime Minister is continually talking about the danger of communistic outbreaks. Does he deny that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: What has that to do
with labour?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, if the right hon. gentleman cannot see what it has to do with labour,
I cannot take time out of my forty minutes to explain the matter to him.
Let me continue. That was suggested. The point I want to make is that whatever justification there may have been last summer for that reason, there is no justification for it to-day. We have in the criminal code the celebrated section 98. It probably goes too far; I believe I would have voted for an amendment to it; but it is in the code, and so long as we have a government that will not permit a member even to introduce or to receive first reading of a bill providing for any change of a letter or a word in section
98, what is the sense of their taking power to legislate for the purpose of dealing with the communist menace? If legislation is necessary in connection with present conditions we are here to legislate. Therefore there need be no delay about the matter; consequently the reasons which were urged last summer cannot be urged to-day.
Last summer the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) suggested that we had to take these great powers to legislate for the peace, order and good government of Canada, because the usa of these words brought the power to pass this measure within our jurisdiction. I do not want to speak disrespectfully, but there certainly was nothing in that contention, and I do not think the Minister of Justice seriously urged it. It was completely exploded, as anybody who refers to the debates of that day will discover, by the speakers who followed him. But the minister clearly intimated that, while that was a reason for the government's taking those enormous powers, it was not anticipated the administration would act under them.
That brings me to the question of what was done under those powers. I do not know all that was done because I have not any return of the orders in council that have been passed under this extraordinary legislation. But I know two things that were done. First, we prohibited the exportation of gold except under licence and by chartered banks. We did that under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931, on the nineteenth day of October last. On New Year's eve, the thirty-first day of December, the government in a great rush put through another order in council, one that the Prime Minister referred to this afternoon, enabling the life insurance companies of Canada to place a false valuation upon their investments so that there would be no danger of two or three of our insurance companies being declared insolvent. That is an accurate statement of the situation. The Insurance Act requires that life insurance companies value their securities at the market valuation at the time, in this instance as of the thirty-first day of December. That might have led to disaster to certain life insurance companies, so the government on the thirty-first day of December put through an order in council, a copy of which I have under my hand, enabling those companies to take the valuation as of June 30, 1931 instead of December 31, 1931. That the government did under the Unemployment and F'arm Relief Act of 1931, I have no doubt, at the instance of two or

Unemployment Continuance Act
three insurance companies including the largest life insurance company in Canada. That order in council was passed under a measure enacted by parliament for the relief of unemployment and farm distress, by virtue of the legislative powers delegated to the government by parliament.
So far as the exportation of gold is concerned this aot has expired. So far as I can learn, it is now legal to export gold-if I am wrong about that, the Prime Minister will correct me. The time limit is stated in the order in council to be March 1, 1932, and it cannot be extended under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act. If it is important that there should be legislation prohibiting the exportation of gold, the matter should be dealt with by parliament, and if it is important to deal with it now, it should not be dealt with by order in council. The other day the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) brought up a question in connection with this matter. He asked:	Why should
the producers of gold in this country be paid a premium? The people should have an opportunity to express their views on this subject through their representatives in parliament. Yet the government, if they get this legislation through, are likely to go over to the east block and pass, over the heads of members of parliament, some sort of order in council affecting the gold standard. Last fall a man in my constituency said to me:	"Do you know what this government
have done? They have gone off the gold standard under ithe Unemployment and Farm Relief Act." The people are not so foolish as the Prime Minister thinks; they follow these things; they have a sense of humour when dealing with these matters. They think it is incongruous, under an unemployment and farm relief act, to prohibit the exportation of gold. I repeat, when it is desired to deal with such matters as the gold standard and the exportation of gold, we are the people to deal with them and not the governor in council under such dictatorship legislation as is embodied in this act for the relief of unemployment and farm distress.
Let me come to the other legislation about the insurance companies. At the present time there is before the Senate a measure dealing with this matter and in due course it will come before the House of Commons. The bill is very sweeping in its character; I should say the order in council and probably the bill fly in the face of recent decisions of the privy council. That is disputed; there are different ideas in regard to it, but we do not know what the government are going to do if they

get this bill through. As I have already pointed out, on New Year's eve they repealed by order in council certain sections of the Insurance Act. How do we know, if they get this bill through, they will not do something equally outrageous while we are sitting here?


