1932-03-29

Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: I should like to correct a statement made at the last sitting of the house in the formal answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), who made inquiry as to whether one Henri Granier, postmaster at Pointe Lebel, county of Saguenay, was a British subject by birth or by naturalization. As the question came, Granier was spelled Grenier, and owing to that mistake in typewriting, after an examination a report was made that we found no record of his naturalization. But the correct name is Henri Granier who was naturalized and received his certificate on April 22, 1929.



BANKRUPTCY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MAURICE BRASSET (Gaspe) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 36, to amend the Bankruptcy Act (Locality of a debtor).
Mr. GUTHRIE:: Explain.


Mr. BRASSET:: The object of the amendment is to repeal subsection one of section 4 of the Bankruptcy Act and to substitute therefor the following subsection:
Subject to the conditions hereinafter specified, if a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy a creditor may present, to the court having jurisdiction over the locality of the debtor, a bankruptcy petition.

Unemployment Continuance Act-Closure
The object of the subparagraph added is to remove the handicap under which a debtor is when an assignment is made at a great distance from his place of business and to avoid additional expenditure in the winding up of the estate.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
FRANCE-FOREIGN WHEAT QUOTA On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: About a week ago France undertook to raise to 35 per cent the quota of foreign wheat used in the preparation of bread flour. I noticed in yesterday's newspapers a despatch intimating that on the 27th instant a further arrangement had been made increasing the quota to 40 per cent. May I ask if the government has any information in regard to this matter, and in both cases, the 35 and the 40 per cent, what percentage, if any, of this is Canadian wheat?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: The government has been kept informed as to the decrees that have been passed by the French executive and the figures that have been received by the Department of External Affairs from the representatives of Canada in Paris would indicate that purchases of Canadian wheat during the past year had exceeded 31,000,000 bushels, or twice the quantity that had been purchased in any one of recent years. The exact effect of the decree upon immediate importations is, of course, not known and cannot be known until its operations are apparent.



BEAUHARNOIS POWER PROJECT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: I should like to inquire of the ministry what amounts have been guaranteed by the government to the banks for advances made to the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question will stand as notice of question.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
seconded by Ml. Guthrie:
That the present debate, namely, the debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Bennett that 41761-90J
Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on 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, and on the proposed motion of Mr. Weir (Melfort): "That this question be now put."
shall not be further adjourned.


Mr. WILLIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


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


Mr. MALONEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was paired with the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


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


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


Mr. BERTRAND:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. Johnstone). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BRADETTE:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


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


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


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


Mr. MARCIL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MUNN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.

Unemployment Continuance Act


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


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. WHITE (London):: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Maurice Brasset: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. RYERSON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


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


Mr. MERCIER (St, Henri):: I was paired with the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: I
was paired with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge ('Mr. Barrette). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. ROBERGE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 23, consideration of the motion of the Prime Minister that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of
Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor,
arid on the proposed motion of Mr. Weir (Melfort): "That this question be now put."
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the carrying of the closure motion does not prevent us from drawing to the attention of the country that closure is being applied in this case for one reason and one reason only, and that is to permit the government of Canada to legislate by order in council, so that the government may do in the east block the things which they ought to do in this house of parliament. The government is asking for a blank cheque to spend the money as it pleases, and not in the interests of the unemployed. This is but one more evidence of the fact that the Conservative party and this government is again attempting to play petty politics with the unemployment situation in this country. They want to make it appear to the public that they are really sincere in their professions that they want to do something for the unemployed and that they are being blocked by the opposition, but, Mr. Speaker, the people have been too often deceived by such tactics on the part of the Conservative party to take any stock in such representations again. The people are aware that the leader of the Liberal party, even before this debate began, urged the government to bring down a supply bill to provide an adequate sum for unemployment and farm relief and assured the Prime Minister that if such a measure were brought down it would speedily pass the house. The people are also aware that that offer has since been repeated many times from this side of the house. Indeed, with the acquiescence of the Liberal party in this house I had the honour to make to the government as late as March 11 last, this offer, that if they would bring down a measure to appropriate a sum sufficient to take care of unemployment and farm relief in this country we would pass it within the hour. The government persists in telling the unemployed that they will receive nothing unless the parliament of Canada hands over its powers to the cabinet in council. They persist in telling them that distress will not be relieved unless by a measure coupled with provisions for peace, order and good government. Well, they have had some peace, and a little order, but we have seen no evidence of their good government.
The proposal now before us gives no assurance to the unemployed that one penny of the proposed expenditure will be spent on
1430	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
their behalf. It simply gives to the government the right to say whether or not they will do anything for tihe relief of the distressed. Why keep the unemployed in suspense?


Mr. STEVENS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why, why?


Peter Heenan: Mr. Speaker, there is one very significant fact about hon. members opposite: They have no constructive suggestions to make, but-


Mr. GOTT:: This ought to be good.


Peter Heenan: -but they are always making ignorant cat calls, heckling and using abusive language. Then when hon. members on this side of the house give them a little of it, Hansard will show that they cringe and whine and ask for the protection of the rules of the house.
Why keep the unemployed in suspense? Why not bring in a measure, now?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: That is what we are asking.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Speaker, last year I had to threaten to keep order myself; I hope I shall not have to follow that course this year. Why not bring down a bill so that this government may do even some little thing, in an endeavour to redeem some of the pledges they made in the year 1930?


Eccles James Gott: What about the five cent piece?


Peter Heenan: Up to the present time this government has done little except to supplement the efforts of the provinces and the municipalities. Hon. members opposite have encouraged and induced provinces and municipalities to proceed with large expenditures on public works, and at the present time those smaller communities are unable to go farther. Those contracts were undertaken because encouragement had been given by this government, and they were told they would receive assistance. Indeed, on the one hand they did receive assistance to the extent of approximately $50,000,000, while on the other hand the provinces and municipalities were forced to commit themselves to the extent of over $100,000,000.
I repeat that if this measure were to become law to-day we have no assurance that the farmers and the unemployed would receive one cent. Such a measure would simply hand over to the government of Canada powers which they might use at their own discretion, and they would be in a position to decide

whether or not one dollar would be spent. If the government adheres to the principle it has already adopted, namely to supplement only what the provinces and municipalities do, I say, "God take care of the unemployed of this country," because many of the provinces and municipalities are to-day on the verge of bankruptcy. I fear the unemployed will be disappointed just as they were last spring, summer and fall. Why cannot the government bring in a supply bill providing an amount sufficient to attend to the needs of the unemployed? Parliament should be given an opportunity to vote a specific sum so that those in distress may have some assurance that they will receive substantial assistance.
Many excuses have been offered by members of the government as to why the present and no other procedure should be followed. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) gives one excuse, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) gives another, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) yet another. I submit any one of the excuses given by ministers of the crown is ample reason why this government should not be entrusted with the powers they seek. Government supporters, many of my hon. friends opposite, who are now laughing, know very well that this government is taking a wrong step. Knowing that, they have busied themselves in an effort to make people believe the opposition has been blocking the relief measure. My reply to that is that the people have been deceived too often by the tactics of the Conservative party to believe any such suggestion. They were deceived in 1930. In that year the Conservative party promised that if returned to power they would end unemployment. They were deceived when unemployment increased as it still continues to increase. The people were deceived when the Conservative party promised that the unemployment problem would be dealt with on a national basis. The deception was completed when this government would do nothing except supplement the efforts of provinces and municipalities. On the one hand the people thought that this government had assisted the provinces and municipalities to the extent of about $50,000,000. They found however on the other hand that they had been deceived because this government withheld public works, old age pensions, technical education and national highways contributions to the extent of over $60,000,000.
We are asked by this measure to hand to the governor in council the rights of parliament, to trust to the discretion of a government which has already attempted to make

Unemployment Continuance Act
a mockery of parliament. Hon. members are brought from every part of Canada and faced with a measure which deprives them of their rights. We are asked, in a period of distress, when people want work, to give up the powers which parliament possesses. We are asked to trust to a party which treats with scorn, disdain, abuse and heckling any constructive suggestion offered by hon. members on this side of the house. We are asked to trust a party which said in the year 1930, "We want no conferences; we want to give the people work. If we are elected to power we will give them work." Now, when all their policies have failed and they have brought bankruptcy on some provinces and municipalities, they cry out for a conference. We are asked to trust a government that on the floor of this house promised to insist on the payment of fair wages on all public works to which federal funds were contributed. Yet after parliament prorogued this government made agreements with the provinces providing for a maximum instead of a minimum wage and stood idly by while the government of Ontario reduced the rate of wages on such works in northern Ontario to thirty cents an hour, although in the constituency of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) the federal government paid forty cents an hour for the same kind of work. We are also asked to trust a government whose Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) has admitted that he has reduced the wages of men working on our canals. But he did more than that; he established certain classifications and grades by which the wages of those men could be still further reduced, and when this retrograde step was brought to his attention he enunciated a principle that I have never heard before in this house- that the government proposes to pay not one cent more than private employers are paying for similar work. In other words, if private employers take advantage of the times to treat labour as a commodity and drive men into slavery-and many employers are doing this-then the government is prepared to follow suit. We are asked to trust a government the head of which promised that if elected he would make everyone in this country prosperous; but when all his policies failed he went to the city of Toronto and told the people there that it was only by the grace of God that we could be saved; and then he comes to this house after making that declaration and asks for a blank cheque in order to try to save the country himself. Yes, we are asked to trust a government that during the last election organized the unemployed, furnished them with white ribbons
to wear in their lapels, and sent them in to meetings to hiss and jeer at the then Prime Minister and his candidates, and to attend meetings of the Conservative candidates to cheer the great doctor that was to cure all their ills. But after the election when those same men marched to Ottawa to ask for work they were met at the gates of these grounds by an armed force. These same men who in 1930 were told that they were good honest citizens and simply wanted a chance to work, in 1932 are designated as communists and radicals and not to be trusted. How can anyone who has ever given a thought to labour affairs expect that a Conservative government will grapple successfully with any of the problems of the workers? They never have yet, and I do not expect they ever will solve the problems of our workingmen. It is only recently that this government has been converted to the idea of even suggesting any help for the workers. During the 1930 elections the Prime Minister told the people of Guelph: Never trust a convert to do anything that he has not been brought up to do, because he will always make a mess of it.


Eccles James Gott: We have heard that forty
times.


Peter Heenan: I will give it to you forty-one times.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Peter Heenan: The Prime Minister enunciated the principle, "Never trust a convert." I say he is right in that principle, because the Conservative party has only recently been converted to try to do anything for the unemployed.


Eccles James Gott: You are a convert yourself; you were elected first as a Labour member.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Peter Heenan: What is more, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party surely has made a mess of the unemployment situation in this country. We are asked to trust a government that never was able to grapple with labour problems without making a mess of them. The other day the Prime Minister told us about the great victory of the Conservative party in the Athabaska by-election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Peter Heenan: I am glad that my hon.
friends opposite are very much pleased with the result of that by-election. Evidently it does not take very much to please them. If they will analyze the figures they will see that approximately 4,800 people voted for the Conservative candidate-

Unemployment Continuance Act


Eccles James Gott: How many voted for the
Labour candidate?


Peter Heenan: -and over 11,000 voted against the Conservative candidate.


An hon. MEMBER:: How many Liberals
voted?


Peter Heenan: Eleven thousand voted
against the Conservative candidate. But if my hon. friends opposite want to analyze byelection results let them look at what happened where there was a straight fight between autocrats and democrats.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Three Rivers.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Peter Heenan: Let them look at East
Hamilton.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Three Rivers.


Peter Heenan: Yes; and in Three Rivers the Conservative party were drowned during the last provincial election. In the next election it will not take even Three Rivers to drown the Conservative party. Let them look at East Hamilton where there was a real fight between democrats and autocrats.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why didn't you put up a candidate?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. I must ask hon.
gentlemen to desist from interrupting. Members in this debate are limited to twenty minutes, and even if they are given all their time without interruption they may not be able to say all they want to say.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Peter Heenan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; it will not take me many more minutes to tell all I want to tell about this government.
I submit that we could not possibly trust this government-a government that went down into Quebec and the maritime provinces and deceived the old people by promising them that if returned to power they would treat old age pensions as a federal obligation. This induced the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to postpone taking pensions and as .a result of the failure of this government to redeem its promise the old people of those provinces lost the benefit of old age pensions. We cannot trust these autocrats to do anything. I say to them:	Bring in a
supply bill even at this late date and give us an opportunity to provide for unemployment and farm relief; bring in a supply bill and we will pass it this afternoon.


Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I desire

again to emphasize that in common with every member on this side of the house I am ready and willing and anxious to help the government pass any reasonable supply bill if it is introduced in a constitutional manner; but, so far as I can prevent it, I am not willing to allow any measure to be passed in the autocratic manner in which the government is attempting to force their proposals through the house. If we as members are here for any good purpose it is to try to hand on to those who come after us the free representative institutions which we now enjoy. The freedom which we and every other country enjoy under British parliamentary institutions is due to the sacrifices of our ancestors, and it is our duty to make similar sacrifices for those who succeed us. What difference does it need to make to us personally if conditions in this country are never any better? It will only be a few short years until we too are off the scene. So that if we are here for any good purpose whatever it is to hand on to those who come after us that degree of freedom and liberty which we now enjoy. If we are here for any other purpose, it would be better for ourselves and for our country if we were a thousand miles away.
After ihe convincing manner in which my honoured leader presented the whole question on Tuesday last there was no good reason why the Prime Minister should not have withdrawn his resolution and introduced a supply bill, had he wished to proceed in a constitutional manner. However, he has shown in the most unmistakable way that he is always ready to ride roughshod over the rights of parliament, and he is setting precedents which may guide and direct Canadian parliaments in the days that are to come. The Prime Minister asked this house if it did not agree that in the main the relief measures of the government had worked fairly satisfactorily. An honest review of the facts should tell him that they have been dismal failures.
What are the facts of the matter? Briefly stated, they are these:	The Prime Minister,
appealing to the electorate at Sarnia, Ontario, in July, 1930, said:
Canada is now in a critical condition. Unemployment exists on a scale never before known in the history of this country. AH by reason of the policies of the Mackenzie King government.
At Moncton, New Brunswick, in July of 1930, he said:
Mr. King promises you conferences. I promise you action. He promises you consideration of the problem of unemployment.
I promise to end unemployment. Which plan do you like best?

Unemployment Continuance Act
At Montreal on June 26, 1930, he said: Unemployment has become ia national problem in Canada. The first duty of the Canadian government is to provide work for Canadians.
Mark you, Mr. Speaker; he said this was the first duty of the Canadian government. According to the words of the Prime Minister, unemployment had ceased to be a municipal and provincial problem and had become a national problem, which should be deafit with in a national way. He did not then say "I will hand to some other authority the power to deal with this matter." No; he said, "I promise to end unemployment" and the electorate took him at his word. He called the special session of September, 1930, presumably to end unemployment by federal means, and at that session he jammed through a vote of $20,000,000 presumably for that purpose. But in as little time as it takes to tell he scrapped the whole theory of ending unemployment by federal means, and saddled upon the municipalities and the provinces more than 75.4% of the entire burden. No time was given for discussion; this vote and the changes in the tariff, were forced through parliament by the threat that until these measures were passed the Prime Minister would refuse to leave Ottawa to attend the Imperial conference. Every member of the Liberal party wanted to facilitate, and in fact did facilitate, his going to that conference, but subsequent events have demonstrated that it would have been a good thing for this country if the Prime Minister could have been tied hand and foot so he could not have left. It would have saved this country a lot of humbug.
Time went on, and as the right hon. gentleman continued his policy of humbug, the number of unemployed increased from 117,000 in September of 1930 to 379,000 in October of 1931. Now, according to the estimates of the trades and labour council, the number of unemployed has reached the appalling total of over 550,000, and every sensible person knows that throughout the country there are thousands of people not included in those figures. Then the session of 1931 was called on March 12, and we found that unemployment conditions were infinitely worse than ever before. Every hon. member expected to hear something from the government as to what was being done and what would be done in order to grapple with the situation.


Eccles James Gott: I rise to a point of order.


Thomas McMillan: For four and a half months, from March 12 to July 29-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has risen to a point of order.


Thomas McMillan: I have only twenty minutes, Mr. Speaker, and we know my hon. friend sufficiently-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Eccles James Gott: Just between the pages my hon. friend is turning-


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: State your point of order.


Eccles James Gott: I am going to state it, and I do not need a prayer book to help me. The hon. member always protests when an hon. gentleman on this side reads his speech, and I protest against my hon. friend reading his speech.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have not observed the hon. member reading his speech.


Thomas McMillan: I am within your judgment, Mr. Speaker, when I say that scarcely an hon. member rises to speak without keeping his notes either in his hand or on his desk. There is only one reason why I have my notes before me; this is the worst place on earth in which to speak, and sometimes it gets on my nerves.


Eccles James Gott: Then do not protest when others read their speeches.


Thomas McMillan: For four and a half months from March 12 to July 29 we were balked at every turn in our efforts to obtain from the government information which was long overdue. Even in the face of the solemn pledge of the Prime Minister that he would end unemployment by federal means we were continually sidetracked, either by dead silence on the part of members of the cabinet or by such expressions as, "This question can stand," or "The hon. member will be advised when this comes down," or "The matter is purely a provincial one," or "The primary responsibility rests on the provinces and munic>
palities." In this way the chosen representatives of the people were cajoled by the delusive speeches and promises of hon. members opposite. Finally, on July 29, four working days before the session closed, with estimates totalling millions of dollars waiting to be passed and with other important business still before the house, the Prime Minister introduced this blank cheque proposition. No one can be criticized for saying that this measure was brought down in the dying days of the session, when the thermometer was hovering around 110 degrees and when members were so exhausted that they were not in proper condition to give it the serious attention it

Unemployment Continuance Act
demanded. Nevertheless the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), in defending this legislation, stated that it had been given full consideration. At all events, chapter 58 clothed the government with authority to do whatever they liked and expend any amount of money they thought necessary, with no effective check whatever by the Auditor General, the one official who cannot be dismissed by the government without a two-thirds vote of the members of the House of Commons, but who can only exercise his powers when supply is brought down in the regular manner and earmarked for a special purpose. Under this plan -the Auditor General is not allowed to exercise his supervision. On this point the Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
I invite the house to consider that when an appropriation is passed under supply the purpose for which it is used must be specified, and the Auditor General and other officers of the crown, in scrutinizing such expenditures, always keep the government very closely to the purpose specified in such vote.
That was where the shoe pinched; this government, in their reckless extravagance, did not want to be curbed, so through this blank cheque legislation they managed to accomplish their purpose. It was amusing to be told by the Prime Minister that in order to revive this dead statute it was only necessary to use another of his phrases and say, "notwithstanding such and such a condition." Well, sir, if there is anyone who can make black appear white through his phrases, the Right Hon. R. B. is certainly the gent who can do it. He reminds me of the two old Scotchmen who were conversing outside the door of a country crossroads inn. Sandy said to Donal, "I say Donal, d'ye ken what 'Meetaphysics' means?" "No!" said Donal, "I dinna ken." "Well," said Sandy, "just listen and I'll tell you. If you're trjhn' to tell me about something you know nothing about and I know nothing about it either, that's Meetaphysics. And for half your time you are surely guilty of talkin' aboot the likes o'that."
But now, forsooth, as another reason for asking that this act be further extended the Prime Minister wishes a fair application of the test:	"Has this act not worked fairly
well?" The answer is, that the shameful manner in which some of the provinces have misspent these unemployment relief funds granted from the federal chest, should forever damn such an unsound and indefensible system of financing. It is another vindication of the stand which Mr. Mackenzie King and the Liberal party have always taken, namely, that it is a sad mistake to encourage a system 
whereby one authority shall provide the funds for another authority to expend without any responsibility for their provision.
Listen again to the words of the Prime Minister of British Columbia. The British Columbia government launched its program, employed 16,000 men, built 170 camps and contracted a cost of over $50,000 a day on the definite assurance of the federal government that it would pay half the cost. The scandalously lavish manner in which their camps were constructed surpasses all reasonable comprehension. Supplies of all kinds were purchased, including 50,000 blankets and over 100 Delco Light plants; and 450 steel wheel barrows were counted at one camp. A foreman had to be appointed to regulate their use. Men got jobs as surveyors whose fathers held high government positions. Other men, with cars, were running about the country with instruments, to lay out bunkhouses, and erect elevated water supply tanks, where no suitable water supply could be found.
To show further on what a lavish scale the money was handled, they built two camps, only a mile apart. Coal was shipped from Vancouver island for fuel purposes, while lots of suitable wood was lying upon the roadside. Is it any wonder that ultimately orders were received from the federal authorities that such extravagance must cease? But not until over $3,500,000 had been expended in this scandalously extravagant manner. Machinery was bought on a scale never before known in connection with relief work. Take the whole country over. During the sixteen months ending with January 31, 1932, out of the entire expenditure of $146,899,219 only 331,145 workmen were given employment for only some 44i days over the entire sixteen months, or an average of less than 3 days per month. Out of $147,000,000 expended in all, only $35,147,320.80 went for unemployment relief, less than one-third of the entire sum, constituting one of the most scandalously indefensible expenditures ever put over in the whole history of this country. And yet the Prime Minister had the temerity to stand up the other day and tell the house that the scheme had worked remarkably well.
I would like the Prime Minister to tell us where the other $112,000,000 has gone. Verily, were I in his predicament with such a record to my credit I would feel that I ought to be lashed for the remainder of my life.
Take also the administration of that $5,250,000 which has gone to direct relief for those 50,000 families in Saskatchewan, who have been in the burnt-out area for three successive seasons. To think that these people

Unemployment Continuance Act
through no fault of their own should suffer the loss of their all, for three successive seasons, and then at the hands of this government be compelled to sign promissory notes, which may hang over their heads for years. Do the members of this government not know of the carloads upon carloads of fruit, vegetables and provisions sent out this last fall from Ontario for the help of those people- almost eighty per cent of which came from my county of Huron?


Eccles James Gott: No. Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Thomas McMillan: And we were
proud to come to their succour with this gift, for which we charged not a cent. When it comes to providing out of the federal chest by the government of Canada, or in other words through the whole of the people of Canada, they compel these farmers to sign promissory notes. Just picture the situation. Here are 50,000 farmers who have lost their all; yet, sir, they are compelled to sign promissory notes. An election comes on. Suppose I am in the field as a candidate. All I need to do is to send my emissaries all over that section of the country and warn these people of the obligation which hangs over their heads, telling them that they had better realize on which side their bread may be buttered. This is one of the most detestable stipulations which it is possible to think of. These promissory notes ought to be cancelled at once. It is one of the most detestable tricks which any administration could be guilty of, and so far as my voice would carry, 1 would stand here to Domesday to insist that the government withdraw that stipulation. I appeal to the better judgment of every hon. member of this house. I know there are many hon. members sitting across the floor, men who are honestly inclined, who in the ordinary affairs of life would not think of stooping to anything of a questionable nature. Why can we not for once in our lives stand shoulder to shoulder and insist that this government shall at once relieve these people of any such promissory notes?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has spoken twenty minutes.


Thomas McMillan: Thank you. Interruptions constitute the argument, Mr. Speaker, which we always get from Tories who have not a case.


Air. WILFRID GIROUARD (Drummond-Arthabaska) (Tra.nsk.tion) :: I have followed closely the debate on this resolution and I cannot conceal my astonishment in seeing the
government showing such obstinacy and stub-borness in adhering to a policy so devoid of results. All those who think rationally over the true state of affairs in this country cannot help but acknowledge that, up to the present, the government has followed a policy of groping in the dark which is disastrous to business as a whole. It is, therefore, not surprising that it is unable, to-day, to give one sound reason to justify this resolution. It must again resort to force by applying the closure and, for my part I would not be fulfilling my duty towards my constituents were I not to protest on their behalf against such an arbitrary measure.
Many good reasons militate against our endorsing this resolution, and I think it should be rejected because it tends to place especially in the hands of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) a weapon which enables him to uphold a dictatorship in a constitutional country. The Act which this resolution purports to revive is not in keeping with the needs of the people, it has been a complete failure, especially as regards the interests of the farming class. I am further strongly opposed to this resolution because to prolong a measure which has given rise to such gross abuses would be, to some extent, placing our country defenceless under a despotic regime; moreover its enactment would always be a threat concealed, if you wish, but nevertheless a real one, to the maintenance of peace, order and good government.
The act to relieve unemployment and the farming class was adopted at the end of last session. The resolution which preceded it, being moved on July 29, 1931, was inttitailed!: "Power to deal with the agricultural distress and labour situation." That is, sir, a year after assuming power the government is forced to admit, notwithstanding the remedy which it boasted of having alone the prescription and which was to cure all ills, that the situation in Canada, from the unemployment viewpoint, is very serious and that farming is very much depressed. However, the previous year, in 1930, the Prime Minister had travelled through the provinces stating from town to town that his party alone had a policy, the beneficent and immediate results of which were to bring back prosperity to the farming classes and end what he then termed the plague of unemployment. A year elapsed after these fine speeches were made, and the Prime Minister, in 1931, was obliged to ask the house to adopt measures to relieve unemployment and the farming classes. This authority was granted to him. He has now been in power for two years and to-day we are entitled to ask him -what results he obtained from this Act. We must judge of

Unemployment Continuance Act
the measure which he has had enacted by its results. If it has not produced the benefits expected we have a right to oppose a similar measure. Did the Unemployment Relief Act put an end to unemployment? We are fully aware that those who have no work in this country are more numerous than ever. Has the agricultural distress, to which the Prime Minister pointed1 in 1931, been alleviated? Never have the farming classes shown such discouragement as they do, to-day. Therefore, if this act has not borne any fruit, if it has not proved an effective remedy, why does the Prime Minister insist that it should remain in the statutes? He has now been in power for two years; it seems to me that we were entitled to expect, at the outset of the session, that the government would introduce in the House a measure which would result in relieving the unemployed and the Canadian farmer. Either the government have made no effort to realize the situation, or if they have done so, they have not sought earnestly the means to improve it or studied the problems with which the country is faced, and that is why, after two years of administration, the Prime Minister is obliged to come before parliament without any remedy to the situation which he was to solve on his assuming power.
However, we have already seen that the actual reason for this resolution is not solely the need for funds, because the Liberal party more than once have stated that they were willing to vote the required money, not only until May-as the Prime Minister requests- but a sufficient amount to last for a year if necessary. The government thought fit to refuse this offer. It was not accepted because they wished to again enjoy the arbitrary powers which the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the act conferred upon them. These sections authorize the governor in council-that is the Prime Minister-to pass, notwithstanding any act to the contrary, the measure which they may deem necessary for peace, order and good government.
I respectfully submit, sir, that to grant such powers would be equivalent to parliament, of which we form part, surrendering absolutely rights which were dearly conquered; it would amount to proving ourselves traitors to those who obtained self-government, and, especially, it would be making the Prime Minister a dictator, he who assumed power by means of false representations made in all the provinces and who, to-day, seeks to remain in authority by force.
The Prime Minister in the course of his speech, last Wednesday, disclosed, I think,

his true nature when he spoke of the delegation of unemployed which came to Ottawa on March 3, 1932, and which included people from all provinces of Canada. After having reported and attempted to justify the reception he gave to this delegation, the Prime Minister expressed himself as follows:
Now, I put it to the house and to this country as to whether or not we do not owe at least that duty to every man, woman or child in Canada. Who would do less than to take adequate precautions for the purpose of preventing a mad charge upon this chamber, at three o'clock for the purpose of enabling people to express their opinions?


Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):: He made
them mad.


Wilfrid Girouard: I do not think that such a speech is worthy of a Prime Minister. This, perhaps, is a proof that he is endowed with a great imagination, but it also shows his fears when meeting those who, peacefully, come to parliament seeking work promised by the Prime Minister. In preference to the views expressed by the Prime Minister, I would rather listen to those of a Conservative newspaper, "The Ottawa Journal" which commenting on the government's policy and the Prime Minister's attitude, stated in its editorial page of March 4, 1932: The scene on Parliament Hill yesterday was one that no British citizen could view with pride. The task of a government is to govern. But while under certain circumstances performance of that duty may compel the use of force, there is little but revelation of timidity and panic in the sort of thing that was flaunted in the face of Ottawa yesterday. These things were not a revelation * of strength: they were a revelation of fear. Strong government is required-sometimes. But there is a difference between strength and hysteria. And it was the latter that Ottawa saw yesterday. Unnecessary fear.
Here is a newspaper supporting this government which condemns in no uncertain terms the way people in this country are received at the gates of parliament, when they come to ask the Prime Minister to fulfil his pledges of 1930.
However, the Prime Minister, in the course of his remarks, went further, and I wonder if, on this occasion, he did not really disclose what was at the bottom of his heart when speaking about section 4 of the Unemployment Relief Act which allows the government to take all the necessary measures, according to him, to maintain order. The following are the views expressed by the Prime Minister:
I would not ask this power from any parliament except reluctantly, and I so stated when I introduced the resolution the other day. But, sir, after this discussion between my colleagues

Unemployment Continuance Act
and myself, and taking into consideration the views expressed to ns by others who look at the matter dispassiontely and from the outside, dare we as a government, charged with tremendous responsibility in this emergency of caring for this dominion to do the best of our ability, be without that power? We have said no.
And the Prime Minister adds further on:
What is a man without a weapon in the midst of armed force? What is a man who has no instrument for his protection in the midst of the strife of brigands?
I think, sir, that these few remarks make it clear why the Prime Minister wishes to have this resolution adopted. But before placing a weapon in the hands of the Prime Minister, we have the duty to put to him three questions:	Why the need of this weapon?
Does the present state of affairs in this country warrant granting such a request? Against whom will this weapon be turned if parliament grants him what he wishes? In other words, what has the Prime Minister of Canada to fear?
I really wonder whether the Prime Minister has not begun to realize that his 1930 campaign, which consisted in depicting with gruesome colours the situation, by exaggerating unemployment and the distress which may have existed, and in stating that should he assume power he would adopt a policy which would immediately bring back prosperity, had given rise to hopes which vanished but nevertheless, left among our people a feeling of deception which was more bitter and cruel among those who had reposed their trust in his pledges. He wished, in 1930, to sow the wind, but he fears to-day to reap the whirlwind. I state, sir, that if the Prime Minister and his colleagues fear that their policy is the cause of so much discontent in this country, not only should we not authorize them to do what they please on behalf of peace and order but it is our duty to let them know that they are to blame for this discontent and that their presence at the head of the administration is a challenge to the maintenance of peace, order and good government in this country. Like all who claim exorbitant powers, and follow only their whims and fancies, the Prime Minister imagined that he had but to raise his voice to have this resolution adopted. Had he given it a thought he would have understood that the Liberal members could never consent to approve a measure which despoils them of their parliamentary rights. He would have realized that notwithstanding all the coercive means at his disposal and the closure which he now applies, the Liberal party will expose before the people the loathsome character of this measure.
There is another point to which I want
to draw the attention of the house. The government by virtue of this act has passed laws on many questions: they have, however, neglected the Canadian farmer; they seem to have ignored him entirely. Last year, when the government granted to the western farmers a rebate of five cents per bushel of wheat, we asked that the same favour, the same bonus be given to those in the east who were in the dairy industry. They refused. We again make the same request this year. The budget has not been brought down yet, therefore the government can still meet our request. The Quebec farmer-I trust the Conservative members of that province, who hear me, will join us in making this request- the Quebec farmer as well, I stated, requests the Prime Minister to cease dabbling solely in high finance and to introduce measures which will improve the situation. The Unemployment Relief Act, as its t-tie indicates, was adopted to help those out of work and endeavour to relieve the distress of the farming class. Rather than apply this act where it was needed most, the government made use of it to amend the Bank Act. Instead of having an order in council passed to amend the Bank Act, would it not have been preferable to amend the Farm Loan Act?
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear!