Charles Gavan Power: Abolish the privy council.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, as my hon. friend has said, they may abolish the privy council. How do we know if the government gets this legislation through they will not permit the Sun Life Assurance Company or some other insurance companies to place another valuation upon these securities? The people who have paid their money into these insurance companies are very much interested. By way of indicating a ground for interest in the matter may I quote from the Montreal Gazette of March 7, 1932 as follows:
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Head Office, Montreal Stock Transfer Department
Notice is hereby given that the stock transfer books of the company will be closed from the 17th to the 31st of March, both days inclusive, for the preparation of the dividend to become due and payable on the 1st day of April, 1932, to shareholders of record at the close of business on March 16, 1932.
By order of the board.
H. W. K. Hale,
Secretary.
This company intends to declare and pay a dividend on its $2,000,000 capitalization; whether it will be to the extent of 25, 50 or 15 per cent I do not know. They have been paying pretty heavy dividends lately. However, the money that I as a policyholder have been paying in, and that policyholders from all parts oil Canada have been paying in, has been invested by this company in watered stocks, in a long assortment of securities which have gone down disastrously in value, and certainly if this question were brought before parliament and the country instead of before 'that secret body known as the governor in council or the cabinet there are hon. members in this house who would1 insist upon seeing that these compandes cease to pay such dividends.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I correct the hon.
gentleman? I know he does not desire to do injury to anybody. The truth is that every investment made by the Sun Life Assurance Company was an investment authorized by law, the statute having been passed by this parliament under the aegis of a Liberal administration.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not concerned with
picking up a little point of party politics.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no; knowing the hon. member as we do, we are sure he would not do that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I said nothing to the contrary. I think the Insurance Act should be amended. I am saying however that the Sun Life Assurance Company certainly pursued a policy with regard to speculative investments which was not pursued by any other company in the Dominion of Canada, with possibly one exception. The Prime Minister knows that, and that is all I said. I did not say they made illegal investments, but I said they made speculative investments, which turned out disastrously. With that statement I think the Prime Minister will agree.
I do not wish to go further into that question because undoubtedly it will come before the house when the matter of insurance is under consideration. The point I am making is that we should not delegate to the Dominion government our responsibility to deal with these matters. Under our constitution we are the persons to deal with them. As I said at the outset, the principle underlying the government's policy should be laid down and not evaded or left in the air. Hon. members should pass upon that principle, and then upon the details as well. The duty of a member of parliament is not simply to make himself felt by writing to the Prime Minister, making a speech on a motion to go into supply, or airing his views on the orders of the day. He has an even greater duty-that of focussing his mind upon each bill, clause by clause, and assisting in the framing of legislation. If we are going to scrap our constitution, let us go ahead and scrap it, but for the time being I am not prepared to scrap it. I say that so far as I know, nothing as outrageous as what this government is now attempting to do was ever heard of in the history of this country, or any other part of the British Empire.
I know the Prime Minister does not like to submit his measures to the house. I suppose he thinks he receives only factious opposition. I suppose he thinks he receives no cooperation. He certainly will not receive cooperation if he seeks to divest us of our responsibilities. If he permits us to exercise our responsibilities he may expect some measure of cooperation, but if he seeks to reduce this body to the level of a debating society rather than recognize its great functions, traditions and responsibilities, then he must expect quite a bit of talk. And there will be quite a bit of talk before he gets this outrageous bill through the house.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, when the Unemployment and Farm Relief bill was before the house in the session of 1931, I registered my bitter opposition. I felt that no such powers as outlined in that measure should be given to the governor in council. I felt the measures were too drastic as regards both the relief of the unemployed and the provision for contemplated action to preserve the peace, order and good government of the country. After witnessing the operation of the act I am more opposed to it than I was a year ago. We have seen how unsuccessfully the measure has worked out in certain sections of the Dominion of Canada. This afternoon the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) -he will correct me if I am wrong-admitted that one-half the commitments under the relief act of last year have not been carried out, and the work has not been accomplished. If that is so, why should we have an extension of that measure to May 1?
I ask the question for this reason: It was distinctly understood last session by all hon. members that any commitments entered into before March 1, 1932, were not to be affected by the lapse of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act. That being so, why are we now asked for an extension of two months? Commitments made by the government under that act have not been fifty per cent expended. There is no need of an extension to meet unemployment conditions. There can be no need of an extension to meet the relief the government desires to give to the western provinces, because this afternoon the Prime Minister said that relief for the western farmers in the matter of the purchase of seed is the responsibility of the provincial government, and that the federal government would come to the assistance of the provinces only when the amounts of their commitments were made known. In one province the commitments are estimated at $6,000,000. Then, what is the reason for an extension of this measure? If the government have been working on the assumption that commitments made prior to March 1, 1932, would be affected, they should have made provision accordingly at an early date after the opening of parliament. If they did not make provision and were acting on the basis that the commitments would be affected, then they were negligent in carrying out their duty to those requiring assistance.
Now, sir, in rising I stated that I was opposed to this measure more strongly than ever on account of the personal experience I had had in carrying out the objects contemplated by it. Some of those who have
942	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
spoken to-night have referred to the way in which unemployment relief was administered in certain of the provinces. I do not intend to refer to any other province than my own- New Brunswick, where I have positive knowledge of the methods adopted. The other evening when I spoke on the question of unemployment relief I complained that certain work had been carried on in a partisan manner, and that large numbers of men in my county had received work who were not entitled to it, for they did not require any relief. I did not then enter into any particulars; now in order to show how this work was carried on allow me to particularize. I am prepared to stand behind these particulars. I have before me a record of persons employed on unemployment relief work in the county of Gloucester. Let me say to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) that notwithstanding the fact that one of his officials has reported that the work complained of by me the other evening was not dealt with under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, I say to the minister that $47,000 was expended in the county of Gloucester under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, and that the gentleman who was sent by the Department of Labour to investigate the matter has the evidence of witness after witness to prove that not only those who did not need relief were given work and the poor men who needed it thrown aside, but that political influence was exercised in awarding the work. Under the regulations issued by the Department of Labour to the provincial government of New Brunswick-