Wilfrid Girouard: All farmers in the east want to see this act amended, they wish to look forward to some improvement. I received, recently, from the "Union Catholique des Cultivateurs de Quebec, Inc." -many members of which are to be found in my constituency-a letter dated March 18. 1932, and signed by the president of that association. The following are a few extracts from this letter:
We believe that our farmers deserve the support of the Dominion government just as much as those of the western provinces to whom was granted a rebate of 5 cents per bushel of wheat for export purposes. Farm loans proportionate to the needs of our farmers are urgently needed. It would be necessary therefore that the loans be 50 per cent of the value of the property, landed property and buildings and that the borrowers be not held to subscribe to the association funds.
Further on the letter states:
The "Union Catholique des Cultivateurs" at three different meetings, adopted a resolution to request that the Bankruptcy Act be so amended as to exclude from its provisions the farmers and settlers whose credit it destroys.
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse) (Translation): I wish to take this opportunity to participate, once more, in this debate so as to complete the remarks which I made

Unemployment Continuance Act
the other day with reference to the failure
of this act, so far as the farmers I represent are interested, and which we are now called upon to revive. However, previous to broaching my subject, I wish to discuss an attempt made by the Prime Minister to patch up the present debate. In the course of his speech last Wednesday, the Prime Minister contended that the fighting spirit shown by the Liberal members in the house was simply that of poor losers, that it was out of spite and disappointment for having lost the election that the opposition opposed the renewal of this act, which is designated as the "blank cheque act." I protest against this statement of the Prime Minister and his attempt to qualify this debate as a pitiful one. If we have taken up this struggle, it is because there is a principle involved, and I cannot admit that a question of principle is beyond the comprehension of the Prime Minister and his followers. If there are poor losers in this house, if there are members who took advantage of this debate to vent their spite and disappointment, they certainly are our hon. friends, the Conservative members from Quebec.
In the course of this debate they rehearsed the wrangling of the Quebec election-which took plaice last August-they reenacted' the comedy of wholesale election contestations and referred to the Dillon Act. To sum up they took advantage of this debate to throw mud at their province-


Mr. DORION (Translation):: It is soiled
enough, under the present regime.


Mr. BOULANGER (Translation):: -they took advantage of this debate to vent their anger and disappointment upon their fellow-citizens. I protest against this-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: I rise to a
point of order.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: -disgraceful conduct, not to say disgusting, of these hon. gentlemen.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has no right to characterize as he has just done, the conduct of hon. members on this side of the house. I ask him to withdraw those words.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: First, I should like to know what are the words to which the hon. member takes exception. As long as he does not mention them, I cannot withdraw anything.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Carry on.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: We, the members from Quebec, form a small group; we belong to and represent a minority in this house, and the whole country have their eyes on us. I think therefore that it is a disgraceful spectacle to witness members from Quebec attack and cry down their province.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: It is Mr. Taschereau who is attacked.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Let us speak about Mr. Taschereau. If Quebec is the only province which the Dominion government is not obliged to feed on the bottle, it is thanks to the administration of Mr. Taschereau.


Joseph-François Laflèche: I think
;hat the Quebec government feeds more "on the bottle" than any other!


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: If there is a province whose finances are well balanced and has resisted the present crisis better than any other in the Dominion; if there is a piovince which does not need the financial aid of the Dominion government; if there is a province which is not under the guardianship, domination and control of the Dominion government, it is certainly the province of Quebec.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Why has it a deficit of 116,000,000?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: After
having registered this protest, I wish to return to the remarks that I intended to make at the outset of my speech.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Taschereau
will have a kindly feeling towards you from now on.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I do not need Mr. Taschereau's love to be elected in my constituency.
_ *^n hon. A1EMBER: That is an easy task, in such a constituency.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Bourassa was defeated in your county.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I have
enough conceit to believe that I was elected on my merits, and the hon. member for Quebee-Montmorency is, perhaps, not able to say as much. My statements are made not to please Mr. Taschereau, but because they are facts.
The act which we are asked to extend is intituled: "Unemployment and Farm Relief Act," it has been a complete failure so far as farming is concerned. The Quebec farmers

Unemployment Continuance Act
received no benefit or advantages from this measure which was enacted to relieve them. Not only this measure did not benefit the farmers and agriculture, but the government, which asks us now to revive this act, which was intended-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: This is Easter time.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: -to be in the interest of the farming class, cuts down the estimates of agriculture by one-third.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: This is Easter time, resurrection time.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: The estimates of agriculture were decreased by $3,000,000. When it is a matter of helping agriculture and the farming classes, one does not begin by cutting down the ordinary estimates affected to agriculture. If these estimates had not been decreased by $3,000,000 this year; if the same amount were to be expended as in preceding years to maintain the technical and ordinary staff of the Department of Agriculture, and to distribute the grants which agriculture usually receives from the Dominion government, it strikes me that it would be unnecessary to introduce a special measure to relieve agriculture.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Will the hon. member allow me a question?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: With
pleasure.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Does the hon. member contend that, under the present regime, the Department of Agriculture contributes less to the province of Quebec than in the past?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Certainly.
In the budget provisions of this year the total estimates of the Department of Agriculture are reduced by $3,000,000, that is to say one-third. It therefore follows that the amounts to be expended this year in Quebec will equally be reduced by one-third.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: With what year are you making your comparison?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: With last year.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Compare
your estimates with those of two or three years ago.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: There is a cut of one-third compared with last year. It is ridiculous to ask us to adont a measure
to relieve the farming class when, on the other hand, the estimates of the Department of Agriculture are reduced by $3,000,000.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: The estimates are similar to those of your party when it was in power.


Mr. DENIS (Translation):: Do try and understand!


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: There exists a Chinese proverb which says that
agriculture is the foundation of the economic system of a nation. The economic system of the nation is compared to a tree whose roots represent agriculture; the branches, industry; the leaves, trade.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: What becomes of this tree in winter?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: When the roots are diseased, the branches dry up and the leaves fall. In order that the tree may remain vigorous and strong, the roots must be kept healthy. That is why we criticize the policy of the government who instead of looking after the roots which gives life to the whole tree, busy themselves with the leaves and branches.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: This is the time to notch the trees.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: In times of crisis as we are passing through, the government should first concern themselves with the main industry, the one which is the foundation of prosperity and the economic system of a nation: Agriculture. Instead of cutting down the agricultural estimates, this year, they should have increased them. Instead of dismissing t'he employees of the Department of Agriculture and technical men who help in fostering agricultural science, thus rendering a service to the farmers, the government should have enlarged the staff, increased the estimates and concentrated their efforts to make a success of farming, because the farmers belong to the most numerous class, they are the purchasers, the consumers. If one wishes to relieve the crisis the lot of the most numerous class must first be improved, the lot of the purchasing class.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: That is why Taschereau cuts down the estimates of Agriculture.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: When farmers are well provided for, industry and trade will be prosperous, because, again, they are the most numerous class, the purchasers and consumers.

Unemployment Continuance Act
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): Hear, heart


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: If one wishes to relieve distress, the lot of the most numerous class must be improved and its purchasing power increased. This class is that of the farmer. When the farmers buy, everybody will be prosperous; when the farmers have money, industry will be doing well and trade flourishing.
Some bon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear!


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I heard recently that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) intended to dismiss a number of technical men whose occupation is live stock breeding. I have here a resolution adopted by the association of live stock breeders which I trust I may be allowed to read to the house. This resolution reads as follows:
Resolution adopted by the board of directors of the Live Stock Breeders' Association of the province of Quebec as well as by the executive committee of breeders of Canadian cattle, sheep, pigs and horses of the province of Quebec, at their meetings, held at the Queen's hotel, Montreal, on Tuesday, March 15, 1932.
Whereas the live stock breeders have been informed that the hon. Minister of Agriculture, at Ottawa, intends to dismiss a certain number of technical men employed in the Dominion branch of the live stock industry;
Whereas considerable and very necessary work was undertaken and is at present under the supervision of these experts, in our province;
W'hereas the live stock breeders of Quebec made investments in certain enterprises in connection with live stock breeding, because they had a right to expect that the cooperation of these experts would be continued, so as to bring such enterprises to a successful issue;
Whereas numerous breeders would undergo considerable losses by the fact of being deprived of these experts;
Whereas by the dismissal of these experts the Department of Agriculture cannot carry out its policy of encouraging the service of good sires.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): A Bull
policy 1
Whereas a large number of live stock breeders have made sacrifices with the view of assisting the Department of Agriculture by providing and maintaining among their cattle excellent bulls so as to sell them to live stock breeders who were anxious to take advantage of the loan and bonus policy to encourage the purchase of sires and that a large number of them will remain unsold if the Department of Agriculture does not carry out their policy.
Whereas the Canadian Live Stock Breeders' Association find that it is inadvisable to discontinue the work of inspection in connection with the registration of cattle, which is in charge of Mr. Robert Marcotte, B.L.A.
Whereas Mr. Alfred Cavanagh is the only bilingual agricultural expert who is employed 
in the office of Mr. C. S. Wood of the Dominion Branch of Live Stock Industry.
It is therefore moved by Mr. L. P. Ville-maire, seconded by Mr. Damien Coulombe and unanimously carried: That a request be for-wmrded to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, at Ottawa, praying him to kindly continue granting us the services of Messrs. Robert Marcotte and Alfred Cavanagh as well as the services of all other experts which are in the employ of the Dominion Branch of Live Stock Industry in the province of Quebec.
(Signed) Andrea St. Pierre, sec., General Stock Breeders' Association.
The other resolution, sir, reads as follows:
Resolution adopted at the general meeting of the members of the Live Stock Breeders' Association of the province of Quebec, held at the city hall in Quebec, Wednesday, February 24. 1932.
The secretary having read to the meeting the last letter received from the commissioner of Live Stock Industry Branch of the Department of Agriculture, at Ottawa, informing them that in the future the department would discontinue the grants made in the past to the exhibitions of class "A", as well as the grants given as special prizes for the winter fairs, the meeting express their regrets that such a decision has been arrived at.
His moved by Mr. Frank Byrne, seconded by Mr. Ernest Sylvestre, and unanimously adopted:
That the association through its secretary, request the hon. Minister of Agriculture, at Ottawa, to kindly grant to our exhibitions at Quebec, Sherbrooke, Three Rivers, Valleyfield and Ormstown, the same grants which they received in the past, and that a copy of this resolution be also forwarded to our federal representatives.
(Signed)
Andrea St. Pierre, sec., General Stock Breeders' Association.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): It is useless.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I shall again ask my friend, the hon. member for Quefoec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) instead of bewailing, in the house, over the results of the Quebec provincial election, to kindly give us his support in our request to the government to continue the services of these agricultural experts and also continue the grants to the agricultural fairs.
By giving us this support, he would be doing far more useful work than belittling his province and making use of the House of Commons to wash Quebec's soiled clothes.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: The clothes are so soiled that they are unwashable.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Another thing which my hon. friend from Quebec-Montmorency, who unceasingly interrupts me, could do, would be to help the Quebec and New Brunswick farmers who are requesting the government to negotiate a reciprocal trade

Unemployment Continuance Act
treaty with Cuba so as to sell their potatoes and other farm products on the markets of that country.
Mr. ST. PERE (Translation): Hear, hearl


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: In the lower part of Quebec, in the counties of Rimouski and Matane, for instance, potato growing was once an important industry; the farmers got good returns which allowed them to live in comfort. Now, owing to the poor prices which potatoes fetch, the farmers' returns are not sufficient to cover the expenses of growing them, and on account of this situation, the Quebec farmers are in a sad plight. Assistance should be given to the farmers of that part of Quebec and the Quebec Conservative members...


Joseph-Arthur Denis: The members "by accident".


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: ...especially those who here represent the farmers, should join us in our request that the government should find markets for the Quebec potato crop as well as for our other farm products.
Mr. Speaker, instead of doing that, instead of helping us to serve the best interests of the farmers that we are representing here, our Conservative friends, in the course of this discussion, went so far as to revive the old question of conscription, which is defunct, even more so than chapter 58 of the statutes of 1931, the very act we are asked to restore to life. Seeing how fond they are of talking about conscription, why do they not suggest to the government to conscript wealth? According to the Prime Minister, the crisis was not as serious during the war as it is now; still conscription was established at that time. It was a conscription of blood. It was then "our war," the war of the common people,
.... nous, les petits, les sans-grades
Que allions pied nus, transis et malades,
... as it is described in L'Aiglon.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: The old story 1


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: During
that period, our great financiers, our purveyors of bacon and military equipment were growing rich, while the common people, the rank and file were sent to the shambles.
Now we have another war, we are going through a crisis which is said to be far more serious than that of 1914-18; it is "their" war, the war of the financiers, brought about by their own blunders and more particularly by their own cupidity. Since it is "their" war, let them bear its consequences and obli-41761-91
gations, let them make now the same sacrifices as they asked us to make between 1914 and 1918.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation):
Hear, hear.


Mr. JOSEPH THAUVETTE (Vaudreuil-Soulanges) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I
think I would not be doing my duty as a representative of the people of Canada and more particularly of the people of my own constituency if I did not take part in this discussion, in order to protest on their behalf against this motion which we have been discussing for several days past.
In order to justify my opposition to this measure and to grasp the import of this resolution, it is necessary for me to consider its very terms, the time at which it was submitted to us and the constitutional results its adoption might bring about. These various considerations offer, to my mind, a wide field for discussion. So far as I am concerned, during the few minutes at my disposal, I cannot give this question all the attention its importance calls for. Most valuable suggestions have already been made by hon. members from this side of the house; therefore, I shall not try to rise to the plane of those experienced parliamentarians and prudent economists. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall only express my humble opinion and that will take me only a few minutes.
First, let us see what the resolution says:
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.
Apparently the changing of the word "March" into "May" is not in itself a difficult operation.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: No need of a surgeon.


Joseph Thauvette: To find the reason why, we must refer to the act itself, which is chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 2nd session.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	Et nunc
erudimini!


Joseph Thauvette: The act
says:
Whereas by reason of the continuing worldwide economic depression there exists in many parts of Canada a serious state of unemployment and distress;
That was on August 3, 1931.
. . . .and whereas the partial failure of the wheat crop of western Canada. . . .



Unemployment Continuance Act


Charles Napoléon Dorion: That is a
good book you have there.


Joseph Thauvette: . . . .has intensified the adverse economic conditions theretofore prevailing	
Those are the first words of the act. I pause here...
An hon. MEMBER (Translation)^ You may well pause.


Joseph Thauvette: .. .to call your attention to the inconsistency between the attitude of the government at that time and the stand they took during the 1930 campaign. The leader of the opposition, who is now the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), knew how to meet the situation, and that great doctor prescribed to the citizens of this country two remedies which could cure all their ills.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	0 doctor
optime 1


Joseph Thauvette: Unemployment Continuance Act
Mr. Speaker, there is a sound principle of philosophy that says: "The end does not justify the means." We are fully agreed on the principle of this resolution; we are clamouring for the relief of the farmers. I shall further say that as long as the government does not lower its tariff walls in order to let other countries exchange their goods for the surplus of our farm products, there cannot be any prosperity in this country, specially among the farming class.
One must bear in mind that the large farming community comprises 53 per cent of the population of Canada. When the majority in a family is suffering and unhappy, it is easily understood that the other members cannot be cheerful. Let us bring prosperity to the farm because it is the fundamental industry- in a country. It is an industry whose products are perishable. The farmer is not in the position of the manufacturer whose goods can wait on shelves or in storage for higher prices. He is governed by the law of supply and demand. Therefore, the duty of the Canadian government is to create a demand.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Cormier):: The hon. member has spoken for 20 minutes.


Mr. E. R. E. CIIEVRIER (Ottawa):: The question before the house now, as moved by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is that the debate shall be not further adjourned. In other words, the Prime Minister is invoking a rule of procedure which is now one of the rules of this house. Without going into its history, I submit that it is a rule that should be used only with the greatest discretion and only in times of absolute need. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because the reaction from the use of such a rule of procedure is bound to reach far beyond the precincts of this house. I submit that the time had not yet come when this rule should have been invoked. When this house rose on Wednesday last, out of 138 supporters of the government 18 had spoken, and there were therefore 120 government supporters who by some process of alchemy or otherwise had suddenly been stricken dumb. Probably the Prime Minister himself could explain why this was so. On this side of the house, out of 85 members, 61 had spoken, leaving about 24 still to speak, and this afternoon when the vote was taken, that number had been reduced probably to 15. We had, therefore, on this side of the house 15 more members who probably wanted to exercise their right of free speech, in addition to the 120 members on the other side who for reasons best known to themselves and the Prime Minister had

decided not to speak. But there were at least 15 members on this side of the house who wanted to avail themselves of their privilege to speak on this issue.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) rose in his place on Wednesday last and moved that the question be now put, and the Prime Minister himself explained the reason why that had been done, that it was in anticipation of an amendment being moved to the resolution from this side of the house. Once more the Prime Minister's calculations fell by the wayside. He anticipated something that did not happen. What he should have done, I submit, was to wait until this debate had exhausted itself, until every member on this side of the house, at least, had had the opportunity of speaking on the resolution, and then having so spoken, the debate would have ended there, and if an amendment was moved, that might have been the time to apply the rule; or if all the members on this side of the house had spoken, the debate would have petered out. Then there would have been no reason to apply this rule of closure. However, the Prime Minister has seen fit to apply it, and he says he is quite content to do so. I leave it to the people of Canada. Mr. Speaker, to say whether they are content with such a practice.
The objects of this resolution I would divide under three heads: First, to prolong the provision for peace, order and good government as it appears in the preamble of chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada for the year 1931; secondly, that for those purposes, such moneys as may be necessary may be expended from the consolidated revenue fund, and thirdly to extend the time, March 1, 1932, mentioned in the statute to May 1, 1932. We are now debating a resolution concerning a statute which has been dead for twenty-nine days. That is no fault of ours, but arises because of the way in which the resolution was allowed to stand. Mr. Speaker, we did in 1931, submit to a vote for a certain amount of money, for the relief of unemployment. But in the same session of 1931 we objected to the principle, but were told that the words "peace, order and good government" were necessary. At page 4278 of Hansard for 1931 I find the following words of the right hon. Prime Minister:
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.

Unemployment Continuance Act
That was the reason why the Prime Minister wanted those words inserted. He referred to " strongly vocal persons." At page 1412 of Hansard for 1932 we find the Prime Minister stating:
We increased the number of police. . . .
And
They were tear bombs. . . .
At page 1413 he is recorded as follows:
The commissioner of police placed fifty policemen about these buildings-fifty.
He went on to state that twenty carried revolvers and thirty were mounted, carrying batons. That is what the Prime Minister has stated was done. Then at page 4439 of Hansard for the year 1931 we find the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) reported as follows:
If the bill is not founded upon the theory that it is necessary to maintain peace, order and good government in Canada, then parliament would have no authority to pass it.
Without these words the bill in the form in which it is enacted into law might be set aside when challenged in the courts. . . . They were placed in the bill as the foundation of our authority to pass such an enactment. . . . They are merely a declaration to give us jurisdiction which we know we have under the circumstances, but of which we want to be sure.
There is the reason given last year. It would seem that those words were inserted in order to be sure that the government's action was proper.
Referring to page 1419 of Hansard for the year 1932, we find that because of those words, and despite the fact that they were used merely as a declaration to give jurisdiction, the government amended the Bank Act, valued securities of insurance companies, prohibited the export of gold, and increased the mounted police. In addition, the government have taken a multiplicity of actions, although we had the assurance last year from the Minister of Justice now sitting in his place, and from the Prime Minister, that those words were placed in the act merely to take care of strongly vocal people. The Minister of Justice took the ground that the words were inserted purely and simply to make the bill constitutional.
Now however they want a renewal. They want to revive their dead plans and amend this dead statute. At page 4279 of Hansard for the year 1931 the Prime Minister is recorded as follows:
I will say frankly to the house that in asking what euphemistically is spoken of as a "blank cheque," we are not unmindful that we are asking very considerable from this House of Commons.
Of course they were. Then, at page 1414 of Hansard of 1932 the Prime Minister is reported as follows:
I would not ask this power from any parliament except reluctantly. . . .
Of course he would not, because the right hon. gentleman is not unmindful of the fact that he is asking for something which is absolutely unconstitutional. He knows what that will mean, and how it will affect the fundamental principles of responsible government. He knows he is undermining the very base of constitutional and responsible government. Both he and the Minister of Justice know that the eases cited bear no relation whatever to the matter under discussion. The Prime Minister has placed cases before hon. members in an attempt to show that the proposed measure is constitutional, and he has objected to the fact that minorities have had something to say. I am sorry I have not time to deal with the subject of minority rights, but to my mind they are highly important. The right hon. gentleman has expressed his surprise and astonishment that under certain conditions we would let this resolution go through. The right hon. gentleman simply flouted our offer in our faces, and said, "What? Must we submit to the wishes of a minority?"
I want hon. members to realize that the procedure under the resolution now before us is not proper. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice know that we cannot amend the statute. I challenge the Minister of Justice, with his reputation as a lawyer of eminent standing, to say that the amendment of a dead statute is within the competency of parliament or any other body. That is what we are called upon to do. Had we been in a position to continue this debate another ten days I think we would have shown conclusively that the Prime Minister is wrong. He has retraced his steps considerably by stating that now he wishes to revive the statute, to resuscitate the statute, to put new life ino it, to reenact it. He has changed his wording, and it would seem that now he does not seek to amend the statute.
I have endeavoured to show that the present procedure is absolutely .unconstitutional. I have been unable to find an authority exactly in point because in British parliaments no such procedure has been attempted. When statutes such as the one enacted last year have been passed, they have passed voluntarily; all parties in the house have agreed. There was however a case in the year 1917 which went before the privy
1446	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
council. I refer to Ottawa Separate School Trustees vs. Ottawa Corporation. The head note explains that the school trustees refused to obey certain dispositions of the school law, and when the Ontario legislature decided to create a commission to administer the schools injunction proceedings were taken, and the action finally went before the privy council. There and then the privy council held that this commission was ultra vires of the legislature in that it had taken away the rights of the electors to the duly elected commission that was administering their schools. All through we have been told:	This procedure
is quite in order because we will not make use of the powers which will be given to us. I am sorry, sir, that time does not allow me to place before the house the full judgment delivered by Lord Buck master; I must content myself by quoting a few excerpts from it. The judgment will be found in 1917 Appeal Cases at page 81. Lord Buckmaster states:
The case before their Lordships is not that of a mere interference with a right or privilege, but of a provision which enables it to be withdrawn in toto for an indefinite time. Their Lordships have no doubt that the power so given would be exercised with wisdom and moderation,-
I want the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) to listen to this:
-but it is the creation of the power and not its exercise that is subject to objection, and the objection would not be removed even though the powers conferred were never exercised at all. To give authority to withdraw a right or privilege under these conditions necessarily operates to the prejudice of the class of persons affected by the withdrawal.
It is on all fours with this particular situation -the rights of parliament are being taken away and are being conferred upon the governor in council.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are called upon, in order to grant the wishes of the Prime Minister, to amend this dead statute. Those who have spoken for the government have not touched upon that aspect of the situation at all; they have simply said that no damage has been done, that we could not place our finger on anything that was wrong. That does not make the principle of this proposal right. When the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) waxed eloquent about this particular subject he reminded me very much of Bassanio in the Merchant of Venice:
And I beseech you,
Wrest once the law to your authority:
To do a great right, do a little wrong.

I thought that probably he would continue along that line, but I find he did not. We have told the Prime Minister he is wrong, but he insists on being right.
There is no power in the tongue of man To alter me: I stay here on my bond.
There is Shylock! Then there is this other
passage:
The pound of flesh, which I demand of him, Is dearly bought: 'tis mine and I will have it. If you deny me, fie upon your law!
There is no force in the decrees of Venice.
I stand for judgment: answer; shall I have it?
Here is the answer-closure. Here is the Prime Minister's dead statute and here is Shylock.
You'll ask me, why I rather choose to have A weight of carrion-flesh than to receive Three thousand ducats: I'll not answer that: But say, it is my humour: is it answered? . . . So can I give no reason, nor I will not,
More than a lodged hate and a certain loathing
I bear Antonio, that I follow thus A losing suit against him. Are you answer'd?
But, sir, I am convinced that the people will be satisfied with the stand we have taken. Evidently the Prime Minister, having made up his mind, will never change it. Allow me to give the house this appropriate quotation from the same play:
You may as well go stand upon the beach, And bid the main flood bate his usual height; You may as well use question with the wolf, Why he hath made the ewe bleat for the lamb;
You may as well forbid the mountain pines To wag their high tops, and to make no noise, When they are fretten with the gusts of heaven;
You may as well do any thing most hard,
As seek to soften that-than which what's harder ?-
His "own stubbornness":	therefore, I do
beseech you,
Make no more offers, use no further means, But with all brief and plain conveniency Let "us" have judgment and "the Prime Minister" his will-
And the Prime Minister is equally insistent for judgment. In this connection these words of the great Macaulay come to my mind; they occur in his essay on Hallam's Constitutional History:
A statesman ought to pay assiduous worship to Nemesis, to be most apprehensive when he is at the height of his power and popularity, and to dread his opposition most when he considers that party most completely prostrated.
Then I quote these words from Proverbs; they are carved over the windows of the Tower:
Where there is no vision, the people perish.

Unemployment Continuance Act
There are some other words that should be engraved over the door of the privy council office and over the door of the Prime Minister's sumptuous apartments, and they should be taken very much to heart by the Prime Minister; I quote them:
He, that being reproved, hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy. [DOT]
We have been reproving him for some time, his neck has become stiffer and stiffer, and redder and redder. Let him repeat those words to himself daily and hourly "lest he perish."


Paul Mercier: Mr. Speaker, I now rise to take part
in this debate because I earnestly feel that we, on this side of the house, have proceeded along constitutional lines in our opposition, during the last few days, to the motion to amend bill No. 58 by substituting the word "May" for the word "March". One of the chief duties of the members of the opposition is unquestionably that of upholding the rights and privileges of the house. Rules and regulations have been made as to the procedure to be followed, and a perusal of parliamentary law and practice shows that when it comes to grants of public money, the house as supreme, and that is the very thing we are contending for when protesting against this measure. Had the government asked for a definite amount, no matter how large, in order to relieve unemployment, in the farming community as well as in industrial circles, we would have indeed been pleased to vote the funds, leaving it to the government to give an honest account of the expenditure, and reserving ourselves the opportunity of ascertaining, through the public accounts committee, just what use would have been made of the funds thus voted.
According to the principles laid down by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), a majority should enable a government to do anything, and it is a fact that his ministry commands quite a large majority at the present time. However, the minority is called upon to offer constructive suggestions in the name of His Majesty, for it must be remembered that the leader of the Liberal party is the spokesman of His Majesty's loyal opposition. The opportunity now offers to uphold the rules and regulations of this house and it is our duty to see to it that the procedure followed is in accordance with the constitution.
Under the circumstances the idea of giving a blank cheque to the government and of conferring unusual powers upon them should
not be entertained. No industrial, no dealer would ever think of such a thing in connection with his own business. Take, for instance, the average business man in this country: would he give to his manager unlimited powers and authorize him to sign a blank cheque whereby that manager could dispose of the larger part of his employer's property? How could the latter keep tab of his own affairs, ascertain what are his profits and check up the doings of his manager or his accountant? Common sense alone tells us that such a stand is a sheer impossibility. We are now being asked to give the government a blank cheque for an indefinite amount.
We are not unmindful of the fact that relief must be given to the unemployed and to the farmers in this country, but as members of the opposition, we must be suspicious of such a resolution as that now being introduced by this government. Should we have allowed the measure to pass without a word of protest, we would have been charged by the people with living made no opposition to it and therefore, with having made no attempt to safeguard the constitutional privileges of this House of Commons, privileges which our forefathers have striven to secure, under the Union, and which they succeeded in vindicating along with responsible government, by strenuously opposing governors bent on extorting a civil list from the people.
Looking back upon the past, we find a parallel to the present situation. Referring to the official report of the Debates of the House of Commons, for the session of 191213, under date of April 7, 1913, page 7223, I see that at the time a similar debate took place. Even now, I visualize the countenance of my hon. friend from Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) when I shall read a certain extract of that report. It is said that, barring electricity, the radio and the wireless, there is nothing new under the sun; indeed, one only has to revert to the past in order to find similar political conditions. For instance, under the heading "Motions for Papers", I notice-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Are you
giving us a spiritual lecture?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: It is perhaps as a matter of entertainment.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: We are in
no hurry, take your time.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: What I
am going to read to my hon. friend from Quebec-Montmorency, has reference to a Quebec lawyer, with whom he is well acquainted.
1448	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuanbe Act
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, etc., exchanged between the hon. the Postmaster General and Mr. Aime Dion, advocate of Quebec, concerning the purchase of a certain patented lock for mail bags.
That motion was made by Mr. Verville.
Then, we read "Naval Forces of the Empire." Let us see how history repeats itself in the political world.
Consideration in committee of Bill No. 21, to authorize measures for increasing the effective naval forces of the empire.-Mr. Borden resumed from March 10. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the chair.)
On section 2:
From and out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada there may be paid and applied a sum not exceeding thirty-five million dollars-
There is a definite amount asked for at that time, just as in another case, a specified sum was asked for by Sir Robert Borden during the Great War; millions were then voted; at times their destination was unknown to us; they would go...