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That was provincial work.


Peter John Veniot: I say it was not.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I know it was.


Peter John Veniot: Where was the$47,000spent?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I know the work to which the hon. member refers was provincial work.


Peter John Veniot: Will the Minister of Labour tell the house where the $47,000 was expended? He will not do so simply because he does not know. The $47,000 to be spent under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act was rpent in the county of Gloucester. The minister has not the information in his possession, he cannot produce it. I challenge him to produce it.


Mr. PRICE:: Neither can the hon. member for Gloucester county prove it.


Peter John Veniot: I am not addressing myself to the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Price); when I do it will be time enough for him to reply. I challenge the Minister of

Labour to produce details of the expenditure of the $47,000 granted the county of Gloucester under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, and if he does I will show him where and how the work was done. I reiterate, the work I am going to refer to was done under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, and there can be no doubt about it. The other night I gave the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) credit for the way in which he acted in the matter. He put a stop to irregularities, but the Minister of Labour never undertook to do anything. The work on the Grande Anse breakwater was unemployment relief work done under the direction of the federal department of Public Works. Why did I complain there? This is one of the reasons. I found that on that work the foreman named Theriault had his two sons employed.


Otto Baird Price: What of that?


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Morand):: Order.


Peter John Veniot: That was in direct violation of the orders issued by the Department of Public Works. When it was reported to the minister of that department he looked mto it and had the irregularity stopped. We have another case of a father and his son sixteen years of age at work, while another man with a family of seven children was denied work.


Otto Baird Price: Will the hon. gentleman
allow a question?


Peter John Veniot: No, I will not. That man
was turned down and told distinctly that he was on the wrong political side. The resident engineer in St. John was instructed to look into the matter. He did, and the foreman had to admit that he had used that language. We have numerous similar cases in connection with works carried on in the county of Gloucester.
The other night I said that the government had not displayed sufficient care in approving of the relief project. Let me emphasize that to-night. I hold in my hand a return laid on the table embracing all the projects accepted by the federal government for work for unemployment relief in the county of Gloucester. I have before me a statement of projects accepted by the Department of Labour covering an expenditure of $750,000 for unemployment relief work in New Brunswick. The date of approval is November 26, 1931. Three quarters of the money was spent months before the federal

Unemployment Continuance Act
government ever approved of the projects. I have here particulars of $26,500 to be spent in the county of Gloucester, and approved on November 26, 1931. Every oent of that money was spent before that date.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Was it well spent?