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Say it.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: May be
they would go to the devil; however, the amount was known beforehand.

for the purpose of immediately increasing the effective naval forces of the empire.
And then, this is most interesting:
And the amendment thereto proposed by Mr. Guthrie.
I often wondered how Mr. Guthrie had come to propose an amendment; he should surely have been on the same side of the House. How times have changed! Human beings and even buildings, are at times carried away, like ships, by ground swells; I see indeed that, at times, conditions are 'being reversed. On that occasion, Mr. Guthrie's amendment read:
That after the word "dollars," in the third line of the section, the following words be inserted:" to be expended in Canada in the construction and equipment of naval forces as hereinafter set out."
May I say to my hon. friends on the Government side that the debate I refer to, begun on March 10, 1913, was continued from day to day, from sitting to sitting, until-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Until 1930.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Until the
9th of April 1913, when the famous closure rule was inaugurated. At that time, Sir Robert Borden, rising from his seat in the House, on the ninth day of April, 1913, and moved 'the following resolution. It is a rather a lengthy one, and so, I wish it could be taken as read.
fMr. P. Mercier.]


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Take your
time; read it.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Time flies, goes the saying. I beg leave from this House to consider the resolution as read-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Granted.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: -in order
to come to a most interesting paragraph:
. . . and if the same shall be resolved in the affirmative, no member shall thereafter speak more than once, or longer than twenty minutes in any, such adjourned debate; or "if in committee" on any such resolution, clause, section, preamble or title; and if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall have been resumed or concluded before two of the clock in the morning, no member shall rise to speak after that hour. . . .
Which means that we shall sit until two o'clock in the morning; it is what we may call the last watch, the farewell dinner of the Girondists. Some time later, Mr. Northmip, then a member and subsequently clerk of the House, now defunct and who was a man of great ability, moved the previous question. For what reason was the previous question proposed on that particular occasion? The motion for the previous question was made in order to prevent the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier from moving an amendment. Here are the words uttered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as recorded in the same volume of the Debates of the House of Commons, session of 1912-13, page 7430:
Sir, it means this: closure in anticipation.
I had a motion ready to move in amendment;
I cannot move it now.
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said the same thing the other day to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he stated that the previous question had been moved 'because the Government apprehended an amendment from the leader of the Liberal party, just as had happened in the days of Sir Robert Borden who thus prevented Sir Wilfrid Laurier from moving an amendment before the House.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: This is the
time for barricades.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The hon. member speaks of barricades. No doubt, he will recall that in the history of Quebec, mention is made of the Long-Sault barricade;
I do not know whether the hon. member's intention is to compare us with Dollard des Ormeaux; we may fall; we may not succeed in our effort to scale the wall; it being too high; but we can nevertheless carry on the fight, as the opposition is bound to.

Unemployment, Continuance Act
Sir Wilfrid Laurier spoke on the closure rule passed on the 9th of April, 1913, under the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden. To-day, history repeats itself! I shall quote the very words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that outstanding figure in the history of Canadian Parliament, that venerated leader of the Liberal party-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: You lament his loss.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: -who prematurely departed in a haze of glory-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: And to this day he has not been replaced.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: -and whose speeches are even now more impressive than those of any member in this house.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Lapointe is there to replace him.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: As may be seen at page 7434, volume IY, of the Hansard for the parliamentary session of 1912-13, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
Everybody knows that each time supply was demanded, we granted it without hesitation.
These words still apply to the present case: Supply has been asked for in connection with the Department of Public Works, and the house has voted same forthwith; we were even criticized for our haste in granting same. The address in answer to the speech from the throne was voted within twenty-four hours.
Continuing, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
"Everybody knows that when my right lion, friend came to me- and asked for a vote on account, I agreed without hesitation and with unstinted band, perhaps too unstinted indeed. Everybody knows that whenever a measure of public importance was brought to our attention we gave it our best consideration and it was passed. When the bill for the renewal of the bank charters was brought to our attention, there was not a word said on our side to oppose it. We discussed it fairly; we discussed it completely, but we offered no obstruction to it. When the bill to ratify the Japanese treaty was introduced, there was not a word on our side which went to oppose the passage of that bill. And so it has been with every measure. It is true, sir, that we oppose a certain measure. It is true that we oppose the bill for naval aid. We did that with all the might at our command; we did it by the means at our command under the rules of the house. Am I to be told that in the exercise of this powe" of strenuous opposition we did anything which is not in accordance with the best traditions of parliamentary government? Sir, at all times in this house, at all times in the mother of parliaments, there have been questions upon which the minority thought it owed to itself to offer the most vigorous opposition possible.
Under the rules of the house it is expected that the two sides of the house shall carry on the business, as was stated by my right hon. friend to-day, and so it is generally: but there are occasions, I repeat, when an opposition or a minority-
That minority to which reference was made the other day, which was not to impose anything upon this house, and foe willing to allow the majority to conduct public affairs.
-a minority owes it to itself, on account of the strong views it holds upon some public measure, to oppose that measure with all the force at its command."
That is what took place on the 9t)h of April, 1913; and on that occasion the rule of closure was applied. The methods employed at the time to oppose Sir Robert Borden's motion for closure are nearly the same that are used just now. Why would you wish to enforce that closure rule against us? Such a drastic action could easily be avoided. If, by this resolution, you had asked for a stated amount from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, as was done in 1913 when a sum of thirty-five million dollars was applied for as an aid to the naval forces of the empire, you would 'have been granted, all the moneys required to carry out your plans, complete your works, and give what relief you deemed fit to give to the unemployed in the rural districts as well as in t'he cities. You would have been granted all the funds asked for; the debate would have been of short duration and the expenditure incurred through this debate would have been avoided. At the same time the principle of responsible government would (have been safeguarded through a procedure acceptable to all, to the opposition and to government side alike.
These utterances of the past prove most interesting reading.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: And are quite illuminating.


Paul Mercier: Unquestionably, it is illuminating. It is in the records of days gone by that I find what is best in our Canadian institutions. To my mind, the story of the past revives an era of self-sacrifice to which we owe the great men in our history. If, one day, the gag was forced upon Sir Wilfrid Laurier, we of the opposition, are afforded this day the same privilege of figuring-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: In history.


Paul Mercier: -in the gallery of those who were gagged, with the expectation, however, of securing ultimately the approval of the people.
Mr. Speaker, what did Sir Wilfrid Laurier say at that time?
1450	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
Mr. DORION' (Translation): At what page?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: You are fond of reading the speeches delivered by Sir John Macdonald. He was a great man. One is apt to take his inspiration from his own authorities; as for us, we belong to the Laurier school; his teaching is still paramount and is bound to prevail in after years, for Laurier just as Macdonald, in former days, was considered a bright light-while at the same time respectful of the constitution.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: What page
is my hon. friend quoting from now?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I will tell you. At page 7435 of Hansard for the 191213 session, vol. IV, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
As I have said, there are some occasions on which there is a cleavage between the majority and minority, and then there is an easy remedy, an easy solution. The remedy is not closure; it is not the application of brute force. The remedy is an appeal to the people. The people, after all, are the judge and the jury. The people, after all, are the parties to pass judgment as between the government and the opposition, as between the majority and the minority; and, sir, the most I would have expected on such an occasion as this was that the government of the day would have adopted that remedy, and not have resorted to closure. I am sure it was not a pleasant task that my right hon. friend performed to-day; and for my part, when I compare my conduct with his conduct, I am proud that I resisted all applications for closure, and that, when the time came I appealed to the neople, as I did on reciprocity.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is well that I should quote the concluding words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I am speaking in French now and I do so as a tribute to my own people_____
Mr. BRASSET (Translation); To the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion).


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: -to my province, to the land of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. But, so that I may be understood by everyone in this house, I shall use the English language for my concluding remarks.
I should like to conclude my remarks in English in order to be understood by everyone. The words I intend to utter are not mine; they were spoken in the past, and I have secured them from the library of this House of Commons, which I commend to every hon. member. On the shelves of that magnificent library may be found many jewels of literature, often expressing the exact situation with which hon. members may be faced in this house, I refer to volume 4 of the debates of the House of Commons for the session 1912-13, in order to quote the conclud-

ing words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in connection with the discussion which then took place on a closure motion, that crippled child which we do not see very often but which comes to life once every twenty years or so in order to show that it is not absolutely lifeless. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
My right hon. friend has not forgotten the words of Shakespeare:


this even handed justice
Commends ith' ingredients of our poison'd chalice
To our own lips."
The poison that he offers to us to-day will come to his own lips at some future day. We are in the minority; we can be gagged; we can be prevented from expressing our opinions; they can trample upon our rights. But, sir, the day of reckoning will come, and it will come as soon as we have a dissolution of the present parliament.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
spoken for twenty minutes.


Maurice Brasset: (Translation):	At the very outset of his
speech, when he spoke the other day on the resolution now before the house, the right hon. Prime Minister waxed eloquent on what he termed the victory won in connection with the election held in Athabaska. He claimed, -to use his own words-that a great victory had been achieved by the government and that, therefore, the majority should rule. I have no official returns concerning that election; I simply have press reports which we can assume to be fairly reliable. According to these reports, 4,914 votes were cast in favor of the Conservative candidate in Athabaska, while 10,31)8 votes were polled against him. That means that 4,631 votes actually went to the Liberal candidate-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Is that a
provincial or a federal contest?


Maurice Brasset: It is a
federal election. My hon. friend does not read the papers, or he cannot read at all. The United Farmers who, as my hon. friend from Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion), must know, are dissenting Liberals, secured 3,434 votes, and another united farmer, a member of the Farmers' Unity League, polled 2,303 votes.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Are these official figures?


Maurice Brasset: If my hon. friend will only bear with me another five minutes, I shall give him some interesting information in a few moments. I trust my hon. friend will rise, when I am through, and speak

Unemployment Continuance Act
himself for twenty minutes; the privilege is his in common with any member on this side of the house.
I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that the constituency of Athabaska has not sent to this House a representative of the majority since more than twice the number of votes cast for him went against him. The right hon. Prime Minister made a rather strange statement a few moments later when he said that, in this house as well as elsewhere, the majority must rule. As I said before, the member for Athabaska who is to take a seat in thi3 house, shall not be the elected representative of the majority, and should the right hon. Prime Minister dare bring forward any anticonstitutional measure, he would not have the support of the actual majority of the people. When a government introduces a fair measure and when they are backed by a majority of the people, we may say that the majority at their command in the house is a real majority. But, when the Prime Minister has recourse to a majority,-I do not like to use the adjective I have in mind,-that is ready to stand by him on every occasion, in order to secure the passage of all kinds of anticonstitutional measures, whether they be in the interest or not of the people, I say that he should not rise in this house and talk about majority or government by majority.
Why are we opposed to this measure, Mr. Speaker? We oppose the measure for several reasons.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: We should
know them by this time.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): You do not understand anything.


Maurice Brasset: The hon.
member for Quebec-Montmorency must be deaf for he has been told many times, and he does not know yet. For his own benefit I will try to restate these reasons, and I hope that this time he shall pay attention.
We do not want to confer unlimited powers on the government. The other day, the right hon. Prime Minister attempted to define the powers he is asking for in the following terms:
Without restricting the generality of the terms of the next preceding section hereof, and notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law, the governor in council may:
(a) Provide for the construction, extension or improvement of public works, buildings, undertakings, railways, highways, subways,-
Very likely it means a tunnel under the citadel at Quebec, an undertaking such as would interest my hon. friend.
-bridges and canals, harbours and wharves, and any other works and undertakings of any nature or kind whatsoever;
(b)	Assist in defraying the cost of the production, sale and distribution of the products of the field, farm, forest, sea, river and mine;
(c)	Assist provinces, cities, towns, muni-cipailities, and other bodies or associations, by loaning moneys thereto or guaranteeing repayment of moneys thereby, or in such other manner as may be deemed necessary or advisable.
Such powers, Mr. Speaker, are unlimited and I believe that use could be made of them in order to secure the passage of any measure the government may introduce. I even think that, under that blank cheque, the government could proceed with the St. Lawrence Waterway Project, in which case, knowing as I do how my hon. friend from Quebec-Montmorency stands on the matter, I am safe to say that he would be bound to vote against the government.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: You are mistaken.


Maurice Brasset: The government would be enabled to spend enormous sums of money,' do what they please, indulge in any extravagant expenditure, for any reason, simply under the guise of relief to those who are in distress. We too, are quite willing to give relief to those who are hungry and to alleviate distress among the people; but we refuse to let the government resort to that measure in order to have their own way. Let the government say just what they intend to do, let them state the amount to be expended and we shall be the first to cooperate with them, to give them authority for such expenditures as are called for.
I submit the government are indulging in extravagance at a time when they preach economy and solicit a blank cheque for the purpose of reckless expenditures. On this side of the house we have our misgivings as to the manner in which the government may use the funds at their disposal. "L'Evenement," a newspaper that has the approval of the hon. member who is so fond of interrupting me, has this to say:


Charles Napoléon Dorion: This is quite an event.


Maurice Brasset: In a few days from now, the Minister of Finance shall announce the extent to which he shall raise the tax rate, in the hope of making good the deficit of the administration for the coming year. That increase in taxation will
1452	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
affect every taxpayer proportionately to their families and fortunes. At a time when the people already experience so much trouble in balancing their own budget, who shall come to their aid? They will be compelled to cut down their expenditures and deny themselves quite a number of the necessities of life. But why the government should not themselves reduce their expenditures ?
That is what we hear throughout every province in Canada. We are willing to cooperate with the government and help them to cover up their deficit; we are ready to cut down our own expenditures, but let the government set the example themselves in the matter of economy. We contend that the government, in carrying out an unsound policy of economy, should not discharge their own employees after fifteen or twenty years of service, and at times more; we protest against the government's own employees being made the first victims of that policy. Such is the contention of the province of Quebec as well as of every province in this Dominion. What we want is a government that will practise economy, not a capitalistic government, and above all, not a government ready to spend the money without giving us any information as to its destination.
What would all the provinces of Canada, what would those who sit in this House, either on this side or on the Government sidie, think should the municipal council in a small town empower the mayor, for a whole year, to spend money at his own will and manage the public affairs without the advice of any one? Would the electors of such a municipality have cause to be pleased with their mayor, and could, in the name of common sense, a municipality endorse such a policy, simply because it may be necessary for the good government of the town? For a long time, we have always had, every year, and in every town in the province of Quebec and elsewhere in the Dominion, a certain number of unemployed for which the municipal authorities had to provide.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: To be continued.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILL



SECOND READING

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


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of the Prime Minister that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor,
And on the proposed motion of Mr. Weir (Melfort):	"that this question be now put."
Maurice Brasset: Mr. Speaker, when at six o'clock I was forced to suspend my remarks, I was referring to the extravagance of the Government. The hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Dorion) repeatedly interrupted me; evidently, he was displeased with my remarks as I am quoting extracts from his favorite newspaper, L'Evenement. Once more, to be agreeable to him, I will continue my quotation. Under date of the 28th March, 1932, L'Evenement said:
On the first of April, Mr. Ferguson will triumphantly arrive in Ottawa to put to shame the witness who said that the former Toronto politician had claimed his share of the bribes in connection with the Beauharnois. No doubt, such a denial has already been given in a cable and Mr. Ferguson could have retrained from undertaking, at our expense, a hurried ami pleasant voyage, for the sole purpose of repeating his denial here.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that, at this time when there is so much distress to be relieved, when the Government can hardly make both ends meets, and when, in a few days, he will be compelled to add to the burden of taxation now weighing upon the people of Canada, expenditures of this sort should not be undertaken. It is true that the government cannot carry on without funds, but, after all, why should they incur expenditures like those I referred to the other day, such as, for instance, the Gordon inquiry, and so forth? And to-day, it looks as though the whole of Canada should bow to the will of the right hon. Prime Minister and his ministry.
Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister, when he spoke the other day, wanted to know whether it was a matter of urgency to relieve distress among the people. To the Prime Minister I may reply that the matter is indeed one of urgency, but that it is so through the fault of the government; the urgency exists because the government themselves have failed to administer public affairs as they should

Unemploymen t Continuance Act
have done. The history of the Confederation shows that every time a conservative government comes into power, their arrival is always followed by a period of depression. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier was defeated in 1911, prosperity was prevailing throught Canada, and two years later, in 1912 and 1913, depression came bringing in its wake distress and starvation. In 1921, when the right hon. Mr. King came into power, Canada was on the verge of bankruptcy, and after a few years of resoluteness and industry on the part of the liberal administration, we saw once more the return of prosperity. Then, the conservative government comes back and we have the same conditions as formerly; we are going through a new period of depression; distress and want are prevailing in Canada.
The right hon. Prime Minister has also referred to what took place when a few persons came here and endeavoured to secure his aid. Who were the men that called on him? A great deal has been published in the papers concerning them, and according to the English press they were undesirables coming from all parts of Canada. Mr. Speaker the people who came here for the purpose of obtaining relief, were honest citizens, representing every section of the country. They wanted help for themselves and their families. I think that they were entitled to a reception different from that which was given by the right hon. Prime Minister. The other day, I quoted an article from a conservative paper, the Ottawa Journal. Since then, a good deal of discussion has taken place and a controversy has developed in connection with that famous trip of the unemployed to Ottawa. I would like to put on record on the Hansard an article which appeared in the same paper, under -date of the 8th March, 1932. It says:
A General and a "Mob" Major-General W. A. Griesbach, an Honourable member of the Senate, writes The Journal in disagreement with this newspaper's editorial criticism of what it deemed to be an un-called for and un-British parade of armament on Parliament Hill. In his opening paragraph Major-General Griesbach states that he writes "with humility," but the statement seems hardly borne out by succeeding passages. What is revealed, instead, is that attitude of mind which, more than anything else, was responsible for the Junkerism which Ottawa witnessed last Thursday. Consider this from Senator Griesbach:
"Does a display of force invite disorder from a mob, or, conversely,
"Does a display of force dissuade a mob from disorder?"
Note well the word "mob." M-ajor-General Griesbach knows what it means. The dictionary defines a mob as "the lower classes of the community; the common mass; a disorderly element of the population; a disorderly crowd; riotous or low people in a crowd."
The Senator appears to think that because Canadian citizens are hungry and unemployed, and come to the Capital of their country to ask their Government for aid, that they are "the lower classes of -the community," or a "disorderly element of the population," or "riotous or low people in a crowd." That, consequently, -they must be terrorized by force.
To this sort of mind, it is perfectly all right for people to assemble as Conservatives or Liberals, to cheer some Senator or M.P., but all wrong, and something to call for a display of guns, if they assemble because their families are hungry. The right of lawful assembly dosen't apply to the unemployed!
Of that sort of thinking, if it can be called thinking, the world is becoming tired. There is an old man now living in Doom, and who was once the All-Highest, who used to think that way; but, unfortunately, all the Junkers didn't live in Germany. There are too many of them in all countries.
Tire Journal has never had sympathy for lawlessness, has no sympathy with it to-day, never will have sympathy with it. But there was no evidence of lawlessness in Ottawa on Thursday last; consequently The Journal protests, as all of British blood should protest, against the exhibition of Prussianism which took place on Parliament Hill. More that that, The Journal hopes -the day will never come in Canada when the British right of lawful assembly will be denied -to citizens simply because they are unemployed, when people who are without work and the means of sustenance will be met by nothing more decent than a threat of bullets and bluster. Canadians won't stand for that sort of thing any more than they will stand for Communism.
If Major-General, the Hon. Senator Griesbach and those who think like him are fearful of the unemployed, and think that theirs may be the fate of the Hon. Mr. Squires of Newfoundland, then it is just too bad. We suggest to them, however, that -their fears are not shared by the public.
And in answer to Senator Griesbach's hypotheses he might be referred to the fact that in London, where the problems of maintaining law and order are continuously great, the Metropolitan Police carry no lethal weapons and there is no interference with lawful assembly.
The people who have come to Ottawa in the Past, and who did most damage to -the country, didn't arrive hungry and unemployed. Some of them came in private cars, and, judging from some recent political history, with too-great rolls of greenbacks. If they had been met by policemen with guns Canadians would have saved a lot of money.
There is no question about that. Ottawa is the -Canadian capital and, it seems to me, the unemployed are entitled to a hearing from the right hon. Prime Minister. When the right hon. gentleman goes ba-ck on the unemployed after the pledge he took, throughout Canada, to provide work for them, I submit that such an occurrence should never be witnessed in the capital of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we are ready to aid the unemployed and it is because of our desire to help the needy that we object to the granting of the -powers asked for by the Prime Minister.
1454	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
We must, in the first place, know what measures he intends to take, and how he will spend the funds voted by this House; we also wish to know whether those millions will actually be used for the relief of distress.


Mr. F. W. PERRAS (Wright):: Mr. Speaker, when for the first time I read the resolution that is now before the house I could hardly conceive that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) who is a financier of no mean ability and a lawyer of repute, really intended to see unemployment relieved in that way. I say that because I do not think that at any board meeting at which he might ever sit he would accept a resolution giving the directors a blank cheque to administer the affairs of the company. What difference is there between that case and the present one? I see none whatever. As the director of a company he would know through his officials just what amount had been required for the past year and what would be required for the coming year in the way of current expenses, contingencies, reserve and sinking fund. When departmental estimates are being prepared, the whole situation is canvassed, and then a supply bill is brought down.
In 1930 the Prime Minister made the statement that there were then about 117,000 unemployed in this country, and that in the winter months the number would probably reach 177,000. At the special session of 1930 he asked for $20,000,000 for the relief of unemployment. So the unemployed man would get for himself something like $100 for three months, or $30 for each of the three winter months. Evidently that was but a rough estimate, but the situation at the time being critical, we on this side of the house agreed to vote that sum of $20,000,000. I am not prepared to say that that fund was in all respects properly administered. I have not all the data I should like to have before me in that connection, but I am afraid that a vast portion of that sum never went into direct relief, never went to those for whom it was primarily destined. I am afraid that much of it was frittered away in costs, commissions, implements and so forth, and that the unemployed did not get the full benefit of that $20,000,000.
The Prime Minister in 1931, having had the experience of 1930, should then have had the situation well in hand, but instead of that, the situation was decidedly worse. Many things go to prove that. The number of people out of work had considerably increased, and the price of farm products, to mention only those, had pretty nearly touched bottom. The situation throughout the country was daily

getting worse in all spheres of activity and everyone was feeling more deeply the acuteness of the crisis. Still another proof that the Prime Minister had failed in his efforts was that while on the first occasion he had asked parliament for $20,000,000, in 1931 he asked for a blank cheque. Evidently he was afraid, I might say ashamed, to ask for a definite sum, conditions being so bad. He got that blank cheque, and we have not heard the end of the story as yet. But at all events we get this from the Labour Gazette under date of September 30, 1931:
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 the first period every man worked an average of 22'/to 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 22J 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, 1932, 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. .
Will anyone say that that measure worked wonders when the best that was done under it was to give to those who worked, only three days' work per month?
May I now point out at what a cost that was done? The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) has already explained that. According to the returns, there was spent $146,899,219. To employ all those men at three dollars 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, would have meant an expenditure of something like $44,000,000, instead of the $146,000,000 that was actually spent. Some may say that the difference was made up by the cost of materials, but if we are to assume that $100,000,000 out of the $146,000,000 was spent for materials, it is certainly a pretty high percentage. We have only the statement made by the Minister of Labour. The fact remains however that to pay those men three dollars for every day's work would have cost $44,000,000. The next fact is that according to the Minister of Labour we have committed ourselves to an expenditure of $146,000,000, or three times the amount spent for labour. Possibly some of that expenditure went to buy material. I wonder if anyone will say that the people supplying materials are those for whom relief should be provided.

Unemployment Continuance Act
The money was voted for the purpose of providing work and employment for those in need. The fact is that $100,000,000 has been spent over and above the moneys paid to those in distress. The only conclusion I can arrive at is that out of every $10 spent only $3 reached the unemployed. To date, that is the cold, blunt result. The Prime Minister comes back this year and asks for another blank cheque. When last year he obtained the blank cheque it was understood his expenditures under it were to end on March 1, 1932, though of course his commitments would lead him farther on into the year. As I understood it, after the first of March of this year he could not enter into any new commitments, but could continue paying in respect of those entered into before that date. As a business man I would say that his note matured, or that his lease expired on that date.
We are now told the Prime Minister needs money to carry on until the first of May. Under the terms of his dead lease he cannot enter into any new contracts, and it is for that reason he is worrying. If he needs money he must come to parliament with a supply bill and state the amount he requires, what he wants it for, and how he will spend it. That is just what he does not want to do. He wants to get more money under the old blank cheque, and keep on spending it in the way I have shown. Now his position is very clear; the situation is not complicated. He needs authority to spend more money until May 1. If the term of the blank cheque is extended until May 1 what assurance has parliament that between now and the first of May the Prime Minister will not make commitments for the whole of the fiscal year 1932-33? That is where the joker comes in. If we resuscitate the dead statute and then amend it by giving it breath until May 1, we still give the Prime Minister the right to any sum he desires to have, a right similar to the one he possessed under the dead statute.
Then, by virtue of that statute he will again have the right fully to engage any sum before May 1, 1932. He will be at liberty to engage the entire amount he may need for the year 1932-33, and on May 1, 1932, he may say to this house, "I do not need a supply bill for unemployment relief, as I have all the money I desire, and I will not make any new commitments after May 1." That is the situation. Hon. members on this side of the house say that would not be the proper attitude, but rather one in complete violation of the constitution. Conservative members who have spoken have not denied that the proposed legislation is anti-constitutional, but they have said, "What matter, even it does trangress constitutional law"?
I am not a lawyer, and shall not go further along this particular line. But I am a lover of justice; I respect duly constituted authority, and when I am confronted with a choice between a right and a wrong method, I prefer to follow the right. That is the Liberal way. I desire to make it clear that hon. members on this side of the house are not trying to inflict pain, misery or suffering, or to delay relief. Under present conditions the Prime Minister may continue to pay for all commitments made before March 1, 1932. There must be in existence many commitments under which money is daily being paid and will continue to be paid long after March 1, 1932.
If the Prime Minister had wished to proceed properly the whole matter would have been very simple. Had he come to this house and stated candidly, "In the light of the experience gained during the past two years I think I will need so many millions, but in case of emergency or for something unforeseen, I should like to have so many more, and I desire to spend what I get along the following lines"-he would have obtained the required sum. I feel I must at this point quote the words of my right hon. leader, as they are reported in Hansard of March 7, 1932:
What I wish to say to my right hon. friend is that if he will bring into the house a supply bill asking for the amount that he may regard as necessary and wish to have for this month, so far as the opposition is concerned, we will be prepared to do what we can to facilitate its passage rapidly through the house. We recognize that it is a week since the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act lapsed and that my right hon. friend will certainly be coming to parliament for some moneys for this purpose. If a supply bill is brought in at any time to provide what may be necessary for the balance of this present fiscal year, so far as the opposition is concerned, we shall be prepared to agree to any suspension of the rules which will allow the bill to go through this house with as little in the way of criticism or delay as possible.
I would like to make clear to my right hon. friend that one reason I mention the matter immediately is that if it is proceeded with by means of a supply bill, I believe there will be no question as to the rapidity with which the bill would pass, but if my right hon. friend has in mind proceeding with a bill such as the one passed at last session, which was intended to meet a situation while parliament was not in session, I may say that we on this side would have to take very strong exception to proceeding in that way.
Then, at page 916 of Hansard of March 8 last, I find the following:
Now, my right hon. friend has parliament in session. He does not need to summon parliament again to get an additional sum for the
1456	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
purposes for which he now requires this money. He has indicated this afternoon that something, I think, like $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.
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 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 it in that form.
With those sentiments, Mr. Speaker, I am in full accord. I submit once we decide to do something to cure what the Prime Minister said he would cure or end in one day, we should do our utmost to this end. But as I have said, there is but one right way of doing it. If doing it the wrong way would more quickly help the needy, then that might be an excuse for this procedure, but it would not. Let me again quote what my right hon. leader said in that respect, as it appears on page 914 of Hansard of March 8:
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 all-important, 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 [Mr. Perras.l
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.
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.
I have repeated that, Mr. Speaker, so that it may again be taken as the expression of the attitude of the Liberal party.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman has exhausted his twenty minutes.


Fizalam-William Perras: I will finish my speech,
sir, in my constituency.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put the climax on
it in your own constituency.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata): I desire, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate my hon. friend who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Perras) on his excellent speech. I am sure his constituents will be very glad to hear the remainder of his speech which the twenty minute limitation has prevented him delivering to the house.
I am very sorry that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is not in his seat to listen to the further quotations which I propose to place before the house in answer to what he said last Wednesday in the course of his two-hour speech. On page 1402 of Hansard he stated:
The gentleman who for so many years presided at the table in the mother of parliaments -wrote a book from which I shall read just a few lines, namely, Redlich's Procedure of the House of Commons, as the outstanding authority upon the subject.
To use the right hon. gentleman's own words, there seems to be a lack of knowledge somewhere, because if he had looked at the first page of the book he would have seen that Josef-J-o-s-e-f-Redlich is a professor in the faculty of law and political science in the University of Vienna and author of Local Government in England. He would also have observed that his work on the procedure of the House of Commons was written in German and translated by A. Ernest Steinthal of Lincoln's Inn, barrister-at-law, formerly fellow of Trinity college, Cambridge. The name

Unemployment Continuance Act
J-o-s-e-f-the German form of J-o-s-e-f-appears on the title page of each of the three volumes.
In the Encyclopaedia Britannica, fourteenth edition (1929), volume 19, page 24, I find the following:
Redlich-Austrian historian and politician. Was born in Goding, Moravia, on June 18, 1869. He studied jurisprudence and history in Vienna and travelled extensively, especially in England.
He never "presided at the table in the mother of parliaments." He may be an outstanding authority on parliamentary procedure, but so far as the mother of parliaments is concerned he is a rank outsider.
Had the right hon. Prime Minister looked at page 315 of the index he would have found under "Opposition" the following:
Obstruction as a function of the opposition (1) 81-note.
Turning to page 81 he would have found this note:
In 1840 Sir G. Sinclair made bitter complaint of the slow and slovenly manner of conducting parliamentary business, which he ascribed to the improper behaviour of many of the members:-
Just as the right hon. Prime Minister does. -he stated that, at the beginning of the session especially, much time was thrown away. The speech does not seem to have made much impression on the house. See Hansard (54), 963.
Much the same as the effect of the right hon. gentleman's speech last Wednesday. On the same page Redlich quotes Sir S. Walpole as follows:
The fashionable young gentlemen who had been nominated as the representatives of rotten boroughs, had been replaced by earnest men chosen by the populous places enfranchised by the Reform Act. Representing not a class, but a people, they brought the house into harmony with the nation. They insisted on receiving a public hearing for their own views; and on obtaining comprehensive information on the many subjects in which they and those who had sent them to parliament, were interested.
There is a footnote to that paragraph in these words:
Sir Erskine May also points to this cause in his pamphlet "Remarks with a view to facilitate the dispatch of public business in parliament" (1849). The development of freedom, he says, had enormously increased the desire to speak in the house. Delays and even obstructions must not always be regarded as illegitimate parliamentary weapons,-
It is our weapon; on the other hand. The Prime Minister wants to use orders in council or special powers as his weapon.
-as they afforded the means of collecting the opinions of constituencies and the public. For the future, on important legislative proposals, long debates might always be reckoned on.
This quotation is from the very same author that the right hon. gentleman cited last week; should he not have read the first volume before delving into the third. And
he says this is the outstanding authority on the subject.
The right hon. gentleman quoted another authority, chapter 48 of Westminster, 1931. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) has demonstrated beyond doubt that it cannot be invoked as a precedent in favour of the proposed legislation, any more than Mr. Josef Redlich, an Austrian, can be said to have "presided at the table in the mother of parliaments."
Let us proceed a step further. There is another matter that has been forgotten by the Prime Minister. In his elegy he forgot to mention one of the greatest accomplishments of the dead relief act, the purchase of railway ties to the extent of some $1,300,000, so eloquently referred to by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). Railway employees have been set back while profiteers have been given contracts for railway ties.
Why not make an anthology of the gems contained in the Prime Minister's speech? At page 1254 of Hansard he said:
May I point out that during the long years in which the Liberal party was in opposition from 1911 to 1917 under the direction of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, never during that whole period of time, with the exception of the naval debate, to which I shall presently refer, was there a case in which any effort was made upon a resolution introduced into parliament, a resolution, I repeat, asking that the Speaker do leave the chair for the house to consider the resolution, to have a debate that extended beyond the statement of a few broad principles.
When Sir Wilfrid Laurier was leader of the opposition Sir Robert Borden never amended, or thought of amending, a dead statute.
Now let us proceed a step further. The Prime Minister said:
Does any hon. member in this house suggest that a single amount in a supply bill will take care of that situation?
Where is the Prime Minister to-night? He is not here; I do not know where he is. Then on September 11, 1930, the Prime Minister said:
When you expend large sums of money, there should be parliamentary sanction for the expenditures. That has been a cardinal principle of liberalism at least. It is for that purpose that the sanction of parliament is now being asked to spend twenty millions for two purposes: (a) to provide useful work suitable, so far as possible, to engage the energies of the unemployed; (b) to provide for relief for those for whom there is no work, and who are


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: In connection with this debate there are two points that are of chief interest to me, namely, the question of relief and the constitutional question. In view of the fact that this debate has lasted so long, I may say at once that the question of relief is the paramount question so far as I am concerned. It does not seem to me that the constitution itself is in very grave 41761-92J
danger. I know, of course, that we run risks more or less every day we live as we walk around the streets or as we do anything, and some risk must be attached to any powers given any government. But at the same time the question does not appear to me, even after reading the statement of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), to be so very far-reaching and so very important.
I find at page 1393 of Hansard of March 22, 1932 the following statement by the right hon. the leader of the opposition:
If this measure is so dear to the hearts of hon. gentlemen opposite, if that is the whole excuse and reason for it being brought in, I say take out these few words which constitute the blank cheque provision and substitute any specific amount you wish. Make it any amount you deem to be necessary, $10,000,000, $50,000,000, $100,000,000, or as many millions as you like to move in, and introduce the bill in that form, with one other change.
That is the reference to the blank cheque. Now after all, in practice, what is the difference between introducing a blank cheque provision and the leader of the opposition's statement, "Bring in any amount you like and we will O.K. it?" I canot see any real difference at all between the two propositions. The leader of the opposition continued:
Take out the words that give to the ministry itself, while this parliament is in session, the power to legislate by order in council in connection with peace, order and good government.
Now these are far-reaching powers but the only objection taken to them by the leader of the opposition is that the government should have these powers while parliament is in session. It may be possible to contend that this is a valid objection; possibly it is quite reasonable to say that the government is asking for a great deal. But after all the government has had that power for some six months while parliament was not in session and then for one month up to March 1 while parliament was sitting. I do not know whether they have had the power or not for the last month, but I will say this, that throughout the present debate the abuse of the power as it has rested in the hands of the government has not been seriously suggested by any member of the house. If this is going to be a fairly short session I cannot see that there is any tremendous risk considering that we have been living under a government that has had these powers and that nothing desperate ha3 happened. The government has not been seriously challenged on its use of these powers and I do not think we ought to be afraid of extending them another five or six weeks.
With regard to the constitutional question in general, perhaps I am not very well quali-
1460	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
fied to speak; it is largely a lawyers' question. It may be because of the density of my own mind or possibly because of the manner in which it has been presented to the house, but 1 have never worked up very much enthusiasm ibout the constitution one way or the other. The discussion, in part, has reminded me of some theological debates that 1 have read that took place some five or six hundred years ago. The constitutional question is a somewhat academic one, but in any case I do not think the constitution should be a rigid thing. In our interpretation of the constitution and the powers of any body under that constitution it seems to me that we must always exercise critical common sense, and should not be bound too rigidly by what people thought in past centuries or generations. This generation and this parliament must be ready to discover new truths, ready to re-define and re-apply old principles. That is our responsibility and our right as truly as it was the responsibility and the right of any group of people that ever sat in any parliament. If we must find out some things by trial and error, as in the past, we ought to be willing to make reasonable experiments and not be leld back too much by fear, especially when ve attempt to deal with so serious a situation is exists throughout the world to-day. No oarliament, no people were ever faced with the circumstances that we are faced with today. [DOT] Present conditions are not normal by any stretch of the imagination; they are abnormal from whatever angle you look at them. The Macmillan report submitted in Great Britain frankly recognizes the fact that we cannot function as organized communities indefinitely under present conditions. Within the last year certain things have happened that no one had any idea twelve months ago would happen. In the last few days I have read H. G. Wells' The Work, Wealth and Happiness of Mankind. In the closing paragraph he has this to say:
Unless the gross amount of purchasing power in the entire world is increased, the getting of a larger share by Great Britain and her associates, will only mean that some other populations will have less. In spite of the suspension of war-debt payments-payments which it now seems clear will never be resumed-France and America still remain great absorbers of gold, and are still apparently unable to use their swelling hoards even to mitigate the deepening distresses of their own peoples. The poor nations are still grooving poorer, becoming less and less eligible as borrowers as the need to redistribute money grow* more and more urgent. They are sinking deeper into discontent, until it only needs a demonstrable rise in the Russian standard of living to make communism a vivid issue in half the cities of Europe. An immense amount of misery is being produced during 
these slow blunderings towards adjustment-if indeed they are towards adjustment-and it is still an open question whether the world conferences needed for the restoration of the ebbing economic life of mankind, can now be assembled and made effective, before the intolerable vexations and sufferings of the generality produce a world-wide series of social catastrophes.
Therefore, after all, the government is asking for great powers to deal with extraordinary conditions, and somebody apparently must have those powers. So, if we cannot find in days gone by any precedent for granting these powers, I submit the extraordinary conditions are at least some justification for giving the government some powers other than we might be willing to give them under ordinary circumstances.
I come now to the problem of relief, and I want to deal particularly with farm relief. The opposition of course has said:	Bring in
your bill in such and such a way and we will help you through. Under our system of government, with a majority and an opposition that opposes sometimes on sound ground and sometimes not, I do not think we can reasonably expect this to happen. When the party now in opposition was on the other side I recall situations in the house when similar suggestions were made from the opposition side, but I have no recollection of their being accepted. As a matter of fact, under our present system a government that pursues such a course is looked upon as weak or afraid, or something else. So I am assuming that we are going to pass this bill and give relief within the next few days.
As regards seed and feed, looking at the matter from the standpoint of a farmer in the west who has been struggling through a bad year and has now reached the seeding season, I believe he realizes, as every man does whether he is on the land or not, that if there is going to be any effective distribution of seed, it must be within the very near future. We are now entering the season when that seed must be distributed. I suppose it will take a few days or a couple of weeks to make the distribution, and I feel sure that if it is*an ordinary spring some of the land will be ready to be seeded by that time.
As regards the importance of the western crop to the general economic life of the country, there is no question that if we do not get in a crop under reasonable conditions the constitutional issue will be worse from other angles than it is from the standpoint of the opposition and the government now. If the Canadian constitution will not enable us to distribute seed to the farmers in distress in western Canada, I have not very much

Unemployment Continuance Act
respect for it. It does not matter from what angle you look at the matter, whether it be from that of the farmer who has been struggling in the face of adverse seasons, trying to keep his farm in shape for seeding during the coming spring, or that of the general standpoint of the economic life of the country, the relief must be given and it must be extended through the assistance of the Dominion government. It is because of the seasonal nature of this relief, because of the fact that to be effective it must be given at a certain time, that to me this is the great issue and the reason why I want to support this measure even though under ordinary conditions I should have had some objections to it.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, we have all returned after the Easter recess, refreshed in body and mind and possibly rather tempered by the great event that Easter commemorates. Nevertheless we have returned to our duties just where we left them, and whether they be pleasant or unpleasant, we must face them and represent those who sent us here, and that not by delegating to the executive powers that properly belong to us as parliamentarians.
Let me deal with what has been said by the preceding speaker (Mr. Kennedy, Peace River) with respect to nobody challenging the legislation asked for on the ground that it was abused. I say that it was grossly abused. How many hon. members ever dreamed the government were going to use this Farm Relief Act for the purpose of amending, let us say, the Insurance Act or the Bank Act? Outside of the government I venture to say there was not one who thought they would use this measure for the purpose of amending the Insurance Act, and I say that they abused this legislation most grossly and atrociously. What did they do in connection with that act? They authorized the insurance companies of Canada to appraise their assets at a fictitious valuation dating back to last July for the purpose of their balance sheets. If the valuation were false, then the balance sheet must be false. How are we to have any confidence in the future in balance sheets if these acts are under the legislative powers of the executive and not of parliament? Taking that one case alone, I say that the government has grossly abused the purposes to which this law was supposed to be dedicated. Under an unemployment and farm relief act we have had a bank act amendment, an insurance act amendment, and guarantees given to this, that and the other thing. I shall invite any hon. gentleman outside of the executive, to say that he expected these things to be done. If not, we were all deceived, and because of this I object more than ever to have such an atrocious act perpetrated now that parliament is in session. Last year this old measure was passed at the last moment, in the dogdays of summer when we all wanted to get away, at the tail end of the session, as is always the case with such important legislation. But these things I have mentioned were done during the recess. Now the government have the audacity to ask us to extend this power to them when parliament is sitting. For my part, I object; I shall oppose it at every stage of the game until the last dog is hanged. That is my reply to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) who generally seeks every opportunity to show how delightfully progressive and U. F. A. he is by supporting the government. Give me a straight, out-and-out Tory rather than one so thinly camouflaged as that.
Let me say a word about the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) which was an excellent apologia or whatever you call it, a beautiful recital. It was more or less a plea for mercy and a hiding behind the closure. He pointed out what a very much overworked government this is. Of course it is overworked. When it takes on all the duties that properly belong to the parliament of Canada, naturally it will be overworked. A very much overworked and under-estimated government. Well, Mr. Speaker, if they knew just about what was the country's estimate of the Prime Minister they would not say much about it. A further complaint was that the government were abused. Am I abusing them now? If it was my leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) to whom the Prime Minister was referring more particularly, though we all had our say, certainly those two gave it to them in good shape, and there was no defence from over there. Just closure. Look at my hon. friend from Rose-town (Mr. Loucks). Why does he not get up and defend the government?


Mr. LOUCKS:: I am well pleased with
them.


William Richard Motherwell: Why did not the
government answer these attacks if they were attacks? They were unanswerable; that is the reason. The government got the spanking of its life, and it would be a wonder if they invited any more, or did anything else but rush for closure, to avoid more and well deserved spanking.
If I assented to this measure, Mr. Speaker, what would my constituents say to me?
Ub2

Unemployment Continuance Act


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you must hear these absurd interruptions coming from the other side. Hon. gentlemen opposite have nothing of their own to say, and so simply engage in coarse guffaws. But I have something that I want to say if you, sir, will just keep the treasury benches quiet.
I object to this measure, Mr. Speaker, because of the too comprehensive legislative nature of the powers which the government is seeking. Why, if the government is granted these powers, my friend the Minister of Trade md Commerce (Mr. Stevens) who sits jpposite to me, could recommend and have passed an order in council authorizing the mixing of grain again. That was done in 1917 under the War Measures Act by this same breed of government, although it was supposed to be a Union government it was just in the transition stage. That government passed an order in council authorizing the mixing of grain, notwithstanding the provisions of the Canada Grain Act to the contrary. Those were the words of the order in council authorizing the mixing of grain. That is no hypothetical case. It is an example of what the government could do if granted these powers. It took us twelve years to get that grain mixing practice stopped. I suppose the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be horrified at the thought of doing any such thing now, but what they have done once they may do a second time, ind then some more. They might, for instance, bring down that report with respect to the railway situation, and how do we know that they might not pass an order in council merging the two great railway systems in this country? It seems absurd, I admit, but they have done equally absurd and equally outrageous things before, and that is one reason why I refuse to delegate my powers and my responsibility as a member of parliament to any executive, especially this one, of which we know sufficient to withhold our confidence in them in the exercise of such powers. I can imagine going back to my constituents if I agreed to this measure and being asked, " Did you delegate your powers to Premier Bennett?" "Yes," I reply, "because I thought it the best thing to do." They would at once say to me, " That is not what we sent you to parliament to do. The last thing we told you to do was to give them h-, and instead of that you have delegated your legislative powers to the government." If I did any such thing, Mr. Speaker, I would never see this parliament
CA^r. Motherwell.]
again and I would deserve not to see it. So much for that phase of the question.
The general tenor of my remarks when I was speaking on this question at a former stage was with regard to the political character of the farm relief organization. I took the ground that the organization under the relief commission was ninety per cent partisan; in other words, ninety per cent Tory. I took the ground that relief had always been administered satisfactorily by the rural municipalities, and that it had been taken out of their hands deliberately, out of the hands of a non-partisan body familiar with the requirements of the ratepayers and familiar with the administration of that kind of work in the past, and put in the hands of a partisan body. This is not the first time that relief has been administered, and by the rural municipalities. They have had experience in that work, but it was taken out of their hands, I repeat, and turned over to a partisan body with a Conservative organizer at the head of it as general manager. I am going to call to my support in that connection the remarks that were made by an hon. gentleman on the other side of the house, who went even further than I did at that time, and even boasted of the fact that partly on his recommendation his organizer who was responsible for him being here was appointed as general manager of the relief commission. I refer to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Beynon). Here is what he says in Hansard:
Now I come to the general manager, and this was where the ex-Minister of Agriculture took a little slap at myself.
I did not intend it to be a slap because I did not know that my hon. friend had recommended Mr. Daniel. He goes on:
He said this gentleman organized the Conservative campaign in the constituency of Moose Jaw. That is very true; he did, and that is why I am here.
My hon. friend evidently thought that any organizer who could put him across in Moose Jaw would be all right to put in charge of relief distribution. He went on to say:
What has this man-
That is Mr. Daniel:
What has this man done? He was called upon, as general manager of this organization, to build an organization from the ground up, and to undertake one of the most momentous tasks ever undertaken in Canada. He could not choose men and -women trained in that particular work.
But he discarded an organization that was trained in that particular work:
He had to go out among the unemployed and the needy and choose his staff and form his

Unemployment Continuance Act
organization. He did that. An organization was built up, with inexperiencd people-
That is exactly what I said, although I mentioned a few exceptions, but my hon. friend from Moose Jaw makes no exceptions. He says:
An organization was built up, with inexperienced people, men and women taken off the streets-
Off the highways and byways apparently, compelling them to come in:
-and in a very short time the organization was functioning.
That goes further than ever I did, and I now call on the hon. member for Moose Jaw in support of the testimony that I gave with respect to the inexperienced character of the staff and also with respect to the political character of the staff. No one has disputed anything I said with respect to the political character of the staff . The hon. member for Moose Jaw goes on to say:
There were municipal councils that were wholly non-poldtioal, but they were few m number, and while the municipal organizations were administering relief the dissatisfaction was very, very pronounced, as the relief was administered inequitably. That was one of the reasons for discontinuing their services.
That is 'the first living man that I haive ever heard make that statement. Tor the last twenty-five years, wherever seed and relief was required, it was administered through the rural municipalities, and this is the first time I can recall -that that practice has ever been departed from. It is not a sound reason for objection, because it is 'not a true reason. The municipal councils are not elected on a political or partisan basis. They are not elected for political reasons but purely for municipal reasons, and that is the only reason. Why were the urban councils not also discarded? It is strange that the rural municipalities should be scrapped for relief administration purposes and the urban councils retained. There is no uniformity or consistency 'there. I 'think I heard a chickadee voice or something over the way, Mr. Speaker.
Now I come to another phase. The Minister of Agriculture made certain appointments of supervisors, and of course he thought that 'they were just the real thing. He was not dble to be up there himself, he said, and these supervisors had to be appointed. There was some difference of opinion between the Minister of Agriculture and myself with respect to a certain appointment that was made. I referred to one Percy Gordon, a Conservative gentleman in Regina. At one time he was one of my constituents, and I have run across him several times since. In his various capacities
he has been known as a Conservative, from the ground up. Between elections he is a very respectable man, but during elections he is ready to do almost anything to win. A few days ago, when making my speech, I hesitated to state whether or not he was directly connected with the Regina Star, or whether he was a director of 'that newspaper. I am now in a position to inform the house that throughout the provincial campaign of 1929 and the federal campaign of 1930 Mr. Percy Gordon was a director of the Regina Star Co., had been from its inception in 1928, and, so far as I know, still holds that position. So that as a director of that rag of a Tory Star, that head, tail and middle of the anti-French campaign which w<as carried on throughout the west and particularly in the province of Saskatchewan during the last two election campaigns, he was pretty close to the Conservative campaign organization. I am surprised the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) has not interrupted. The connection of Mr. Gordon with the Star has been broadcast across Saskatchewan not once but many times, and nobody has dared to challenge the accuracy of the statement. I do not hear any hon. members objecting, so I shall proceed.
I should like at this point to direct the attention of the house to some remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) concerning promissory notes, and if time permits I shall deal with seed relief. Twenty minutes is a very short time in which to consider this matter, but fortunately there will be other opportunities. I should like to assure the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) that the distribution of seed is going on without interruption. The injection by Premier Anderson of a telegram into the midst of this discussion was a pure political game of bluff, an effort to jack up this government and intimidate the opposition. That is all it was for. He seemed to think that the farmers in the west would be up in arms against us, that they would allege that we were at fault, or that we had delayed the passage of this proposed legislation.


William John Loucks: That is what is happening. They are up in arms in the province of Saskatchewan.


William Richard Motherwell: I will take my
chances.


William John Loucks: So will I.


William Richard Motherwell: You have not taken any yet by speaking or defending the government. The despatch comes from Regina, through the columns of the Regina Leader-Post, that the relief commission or the pro-
,	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
vincial government has negotiated a short term loan at the banks to carry on relief and of seed measures while the matter is being adjusted in this house. So that hon. members may rest easy; relief is going on. Hon. members opposite do not need to worry about it, and certainly they cannot intimidate hon. members on this side of the house. We will do our duty, and at the same time seed will ;be furnished and relief will go on.
The only complaint I have heard yet is that some of the seed grain supplied was so dirty and smutty that the people thought it must have come from the Tory committee rooms. The government is giving orders on elevators, and the grain is being sent out before it is cleaned. A number of travelling cleaning plants have been secured, and they are perambulating iround the country. There is a big jamboree going on over the quality of grain. In some cases the quality is so low there is very grave objection to it. That is the first time I have known of seed grain being sent out by a government in so objectionable a condition.


William John Loucks: The hon. member sent it out in the same condition.


William Richard Motherwell: Now, Mr. Speaker, did you ever see the like of that? When the hon. member is sitting he seems to be able to cackle, but when he is standing he cannot even crow.
I shall now preceed with certain statements made by the Minister of Agriculture. It is most unfortunate that the ministers responsible for this measure are not in their seats. They are generally away when their presence is most required. In the month of February the minister told us that he met a deputation who took the ground that they did not want charity. Although the minister's statement is in Hansard I shall give only the substance of it, and not take time to quote. The delegation seemed to be of opinion that the seed and relief were to be given free, but objected to such. We must remember that under the five cent bonus some of the farmers received a3 much as $1,000, but the deputation before the minister was not looking for charity. That deputation may have consisted of only three or four people. Supposing however there were a dozen, we are asked to believe that because a dozen farmers wanted to sign a note the minister decided that all farmers receiving relief should sign notes.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member's time has elapsed.


William Richard Motherwell: I'll have another chance at it Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, since I have _ the opportunity of speaking a second time in this debate, I wish to tell the right hon. Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Bennett) that if he applies the gag rule, he is at liberty to do so, but he has against him the people who have their representatives in this house and who will have the last word the next time, when they will seize the opportunity to avenge themselves. Everybody recalls the famous election act of 1917, that was devised by Senator Meighen to remain in office against the will of the (people; but the people had their revenge in 1921, the Conservative party was swept away and entirely disowned by some of the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, during the last election the Prime Minister travelled throughout the country, making all kinds of promises to all classes of the community, specially to the farmers, to whom he promised higher prices for their products, such as butter, cheese, eggs, vegetables and so on. This reminds me of a little incident which was related to me by a farmer of the county of Chateauguay during the last provincial election, in 1931. He had personally heard the Prime Minister address a meeting of farmers at Ormstown. The Prime Minister had said he just had visited the southern part of the province of Quebec and, along the road, he had seen women, assisted by their children, who were busy milking cows; he thought it was a pity to see the prices of milk so low that they would not even pay for the cost of labour. He had also seen whole families picking up and bundling vegetables to take them over to the market, at Montreal1, and he knew that they could not get enough out of the sale of these vegetables to pay for the trouble of putting them up into bundles. Mr. Speaker, after these statements and the stand taken by the Prime Minister in depriving the farmers of their markets and increasing their cost of production by raising the taxes on farm implements, can we have confidence in his pledges? His supporters and himself claim that he has fulfilled his pledges, that he had promised an emergency session and we had it, that he had $20,000,000 voted by parliament for the relief of unemployment, so that he kept his promises. But his supporters and himself travelled throughout the country, promising to build bridges and wharves on all lakes and streams, and to give employment to those who would be willing to work. He was then saying: "Put me in office and I promise you that 1 shall bring comfort, joy and happiness into every home or I will perish in the attempt."

Unemployment Continuance Act
In what way did he try to cure unemployment? He compelled the provincial governments to contribute 25 per cent and the municipalities, 50 per cent, while the dominion was giving 25 per cent. He thus placed some of the provinces and a great number of municipalities on the verge of bankruptcy.
Last Wednesday, replying to the leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Prime Minister spoke about the elections in Three Rivers and Athabaska. I remember, Mr. Speaker, that many promises were made during the election in Three Rivers, and we have not yet been told by the hon. member for that constituency (Mr. Bourgeois) whether these promises made by his party had been fulfilled. He surely had the opportunity of doing so, but he carefully avoided it. Like many hon. members opposite, he was content with flattering his leader, in the course of his speech on the address.
In his reply, last Wednesday, the Prime Minister referred to the speech of the hon. member of Quebec South (Mr. Power). I realize that the remarks of the hon. member may have hurt his pride. There is a proverb that says: " Spare the rod and spoil the child." Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of truth in the remarks of the hon. member. If the prime minister will coolly peruse that speech, he will find in it a true picture of himself. He is a very intelligent man; everybody acknowledges his many qualities, but he has one failing that surpasses his qualities: he is a recognized autocrat. At the Imperial conference, in the fall of 1930, some minister over there called him names that he did not like and he was not the only one to do it. Prominent Conservatives made some unkind remarks about him. In 1917, a member of the Conservative government, of which he was himself a minister, directed some remarks to him that nobody here would care to repeat; they were reported in Hansard, and anybody can read them. If the Prime Minister would only take notice of these remarks, I think that perhaps he could reform; it would be all the better for his party, and the country would be administered in a constitutional way.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite, in this debate, are putting aside what is dearest to all Canadians, namely the constitution of this country which our forefathers secured at the cost of so many sacrifices. We, on this side of the house, are not ready to sacrifice it to a Tory government. The right hon. Prime Minister, in his speech, on March 23 last, stated that he had a certain task to complete; he says that there is nothing very
serious, but I am afraid of such a statement. If there is nothing very important, why does he persist in demanding that blank cheque?
Since I am a member of this house, I have always followed very closely the Prime Minister, and I noticed that he often changed his opinions, according to circumstances. I shall mention a particular instance concerning immigration. On April 21, 1931, he is quoted in Hansard, page 784, as follows:
That is the story. Let me place before the house one statement shown by figures I have in my possession. Do hon. members realize that during that period of time 104.556 people came into this country from central Europe? They came here, and they are now largely being kept by Canadians.
Most of them are being kept-not all of them -by Canadians, with our taxes.
But let us see what he said on February 11, 1929:
We have here one of the largest undeveloped areas in the world; we have a very pressing necessity for more people. There need be no misapprehension about that, notwithstanding what has been said from time to time to the contrary. It will be found that the increase of population in this country, brought about through bringing additional people in, will not only lessen unemployment for those who are now in it, but will increase all employment.
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister
of a country makes such a statement, and two years later recommends the very opposite, and blames the Liberal party for not- fostering immigration to the utmost, I have a reason to say that he changes his opinions whenever it answers his purpose.
Let us see now what his colleague, the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) said, when he was in the opposition. I quote Hansard, page 2746, of 1929:
My complaint is not so much that the number of British immigrants is not larger, as that our immigration of all classes is much too small.
. . . . I submit that we could take many times the numbers of people of all kinds than we are getting at the present time.
Whenever it answers their purpose, hon. gentlemen opposite blame the Liberal party for having fostered immigration to the utmost, but they were pleading themselves in favour of immigration when they were in the opposition. In view of such inconsistency, I am wondering whether we have not some good reason to be apprehensive of the future, for I know that the Prime Minister is not the man who would change attitude, when it is a question of serving his political ends.
Mr. Speaker, one more word, and I am through. I would like the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), whose constituency is next to mine and which is one of the most
1466	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
beautiful districts of the province of Quebec, and the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve), the great supporter of the farmers in the Quebec legislature, to urge upon the Prime Minister and the members of the cabinet, the necessity of doing something for the farmers of the eastern provinces. In my constituency, and others that I know, there are farmers who are on the verge of bankruptcy, and others are too poor to buy their seed. Special attention is given Saskatchewan, but it is not the only province that is suffering. The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull), in his speech on March 18 last, appealed to us to assist his province. I would suggest to the hon. member to tell his prime minister, Mr. Anderson, if he needs the support of other parts of this dominion, if he requires their financial assistance to pay the debts of that province, to think of the province of Quebec which will probably pay a big share of the relief appropriation and to think also of the French Canadians and Catholics of this country, who will certainly not refuse to give. But I would ask him, in return, to give the French Canadians and Catholics of his province the same treatment as we are giving to other races and creeds in the province of Quebec. In Quebec we are just like brothers, we respect the minorities and consider that we are all Canadians, irrespective of race or creed.


Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville):: Mr. Speaker, you have the responsibility of presiding over this assembly of free men who, because of the action of the constituted authorities, are in actual danger of losing their status as representatives of the people-people whose ancestors through the centuries have struggled to obtain the right to control the administration of their own affairs.
Is there any good reason for the government to take this course? What is the state of affairs at the .present time? Apparently Canada, like all other countries, is seriously affected by this industrial and economic crisis. Industry is upset; commerce is not only stagnant, but topsy-turvey; capital, accumulated in the hands of the few, is kept hidden behind steel doors; our unemployed are starving and in a state of indescribable misery, while those engaged in the cultivation of the soil-our farmers, the most important class in the community-are unable to sell their products, and in fear of becoming destitute in the midst of plenty. At the same time they are astounded to find that although their barns are filled to capacity many of their fellow Canadians lack the necessaries of life.