Peter John Veniot: No, it was not. That is
what I am complaining about, and if the minister will give me a proper investigation, if he will name a commissioner to come to Gloucester county with a detailed statement of the money spent there under unemployment relief, I will undertake to prove under oath the statements I am making to-night. What more do we find? They lacked sufficient care in approving of these projects. In the list of projects approved on November 26, 1931, we find the town of Sunny Brae, with the amount of $1,750. That money was all spent before the Department of Labour approved of that project.


Otto Baird Price: The hon. gentleman would
not dare make that statement in the city of Moncton.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, I will make it in
Sunny Brae. Take the money spent in Gloucester, Northumberland, Restigouche and many of the other counties; you will find that it was expended before approval was given.


Otto Baird Price: You would not dare say that in New Brunswick.


Peter John Veniot: I would say it anywhere.


Otto Baird Price: No, you would not dare.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, surely I am
entitled to speak for forty minutes without interruption by the hon. member for Westmorland. I am sorry he thinks it is his duty to interrupt me; I would rather see him stand up and defend his constituents and plead for their rights, especially the rights of the railway men who elected him.


Otto Baird Price: I will do it, and I will take you to task for attacking Barachois and Aboujagan.


Peter John Veniot: I never attacked them; I
asked for information. Surely as a member of this house I am entitled to that information, and when it comes down my hon. friend may not be so proud of it.
Now, sir, let me point out another injustice that has been done in Gloucester county. The incorporated town of Bathurst, with a population of about five thousand, undertook to pave all the streets in order to relieve unemployment, at an expenditure of $225,000.
When this work was almost completed they applied for a share of the federal money under this act, but their request was refused. Work remained to be done to the extent of about $28,000, and when the town applied for assistance in completing that work their request was approved and they received $7,500. While Bathurst was doing work to the extent of $225,000, in order to relieve unemployment, with not a dollar contributed by the federal government, other towns which had completed the work planned before November 26 were paid the full federal share of the cost of those works. So to my mind this act has not been administered in an honest and fair way.
This afternoon the right hon. Prime Minister stated that at a certain public meeting in the county of Gloucester I told the people that I had received letters from the federal Department of Labour asking for recommendations as to the work which should be undertaken in Gloucester county in order to relieve unemployment, and that I flaunted those letters before my audience and said I was the one who should look after that. I then interjected that the Prime Minister had been misinformed. I think that information was given to the right hon. gentleman within the last forty-eight or seventy-two hours, and I wish to tell him that whoever made those statements to him led him astray, because there is not one word of truth in them. It is true that I did read in public the letters sent me by the Department of Labour; I did read in public the regulations under which this money was to be spent, and I explained to the people that there was to be no discrimination, political, racial or religious. There was a by-election going on, and I explained that everyone working on the roads had a perfect right to vote as he saw fit, that this money was not the money of Liberals or Conservatives; it was money voted by the parliament of Canada to help the unemployed in that county. What happened when I was making that explanation? The letter from which I am reading now is on file in the Department of Labour, and it contains this statement will regard to the parish of Beresford:
That all the supervisors of roads in this parish were acting in the same way as did Supervisor Cormier, I may say that on October 18th I was addressing a public meeting in the parish hall at Petit Roeher on behalf of the opposition candidate. I had been asked a question touching the expenditure of unemployment relief money. I was explaining that the instructions issued by the federal Department of Labour set forth very plainly that there was to be no discrimination whatever along political lines in the expenditure of this money, that