These conditions are the common lot of all the nations of the civilized world. Did this government do, as all other governments did, their utmost to prevent any aggravation of the crisis? No; because of their vain pride they attempted to live up to all the promises they made. They promised to close the door to all foreign goods, thinking that was the cure for low prices, and they raised the tariff to new heights. The result has been that other nations have applied the policy of an eye for an eye, and our producers find themselves in a still worse condition. In a desperate attempt to redeem their pledges the government spent hundreds of millions of dollars in an endeavour to rescue labourers and farmers from unemployment, but it has been established that only thirty per cent of the money spent went to the working men. Now this same government is throwing on the streets hundreds and thousands of civil servants and other employees under their control, thus increasing unemployment while they profess to diminish it.
The capitalists, in their turn, instead of lending their money in order to encourage trade and industry, refuse to make any investments, and what is more serious and less comprehensible, these same capitalists, wishing to secure their usual income even dining the depression, had their representatives in the cabinet who carried out the so-called national loan, supposedly to meet the present emergency, at a rate of interest so high that all the money available flowed into the treasury of the government. The small industries and the farmers in great need could not get the necessary capital to maintain their credit, and these were left with no alternative than to go bankrupt or perish in the attempt. Because the suffering people of this country, witnessing what was happening, came in delegation after delegation to protest while we were here assembled, the government found it more expeditious to accumulate in the hands of the executive all the powers of government, legislative as well as executive, and so get rid of the representatives of the people whose duty it is to be vigilant in their control of the executive.
What are the arguments advanced by members of the government in justification? In answer to the suggestion of my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) that the constitutional way was to bring in a supply bill, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said, if I might condense his statement, "In our judgment"-and of course in the mind of the Prime Minister that meant in his judgment -"to ask for any particular sum of money in

Unemployment Continuance Act
the form of a supply bill would not meet the situation." And that was all. This reminds me of the way he disposed of the arguments of his opponents during the last campaign. Speaking at Caughnawaga, in my constituency, on June 9, 1930, the Prime Minister was met with the contention that he had been responsible for the blocking of a bill in connection with the construction of a bridge in that vicinity. In reply to that argument, which was unanswerable, he said, "Well, take a good look at me and see if you think I am a man who would do that."
In the speech made by the right hon. gentleman on March 23, he disposed of the suggestion of my right hon. leader by asking, "Since when has the government been led by the minority." In answer to that I should like to remind the Prime Minister that under our parliamentary system the loyal opposition is not here to govern but to offer legitimate criticism and bring forward useful suggestions. If the Prime Minister does not accept this interpretation of the duties of an opposition I would ask him what he thinks about several instances in the history of our own and other countries. For example, in 1775 the majority refused to grant the legitimate demand of the thirteen colonies of America-


Mr. GOBEIL:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker; the hon. gentleman has been reading his speech from the start.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I hope the hon. member will keep himself within the rules in that regard.


Vincent Dupuis: I am just quoting some instances, Mr. Speaker, and if the hon. gentleman takes up my time in this way it must be because he is afraid of what I am going to say.


Samuel Gobeil: The whole speech is a
quotation.


Vincent Dupuis: If the hon. gentleman is
afraid now of what I am going to say he will be much more afraid at the next election. I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, that iu 1775, when' the thirteen colonies fought for their liberty, they did not constitute the majority, but they were fighting for that principle of responsible government to which we have adhered ever since, no taxation without representation. The hon. gentleman who just interrupted apparently does not remember that; be seems bewitched by his chief, because apparently he is unable to utter a single word of protest with regard to a policy which takes us back three centuries. Apparently my hon. friend is pleased to be taxed without being represented. Among the citizens of
those thirteen colonies there were some who, wishing to be loyal to their king, left all that was dear to them, their goods, their homes and the country of their adoption, and came into Canada. They did so because to them loyalty was dearer than security. Will the Prime Minister say that they were wrong because, as a minority, they came here? I hope not. Let us come to the year 1837 in our own history. At that time the citizens of Lower and Upper Canada, although in the minority, fought that oligarchy which was then known as the Family Compact. Where was the power? Where was the majority? It was to be found in the parliaments at Quebec and Toronto. And who fought for liberty, who fought to ensure that the representatives of the Canadian people should come within the precincts of parliament in order to control the spending of money and to control the executive? It was the minority of that time, led by the Papineaus and the Mackenzies. Is the Prime Minister prepared to say that they were wrong? I know he will not say that.
Let me now dispose of another argument. It is contended by my right hon. friend that if we do not vote for this legislation the farmers of the west will be deprived of their seed grain, their fuel and their feed, and that we on this side shall be responsible. That reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of the strategy of some generals in the war. With the enemy in front of them, and with some strategic point in danger, forgetting the ordinary and elementary laws of human nature, they took the wives, the old people and the children of the enemy and gave orders to their own soldiers to push these defenceless creatures before them at the point of the bayonet, making of them a curtain or veil to prevent the enemy from firing upon themselves, because they knew that the enemy would not fire upon their own kith and kin. That is the same strategy, the same plan as is adopted by the government to-day. Hon. gentlemen opposite know that the people in the west are dear to us. They know that there is not a family in eastern Canada that has not friends or relatives among the people of the west. The Prime Minister knows that; he knows that the people of western Canada are as dear to us as they are to him. And so he threatens us, saying that if we do not vote for this measure the responsibility will be ours for the people of western Canada being deprived of the necessaries of life. I say that is not a proper way to handle the affairs of this country. The Prime Minister must know that not a single farmer in the west will be
146S	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
deprived of his grain as a result of our protest against this act of oligarchy on the part of the present government in denying members of parliament the right to control the executive. As he has said in some of his speeches, he spent $71,000,000 to redeem the credit of the western provinces; and he went to considerable trouble in the first part of his speech on this subject to point out that, according to certain judgments of Lord Haldane's quoted by him, the responsibility for coming to the rescue of the unemployed and of the farmers rests with the provinces and not with the dominion. He knows that the provinces, having their credit restored by act of this government, will see that the citizens, in their respective territories, will be given relief. He has no right to fool the people. I would remind him, in the words of Lincoln, that while he may be able to fool all the people some of the time, or some of the people all of the time, he will not be able to fool all the people all of the time.
When the Prime Minister and his colleagues have lost all hope, they play up Providence. Last year we heard him from Vancouver to Halifax saying to the Canadian people: "Just a moment. I promised you lots of things and I am unable to redeem all my promises; but wait; Providence will come to your rescue." Allow me to give the opinion of a great statesman, Woodrow Wilson, in his book The New Freedom, to show what he thought of those who played up Providence in this way.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman has spoken twenty minutes.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: At the
risk of being regarded as perhaps too persistent, I am going to deal once more with the method adopted in the expenditure of federal relief money in the province of New Brunswick; and if I take advantage of this opportunity to do so again it is because of the difference, which seems to be a vast one, between the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) and myself, touching certain statements made by me first on February 23 and again on March 8, in discussing the expenditure of unemployment relief money in the county of Gloucester.
On February 23, referring to complaints made by me in detail, and submitted to Mr. Carter, a gentleman sent from Ottawa to investigate complaints in Gloucester, the Minister of Labour from his seat in the house contradicted my statement that this was federal unemployment relief money. He stated that the complaints made by me referred to roads on which New Brunswick pro-
vmcial money had been expended and that not one cent of federal money was spent on those roads. It is not my practice to make, in a deliberate body, statements like this without being in a position to back them up. When I made that statement on February 23 I had personal knowledge of the facts and I refused to accept the statement then made by the Minister of Labour.
I wish now to justify my action. I hold in my hand a reply to a notice of inquiry made on Friday, March 4, by Mr. Richard, member for the county of Gloucester in the local legislature. He asked for the names of the roads in Gloucester county upon which federal money had been spent. The Minister of Public Works of New Brunswick laid before the legislature this statement which I hold in my hand and which comprises some seventy-five roads upon which federal money had been expended, and every one of the roads that I mentioned in my speech of February 23 is to be found in that list. On that occasion I also spoke particularly about the amount of federal money spent on what is known as the East Bathurst or old Miramichi road, and again the Minister of Labour interjected that not one dollar of federal aid had been expended on that road. I have under my hand reply to inquiry No. 7, made on the floor of the New Brunswick legislature and containing the following questions:
1.	What amount of money was paid for work done on the old Bathurst road from East Bathurst going towards the Miramichi road, during the months of October and November last?
The answer was:

The next question:
2.	Was the work performed under the federal employment relief?
Answer:
Partially-$11,870.35, unemployment relief; $5,396.25, provincial funds.
Let me go further. On that occasion I also stated that nearly every dollar expended on the projects approved by the federal Department of Labour for unemployment relief in the county of Gloucester on November 26, 1931, had been expended months before the projects were approved. I hold in my hand reply to notice of inquiry for Tuesday, March 8, made in writing and submitted to the New Brunswick legislature by Mr. Doucet, provincial member for the county of Gloucester These are the questions that were asked:
1. What amounts were expended in the county of Gloucester during the months of

Unemployment Continuance Act
June, July, August, September, October, November and December, 1931 on:	(a)
permanent roads; (b) secondary roads; (c) by-roads; (d) patrol; (e) ordinary bridges; (f) permanent bridges? In answering set out in detail, amounts spent in each above-mentioned service per month-not lump sums.
2. Indicate what portion of the above sums have been paid out of: (a) provincial funds; (b) federal unemployment or other sources?
The answer is:
1 and 2 answered on attached page.
I hold in my hand a return laid before the New Brunswick legislature reading as follows:
Main Trunk Roads
Provincial	Federal
Month-	funds	unemploymentJune. . .	$ 519 06	$1,354 08July. . .	1,356 74	10 50August. .	4,492 57	
I wish to draw the attention of the house to the next two months, September and October, the period when we were carrying on the by-election in that county. What do we find? The figures are as follows:
Main Trunk Roads
Provincial	Federal
Month-	funds	unemploymentSeptember.	$ 337 45	$6,376 77October. .	1,630 70	4,834 79Secondary and Branch Roads September.	$ 35 30	$3,992 85October. .	4,197 67Then we go down the line and we come to patrol-patrolling the roads:	*
Patrol
Month-
September. October. .
Provincial funds $1,239 98 925 60
Federal unemployment $1,640 22 415 33
Those were the months of the by-election.
Provincial	Federal
Month-	funds unemployment
November.	347 04	381 86
I include November in this because I wish to point out that federal aid for unemployment relief, to give work to those out of employment, was used to the extent of $2,550 in the county of Gloucester in September, October and November, to pay the salaries of men regularly employed in that county. These men are permanently employed under salary, and it was not relieving unemployment in Gloucester county to use federal aid that was voted by the house to help the unemployed, to pay the salaries of those regular patrol men.
Let me speak now of the province as a whole. The government of New Brunswick charged up to the federal aid fund the patrolling of the roads in nearly every county in that province. This is a misuse of money that was voted to relieve unemployment. If
hon. members will look at the figures for September and October, when we were in the heat of a political battle in Gloucester county, they will find that in those two months alone the provincial government spent $27,000 which they charged up to the federal relief fund. If, as the Minister of Labour stated, in regard to the complaints I made of the manner in which that money was spent, it was not expended under federal aid, then the dominion Department of Labour is entitled to ask the province of New Brunswick to refund to the federal treasury the amount thus charged. I believe the minister has been led astray; I know he would not deliberately mislead the house; but if he got from the New Brunswick Minister of Public Works the information on which [DOT] he based his interjection to me and which gave him grounds for saying that no federal money was expended on the roads in regard to which I complained, he was led astray by that gentleman. If Mr. Carter, when he went down to Gloucester county to examine into the expenditures there, and his attention was drawn to the padding of the pay sheets for the 26th day of October on the east Bathurst road, or the old Miramichi road so-called, was informed by the Department of Public Works of New Brunswick that no federal money had been spent on that road, then Mr. Carter was led astray, and in consequence of having been led astray in that manner he led his minister astray and the minister gave to this house information that had no foundation. 1 hold in my hand, and I think I have read this before in the house, the proof that in the month of October there was practically $12,000 of federal aid spent on the east Bathurst or old Miramichi road. I have also in my hand absolute proof from the lips of the Minister of Public Works of New Brunswick himself that I correctly stated the situation on the floor of this house when I said that the pay sheets for the 26th of October had been padded and that the names of hundreds of men had been placed on the pay sheets as working under the federal relief fund when they had never done a tap of work that day. They were induced to go to the polls and vote for the provincial government candidate on that day on the understanding that then- names would be placed on the pay sheets, and their names were placed on the pay sheets. If this house wants any better proof than my word, I have here the words of the Minister of Public Works of the province of New Brunswick speaking in the legislature of New Brunswick on the 22nd of March last. What did he say? I am going

Unemployment Continuance Act
to read it and I hope that I shall have time to read it all:
Mr. Stewart-
That is the name of the Minister of Public Works of New Brunswick:
-also reiterated his statement that the statement made in Ottawa by Hon. Dr. P. J. Veniot, ex-Postmaster General, regarding roadwork in Gloucester county last fall had been substantially disproved.
He reiterated that statement. Mr. Stewart also said:
There was in the possession of his department documentary evidence which disposed of three of Hon. Dr. Veniot's allegations.
He does not name those three allegations. They are only three out of about fifty that I made. He went on to say:
The former Postmaster General had made the assertion that two hundred men who did not work that day were on the payroll of the east Bathurst road on October 26, 1931. the day of the Gloucester by-election, and had been paid out of unemployment relief funds.
"Now this is absolutely false," Hon. Mr. Stewart said. Continuing, he further said: "While it was true that some men were down on the pay roll of the East Bathurst Road as having worked on the day of the by-election, he had ordered these erased. Subsequently the department had received authentic information that some of the men had worked."
Let me right here correct the Minister of Public Works of New Brunswick. He cannot find in Hansard or in any interview that I ever gave to the press anything to show that I ever said that those men had been paid out of the federal relief fund. What I did say was that the pay sheet was padded with the names of men who had not worked, and when Mr. Carter came to Bathurst I drew his attention to it and asked him to see that those men would not be paid for that day's work because they did not earn the money. I never said that they were paid out of the federal relief fund.


Mr. GORDON:: What seems to be your difficulty, then?


Peter John Veniot: They were placed on the pay sheet to be paid, and if I had not made the complaint they would have been paid.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter John Veniot: It is not a joke. I will go further. Mr. Carter is right here in the city. Mr. Carter called in the timekeeper on that work, Mr. William Gallagher.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let 'er go, Gallagher.


Peter John Veniot: That is right, let 'er go Gallagher, and that is what they did; they "let 'et go" for all that Gallagher could go

that day. Mr. Gallagher told Mr. Carter that it was unaccountable. He could not understand how it was that these men were put on the pay sheet, but perhaps his assistant could give the information. His assistant was a young boy by the name of Caie, a schoolboy. He was sent for, and as soon as he came into the hotel room to Mr. Carter he started crying because he knew that he was going to be called to account for something that he had done wrong. Mr. Carter told him that he had nothing to fear, that all he wanted was the truth, and the boy was asked if he had put these men's names in the time book. He said yes. Then he was asked, under whose orders, and he said, "My father and Will Gallagher." Now Mr. Carter has that information. He does not need to go to Gloucester county and make another investigation to ascertain whether I am telling the truth or not. I will let him report to the minister. That money was federal money and provincial money combined, and the Minister of Labour stood up in this house the other day and said that not one cent of that money was federal aid money. I am not blaming the minister. He acted upon the information, the wrong information, given to him by the authorities down in New Brunswick.


George Gordon: Go ahead. Don't mind me.


Peter John Veniot: If I wanted to hit the minister on this, I could do it perhaps, but I do not think there is any need of it. All I want the minister to do now, seeing that I have given him the evidence of what took place in the legislature of New Brunswick, where the Minister of Public Works for the province stated that my statement was correct when I said that this money was unemployment relief money-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member's time is up.


Peter John Veniot: I will come back.
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): Mr. Speaker, up in Essex county we do things a little differently from what they do in New Brunswick.


Peter John Veniot: Especially onions.


Eccles James Gott: Yes, especially in onion growing. I have an onion here which I desire to present to the hon. gentleman as a compliment from the onion growers of the county I have the honour to represent. I want to say to the hon. gentleman:
Carrots get by on their colour,
Spinach gets by on its rep,
Lettuce or beets for vitamins eat
But give me the onion for pep.

Unemployment Continuance Act
Silver-ski rmed onion or Spanish,
Or little ones green on the top,
They build up physique, make you strong where you're weak,
But socially cause you to flop.
For even the mildest of Essex Will not be forgotten when gone 'Tis not erratic but very emphatic Their melody will linger on.
In presenting this onion to the hon. member for Gloucester, with the compliments of the onion growers of South Essex. I want to say to him that we grew eight hundred thousand bushels of onions in Essex and Kent counties in 1931, and instead of selling them at one dollar a bag, as we did last year, we sold them for two dollars a bag, and had a complete sell-out.


Peter John Veniot: If my hon. friend cannot grow better onions than that in his constituency he has nothing to crow about. We can grow better than that in Gloucester.


Eccles James Gott: Only a small sample, but a good one. Not a single charge has been made that one solitary penny for unemployment relief in Essex county has been misappropriated. I should like to add that the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) was radical in his statements that unemployment relief measures had become a political football in the province of Ontario. Of course we expect the hon. member to make such extravagant statements. During the last election campaign he and the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) came into Essex county, and in a vein of ego he said, "I want to leave this man Gott to the people who know him best." He was speaking before 199 Liberals who managed to attend a Liberal convention -just imagine, 199 at a Liberal convention. Picture the ego displayed by the hon. member for South Perth. I thought I should look into his record and compare it with mine. I found that in 1921 there was a Liberal majority of 325 in the town of Amherstburg, my home town, and in 1926 they gave me a majority of 295 whereas in his own town of St. Marys, where they know him best, his opponent had 508 of a majority. Those are the people who know him best.
In this debate the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has been charged with everything but the theft of the Lindbergh balby. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) made the same speech to-night that he made a couple of weeks ago. A year ago the opposition adopted similar tactics. They selected an item of $5,000 in the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, and debated it for twenty-two days. Then in fourteen minutes they passed
estimates to the extent of over $27,090,000. This resolution should have been carried without opposition. All hon. members were hoping that the session would be completed by the end of April, but after listening to a debate on a resolution such as the one now before us, which should not have been debated at all, we cannot tell how long we will be here.
At this point I should like to read from the Toronto Globe concerning the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn), the dual leader of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario who referred to me as the minister of onions. I want to say to him that he. never was a minister, never will be a minister, never was a leader and never will have a party to lead, because he is not the recognized leader of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario to-day. Here is what the Toronto Globe has to say about this great dual leader of the Liberal party, the wizard of repartee:
Mr. Mitchell F. Hepburn did not exhibit the wisdom and fairness expected from either a member of parliament or a provincial political leader in taking advantage of his privilege to state in the House of Commons that he believed the Sun Life Company was insolvent. Mr. Hepburn should realize that the spreading of such a view in the public records and before the people of the country is liable to have an unfavourable business effect. Had he made the statement outside of parliament he might be called upon to prove it, and in all probability he would avoid such liability. Is there any reason why a public man should be less careful in making speeches where he knows he is immune from the courts?
The Globe recently has criticized rather sharply the practice of politicians making allegations in public for political purposes without having convincing proof behind them. There could have been no political end served by the charges made three days ago in parliament concerning two insurance companies; hence not even this excuse is available. Premier Bennett had no misgivings as to the solvency of both companies. Therefore the worst possible view that might be justified was that a difference of opinion existed. Surely in such a ease it is wise and patriotic to give a business institution the benefit of the doubt in these times of stress, when no constructive advantage could be gained by condemning it.
The fact that Mr. Hepburn made this allegation in the House of Commons is not proof that he was right. He knew he could not be called upon to submit proof; and if he wishes to measure up to leadership heights he should guard carefully, both in the house and out. against speeches which do not carry a sense of responsibility.
There is an editorial from the Toronto Globe-


An hon. MEMBER:: A Tory paper?


Eccles James Gott: Yes, a good Conservative
paiper. I think the hon. member for South Perth should be absolutely ashamed of him-

Unemployment Continuance Act
self, after his remarks before a gigantic meeting in the city of London. On that occasion 75 were present. I shall read from the London Free Press the words of the hon. member for South Perth, words he would not have dared to use in the House of Commons. However when he appears before a large assembly of 75 Liberals in that wonderful city of London, he makes rash statements. The hon. member for West Lnmbton (Mr. Gray), the illustrious gentleman, during the course of his remarks at London said that he was speaking in the heart of Liberalism, despite the fact that the hon. member for London (Mr. White) sits in this house after securing a majority of over 4,000 votes. Yet, we are told by the hon. member for West Lambton that London is the heart of Liberalism in western Ontario. The hon. member for South Perth is reported in the London Free Press as follows:
Thereupon the Liberal whip switched his remarks back to his own fold, federal politics, and took up most of his time in launching a personal attack upon Hon. R. B. Bennett in which he termed the Prime Minister "a great believer in himself: not the type of politician who hated himself: ruthless to an opponent; thin-skinned, and one who cannot stand criticism."
What do hon. members think of remarks like this by a fellow member of this house? Then the article continues:
Major Sanderson doubted very much if anything of benefit to Canada would come out of the Imperial conference.
Let me say that nothing would come of the Imperial conference if the hon. member for South Perth could prevent it. He would oppose for political purposes anything which might be of benefit to the Dominion of Canada. I shall repeat the article in the Free Press:
Major Sanderson doubted very much if anything of benefit to Canada would come out of the Imperial conference to be held in Ottawa this summer, if the Premier stuck to his present politics. He asserted the members of the opposition are ready to cooperate with the government any time for the benefit of Canada, but that Mr. Bennett will get all the criticism the opposition wishes to give him.
After considerable reference to the plight of agriculture . . .
The plight of agriculture; that is amusing. After nine years of Liberal administration we have an hon. member opposite talking about the plight of agriculture, despite the fact that during the year 1928, owing to the Australian trade treaty, the farmers of this country lost 880,000,000. The farmers of Canada began to slip as soon as the treaty was operative. The adverse trade balance with the United States from the year 1921 until the Mackenzie

King government was routed at the polls in 1930 was upwards of two billions of dollars. The last year the Liberal party was in power there was an adverse trade balance with the United States of approximately 8400,000,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: Attaboy!


Eccles James Gott: Yes, "attaboy!" The hon.
member from Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) who read from the prayer book the other day, said he was sincere in his remarks and referred to the prayers of the House of Commons. Let me say to him that if he does not put more sincerity into his prayers than he put into his speech the other day the devil will get him when he completes his earthly toil.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I be permitted a
question?


Eccles James Gott: No. The hon. member would not permit me to ask him a question the other day when he had the floor, and I will not permit him to ask me a question now. The hon. member for Quebec South who is sitting right in front of the hon. member far Provencher, came into my riding in 1930. I was glad he came 'there because wherever he spoke I had a large majority.
To hear hon. members apposite talk about the plight of the farmer is an insult to intelligence and makes me smile. For nine years they refused to give one solitary bit of consideration to the farmers of Canada. As I said a moment ago, the action of the King government in 1925 in arranging a trade treaty with Australia did more to demoralize our farmers than any trade treaty ever negotiated by any government since Confederation.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the price of butter?


Eccles James Gott: You ought to know something about the price of butter because you slipped on it in 1930. I will say something about butter.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the price of eggs?


Eccles James Gott: Well, I will say something
about the price of eggs too. But let me deal with butter first. In 1920 this province exported upwards of 20,000,000 pounds of butter to the United States. In that year the dominion exported to the United States over 20,000,000 pounds.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not now.


Eccles James Gott: Of course, we don't export
butter to the United States now. I will tell you why, if you will listen to me. In 1920

Unemployment Continuance Act
the United States' 'tariff on butter was only 2 cents a pound and they imported 36,000,000 pounds; they raised their tariff to 4 cents and the imports decreased to 18,000,000 pounds; then they raised the tariff to 6 cents, 8 cents, 10 cents and finally to 12 cents a pound. What was the result? You say, "Not now." Certainly we don't export butter to the United States now, simply because their tariff excludes our butter now. You cannot sell a pound of butter in the American market to-day; it is prohibited. That is why we don't export butter across the line now. But what about the Australian trade treaty and its extension to New Zealand by order in council; what result did that bring about? Before the King government was defeated in 1930 it resulted in the importation of 100,000,000 pounds of butter to compete with butter made by the farmers of Canada. No wonder the hon. gentleman says butter does not go into the United States now. The United States government will not permit it.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the price?


Eccles James Gott: What do you know about the price of butter? Why, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman actually referred to the plight of che farmers. How could our farmers help being in a condition of depression after nine years of government such as we had until hon. gentlemen opposite were defeated in 1930? I should like to know if one person could tell me of one solitary thing that was done for the farmers of Canada from 1921 to the 28th day of July, 1930.


Mr. POULIOT:: Conditions were better.


Eccles James Gott: I understood that the station at Riviere du Loup had been thoroughly fumigated and that all the bugs in that riding had been killed; but I see there is one left who has made his way to the House of Commons. Let me say to the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot) that he is sitting in this house for the last time. He is here by virtue of a majority of 117; he had 2,000 majority in 1926. The next election will leave him like many others opposite-at home. The hon. gentlemen who will be left at home will include the hon. member -for West Elgin and the hon. member for South Perth. I want to say another word to the hon. dual leader of the Liberal party.


Jean-François Pouliot: He will be Prime Minister of Ontario.


Eccles James Gott: There will not be ten Liberals elected in Ontario under the leadership of the hon. member for West Elgin.


Jean-François Pouliot: You are a charming speaker, but a poor prophet.


Eccles James Gott: I don't think the hon. member will be leader of the Liberal party when the next Ontario election is held. Listen to this from that good, old Tory sheet, the Toronto Mail and Empire of Friday, March 11-


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Pettit):: The hon. member has spoken for twenty minutes.


Eccles James Gott: I regret my time has expired, Mr. Speaker for I had merely commenced my remarks.


Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Mr. Speaker, in my limited time of twenty minutes I shall not be able to deal with my hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Gott)-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Hamilton Pettit: I must ask hon. members to keep better order.


Frederick George Sanderson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.	'


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't mention it.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not want to waste much of my twenty minutes on my hon. friend, but I marvelled at his participation in this debate. In the old days there wa3 always a court jester, whose duty it was by his buffoonery to revive the spirits of the king and his court whenever they were despondent. I think we have -had a good example of the necessity for a court jester to-night, when the buffoon of the house, the clown from South Essex, was put u,p to revive the drooping spirits of the government and its supporters.


Some hon, MEMBERS:: Order.


George Hamilton Pettit: The hon. member should refrain from using such epithets.


Frederick George Sanderson: Mr. Speaker, if he is not a buffoon I do not know how to characterize him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frederick George Sanderson: I will deal with my hon. friend from South Essex at some other time, when I shall have more than twenty minutes at my disposal.


Eccles James Gott: I will take you on at any time and in any place.


Frederick George Sanderson: Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two on the subject before the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.



Unemployment Continuance Act


Frederick George Sanderson: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to keep order. If hon. members who support the government have not enough courage to get up and defend the government, for heaven's sake let them keep quiet when someone else is trying to speak.
If I may be permitted to go on, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that during this debate there has been a tendency on the part of the few ministers and hon. members opposite who have spoken to blame the opposition speakers for prolonging the debate and preventing money from being spent throughout the country for unemployment and farm relief. In that connection I want to quote from the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) as it appears on page 1344 of Hansard for March 22:
Hon. Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture) : Mr. Speaker, I have sat here day after day listening to the debate on this resolution hoping against hope to see it end, with the full appreciation that I have of the incalculable danger of suffering that is liable to occur if the debate should be prolonged to such an extent as to make it too late, especially for the farmers in western Canada, to receive the seed grain which they need so badly for this year. Moreover, the prolongation of this debate has held up the machinery to look after the problem of unemployment relief work throughout the dominion to such a degree that great distress has been caused, which perhaps few members of the opposition seem to realize.
That is rather a strong statement to come from a minister of the crown. I see the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) in their seats, and I should like to ask any minister or any hon. member opposite if the government have received a single complaint from one end of -this dominion to the other, or if they can name any specific case where suffering has not been relieved and could not be relieved because this debate has proceeded.


George Gordon: If the hon. gentleman really is serious in directing that question to me as Minister of Labour I will answer him and say yes, we have received many complaints from municipalities, from provinces and even from individuals.


Frederick George Sanderson: Would the minister give me a specific case?


George Gordon: I could give the hon. gentleman a long list.


Mr. HACKETT:: The city of Montreal, for one.


Mr. SHORT:: And the city of Sydney for another.


Frederick George Sanderson: It is quite apparent that the government have no cases to cite. If

hon. gentlemen opposite will just possess their souls in patience I want to say something now about the Prime Minister and the speech he made in this house on March 23. Before I go on to his speech, however, I should like to refer back to the debate which took place in this house during the session of 1931. In the dying days of that session, after parliament had been in session from March 12 to August 3, the government brought in this blank cheque legislation. What reasons were advanced at that time by the Prime Minister? If I had time I could read those reasons from Hansard, but unfortunately I have not the time. The Prime Minister advanced (two main reasons, and one was that he feared that before he could call parliament together some great emergency might arise in the country, and the government should have unlimited power with regard to financial and other resources to deal with such emergency as and if it arose. Yet we find that even with parliament in session now the same government comes back asking for an extension of 'that legislation until May 1. Another reason given by the Prime Minister last year was that if a specific amount was voted by parliament, say 3100,000,000, or $150,000,000, that amount might be too large, and as a result the provinces and municipalities might get mone than their share. I am summarizing the exact words of the Prime Minister. 'Could any argument have been weaker? Now the government come along and practically say to the elected representatives of the people of this country, "We want to run this country. We will run it. We do not need you here and you might as well go home."


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: You would be better there.


Frederick George Sanderson: My hon. friend from
Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) could have gone home months ago and we never would have missed him in the house. So we have the same autocratic government coming back to this parliament for another blank cheque, the most despotic piece of legislation this country has ever seen. I hope parliament will never have another piece of legislation like it.
Let us look at the Prime Minister and his cabinet, and we may find some reason why they require this unlimited power.


George Gordon: You mean blankety-blank cheque.


Frederick George Sanderson: During the campaign
and the special session which followed it the Prime Minister used to say that he was a man who thrived on difficulties. He was a miracle

Unemployment Continuance Act
man then but a few months ago he said he had come to the conclusion that only the grace of God would save this country. When I read that I thought to myself that it was an admission by the Prime Minister the superman, that at least one was mightier than he.
How many ministers of this government have risen in their places to defend this legislation? It is true that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce did so. I see my friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his seat and I will pay this tribute to him: I used to listen to him sometimes with a great deal of pleasure when he was in opposition. He is resourceful in debate, but he made a woeful mess of his case the other day. In the bottom of his heart he knew that he was defending some-tliing in which he did not believe, and his defence of the government was rather pitiful to hear. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) also defended the government in one of his fiery stump speeches which perhaps would have sounded better out on the hustings than in this House of Commons. But what about the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie)? Should he not be here to defend this legislation? The Minister of Justice is perhaps the minister who should bear the brunt of a debate such as this. I would not expect the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) to defend this legislation, though the other day the Prime Minister said, almost with tears in his eyes, that opposition members were criticizing the cabinet because they did not assert themselves. The Prime Minister said, "I want to tell the house and the country that we have many differences at cabinet meetings; we do not always see eye to eye. I have great difficulty with some members of the cabinet."
I should like to know who are those members. Can anyone imagine the Minister of Public Works combating the Prime Minister? Can anyone imagine even the Minister of Justice, in this late day, when he is nearing the end of his political career and is looking forward to something else, combating the Prime Minister? It is quite obvious that the Minister of Labour never combated the Prime Minister or he would not have been elevated to his present office. They take it lying down and sitting up; there is one man at the head of this government all the time, and that is the right hon. Prime Minister. Then I come to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) who is a good friend of mine. I do not think he ever combated the Prime Minister. The great trouble, Mr. Speaker, is that the government are in a 41761-93J
hole; they know that is so, and they are in that hole because of their own blunders. The record of this government has been one blunder after another since they took office on August 7, 1930, and they are now asking for sympathy. They say that the opposition is criticizing them and they are pleading for sympathy. They do not deserve any sympathy and I can assure them that they are not going to get any sympathy from the people of this dominion anywhere from coast to coast. The people are going to seize the first opportunity they have to turn them out of office because they came in on promises which they have broken and they have carried on the most bungling government we have ever had in this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Except one.


Frederick George Sanderson: My hon. friends across the way do not like this; they are very sensitive.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frederick George Sanderson: Let me say to hon. gentlemen who are jeering over there that they have not the courage to get up and defend this legislation. I could name some of those gentlemen but I will not honour them by doing so. They are the most docile lot of sheep I ever saw. They will follow this government everywhere, although they would like to vote against the government. Many of them at the bottom of their hearts would like to vote against the government to-night, but they are afraid that if they did so the government would be defeated and they would not get back here again. The result is that they are following their leader everywhere. They are following the miracle man, the superman, the man who has been overcoming difficulties all his life and who thrives on difficulties; and here we have him attempting to enact in this parliament a piece of legislation the like of which has never been heard of.
There is more I could say about the Prime Minister. My hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Gott) said that I had criticized the hon. gentleman in London, Ontario. Perhaps I did criticize the Prime Minister, and I will criticize him whenever I have reason to do so. Who is he that he should not be criticized? My hon. friends are afraid of him; every member of the cabinet is afraid of him. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) is a very large man but his courage fails him when he comes up against the Prime IVJinister; his courage oozes right out, And that holds true of all members of the cabinet. This debate

Unemployment Continuance Act
has been going on for fourteen days now and not a cabinet minister gets up. If my hon. friend from South Essex had had on his head the cap which one of the Ottawa papers said he should wear, that might have made the debate complete. That hon. gentleman has been put up to defend the government, but not a cabinet minister gets up to perform that duty. What is this government coming to? What is the country coming to? Is the Minister of Labour tongue-tied? Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce tongue-tied? I see the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy) is in; is he tongue-tied? Are they all tongue-tied? The superman, the boss, has said, "No one shall speak to-night," and they are not speaking-that is, except the hon. gentleman from South Essex who got up to make a wonderful speech. And this, mind you, is the government that has a normal majority of thirty-one or thirty-two in this house. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this house that the country is watching this debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are watching you.


Frederick George Sanderson: My hon. friend from Toronto East Centre (Mr. Matthews) speaks out; he says they are watching me. Well, we are watching him until he steps up as lieutenant-governor of Ontario. My hon. friend from Toronto East Centre will defend the government and vote with them because he has the prospect of a nice position as lieutenant-governor of the great province of Ontario. He will be very docile at all times. Is there any other hon. gentleman who would like to say anything over there? If I had unlimited time I would take on the whole crowd to-night, but I have not the time.
Let me say, in closing, what has been said many times from this side in regard to this matter. This supergovernment could bring in a supply bill to-night for $50,000,000 or 8100,000,000 or any amount they might want and we would pass it in half an hour. What are they afraid of? The Prime Minister likes to speak of peace, order and good government; he likes to refer to the mother of parliaments and the British constitution and to talk about peace, order and good government. We have peace in this country, Mr. Speaker, and we have order in this country; but I cannot say that we have good government in this country. No ong can say that; no one will say it unless it be the members of the government themselves.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: What about Athabaska?


Frederick George Sanderson: I want to say in all seriousness that just such legislation as this government are trying to force upon the opposition, to secure unlimited powers without consulting parliament, without even asking parliament whether it is right or wrong, the very fact that they are attempting to-night to put through legislation will upset peace and order in the country quicker than anything else. And these tactics will upset, not this good government but this bad government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why worry?


Frederick George Sanderson: Did one of the ministers speak to me?


Mr. MURPHY:: The hon. gentleman is looking in my direction. I was too much pleased with his diatribe to interrupt him.


Frederick George Sanderson: It would have been a delight to hear the minister, because you cannot hear a peep out of the ministers; they are all dumb except the Minister of Labour. That hon. gentleman did attempt something to-night but he did not get very far. Perhaps instructions have not come in from the office behind the corridor. When instructions from headquarters do come in, then perhaps before to-morrow morning some of the ministers will have the courage to get up and say something, and then we shall hear the banging of desks over there and all will be well. I do not know whether my time is up.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Frederick George Sanderson: Very well, I shall be glad to go on.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has spoken twenty minutes.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker and friends of the
despotic government of Canada opposite, I hold in my hand-


An hon. MEMBER:: Which hand?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Have a laugh-"the
loud laugh that speaks the vacant mind." This line is from Goldsmith. Perhaps, if you would be good enough to hold your peace for a few minutes, we might get on with this debate. I was saying that I hold in my hand a copy of The New Despotism, and as I look across the floor of the house and see men who are supposed to be the representatives of the Canadian people, but who stand for a policy of constitutional despotism and are followers of a despotic Prime Minister,

Unemployment Continuance Act
and when I look at the resolution before the house and note the phraseology in which that despotic resolution is clothed, I wonder just what hon. gentlemen opposite think of themselves. They are trying to tell the people of Canada that there is an exceptional emergency in this country. They are trying to tell the people of Canada that we must have this type of legislation because a national disaster is facing them. That is all nonsense; no national disaster is facing Canada except the disaster of bad government brought into existence by hon. gentlemen opposite during the last two years.
One begins to wonder just why we have more than a hundred members of parliament from all parts of Canada sitting still and saying practically nothing when such an important question in regard to unemployment and farm relief is before us. Although for the last three weeks in the house we have had a debate on this problem, only infrequently has a minister or a private member opposite had the courage to tell the riding he represents and the people of Canada just where he stands on this proposition. If we read the resolution, we find in the first line the significant word "expedient." It states: Resolved that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend a certain chapter and to strike out a certain word and substitute another word therefor. When we come to consider just what the government is trying to do, the word "expedient" has certainly an important significance. What is it? One explanation of the word is that it is "a shift made to make the best of things," and I believe the government is to-night trying to put forward a type of legislation that will enable it to get out of a bad hole. But when this fight is carried to the electors, as it will be two or three years from now, I am badly mistaken if the government will not be sorry for ever attempting, as they have done, to rush through the house such a piece of arrogant legislation.
Again, the term "expedient" is "a device or contrivance to serve in lieu of something better." It is "something characterized by mere utility rather than principle," and, indeed, there is not much principle to the government's move. Further, it is "an objective conducive to special advantage rather than what is universally admitted to be right." That makes me wonder why the Prime Minister, his cabinet and all the members sitting behind them will attempt to defend a policy that seeks to attain an objective that is not in the best interests of this country at the present time in the way of unemployment and farm relief.
As a member from western Canada I am ready to vote now, before this question is put, any sum of money that is necessary for relief and unemployment in Canada. I am, however, very anxious to make it plain that as a member from a riding in western Canada I shall not stand for a type of government that will want me, as a representative of a free riding, to delegate legislative authority from this chamber to a cabinet that will by order in council override the commons and practically annihilate what is left of responsible government in this country. I am not ready to do that, and for that reason I am opposing this legislation. I am ready to take a stand on it and to carry this fight into my riding for the next two or three years. If other hon. members will do the same, then, when the government goes to the country, no matter what other questions there may be, this will not be a forgotten issue. I think it is now generally conceded among Conservatives themselves that if the house were dissolved to-night and the people were left to pronounce the verdict, the government opposite would be defeated by at least fifty of a majority.


Alfred Duranleau: What about Athabaska?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I will answer that.


John Thomas Hackett: The people have already done so.


Alfred Duranleau: What is your answer?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: In Athabaska the iory candidate received about one out of every three votes; in other words he wa*. defeated over three to one.


Alfred Duranleau: What about the
Liberal candidate?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If the government went to the country to-night, they would be beaten three to one in the house.


Henry Alfred Mullins: We would have a larger
majority than ever.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: In your imagination
only. Under this legislation the government can scrap the constitution; they can take the written constitution of this dominion and annihilate it gradually. Yet we have hon. gentlemen opposite standing for action of that kind and afraid of defending the constitution in the house. We have in section 91 of the British North America Act the exact terms that the Prime Minister uses in this resolution:
For the peace, order and good government of Canada.

Unemployment Continuance Act
Why talk about peace when there is no peace? Why talk about order when I believe one of the real reasons for the introduction of this resolution is that the Prime Minister is afraid of a national uprising in Canada? He is afraid the labour people and the communists are going to give trouble. Consequently, he wants to have at hand the power of a despot to crush any movement that may arise. The very fact that the Prime Minister believes this proves that he is not in touch with public opinion. There is no fear of any such thing in this country; there is no possible danger in that direction. Therefore one is lost in trying to find out just what the ideas of hon. gentlemen are in introducing vicious legislation of this kind.
This sort of legislation is foreign to any parliament in any British dominion. It is foreign to any legislation enacted by the home government. We are told that free institutions are the lifeblood of the empire. Yet we have hon. gentlemen opposite, who on the hustings are always saying how they stand for the dear old empire and for the old Union Jack, giving us the spectacle of supporting in the House of Commons legislation that is not in any sense of the word symbolical of free institutions. Free institutions are the lifeblood of the empire; free cooperation is the instrument of the empire and peace, order and progress, the objectives of the empire. Yet how are we going to attain those objectives of the empire when we resort to legislative tactics of this kind in our national parliament?
If I read my history aright, the whole battle in Canada for hundreds of years was to win responsible government. We had throughout the French .period governor after governor, intendant after intendant, bishop after bishop, council after council, doing what? Representing French imperialism, and through their action and interaction with one another throughout ' that period, very little was accomplished. But they did this much: they laid the foundation in that probationary period, of responsible government in the dominion, and we are building on that historic foundation to-day. Later, in Upper Canada the fight was against a legislative council that was not responsible to the .people; in Lower Canada the fight was the same. In New Brunswick, in Nova Scotia and in Prince Edward Island the same battle had to be fought to win for us the boon of responsible government. Yet to-night, Mr. Speaker, we have a motion before the house by which the government is practically trying to drive its thoughtless legislation through by what we might call gag rule. When we think of the splendid con-
(Mr. McIntosh.]
tributions that have been made by the different parts of this dominion in days gone by in the cause of responsible rule, I am sure that we ought all to be concerned, irrespective of party, for the future of constitutional government in this country.
One of the speakers this afternoon intimated that so far as this particular legislation is concerned there might not be very much danger in it, that we could judge the future by the past. But that is just what we cannot do. We may judge it in a particular way, but I say, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot estimate the future by the past, and I would like to put on record a statement made by one of the assemblies, years ago, in the eastern provinces in respect to that very question. It said:
The assembly admitted that no evil has thus far resulted from the opposition of the council-
That is the legislative council:
-but pointed out that the future could not be anticipated and that there was no deficiency of independent men who had every qualification for seats in the legislative council.
That means, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot constitutionally anticipate the future, and it is utterly impossible for any man who wants to stand by the constitution in this country conscientiously to vote for a piece of legislation of this kind, because if one wants to play fair with the people he cannot give to any government or any cabinet or any prime minister, no matter what its particular political stripe may be, the powers that are being sought under this iniquitous piece of legislation.
I might go from one province to another throughout this whole country to prove conclusively that in the working out of responsible government in this country the policy that is being backed by hon. gentlemen opposite is a futile one and will prove to be a failure. What does Lord Hewart say on this question in his book, The New Despotism, which I hold in my hand? He says that the time has arrived in all the overseas dominions when a tendency has become manifest to hand over to the executive the powers of parliament, and he says that there are three or four excuses given for doing so. One is that it is said that parliament simply has not time to do otherwise than delegate its legislative power; another is that parliament has not the requisite aptitude for the work; another is that the task of government ought to be left to the executive. These three excuses do not amount to anything. They do not constitute a sound reason why we should depart from the principle of responsible government in this dominion. Lord Hewart says as to the third of these propositions, the delegating of legislative power to the cabinet:

Unemployment Continuance Act
As for the third of the propositions, if it contemplates anything over and above what in a particular emergency may be rendered necessary by "sudden causes and occasions" or "promptitude to meet the exigency of the case," it is not easy to imagine anything more mischievous or more subversive.
There is the point exactly, that the minute we hand over the legislative power of parliament to any cabinet or any executive, at that moment we endanger the constitution of this country, and therefore to-night, Mr. Speaker, I am utterly and absolutely opposed to this legislation. I am opposed to the motion before the house. I am opposed to the resolution because I believe that the government, although satisfied that it is in the wrong, is trying to drive this thing through by the sheer force of its majority, and that if it had the courage of its convictions it would even at this late moment back up on its tracks and bring down a regular supply bill which parliament could put through in half an hour or so, thereby bringing to bear upon the problem of unemployment and farm relief in this country the necessary responsible parliamentary authority.
In closing, may I say that so far as western Canada is concerned I do not believe that the action of the government will be in any way popular. I believe that the rank and file of the people are opposed to the policy of the government as enunciated in this resolution, and therefore I am only too pleased to have had an opportunity to say what I have said in the house to-night in opposition to it.


Eusèbe Roberge: Mr. Speaker, the right hon.
prime minister, by the resolution which he has submitted to this house, wishes to revive that pernicious legislation, 'that was devised for the first time in Canada by the conservative party in order to prevent the greatest Canadian that ever sat in this house from upholding the rights of the minority-I refer to the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The right hon. prime minister and his colleagues ought to remember, before again resorting to this measure, that when it was applied to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, there was much resentment throughout the country. What was the result? At the election of 1921, the people showed their dissatisfaction by defeating this government. It is the same measure that the right hon. prime minister proposes now to apply to the opposition, to prevent us from upholding the rights we have secured through the confederation pact.
Mr. Speaker, the right hon. prime minister told us last week that he had been placed
at the head of 'the government by the people and that he still had their support. There are both some truth and untruth in that statement. It is true that he was placed at the head of the government by the people, but how did it happen? If the people gave a confidence vote to the conservative party in the last election, it was on account of the promises made by that party, through its present prime minister; those promises having been repeated by its candidates and the various speakers who supported them. They promised to put an end to unemployment, to secure work for everyone, to open new markets where manufactured and farm products could be sold at a higher price. Thus the manufacturers would have paid higher wages, and at the same time the farmers would have enjoyed greater prosperity, but that has not yet materialized. In our rural districts, the speakers who supported the conservative party, went a little further; they said:	"You
are aware that Hon. R. B. Bennett is an acknowledged business man and an experienced financier; besides, his past proves it." Furthermore, in our mining centres, where there was some unemployment in 1930, they stated: "Hon. Mr. Bennett is enough of a business man to find money to reorganize your companies, so that all of you, workingmen, may work six days a w^ek with better wages." What happened? Wages went down 40 or 50 per cent since.
It is on account of those promises that the people of this Dominion placed him at the head of the government, but these pledges were never fulfilled. How disappointed he must be to day, when he realizes that they have not materialized, that the condition of agriculture is worse, that unemployment is steadily increasing, in spite of the explicit promises made to the people of this country in 1930. If, in the past, the prime minister showed himself to be a business man-when he was working for himself-it must be a great disappointment for his friends to see that he fell short of his reputation so quickly after his appointment as prime minister. We often meet in our life and in different activities, men who never succeed when they are working on their own account, but who make a success of the business of others. In the case of the prime minister, it is the opposite. In his own business, everything is well; but when it comes to administering the country's affairs, his ability slackens very quickly. Judging by the result of the last twenty months, he showed himself to be the poorest financier the country has ever had as a prime minister since cone
1480	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
federation. As soon as the opportunity presents itself, the people will show him what they think of him.
In the course of the same speech, the prime minister said that he still had the support of the people. Before making that assertion, I would advise him. to appeal to the people who will tell him what they think about that "blank cheque" which he wants to secure now, in spite of the opposition. I am sure he would get the same answer as the president of United States got from his colleagues, when he tried to raise the tariff, last week.
The people of Canada want a man who keeps his promises, and will always be opposed to a government that does not fulfill its pledges. Under the liberal administration, the promises made by our leader were fulfilled. I shall go further, Mr. Speaker. An honest man does not promise any more than he can accomplish, and this applies with greater force to a prime minister, who occupies that high position because the people trusted him.
Under the Conservative government, in 1917, the people were deceived, and the same party is in power to-day. That party should remember that in the election of 1921, the people showed clearly that they had not forgotten how they had been led astray in 1917. The Conservative party should remember how they were thrown out of power on that occasion.
The people are tired of promises; they do not want any more. They demand a change of government.
The Prime Minister, under this resolution, seeks to amend our constitution and deprive this house of all the powers that were conferred upon it by the Confederation Act, and concentrate them into his own hands. He should remember that the experience of the last twenty months of his administration is the best proof of his incompetence. None of his pledges were fulfilled. Unemployment has increased and the crisis is getting worse.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: It is a long reading 1


Eusèbe Roberge: Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come for aill hon. members in this house to get together, in order to uphold the rights that we have secured through the confederation pact, and to see that the laws of the country, the work of great men, be respected, instead of being altered to suit the whim of the Prime Minister. The people of this country know that our Prime Minister is fond of honours and titles. By applying again the gag rule, he will be considered as the champion gagger of Canada.

Mr. J. A. VERVILLE (Lotbiniere), (Translation) :	Mr. Speaker, we have been discussing for several days-


Samuel Gobeil: Several
weeks.


Mr. VERVILLE (Translation):: -a resolution presented by the Right Hon. Prime Minister, and we have a right to wonder at this late hour-a newspaperman just gave me the time-what is the meaning of the measure that is before the house this afternoon. Some call it the gag rule. Apparently, it is true, according to the rule of procedure which we have to conform to. There is one sure fact: this rule of closure was inaugurated by a Conservative government, and the Prime Minister, following the tradition, said to himself, after having usurped the power: I would not like to break the tradition; my party inaugurated the gag rule, and if it were found wanting in my glory, that would be the end of me, so I will apply it too.


Samuel Gobeil: Hurrah,
hurrah!


Joseph-Achille Verville: This afternoon we witnessed a typical scene. The Right Hon. Prime Minister said: "Three weeks ago, I submitted this resolution and I asked for exceptional powers, because it was a case of emergency." He submitted the resolution, that is quite true; but since three weeks, he has let things go. If it were so urgent three weeks ago why did he wait until to-day to apply the gag rule. Either that man is consistent, sincere, or he is not.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Quite so.


Joseph-Achille Verville: If it was urgent, he should have applied the gag right away.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear.


Joseph-Achille Verville: He should have resorted to that rule and have the bill approved by his servile majority.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear.


Joseph-Achille Verville: If it was not urgent, why this farce which he has gone through to-day? The resolution was submitted on February 26; the Prime Minister lets the discussion drag on during three weeks, and then he says-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: It was Lent, time, and you had to do penance.


Joseph-Achille Verville: It will be Lent for you following on the next election.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Charles Napoléon Dorion: It was Lent, one had to do penance for one's sins.


Joseph-Achille Verville: Let it be
understood, your Lent will begin after the next election.
The Prime Minister said to himself: I shall resort to a clever strategy, I shall apply the closure at the end of three weeks. How very rational, what a superior man! After having endeavoured to settle the question of unemployment, after three weeks of debate, he applies the closure, to prevent the representatives of the people from speaking on behalf of the ratepayeis, to hinder us from championing the rights of the peqple against his autocratic methods, against his wishes and those of his followers.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Marvellous!


Joseph-Achille Verville: We have but fulfilled our duty during these three weeks. We have registered our protest and told the government: We are here as representatives of the electorate, as representatives of the people, bring down a bill requesting us to vote millions and millions of dollars, we are ready to do so, but let us know at least, what you intend to do with those amounts.
That was our right and duty, and I do not think that the Canadian people will find fault with us for acting thus.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Athabaska has just given its answer.


Mr. CHEVRIER (Translation):: Make a speech.


Joseph-Achille Verville: This resolution calls for funds; as I stated a few days ago, the disposal of the people's money should always be under the control of parliament. No one on the government benches has ever given a worthy answer to this contention. My friend, the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Dorion), whom I highly esteem, and with whom I am paired is here in the house by the people's will. I trust-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: We were both Conservatives in our youth.


Joseph-Achille Verville: -but perhaps through no fault of his; however, I wish to give him all the credit and merit which he deserves. I would ask him, however, not to act, in the future, as a guide to the government, to look after his own affairs, to make a speech in his turn and not interrupt others when speaking.
There are, sir, many members who are lavish with their wit.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: That is why you are left with little.


Joseph-Achille Verville: One can
only dispose of what he possesses. If one is endowed with much the whole community benefits, if little, no one benefits. I do not wish to be personal, it is a dangerous game. I should like to see everybody mind his own business and atte'nd to his own duties. If any one wishes to perform childish freaks, let him step out into the lobby. We have been witnessing, for the last few weeks, a scene that our friends opposite may perhaps call-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Ridiculous.


Joseph-Achille Verville: -perhaps
they will call it talking pictures; it is somewhat true. But they are beautiful ones; both in English and French, with the addition of real living actors representing all the dignified personages of the nation; however it looks as if the idea was not endorsed by a government who show disrespect for their opponents.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Hear, hear!


Joseph-Achille Verville: We therefore have talking pictures; let it be so, but to make a contrast, allow me to recall the time when you w'ere children and ask you whether it was a fact that twenty-five years ago, puppet-shows were then the fashion. If to-day, in keeping with progress they are replaced by moving pictures. If we are allowed to go back twenty-five years-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Permission is granted.


Joseph-Achille Verville: -and recall the time of the puppet-shows, you will remember then-I am specially addressing myself to my good friends of Quebec who do not share my political views

that our countryside was visited by people who gave shows that we use to call the dance of the puppets. They were shown in a miniature theatre erected for the occasion-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: You still can dance. You are playing your part well.


Joseph-Achille Verville: -these puppets were moved by a spring. A hidden hand worked the eyes, the lips, the arms, the legs and the people wondered. We can, to-day, establish a fairly close comparison with what was happening at that time. What have we here? We have representatives of Quebec, members who do not share our political views, and we have a man behind the scene, who forces them to open their eyes, their mouths and move their arms-
Unemployment Continuance Act


Charles Napoléon Dorion: A painting of the author by himself.


Joseph-Achille Verville: -and who too often makes them say what he wishes because he is the real actor -behind the scene: I command, do not move.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: A painting of the author by himself.


Joseph-Achille Verville: That is so, the author is the Prime Minister of this country, the puppets, yourselves.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Heart hear!


Joseph-Achille Verville: I was listening a short while ago to my good friend, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy), who dared to assert that the debate on the constitutional aspect of the question had been dragging too long. I think it should last many weeks more and even longer. We, the Liberal party, were criticized long enough for having a leader who was supposed to administer the country in the interest of the west, a number of hon. members on your right, sir, proclaimed it on the hustings throughout Quebec, when there was not an iota of truth. But, to-day, it is a fact, and yet, these hon. members dare to support those who are guilty of such an act and deny what they then said.


Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull) (Translation):: May I, sir, at the outset of
my remarks on -this resolution quote, as an introduction, a few sentences of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), taken from his speeches delivered on March 8 and 23 last, when he was discussing this proposed measure, and speaking on the motion of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). His comments will give us an insight into the state of mind under which the Prime Minister laboured when he endeavoured to impose on this parliament an act which is contrary to all parliamentary traditions of this country.
On March 8, he stated, when introducing this resolution:
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 wilt 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.

In his speech on the same motion, he repeats his argument giving it a different form, as follows:
I would not ask this power from any parliament except reluctantly, and I so stated when I introduced the resolution the other day. But, sir, after discussions between my colleagues and myself, and taking into consideration the views expressed to us by others who look at the matter dispassionately and from the outside, dare we as a government, charged with the tremendous responsibility in this emergency of caring for this dominion to the best of our ability, be without that power? We have said, no. We do not believe that this power will be called into play; nay, more, we sincerely and fervently hope that it will not be. But, sir, what is a man without a weapon in the midst of armed force? What is a man who has no instrument for his protection in the midst of the strife of brigands?
The above quotations from the speeches of the Prime Minister indicates clearly that he is conversant with the constitution of our country, that he is familiar with the fundamental principles which must govern our parliamentary life and it is with repugnance, and reluctantly, that he submits to us this resolution.
I listened closely to the speeches delivered by the members of the government and to those who supported them, and it struck me that hon. members opposite seemed to not understand the attitude taken by Liberals on that question. I did not hear one single Conservative member state that it was reluctantly that he supported this violation of our constitution. The right hon. Prime Minister's supporters seemed to pay little attention to his speech, while he, himself, was fully aware to what extreme means he had recourse to impose his will. If we turn over the pages of our history, we shall note that, for over one hundred years, our forbears had to struggle to obtain what is known as self-government. Following the conquest; the military government of 1763, recognized no rights to the Canadian people nor granted any representation in the nation's council. The Quebec act of 1774 acknowledged some privileges to the people of Quebec, or to those who had remained in Canada after the conquest; such as their language, customs and religion. In 1791, the Constitutional Act separated the two provinces and allowed us to have a number of represenatives in the council of the nation, but no control over supply or the taxes levied on our people. In 1837, the rebellion took place, blood flowed in an endeavour to obtain the control of the treasury. Even in 1840, under the Union Act, this responsibility of governments was not

Unemployment Continuance Act
yet achieved; it was only in 1867, by the British North America Act, looked upon by us, from our childhood and youth, as the ideal condition for a people, that we obtained to be represented, to decide how the taxes were to be levied, how we were to limit them and how the disposal of the revenues would be made in the interest of the whole nation. If we study the constitutional history of our country, we will note that in the conventions negotiated between Lower and Upper Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, there seems to be an understanding by which consent of the parties is necessary to enact radical changes in our constitution.
Since 1867, we find but three instances, in the history of our confederation, where the government undertook the responsibility of requesting a fixed amount but without being able however to determine how the funds would be expended. In 1885, during the Riel rebellion, in the west, parliament granted to the government of that day a sum of $1,500,000, so as to crush this rebellion; the amount had been mentioned but without giving details or the information usually required when such amounts are asked.
The second instance in our parliamentary history, when parliament trusted the government by granting them a stipulated amount, but without giving details, goes back to Queen Victoria's Jubilee. The last instance, was in 1914, when the war, in which we took part, was declared. Under the Conservative regime of 1914, parliament granted the government on various occasions during the years of war, large amounts to meet the expenditure of our active participation in the conflict. However, on no occasion did a government think of requesting the house to despoil itself of the rights conferred upon it by the British North America Act. Pursuant to these rights conferred upon us by the Confederation Act, the people's representatives alone, by an unwritten law, have full power over the disposal of the public funds and their duty is to supervise the expenditure of these funds.
Now, we have a Conservative Prime Minister, whose mentality, character and autocratic methods are known, he assumes himself full responsibility and decides that the Conservative party is willing to undertake such a task which may lead to abuses-which the Prime Minister himself admits-and endeavours to deny the supremacy conferred on parliament by the will of the people, in order that he can transfer it to the executive, which is but a committee of -this house.
If you peruse the British North America Act, you will find the powers of the executive defined in sections 9 and 16. If you examine section 17, you will note that the legislative powers reside in parliament which comprises the House of Commons, the Senate and an executive to whom is confided the administration of the laws adopted by the two chambers just mentioned. These powers were never ceded to the government, an extraordinary crisis must exist to force this government to resort to these unheard of methods, even during the period of war, such extreme measures, as to reverse the roles in parliament, were never thought of.
Parliament has the right to legislate on the various matters enumerated in section 91 of the British North America Act. This section confers on parliament the exclusive authority to legislate so as to maintain order, peace and good government in this country. Further on the act enumerates the various matters over which we have the power to legislate. This resolution requests us to admit that the Canadian parliament is incapable of legislating in order to relieve the present crisis; but, in this parliament, there exists a group of men who have all the necessary qualifications, energy and will to govern the country, as a small committee, without making any report to parliament. These are the men who are supposed to relieve the situation.
The first remedy to which they resorted, at the special session of 1930 consisted in the definite amount of $20,000,000. This sum sufficed to meet the emergency during 1930. By voting this S20,000,000, parliament or the house was not asked to renounce its powers. It was in 1931 that a blank signature was requested. It was on July 31, if my memory serves me right, that this bill was discussed in the house, and parliament prorogued on August 3. In the dying days of the session the enactment of this measure was requested, notwithstanding the statement of the leader of the opposition that, if circumstances warranted it, he was ready to sit until the government introduced a bill which would be acceptable to all, because it was quite clear that the bill1 introduced was in violation of the principle of self-government, by virtue of which the house has control over the expenditure made by the government.
By this measure which they wish to thrust upon us, it is contended that means will be found to meet the situation, end unemployment and relieve the people. With this aim in view they state, we have devised the following scheme: we have a group of fifteen or sixteen men who, we think, are much better
Unemployment Continuance Act

endowed than you are and we therefore request that they should be given your authority to legislate.
I often wonder what the electorate think of the government's followers when they witness their attitude on this question. At the next election, I know that, in Quebec, this question will not be a dead issue and the people of that province will prove to the entire country that, at least, they still are attached to the constitution and they will certainly support the representatives who champion their rights. The ridicule which the government attempts to saddle on the opposition, because they champion thoro liberties which were conquered at the price of our blood, the people of Quebec, the whole Dominion will remember. The Canadian people themselves, will discover that the measure, which the Prime Minister wishes to impose on us, leads to many abuses.
One argument put forth in favour of this act is as follows:-We cannot state the amount because we are not aware of the disbursements we will have to make. It is not what the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) stated some time ago in the city he represents :
The present government will within a few months, have to borrow six or seven hundred million dollars.
He is then aware of the amount necessary to meet the expenditure of his government. How does it happen that an ordinary member can state that next year Saskatchewan will need 826,000,000, that the rebate of five cents per bushel of wheat will amount to $10,000,000 and that the loan to that province will amount to 86,000,000?
If this hon. member is so well acquainted with the requirements of the provinces so as to relieve the present crisis, why should not the government specify an amount, as the leader of the opposition and his followers stated. They could request 8600,000,000, and I think the opposition would agree to that amount, believing sincerely that the government would limit useless expenditure. We could then have some control over the funds disposed of. If 850,000,000 had been voted in 1931, it would have met the situation then existing, since the reports laid on the table of the house show that only $34,000,000 or $36,000,000 were expended. They might, to-dajq if the requirements are greater to relieve the situation, state a definite amount, thus the authority of this parliament and the prerogatives of the house would remain intact. The industrial conditions in our country instead of improving after all the means taken,

is worse than in 1930, and we are also aware that there are more unemployed in Canada, per capita, than in any other country.
I would have been recreant to my duty had I not protested against this legislation which will certainly have disastrous results, since the Prime Minister himself admits that it may pave the way to abuses.