Unemployment Continuance Act
this money should be earned by those really in need of it, and that no matter what might be said by the other side, everyone was free to vote as he saw fit notwithstanding that he might be employed under the supervision of the provincial government. I was flatly contradicted by a man in the audience, and when I inquired who the person was he did not hesitate to come forward and inform me that he was a supervisor of roads and would have charge of this expenditure, and added "Pas un seul Liberal aura de 1'ouvrage de chomage. C'est Coffyn, et non pas Yeniot qui verra a cela." And this supervisor certainly did keep his word.
He said, "Not a single Liberal will have any part of this unemployment work. It is Doctor Coffyn"-who was the provincial government candidate-"that will look after it and not P. J. Veniot."
That partisanship was carried on throughout the length and breadth of the county of Gloucester. There was a by-election in that county; the Premier of New Brunswick addressed a public meeting in the town of Bathurst on the Friday night before the election, and said:
We do not want Doctor Coffyn elected in Gloucester because we need his vote to maintain the government in power. We want him elected so that we will have reason to do something big for Gloucester county along the lines of the unemployment relief aid to be given by the federal government and the province of New Brunswick.
There was a bribe held out to the electors of that county; they were told that unless Doctor Coffyn was elected, unless they returned a man who was favourable to the government, the government would measure the relief to be doled out in Gloucester county by the actions of the electors on polling day.


Otto Baird Price: I don't believe the premier
ever made such a statement.


Peter John Veniot: And I know you would
say, if he did make it, that he had no right to make it, wouldn't you?


Otto Baird Price: I would simply say just now that he didn't make it.


Peter John Veniot: He did make it. The hon. gentleman has no right under the rules of the house to question my veracity.


Otto Baird Price: He didn't make such a statement.


Peter John Veniot: Let me go a step further.
I hold in my hand a letter over the signature of W. H. Coffyn, provincial candidate in the

county. This is addressed to Supervisor Max Arseneau. Here is the letter:
Six Roads, October 24, 1931. Supervisor Max Arseneau:
Please see that Peter Gauvin has work on the road when you do your work next. It will be to our mutual advantage.
(Signed) W. H. Coffyn.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that another provincial employee?


Peter John Veniot: They are all provincial
employees who spent the unemployment relief money in New Brunswick. That is the reason I object to it; that is why I say politics is creeping into the expenditure of the money, and it should not be allowed. But I go further than that. Just to show the opinion that is spreading among the people, that this unemployment relief money is to be expended along political lines, I have an extract from a letter which I am going to read:
I was successful in getting the amount authorized for expenditure in your district, but the patronage is entirely in the hands of the four defeated candidates.
I would advise you to take up the matter direct with them, as I regret that I have nothing whatever to do with provincial matters, and this work is being done entirely through them, although the federal is contributing; unfortunately I have no say whatever as to patronage in the local.


Otto Baird Price: By whom is that signed?


Peter John Veniot: Without being saucy to
the hon. gentleman I may tell him it is none of his business. Now there is an example of how patronage came into the distribution of this unemployment relief money. That is signed by a federal member. Here is a man who is writing for work; he writes to get an order to go to work. He cannot get it without an order and he is told, "If you want an order you will have to go to the four provincial candidates defeated in the provincial election." Do you mean to tell me that under conditions of that kind, I can approve of or support the same system that was in practice last year and which evidently is to be put into practice this year? The unemployment relief money was used as a political fund in Gloucester county.
There was another by-election in the province of New Brunswick, in the county of St. John. There are only about eleven or twelve thousand inhabitants, and for the money that is on this list as having been approved of on November 26, 1931, and in 1930 work was done in the county of St. John to the extent of $52,000.

Unemployment Relief


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: When was that by-election?


Peter John Veniot: Last year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the money was voted by this parliament?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, quite true.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There was not a cent spent in the county of St. John.


Peter John Veniot: Don't be too quick. I have here proof that work in the county of St. John was done to the extent of practically $52,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But long
after the by-election.


Peter John Veniot: That was approved November 26, and every cent of the money was spent during the summer time and a lot of it during the election; and that money spent in the county of St. John during that by-election was transferred to the projects submitted to the federal government and approved November 26, 1931. I am sorry to say that the hon. gentleman does not know what he is talking about. I have an absolute statement here from the department. I will go further. As regards this expenditure in St. John as well as the expenditure in the county of Gloucester during these by-elections, I challenge the Minister of Labour to bring down the pay sheets, to bring down the detailed accounts showing the dates on which the money was spent. Then this house will know who is telling the truth and who is not.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the house just now, because it is almost eleven o'clock. I have more to say, but if I entered now upon other arguments which I wish to advance, and which I shall advance on some other occasion, there would not be time for me to finish. I see by the clock that it is now five minutes to eleven and therefore I will say no more at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 9, 1932