Mr. T. F. AHEARN (Ottawa):: Mr. Speaker I propose to make only a few brief remarks with respect to the measure now before the house. I have always understood that precedents play a most important part in the parliaments within the British empire. Such great importance is attached to precedents that the establishment of any new and important precedent which may have grave and far-reaching effects is a very serious responsibility for any government to undertake. The measure now before the house does constitute a grave and far-reaching precedent. It permits the cabinet to change or amend existing laws and takes away from the House of Commons control over public moneys; indeed it vests almost unlimited authority in the cabinet. This, of course, creates a constitutional issue, and from my observation it is being so considered by the man of the street.
This grave departure from the established order of things has resolved itself into a question as to whether this parliament shall support the old-established order of parliamentary procedure or depart from it as a matter of so-called expediency. The government of the day has made its choice and by invoking closure has plainly indicated that it proposes to stick by that choice. The Liberal party opposes this step by all the means in its power, and I am convinced that when the people become fully aware of all the implications of the step the government is now taking, and of the hollowness of the excuses it offers for so doing, they will make their opinion felt in no uncertain manner.
The other day the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) spoke of the vote of confidence that he and his party had received in the recent by-election in Athabaska. That so-called vote of confidence amounts to less than one third of the total vote cast in the election. If the hon. gentlemen who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker, are content to call that a vote of confidence, we on this side of the house are content that they should do so.
More than once I have heard this debate referred to as a waste of time. That is not correct. This debate has done a great service, if only to establish that the measures the gov-

Unemployment Continuance Act
eminent has taken in conjunction with the provincial governments and the municipalities have not been adequate or successful, even to a small degree, in coping with the depression. Nearly $150,000,000 has been spent and thereby employment amounting to less than one month in a year to each person has been afforded. One member sitting on the government benches said that this expenditure had enabled many people "to keep body and soul together." In my opinion the one thing more than all [DOT]others that has enabled hundreds of thousands of our unemployed to weather the storm as well as they have is the wonderful kindness that Canadian families, still in receipt of an income, have shown to relieve relatives and friends in distress. This should cause a feeling of pride in every Canadian heart. Organized charity is also playing its part nobly, and the time and money that have been given to this great cause will not be soon forgotten by those who have benefited.
I am one of those who believe the government has been actuated by good motives, but the results of the tremendous expenditures of public moneys have been most disappointing, and I think the people are convinced that the policy of the government with regard to unemployment has failed in its object.
I once hoped that state unemployment insurance never would be necessary in Canada, but the efforts of the government in the past two years, during which I have seen so many good citizens suffer the miseries and hardships of unemployment, have about convinced me that the time has come for the government of Canada to explore seriously and sincerely the advisability of bringing down a measure to provide contributory state unemployment insurance suitable to the needs of Canada's army of unemployed men and women, and to the conditions that obtain in Canada, not only now, but during years of prosperity as well. That is a personal opinion, but it is one which I feel must be expressed. It is obvious that such a measure, if it were introduced, would have to be very carefully framed in order to guard against the abuses that are stated to be apparent in the unemployment act of Great Britain. The Dominion government, the provincial governments, and all employers and employees throughout Canada would have to bear their just and equitable share of the cost of such unemployment insurance, but I think all classes in Canada are ready to do so in order that certain and orderly relief may come to those who suffer the tragedy of unemployment.
As I said before, I had hoped that such an enactment might not become necessary in
Canada. It would be costly and it has certain obvious drawbacks, but it would be infinitely better than present conditions. The people of Canada want the money voted for unemployment relief to go into the pockets of those who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed, and not to contractors and so on; and through the unemployed they want this money to go to the small merchants, who need it most in these days. The present policy of the government has shown very clearly that the creation of special jobs is very unsatisfactory and very expensive; this method has been given an extensive trial and has failed to meet the situation. Obviously the government must try another policy if it is to satisfy the people of this country. The Prime Minister has said that Canada will never have the dole, but I take that to mean that the dole will be given as a last resort. We are rapidly approaching that situation, and we cannot afford to further disregard the failure of another "noble experiment."


Mr. HARRY BUTCHER (Bast Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the proposed legislation now before the house, which when amended is intended to revive chapter 58 of the statutes of 1931, I have but little to say except to remark that the substitution of a fixed sum for the words "such moneys as the governor in council in his discretion may deem to be necessary," in section 2, and the elimination of the words "and maintain within the competence of parliament, peace, order and good government throughout Canada," in sections 3 and 4, would have made this measure entirely acceptable to the opposition.
I want to speak at greater length with regard to the closure which is to be applied at this time. I was startled when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) moved closure; I wondered just why that should be done. I thought I might find in the speech of the Prime Minister some substantial reason for this action having been taken, but diligent study of his speech has not rewarded me. I should like to direct attention to a few of the statements made by the right hon. gentleman, and a few of the quotations given by him, which statements and quotations no doubt were intended to give his reasons for applying closure at this time.
The Prime Minister quoted Redlich, and a little later I intend to refer to some of the details of that quotation. In general, however, we were reminded that in the latter part of the nineteenth century there was real, substantial obstruction in the British parliament.

Unemployment Continuance Act

The dangerous nature of that obstruction was pointed out, threatening as it did British parliamentary institutions and established practices. Finally, attention was directed to the steps that were taken to control the situation. Then the Prime Minister inferred that a parallel situation existed in Canada at the present time, and apparently he attempted to justify the guillotine thereby. With the permission of the house I should like to direct attention to the first quotation given by the right hon. gentleman, which is found at page 1404 of Hansard for March 23. This is part of a speech made by the Prime Minister of England, and reported in the proceedings of the special committee on Procedure on Public Business:
Really, what is the House of Commons itself? It consists not only of a government, but of an opposition, and they have both got functions and rights. The great right of the opposition is the full discussion of measures proposed by the government. It is there, I think, that our fundamental weakness lies. There is a doctrine that it is the function of the opposition to oppose. I have always regarded that as a crime against the state.
I should like to direct particular attention to these words:
. . . they have both got functions and rights. The great right of the opposition is the full discussion of measures proposed by the government.
That is exactly the stand taken by the opposition here; we claim that we should have the right to discuss the amount to be expended under the proposed legislation, and that we should be able to discuss and criticize the manner in which it is to be expended, whether in public works at the federal expense, in grants in aid to the provinces to assist them in the carrying on of public works, or in direct relief. Then we should like to discuss whether or not the government should have other powers than merely those of providing relief to the needy, seed grain and feed to the farmers and employment on public works, whether alone or in conjunction with the provinces. We claim that it is not full discussion if we are not to have any voice in the fixing of the amount to be appropriated or in the manner in which that appropriation is to be expended.
The Prime Minister referred to the mother of parliaments, and quoted chapter 48 of the statutes of 1930-31, passed by the British parliament. He pointed out that very large powers were conferred by that statute upon the privy council of England, but close examination of this chapter shows that the only power conferred is the power to make orders affecting certain economies. The closer we

study that chapter the more that view will be confirmed. We should note also that these powers were conferred upon a council that formed the executive of a national and not a party government; that the powers were conferred for one month only, and that the subjects to which they might be applied were only five in number, education, national health insurance, police, unemployment insurance and roads.
The Prime Minister directed attention to one particular clause which gave power to increase or vary the contributions made to the unemployment fund. I am referring now to page 1410 of Hansard. The words of the act are, "For increasing the contributions to be made to the unemployment fund." So, search as you may, you will not find the slightest power to spend money; it only has to do with effecting economies. Within the four corners of that statute will be found no blank cheque and no blanket authority. I wish to refer now to a certain quotation of the Prime Minister's from Red-lich's Procedure of the House of Commons. I shall read only a brief extract from it:
Irreconcilable parties, which oppose an existing union of states or stand for a subordination of state to church, parties which reject the whole framework of society, or which draw their life from a principle only less deep and powerful than that of religion, the principle of nationality, are all in mortal conflict-latent if not apparent, possibly unconscious for long periods-with the conventions of parliament; they are, therefore, knowingly or unknowingly attacking parliamentary government itself, at all events in the form known to the constitution. Obstruction is. in reality, nothing less than a repudiation of the existing constitution of the country, intensified to the point of denying the right of its parliament to exist, and expressed in a conscious misuse of the forms and principles of procedure essential to the efficiency of parliamentary action.
Before making this quotation the Prime Minister used these words:
Reading from the third volume of that work, page 196, I shall now give a description of what has transpired in this house during the last ten days.
In other words, the Prime Minister attributes to the opposition those very things that I have read in your hearing. The paragraph preceding the one from which the Prime Minister quoted begins with these words:
Such is the political atmosphere in which the latest procedure reforms have been produced.
I think it is wise that we should find out what that particular atmosphere was. Many of us who have read the history of the British parliament during that trying period from 1867 to 1902 know that the political

Unemployment Continuance Act
atmosphere was most disturbed all the time. To begin with, there was the burning question of home rule for Ireland; there was the South African policy of the imperialists; there was the imperialist tariff policy, and there was the education question. Probably during the last century no other question had1 disturbed the minds of the British people to the extent that these particular questions did. Take for instance the question of home rule for Ireland. I need not remind hon. gentlemen that for about thirty years this was one of the most vital questions discussed in the British House of Commons. Two years after his election Mr. Parnell became the storm centre of that house. He tried first of all by so-called constitutional means to induce the house to listen to him, but when he found that he was getting nowhere, what did he do? He and his party set out to upset the proceedings of the house. Parnell was called the originator of systematic obstruction, and he certainly was. On one occasion he said, "I feel a special satisfaction in preventing and thwarting the intentions of the government." What happened during those hectic times? On July 31, 1877, O'Donnell, with four others, moved thirteen motions for adjournment. On that occasion the sitting lasted twenty houra and fifteen minutes, and the highest number of the minority at any time during those motions for adjournment was seven. On another occasion the sitting lasted twenty-two hours, the result being 251 votes for the government and 33 for the opposition. But there came a time when the sitting lasted forty-one and one-half hours. On one occasion 132 amendments were moved.


Martin James Maloney: Mr. Speaker, what has this to do with the question before the house?


Jean-François Pouliot: The difference is that one knows his business and the other's seem to be all mixed up.


Harry Butcher: As I say, on one occasion in the British house 132 amendments were moved to one clause, and now this closure rule has been invoked here in this parliament to prevent one amendment being moved. The Prime Minister quoted Redlich and I wish to quote from that authority too. Redlich says:
Moreover, the feeling of the universal benefit conferred, as a rule, by strenuous and powerful opposition is one which centuries of experience have worked into the very flesh and blood of the English nation. Over and over again it has been seen that the energetic resistance of a
minority has roused the entire country to take part in political life, and has brought a whole subject up for discussion in all its aspects: hasty measures have been checked, and proposals for large alterations in the law have been made by way of compromise, and in the end have only been partially carried out. The feeling of the need for opposition and the experiences which support it have led to the characteristic tendency of English procedure which finds expression in the strong emphasis placed on the protection of the minority.
I have a much longer quotation but I will not read more. What has been the view of the Prime Minister heretofore, even in the year 1931? At page 4279 of Hansard of July 29.last, the Prime Minister said:
I will say frankly to the house that in asking what euphemistically is spoken of as a "blank cheque" we are not unmindful that we are asking very considerable from the House of Commons.
At page 4448 he said:
I am not without full realization of what is involved in the bill, but in order to meet my right hon. friend I will shorten the time to March 1 and make it clear that we have no desire to usurp powers as was suggested.
Again, at page 4449:
I need hardly say to the committee that I do this reluctantly; I do it from a sense of duty. What the right hon. gentleman said last evening as to the advisability of grants of money being limited, is so elementary I shall not do more than say that its general application in itself involves the necessity at times of exceptions.
At page 4449, again, he said:
Realizing that, understanding fully the soundness of the criticism that is urged against the principle in general and not endeavouring to minimize it, we are with great hesitancy seeking from the house these powers. ... If I were less mindful of the soundness of the criticisms that are made by the right hon. gentleman opposite as to the interference with the general principle, I would not make the observations I do.
Note the slipping of the Prime Minister. In 1931 he said that this was repugnant to him; in 1932 he is impatient with those to whom it is still repugnant. In 1931 he was apologetic; in 1932 he says that to oppose is a crime against the state. But analyze the opposition. Has any member spoken who had no right to speak? Did any member exceed forty minutes I think not. We are not asking for minority rule; all we ask for is regularity of procedure. We say to the government: Give us the details of your proposition; let us discuss them and criticize them. We may induce you to amend them and compromise somewhat, bearing in mind that last year the proposed income tax amendments were withdrawn, probablj' because of

Unemployment Continuance Act
opposition from this side of the house. The duty on magazines was reduced, probably also because of opposition from this side. We say to the government: Bring all your business before the house and let us discuss it freely, and you may depend upon it that if you defeat us on the floor of the house we shall bear the defeat with resignation: we shall be content.
I noticed with a good deal of pleasure that the Prime Minister did send over a dove, if not with an olive branch, at least with a leaf from an olive branch, when he said:
I see no harm in intimating that, instead of asking for the right to pass orders in councils with respect to peace, order and good government after the first of May, we shall specify the statute with respect to which we believe it may be essential in a time of crisis to enact reasonable regulations or orders in council.
When our esteemed friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) interjected:
A slight improvement.
The Prime Minister said:
It will be a very great improvement.
And I think we entirely agree with him.


Mr. M. F. HEPBURN (West Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, in anything I shall say to-night I assure you that I am not prompted in any way by the speech made by the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott), who said so many uncomplimentary things about myself. I realize that the hon. gentleman has to justify an otherwise barren existence. He made one of his usual contributions to-night and talked of onions, and as he was swept along on the flood tide of his own verbosity I thought as I watched his facial contortions and violent gesticulations that he must have got some onion juice in his eye, but in fairness to the onion I would not want to put the blame for his parliamentary conduct on that lowly vegetable. After he sat down he was obviously quite exhausted. I think there was not an unuttered thought in his mind, and that being the case, he is more deserving of sympathy than of censure. As far as his prediction about my own future is concerned, he has already been proved a false prophet because he said during the last federal campaign that both the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) and myself would be defeated in our ridings, but the election results did not bear out his prognostications on that occasion. I understand fully why he did not attempt to deal with the matter under discussion, because we are discussing an important principle and I know the argument is quite beyond the capacity of the hon. member for South Essex.

The principle involved in this measure, Mr. Speaker, does not in any way relate either to farm relief or unemployment. Toryism, as in the past, is trading and trafficking on the adversity 'of those who are out of work and those who are otherwise in need of relief. If the hon. gentlemen opposite are sincere and really want to do something in a monetary way for the unemployed and the farmers in distress, all they have to do is to ask this parliament for any sum that is required, and that amount of money will be forthcoming at once with the absolute cooperation of every Liberal member on this side of the house.
But there is an ulterior motive behind this legislation, and because of that our hon. friends opposite have to muddy up the water and becloud the issue. What the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) wants, this great Moses of the Tory party, God's gift to the Canadian people, as he would have us believe, is absolute power. Under this legislation he wants to be given the power to disregard any statute of Canada and to make any new law that he likes without appealing to parliament at all. That is in contravention of every established principle of British parliamentary government. Think of it, Mr. Speaker! Over in the east block the cabinet to-morrow, if we pass this legislation, can meet and absolutely disregard any of the statutes of Canada and make any new law which the cabinet may see fit to make. What function is left to parliament if we delegate these powers to the executive? I leave that question to any fair-minded Conservative member opposite.
Apparently, after all the promises which he made in the last campaign, the Prime Minister finds himself in difficulty. He cannot in a constitutional way fulfil any part of the obligations he incurred so readily during that campaign, so now he says: What I cannot do in a conventional way I want parliament to give me authority to do in an unconstitutional way. Speaking in this house a few nights ago I suggested that if we were going to delegate any such powers it would have to be to a man of proven worth. This government has been in office now for a considerable time. This is the third session of parliament, and up to date I cannot find that one constructive suggestion has emanated from the other side of the house, not one single constructive suggestion which is fundamentally sound, and I think hon. gentlemen opposite will agree with me in that respect, particularly when we look at conditions obtaining throughout Canada to-day after this government has had every opportunity to apply thoroughly the policies which the}' advocated during the

Unemployment Continuance Act
campaign as 'being in the best interests of the people of Canada.
What, for instance, is the condition of industry to-day? We know that there are 220.000 fewer men employed. We know further that our industries are only running to forty per cent of their capacity. That situation did not obtain a few years ago under the regime of the Liberal government. What is the position of our financial institutions?
I think this is a fair test as to general conditions throughout Canada. We know that our financial institutions are in a bad way, so bad, in fact, that the Prime Minister had to invoke the powers that were vested in him under this legislation of last year in order to save our financial institutions, and by order in council he permitted the banks to file with the Department of Finance statements which were absolutely false, bolstered up, inflated statements. There must be something wrong when a condition like that obtains.
Further, by another order in council the Prime Minister allowed the insurance companies to make a retroactive valuation of the speculative stocks which they held, and not only stocks but government bonds as well. The fact that the Canadian dollar is below par and that our own government bonds are selling at a discount indicates that the policies of this government are certainly not working out in the way it was argued they would work out during the election campaign.
Take the situation as to unemployment. Hon. gentlemen opposite, those of them at all events who did not know anything about economics, probably were sincere when they told the people of this country that if elected to office they would end unemployment. They have had every opportunity to apply their policies since, and what has been the result? Instead of having 120,000 people out of work, to-day there are 550,000, and what relief is in sight? If a man loses his job to-day, picture his hopeless condition! What is he going to do about it? Is the government providing any means of employment? Has it one single constructive policy to put forward? Not one that is fundamentally sound, nothing but to give the man more of the hair of the dog that bit him.
Take the position of the farmer-and I know whereof I speak, because I have been in the rural sections in the last few days. I will tell you what is happening there. Because of the low commodity prices and the loss of markets brought about by the trade policies of this government, our farmers today are not in a position to hire help, and here is a strange anomaly as a result. These
men who cannot be employed in a gainful occupation by the farmers are crowding into the cities and towns as unemployed, where they are simply aggravating the unemployment situation, and the farmers who cannot employ these men gainfully under present conditions are going to be taxed to keep them in idleness. Some hon. gentlemen opposite will say that industry is going to bear some of this extra taxation, but I say that many of our industries that are sheltered behind tariff walls are above the civil law, and if you add to their costs of production they will simply take it out of the farmer in the prices they pay for his raw products or take it out of the consumer in the prices which he will be called upon to pay. The condition is pitiful. There is no relief in sight for the farmers. There is just a dark lane ahead of them. Picture the lot of a married man working on a farm to-day. He is not getting over $25 a month, and on that he is trying to feed and clothe his family and send his children to school, and in the country districts many little children are trudging along the sloppy roads to school without rubbers and proper footwear. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite say that they are going to help them under this farm relief legislation. Nothing of the kind. All that you are doing is to see that the big interests will have greater privileges than they ever had before. Strip this thing of all its camouflage and you find that it is nothing but an attempt to give by order in council additional privileges to the big interests.
With regard to unemployment, I do not of course blame hon. gentlemen opposite entirely for world-wide unemployment conditions. We know that the introduction of labour saving machinery, the mechanization of agriculture and industry, has contributed very largely to unemployment by the displacing of labour. But I do blame this on Toryism, that instead of the masses of the people benefiting by the cheaper methods of production by getting a corresponding increase in purchasing power through the lower prices of the products produced, Toryism allows monopolistic industries sheltered behind tariff walls to increase the prices of the products they have to sell, but the masses of the people have no corresponding increase in purchasing power.
That is what is wrong to-day in Canada, namely, lack of purchasing power; it is the root of all our trouble. The masses are being thoroughly exploited. We know this condition cannot continue to exist. The other day it was said that there were 1,125,000 automobiles in Canada, and I venture to say that because


Mr. COTNAM:: Will the hon. member explain how it happened that he voted to abrogate the New Zealand treaty?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: The abrogation of the
treaty had no direct effect upon the trading in butter between the two countries; it was the application of the eight cent tariff, that prohibitive tariff, which brought about the disaster in the Canadian industry. I know my hon. friend opposite is sincere and honest. He represents a number of dairy farmers in his constituency. May I explain the situation to him? We had for export two products: butter and cheese. Our cheese graded 96 per cent number one, and our butter 70 per cent number one. Because of climatic and other conditions beyond our control, we cannot produce butter that will grade more than 70 per cent number one, and it is not a good product for the export market in which we have to compete with competitive butter of other countries. The product that we should have fostered for export was cheese, and our cheese, because of its high grade, was selling on the export market at a three cent premium. Hon. gentlemen opposite said: This New Zealand butter coming into Canada is ruining the market for our product and something must be done to maintain the price of our butter. One way to do that was to keep within the bounds of the consumptive capacity of Canada, and the alternative was to go on the export market. Was it good business to go on the export market with an inferior product, or to do so with cheese that graded 96 per cent number one and received a three-cent premium on that account? My hon. friends opposite put into effect a tariff of eight cents a pound which was prohibitive. The New Zealander, however, did not throw his 41761-941
butter into the sea; he made it into cheese which he sold in England in competition with ours. The effect was that the price of cheese dropped to twelve cents a pound and the low price was reflected in Canada. We had the anomaly in Canada of twelve cent cheese and thirty-seven cent butter; and that is not a fair ratio between the prices of the two commodities. We immediately turned to an increased butter production; we went beyond the saturation point and when we produced more butter than we could consume in Canada we had to sell that inferior product on the export market. The consequence was that the price collapsed entirely.
In the meantime the New Zealander continued the production of cheese, and he has captured part of our market in England. According to Doctor Ruddick, we have lost our continuity of market there; we have done an irreparable damage to our dairy industry, as a result of the propaganda which our hon. friends opposite put forth in order to get into office. The dairy industry is in a state of chaos. Some of them might have been sincere, but I am sure enough of them knew of the ill effects of the introduction of a policy such as that, that if they had wanted to stop the application of the eight cent tariff on New Zealand butter, they could have done so.
To follow that up, a few weeks ago the price of butter dropped to sixteen cents a pound because we had an exportable surplus. That was due to the fact that we were again on an export basis. Then we had a spell of cold weather when production slowed up and we went back on the domestic basis. As a consequence of that the price of butter jumped about seven cents a pound. That is the policy, namely, that of keeping within the consumptive capacity of the country, which we advooate as being in the best interests of the butter producers. In a few weeks we shall be going back on an export basis and the price of butter will again fall. Some hon. gentlemen apposite contend that we should have a surplus to export, but such a policy will damage the Canadian industry more than anything else. The damage, indeed, has been done now; we are going to continue floundering between a surplus and an underproduction of butter. At the same time we have lost in England the market we enjoyed for our Canadian cheese. In that market we had sold at a premium of three cents a pound; that alone brought into Canada a large amount of money which at the present time we do not receive. When we see loss in trade such as I have described we have proof that the policies defended by the government are not in the best interests of the

Unemployment Continuance Act
country, and we may safely conclude that to delegate complete authority to the executive is not in the best interests of Canada. If policies were sound and brought about any measure of relief we might be inclined to give some latitude to the government, but when we realize conditions obtaining in Canada, when we know we are living in a state of chaos, that our financial institutions are floundering, we realize that to delegate the rights of parliament to the Prime Minister of Canada would be highly dangerous.


Mr. T. M. CAYLEY (South Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure hon. members I am very proud indeed to follow the brilliant young leader of the Liberal .party in the province of Ontario. If I can read the countenances of bon. members opposite I think they have now come to the conclusion, as have hon. members on this side of the house, that in a few short months he will be the premier of the province of Ontario.
I think it is most lamentable that the government of Canada at any time, and especially at this time, should bring a constitutional question into the political arena. Of course we understand that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and we have to be on guard so that the precious heritage handed down to us by your forefathers should not be lost. That is why we are opposing

not obstructing-the measure now before us, displaying the same respect for the liberties of parliament as did our forefathers. I come from a county which a hundred years ago produced those people who endured hardship and suffering so that the constitution and the principles of the people might survive. It is therefore with a feeling of pride that I speak concerning the preservation of our rights under the Canadian constitution.
Chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, has become famous. Owing to the fact that some people will want to know the cause of all this talk in Ottawa I shall quote briefly from the statute. In the preamble I find the following:
Whereas by reason of the continuing worldwide economic depression there exists in many parts of Canada a serious state of unemployment and distress; and whereas the partial failure of the wheat crop of western Canada has intensified the adverse economic conditions theretofore prevailing; and whereas it is in the national interest that parliament should support and supplement the relief measures of the provinces and other bodies in such ways as the governor in council may deem expedient, and for that purpose should vest in the governor in council the powers necessary to ensure the speedy and unhampered prosecution of all relief measures and the maintenance of peace, order

and good government in Canada. Now therefore-
And so on. If we were to put the word "because" where the word "whereas" occurs, the contention of the government might be summed up as follows: "That because the people of Canada are in a serious state of distress, and because there has been a wheat failure in western Canada, and because this government wants despotic power, we want this measure passed." There we have the three whereases. "Whereas the people of Canada are in distress, and whereas the people of western Canada have had a crop failure, and whereas this government wants absolute power, we want a renewal of chapter 58 for another term."


Mr. YENIOT:: And the government is in distress.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Yes, that is right. Then, they want a blank cheque for an unlimited amount, and another blank order for unlimited power. Did anything ever beat that? Has any hon. member heard of anything in the last one hundred years of Canada's parliamentary history to equal the present requests of the government? They are saying to the people of Canada who are in distress, "We cannot give you relief until we satisfy this craving for power." It is said of one of the characters in the good book, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." This government comes along and says, "Well, we will relieve you of all power on earth."
The Prime Minister has said the government did not abuse the absolute power given them in the session of 1931. Well, there is a difference of opinion in that direction. The facts are that they amended the Bank Act, they stopped the export of gold, they amended the Insurance Act, they increased the number of Canadian mounted police, and armed them. That is a pretty good start for the first year. Lord knows what they would do in the next six weeks if they were given an opportunity.
I think there are many little problems they would like to straighten out if they were given absolute power.
The Prime Minister praises the Canadian people for their courage and Olympic spirit. In the next breath he speaks as though he was afraid of them. I try to be liberal minded, but I am forced to the conclusion that the government is suffering from nervousness. They are getting panicky; there is something wrong with them. They are working too long -much too long. Twenty hours a day is too long. If they would take a little time off to sleep or rest I think their actions would be

Unemployment Continuance Act
more sane. I turn to page 1175 of Hansard for the present session and I find the remarks of the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson):
Russian agents are in every hamlet in this country from the Atlantic to Pacific, and I am not so sure that she has not agents around these parliament buildings.
I think that statement bespeaks the fears held by hon. members opposite. They are lying awake at night; they neither sleep nor slumber, and when they go to bed I think they look under it. Why all this fear? Why all this armed force against these heroic spirits, these Olympic men? Policemen come armed with revolvers, others are mounted and carrying batons; then there is the use of tear bombs. Why all this? Well, the Prime Minister told us they were mounted on horses so nobody could get hurt. I think he would have been more humane, more peaceful, and less dangerous if he had armed the police with boxing gloves.
I believe in his own mind the Prime Minister is persuaded he is wrong; his conscience tells him he is wrong. In his remarks of March 23 he said:
I would not ask this power from any parliament except reluctantly, and I so stated when I introduced the resolution the other day.
He does it "reluctantly;" he feels he is wrong; he knows he is wrong. He comes from that splendid United Empire Loyalist stock and should know better. Conscience and reason tell him he is wrong, but ambition urges him on. What other interpretation can one place on his actions? No speaker for the government has given any valid reason for the change. For months the right hon. gentleman was Prime Minister, President of the Council, Secretary of State for External Affairs, Minister of Finance, and a whole lot of other things-because the other ministers did not say very much. He had his eye on power. The Montreal Gazette of June 9, 1930, contains a report of his speech in which I notice this passage:
So will I when the government is mine-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: And parliament too.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Not this part of parliament.
So will I when the government is mine continue to blast a way through all our troubles and difficulties.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: "When the government is
mine." And it is his. But this is the sad part of it; these words reecho and strike them like a boomerang:
They play with the lives of men and women. What for? Do they realize that they are playing with lives,-food for wives and children, hunger ?
All those on this side of the house who have taken part in the debate have urged the government to avoid this constitutional issue, to treat the authority of parliament as a sacred thing, a great heritage, and to take immediate constitutional action to relieve our suffering people. Let us do it to-day. Let us have a supply bill, late as it is, without any conditions, without any price. What a spectacle in this parliament -the people suffering; the government holding out for unlimited power. We are not in Russia; we are in Canada where the majority of the people are educated and intelligent, and all the problems of the day can be adjusted without setting up a dictatorship. Did the Canadian people ever fail in a time of crisis? The Conservative party asked the people to trust them, they begged the people to trust them, they called upon the people to trust them. Now all is far from well, and the Conservative party no longer trust the people. The people are not now singing that old hymn "We are standing on the promises;" they have learned that those promises are worthless. The people have been taken for their ride-and now they are walking home.
The thinking people of this country are wondering why the Prime Minister seeks for himself these vast powers, and some good reasons come to their minds. They ask, "Why these great powers-powers only surpassed by the supreme ruler-Why do the government seek such powers? Are there great things at stake?" There come to the minds of the people the great problems before Canada and they ask:	"Has this anything
to do with the St. Lawrence project? Has this anything to do with the Imperial conference? Is the government trying to put something over with regard to the railways?" These are honest questions the people are asking. I urge on the government a little more frankness as to their policies, I ask them to clarify matters, and so ease the feelings of the people. The people are worthy of your trust. Canadians are jealous of the precious heritage of responsible government. Through the development of these institutions Canada has risen to the splendid position she occupies to-day. In a recent speech at Albert hall in London, England, the Prince of Wales said:
The enemies to-day are depression and apathy. Let us attack them with two of our old-fashioned characteristics-good sense and good humour.

Unemployment Continuance Act
Let the government in this crisis assist in preserving the morale of our people. I doubt very much if this procedure will do so. I have been back in my riding and I know how my people are feeling. They are questioning why at this time they should be so treated. Let the government keep the citizens of Canada hopeful, not jumpy, wavering, unstable and mistrusting. Let the government so act that they will create in the people a feeling of hope and confidence.
The Literary Digest of February 27, 1932, contains a despatch with respect to Sir Richard Squires, Prime Minister of Newfoundland. It seems he has been getting into trouble lately. He was roughly treated by a large party of unemployed who stormed the council chamber. The Literary Digest contains this quotation from the St. John's Watchman:
The whole unfortunate affair was brought about by the callous indifference of the Prime Minister and his pigheaded refusal to meet the committee and talk over ways and means.
Now, I submit it is absolutely unnecessary that this offer of relief should be made to us on condition that we surrender all the rights and privileges parliament has gained down through the centuries. Let us have a relief measure without strings attached to it. We are quite willing and ready to grant relief. The government tell us that no harm will befall the country by reason of the acceptance of this measure. Can we any longer rely upon the promises of this government? The opposition has come in for a great deal of criticism from our friends opposite and we have been accused of trying to play the part of a dictator. But that is not so; we are simply defending the rights of a free parliament.
The Prime Minister cannot make a mistake in giving heed to the advice of the opposition at this time to follow constitutional methods. He certainly made no mistake in 1931 when he accepted our advice and withdrew the income tax schedules. That is to his eternal glory. I am surprised to learn that now he is ready to call a provincial conference-a plan which he rejected when my right hon. leader suggested it during the campaign .of 1930. It will be recalled that on that occasion my leader suggested that the government call a conference of the provinces to study the whole matter of unemployment and relief. I say that now he is following this advice and accepting the provincial conference suggested by my honoured leader, and in this he makes no mistake. Later he will have a national committee, and again I say he will be on sound ground.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we are jealous of our rights as a free people and in this free country of ours we do not want "government of the people, by the people and for the people to perish from the earth."


Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski):: Unemployment Continuance Act
to the first of May next. May I ask what is going to happen after May 1 next? Is the Prime Minister going to ask parliament again to extend the time limit provided by the act? Or, in view of the fact that the bulk of the works and undertakings under commitment cannot possibly be completed by May 1, is the Prime Minister going to ask the house to pass special supplementary estimates? If he is going to do so, why not do it now?
There is a third course which the administration might possibly take, and, frankly, I am rather reluctant to mention it. I am one of those who think that the powers granted under chapter 58 are so broad that if the government so desired they might by order in council amend the act itself. As a matter of fact, this has already been done. I would refer you to order in council 2043, contained in the report tabled by the Minister of Labour. If you will look at appendix C, setting out the agreement between the dominion and the provinces, you will find in paragraph 13 the following words:
All public works and undertakings to which contributions may be made under the provisions of clauses 6, 8, 9 and 10 of this agreement, are to be carried on from the date of their commencement to the date of their completion, which latter date shall be not later -than the 1st of May, 1932.
Therefore as far back as August last the government, by order in council, have extended the time limit provided by the act. In view of these apprehended administrative difficulties which I have mentioned, I am forced1 to the conclusion that in pursuing this course the government have created for themselves an extremely awkward situation, the effect of which is bound to be reflected on those very people whom they are trying to help, namely, the unemployed. On the other hand, a specific appropriation voted by parliament, including the contingencies vote I have mentioned, would eliminate all these obstacles and enable the government for a full fiscal year to go on with past and future commitments, and it would also enable them to meet emergencies.
In submitting this concrete proposal to the house I have tried to avoid all blame for criticism. But there is one sweeping statement made by the Prime Minister to which I wish to refer. He has stated that the demands of the members of this house, in answer to Mr. Hereford, were so exceedingly large that it was impossible for the administration to comply with them. Let me qualify that statement so far as my own constituency is concerned. All the demands that came from me for the county of Rimouski never [Sir Eugene FisetJ
exceeded $35,000. I asked that a special credit of $5,000 be placed at the disposal of the local engineer, and I asked also that all labourers to be employed under that appropriation should be chosen by the parish priest or the municipal council. I wanted to avoid politics in the matter. But what have we seen so far as the rural constituencies of Quebec are concerned? We have seen that in a few constituencies represented by Conservative members their demands have been met; but so far as the Liberal members were concerned, we never got one sou. Well, even at this late date I appeal to the Minister of Labour to look more carefully into the demands made, more especially from my county.


George Gordon: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman will tell me one instance where relief was denied when application was made.


Eugène Fiset: Let me cite at once exactly what the hon. member for Dorchester stated, as to the relief that he had obtained for his own county.


George Gordon: But from you.


Eugène Fiset: Even now I am
appealing to the Minister of Labour.


George Gordon: But from you.


Ernest Lapointe: Is this another dictatorship?


Eugène Fiset: I have already
made the statement. The demands we have made for Rimouski are of such importance to that constituency that I dare, even at this date, to appeal to the minister to relieve our population. I have tried my best, throughout my remarks, not to criticize. The only criticism I have made has been with reference to what was said by the hon. member for Dorchester himself. I have perused to the best of my ability the details of this report, and I cannot possibly see for our rural constituencies-


George Gordon: I rise to a point of order. Will the hon. gentleman give me one instance in his constituency-


William Richard Motherwell: That is not a point of order.


George Gordon: -where consideration was not given to an application for relief?


Eugène Fiset: I have already
mentioned the application that came from the county of Rimouski. I never mentioned the word "relief"; I said for public works authorized and paid for by the federal government, and I say the demands of the

Unemployment Continuance Act
county of Rimouski amounting barely to $35,000 for the whole county are so legitimate that I appeal to the minister again to peruse the demands made by me. If he does so, I think he will find them so reasonable he will be unable to refuse to help my people.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate we on this side have contended that this measure submitted to the house is a usurpation of the rights of parliament. This is not a mere expression of view; we have the best possible authority for the statement. I regret that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) paid only a flying visit to the chamber and has left just before I could ask him some questions regarding his speech of the other day. The right hon. gentleman, in his own words uttered in this chamber last year, characterized the present action of the government as a usurpation. This is what he said on that occasion, when he shortened the time during which that statute was to be in force:
I am not without full realization of what is involved in the bill but in order to meet my right hon. friend I will shorten the time to March 1 and make it clear that we have no desire to usurp powers as was suggested.
What does that mean? It means that for the government to take those powers while the house was in session constitutes a usurpation, and that is what he is going to do this year. Why is it necessary then, to do this? Why usurp the rights of parliament, as admitted by the Prime Minister, has been done? Why make this parliament a mere recording machine and a rubber stamp? The obstinacy of my right hon. friend, of course, gave rise to many suspicions and misgivings. We had our surmises, but he himself in his speech last Wednesday gave in so many words the real purpose of the measure now before the house. I refer hon. gentlemen to page 1414 of Hansard, where the Prime Minister is reported as saying:
We do not believe this power will be called into play.
That is the present power asked for by this legislation.
Nay, more, we sincerely and fervently hope that it will not be. But, sir, what is a man without a weapon in the midst of armed force?
What the armed force is, I fail to see.
What is a man who has no instrument for his protection in the midst of the strife of brigands?
Where the brigands are, I still fail to see. Note these words:
Without this power we should be without a weapon that could be used except through a bill in parliament-
And note particularly these last words:
-and with the strange views that obtain in these days there is no assurance that the mind of the government would be sufficiently strong to secure consent for any measure we might introduce.
What does this mean? It means that the Prime Minister is not sure even of his followers. He is not sure of the strength of the government; he wants power to enact legislation 'by order in council, and our hon. friends opposite are applauding their own humiliation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Eighty-three to forty.


Ernest Lapointe: Hon. gentlemen opposite are cheerlessly whistling to keep up their courage. Further, what does this mean? It means that parliament is being 'asked to abrogate its position as the predominant factor in legislation. It means that we are being asked to agree to be dragged at the wheels of the Prime Minister and to make parliament an appendage of the executive. This attitude of the Prime Minister makes our duty to resist this legislation more imperative. The first duty of parliament is to remain a parliament, not to become a subservient and ornamental body. Parliament has a right which is certainly paramount to the convenience of the Prime Minister, the right to live. It has the duty to defend itself and not to allow anybody to invade its rights and privileges. It is the will of parliament, not that of the government, that is the will of the nation. When the Prime Minister says that he speaks for the whole of the country, he is mistaking the echo of his words for the voice of the Canadian people. It is parliament which is and must remain the authorized exponent of public opinion and of the public will. The legislation, the policies, must be what this house makes them. Even the government must be what the house makes it.


Samuel Gobeil: That is *what it will be.


Ernest Lapointe: That is very intelligent; it reminds me of the words of the Greek poet Homer that the gods deprive of half their intelligence those who lose their freedom. Parliament, and not the executive, is the instrument, the machinery selected by the people for the expression of their will.


George Gordon: Whom the gods would
destroy, they first make mad.


Ernest Lapointe: The Minister of Labour, instead of interjecting his little interruptions, might have the courage to make a speech. Under the British system of government, the parliamentary rules and procedure are the

Unemployment Continuance Act
safeguard of those fundamental principles which protect and advance liberty, and they provide the protection for that liberty against the whims, selfishness, greed, thoughtlessness and injustice of any man or set of men. The sovereignty of the people is delegated to parliament, not to the executive, and when I say "parliament," it means the minority as well as the majority in parliament.
The Prime Minister has a queer notion of the rights of a minority in parliament. He quoted the words of the Right Hon. Ramsay MacDonald about the duties of an opposition. I agree with every word expressed by Mr. MacDonald in that regard. The duties of an opposition are, as he says, to discuss the measures which are submitted to parliament on the various stages of the bills, certainly not to obstruct. He says that would be a crime against the state. But, Mr. Speaker, when the measure is one that has the effect of making parliament extinguish itself, when it is a measure for the purpose of taking away all the rights, privileges and powers of parliament, it. is then the duty of the opposition to try to prevent its adoption, and those who perpetrate a crime against the state are those responsible for bringing down such a measure.


An hon. MEMBER:: Humbug.


Ernest Lapointe: Hon. gentlemen opposite know what that word means. They have been following something that looks like it for some considerable time.
In expressing his distrust of parliament- because those words of the Prime Minister amount to that-of course he is true to his real Tory mentality and traditions. Parliament, according to this gentleman, cannot safely be trusted. What he would conceive as a parliament is that we should stand at attention and salute when the Prime Minister wants us to do so, a parliament that would be ready to goose-step at the behest of the Prime Minister. Sir, the methods of the czar have produced bolshevism, and we do not wish to introduce that in Canada. It is an evil work, I claim, on the part of those who are in this way undermining the authority of parliament; and to say that parliament is not equal to any emergency is a libel on parliamentary government. Parliamentary government is the only form of free government, and it has stood the test. It has stood the test especially during the great conflict of ten or twelve years ago. All those countries which enjoy parliamentary government have come out of that conflict solid as the rock of Gibraltar, while the other countries where there was no parliamentary government have gone to pieces.

If hon. gentlemen opposite have failed, let them not blame parliament. Let them not blame the constitution, parliamentary rules and parliamentary practices. They are the originators of their own troubles; they are the creators of their own failures. And, Mr. Speaker, what a pernicious example is being set by the present method of government, and especially by the words of the Prime Minister of Canada. Why, only two days ago the newspapers were reporting that in the legislature of Ontario a bill was introduced, read the first time, read the second time, without being printed, without being on the order paper, and against the protest of both oppositions in the house, and then a vote was taken in the house declaring that what was done was right. When the example starts from the mother of parliaments in this country, it is no wonder that such a thing happened.
Sir, the Prime Minister resents the charges of dictatorship which have been mentioned. He was very eloquent in describing the will power of his colleagues and the great work they are doing in the cabinet. Well, even if that is true, it does not change the situation so far as this 'bill is concerned. The executive as a whole is the servant, and not the master, of parliament. In the process of gaining freedom it has never been the intention of modern men to substitute an autocrat with many heads for an autocrat with only one head. They have struggled to create a representative legislative body, and to define the area of civil and political liberty into which no body of men and no autocrat, whether with only one head or many heads, could enter.
The cabinet, Mr. Speaker, is a partisan body. It has been created by partisanship.


An hon. MEMBER:: It always was.


Ernest Lapointe: It certainly always was. But in parliament other views than those of the cabinet are represented, and that is what makes the difference. In parliaments, minorities have the right to express their opinions on measures and on policies which are submitted to them. Not so around the council table, where only a body of partisans sits. It does not matter that all provinces are represented in the cabinet, as my right hon. friend suggested the other day. They are repre- [DOT] sented, yes, but only by one shade of opinion. Let me say that so far as I am concerned the electors of Quebec East-they may be wrong -prefer that I should express their views rather than that they should be expressed by my friend the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) or by the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve). More than that, for us from

Unemployment Continuance Act
Quebec city and the district of Quebec there is all the more reason for objecting to only the executive speaking for us, because we have nobody in the cabinet representing us at the present time. Our minister is in Geneva, doing great work, I have no doubt, but we have nobody around the council table to express our view.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very
cheap.	.


Ernest Lapointe: There is nothing cheap
in that. 1 do not blame him for doing that. I think it is great work that he is doing at Geneva. But at the same time there is nobody around the council table speaking for Quebec city and the district of Quebec.


George Gordon: Will my hon. friend-


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry I cannot give way to my hon. friend, as I have only twenty minutes and my time is nearly up.
A great prime minister of England once said-I do not think the Prime Minister of Canada would repeat this-that all his ministers were ciphers, that he was the only unit that was giving value to them. I hope that that is not the idea of the right hon. the Prime Minister, but by introducing legislation such as this he seems to consider not only his ministers, not only his followers, but the whole of parliament as nothing but ciphers and himself as the only unit that gives value to the legislative body of Canada.


George Gordon: Nonsense.


Ernest Lapointe: Will you keep quiet?
The Prime Minister is able; I am the first to admit it. I admire his qualities, but he will forgive us if we on this side of the house do not trust him. We have no confidence in his methods, in his mentality and in his doctrine. We cannot make him the sole power. May I add that he has also some weaknesses, as I mentioned the other day, and perhaps the leader of a party, as a chain is no stronger than its weakest link, is no stronger than his weak points and his weaker moments. The real motive behind this proposed legislation, I am afraid, is that the government has no definite policy to offer to parliament. There has been all the time a policy of indecision, nothing definite. Their stand has been: Sufficient unto the day is the statesmanship thereof. They have not been very successful in the things they have undertaken. The statement has been made that the House of Lords does nothing in particular, but does it well. This government has done many things, but has never done them well.
In former days the Prime Minister was very respectful of the rights of parliament. At page 1261 of Hansard, 1928, he is reported as follows:
It will be a poor day for the Canadian parliament when it becomes a rubber stamp to enforce the will of the Prime Minister; it will be a poor day for this country when the parliament of Canada is to be a rubber stamp to record the will of the Minister of Railways or the Minister of Agriculture; it will be a poor day, sir,-
And it would seem that the next statement proves Mr. Dunning must have had prophetic powers:
Mr. Dunning: Or to rubber stamp your will.
Mr. Bennett: That might be.
Why to-day should he be in such a frenzy to destroy parliamentary power?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
spoken for twenty minutes.


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. Speaker, hon. members have listened with interest to the eloquent remarks which invariably fall from the lips of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). As a coiner of phrases, a man accustomed to the hustings and to the tricks of the hustings he is deserving of high praise. He has endeavoured to place before the house the views of hon. gentlemen who surround him; his speech is probably one of the last to be uttered in this debate from the opposite side of the house. He has availed himself of that opportunity to summarize and to place before parliament the case as hon. members on his side of the house view it.
I find however that the hon. member is slightly inconsistent. One moment he complains of the vacillations of the government; he makes the statement that the government has no policy. Then with that swift transition of which he is capable he complains of the relentless energy with which the government is forcing home the proposed legislation. Hon. gentlemen opposite have complained in tones major and minor that the government has no policy. I should like to remind them that from the early days of its existence this government has had a policy which it has enforced fearlessly and energetically. It has had a policy in which it believes and which it is willing to enforce.


Frederick George Sanderson: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


John Thomas Hackett: The government has attempted to execute its policy without reference
Unemployment Continuance Act

to a commission, a committee or a conference. Hon. gentlemen opposite are of that peculiar ilk who think that if a government does something directly and of its own initiative without the dawdling intermediary of a commission, conference or committee, the work cannot properly be performed.


Frederick George Sanderson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Mr. HAiCKETT: For the first time in ten years


Frederick George Sanderson: I rise to a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I direct your attention to the fact that the hon. member who is now speaking is not speaking from his own seat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. BLACKETT:: Mr. Speaker, the interruption typifies the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite-more constructive criticism.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Thomas Hackett: For three or four weeks we have listened to idle criticism by hon. gentlemen opposite.


An hon. MEMBER:: 


John Thomas Hackett: The other day the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) told the government that the opposition had made what he was pleased to call constructive criticism. If hon. members will turn to page 1201 of Hansard for this year they will find he referred to twelve constructive suggestions. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall enumerate them: First he suggested that a national unemployment relief committee should be appointed. It was to act as a shock absorber, or a body behind which the government might shield itself from the ill will of an incensed electorate. My reply to the hon. member is that this government is able and willing to take the responsibility for its actions. That was the first constructive suggestion of the hon. member opposite to relieve unemployment. The second was to bring in a supply bill. Then followed ten other suggestions, some of which were constructive, but every one of which emanated from the far corner of the house. Since when has the hon. member for Vancouver Centre been authorized to speak for that independent element in the house which so frequently supports the constructive work of this government?


An hon. MEMBER:: (Mrl Hackett.]


John Thomas Hackett: Hon. gentlemen opposite indulge in personalities; they ask me to speak of railways. I am willing any day to meet any of them on that topic. However until they are able to explain the inroads they made upon the finances of this country, and until they can explain their wild and extravagant administration of the railways, and the unbridled expenditure which has brought this country to the verge of bankruptejr, I feel they would be better advised to hold their peace on the railroad question.
My views may differ from those of other hon. members on this side of the house: I concede that there is a constitutional question-not a constitutional issue, but, thank God, a constitutional difference between hon. members on this side and hon. members opposite. That difference, Mr. Speaker, is the difference between the doer and the dilettante; the difference between men who are able to undertake and carry out a definite policy and men who obstruct that policy and seek by shifting methods to shield themselves from popular censure. This government made pledges that it would raise the tariff; it has carried out those pledges. It made pledges that it would relieve unemployment; it has relieved unemployment. It made pledges that it would help the farmers-and gentlemen opposite for four long weeks have stood between the farmers and that aid. This so called constitutional issue, this party cry of tiresome antiquity which has echoed through the house for the last three or four weeks is without substance and without sincerity. In the days when there was a constitutional issue in Canada there were men in the house who took the matter seriously; everyone knows to-day that it is but a subterfuge, but a futile attempt to justify in the eyes of the electorate conduct-most reprehensible conduct-of gentlemen opposite.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Thomas Hackett: This constitutional cry is dead, killed by party disfavour and by popular contempt. There is something before the house, Mr. Speaker, which is of deeper and graver import than the topic which has been talked about in a most irrelevant, if not irreverent, fashion. We who have sat in the house for the last three weeks have heard dictionaries, antiquated Hansards and books of reference read to fill in the forty or twenty minutes allotted to hon. gentlemen sitting opposite. To-day we are dealing with a crisis, we have it from the mouths of hon. gentlemen opposite that there is no crisis. The fact is they have failed to realize, as demonstrated by their

Unemployment Continuance Act
conduct, that there are great issues at stake. Let hon. gentlemen opposite go into the constituencies, let them go into the cities, let them mix with the ordinary man on the street, in the store, in the market place, and they will learn that there is an issue; they will learn also that the men who are dealing with it possess public confidence. Men who are willing to dare and do, who are not bound down by any antiquated rules of procedure in their attempt to carry out the popular will, are endowed with the confidence of the public to-day.
During this debate we have had from a remote part of a remote province what I suggest to hon. gentlemen opposite is a very clear indication of popular feeling towards them and their attitude with respect to this legislation. A thoroughly agricultural community, a community which depends probably as much as any other in the whole western area upon the assistance to be received from the government in the way of seed and. feed, has said emphatically and clearly that it will not countenance the tactics of hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. member for North Battle-ford (Mr. McIntosh) this evening told us that the gentleman who was elected for Atha-baska represented a minority of the votes. I will not attempt to contradict figures, but since he spoke I have availed myself of information at hand and I find that the hon. gentleman from North Battleford came into parliament in much the same way-and it is not to his discredit.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Not quite the same way -altogether different.


John Thomas Hackett: Not quite the same way? The hon. gentleman polled 7,168 votes; the candidate who came next polled 6,073 votes; and the third candidate polled 2,248 votes. My hon. friend is a minority representative by nearly two thousand votes. 1 do not hold that up to him as a reproach, but I want him to realize that under our constitution minorities do not control. That may not be a wise rule, but it is the rule under which British institutions have held sway for many a century. That rule holds just as true in parliament as it does in constituencies. In this house a substantial majority favours this legislation, that the people in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver may have the moneys which have been promised to them; that the farmers of the west may have that seed which they hope to sow next month that they may reap a crop in the autumn, and thus recoup themselves for the misfortunes of the past three years. Do hon.
gentlemen opposite realize that we are dealing with bread and butter, with human sustenance? One hon. gentleman told us tonight of children walking along sloppy roads in footwear that was ill-suited to such conditions. Is he aware that the tactics that he and his friends have adopted stand between those children and comfort and health? Hon. gentlemen opposite have failed tc realize that this government has come into office to perform a very definite function-to alleviate suffering which is the result to a large extent of a world-wide depression. Do they realize that there is a crisis, that there is suffering, that there must be a distribution of means of support, and that this government has adopted the only means within its reach to bring assistance to these people? Do hon. gentlemen opposite understand that the whole conception and sweep of the policy of this government has been to bring help to those who are in need? Do they realize that the government dislikes this legislation just as much as they do, but that they deem it necessary, and therefore are unwilling to shirk the duty which rests upon government to minister to those who for the time being have been confided to their care?
I admit, Mr. Speaker, that there is this constitutional difference between men who fail to realize and who are unwilling to achieve, and men who do realize and who are willing to do. I do not ask hon. gentlemen opposite to cooperate; men of their point of view, who fail to realize the actualities of the day and fail to live up to the opportunity of the hour cannot be expected to cooperate with those who do realize the position and who have staked their all to relieve the trying conditions in which the Canadian people find themselves to-day. Such cooperation, Mr. Speaker, would be a defiance of the very laws of nature. I turn to hon. gentlemen on this side of the house and say: Be of high heart; your cause is good. Our right hon. leader is called a Mussolini and a czar because there is no argument to offset his policy. All that remains to hon. gentlemen opposite is the vocabulary of exaggeration and the small arms of petty politics.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I was paired with the
hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Hurtubise). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


James J. Donnelly: I was paired with the
hon. member for Cape Breton-North Victoria (Mr, Johnstone). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. RALSTON:: I was paired with the
hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.

Unemployment Continuance Act


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


Mr. PARENT:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Morand). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Paul Mercier: I was paired
with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Alexander McKay Edwards: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


John Franklin White: I was paired with
the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Ger-shaw). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Harry Bernard Short: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


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


Robert Edwy Ryerson: I was paired with the
hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Errick French Willis: I was paired with the hon.
member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: I was paired with
the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. PORTEOUS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Southeast Gray (Miss Mae-phail). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was paired with the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


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


Maurice Brasset: I was paired with the
hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Charles A. Stewart: I was paired with the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


James Earl Lawson: I was paired with the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


John Franklin White: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Alexander McKay Edwards: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Paul Mercier: I was paired with the hon. member for West Mamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


James J. Donnelly: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton-North Victoria (Mr. Johnstone). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I was paired with the
hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
(The list of whips.
pairs is furnished Messrs:
by the chief
Bell (Hamilton),
Bell (St. Antoine),
Bell (St. John-Albert),
Beynon,
Black (Halifax), Burns,
Cahan,
Chaplin,
Cotnam,
Cowan (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay), Dupre,
Edwards,
Harris,
Johnstone,
Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre), Lawson,
Lennox,
MacDonald (Cape Breton South), Macdonald (Kings), Maloney,
Morand,
Mullins,
Murphy,
Perley (Qu'Appelle), Perlev, Sir George, Porteous,
Rhodes.

Mercier (St. Henri), Raymond,
Dubois,
Coote,
Dubuc,
Butcher,
Rinfret,
Malcolm,
Hurtubise,
Ilsley,
Ferland,
Elliott,
Jacobs.
Donnelly,
McIntosh,
Gray,
Pouliot,
Urquhart,
Hanbury,
Young.
Parent,
Howden,
Stewart
(Edmonton West), Munn.
Marcil.
Macphail (Miss), Ralston,


James Earl Lawson: I was paired with the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Errick French Willis: I was paired with the hon member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


James Layton Ralston: I was paired with the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was paired with the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Maurice Brasset: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


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


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

Unemployment Continuance Act


Harry Bernard Short: I was paired with the lion.
member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Charles A. Stewart: I was paired with the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee on the resolution, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Hugh Guthrie: It is evident, I think,
from the reading of the resolution, that it was framed some time ago. Notice was given of the resolution about February 24 last, and the wording of it would hardly be appropriate to the situation which exists to-day. I therefore beg to move:
That all the words after the word "bill" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
To extend until the first of May, 1932, the operation of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act. 1931, which expired on the first of March, 1932.
This, I submit, is a change of form, not of substance, and does not alter in any way the principle of the resolution.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May I ask
whether it is not essential that any amendment be relevant to the resolution that it proposes to amend? The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931.
The resolution is not that it is expedient to introduce a bill; it is that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931. Chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, is non-existent, and a non-existent entity cannot be amended, no matter what it is. The act does not exist, and I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to rule as to whether, in the circumstances, the amendment is in order.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sunbury) :: I rule that the amendment is in
order and quite relevant.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On what ground is it relevant? Can the chairman give us the reasons?


Olof Hanson: If reasons are required, I shall
refer hon. gentlemen to May, page 546, which
states:
The approval or the reduction of the expenditure under consideration, or a modification of the terms and conditions of the charge thereby 41761-95
created, are the matters specially entrusted to such a committee, and to these objects amendments are directed, but when the motion made in committee is more restricted than the resolution upon which, with the royal recommendation, the committee was appointed, amendments to the motion extending its scope are in order as long as they fall within the terms of the resolution upon which the committee was appointed.
I think that authority would be quite sufficient. It would simply be a change in form and not of substance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I understood what the chairman has just read, the words are that an amendment must be within the terms of the resolution.


Olof Hanson: The authority is that in committee the terms of the resolution can be changed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly the
terms can be changed if what is before the committee is something that exists, but a non-existent measure cannot be amended.


James Layton Ralston: I understood another
sentence that the chairman read from that authority was-


Olof Hanson: I have given my decision. It may be appealed.


James Layton Ralston: I was raising another
point. I understood from the authority the chairman read that the amendment must not involve a greater commitment than the original resolution, I beg to point out that this amendment involves a greater commitment because it involves a commitment from March 1 to the present time.


Olof Hanson: I would not think it involved a
greater commitment. It is simply a change in terms.


James Layton Ralston: Would the Chairman
mind reading that paragraph again, on the point of order? We have not the authorities before us.


Olof Hanson: May, at page 546, states:
The approval or the reduction of the expenditure under consideration, or a modification of the terms and conditions of the charge thereby created, are the matters specially entrusted to such a committee, and to these objects amendments are directed.
That is sufficient, I should think.


James Layton Ralston: I am pointing out that
this amendment is for neither the approval



Unemployment Continuance Act
nor the reduction of the resolution, but for the increase of the amount which would be provided under it.


Hugh Guthrie: Not at all.


James Layton Ralston: If the original resolution was simply to ratify expenditures from the time the bill founded on it was assented to, and this resolution is for the purpose of laying the foundation for a bill which will ratify all expenditures made from March 1, I submit it is certainly not reducing the amount, but extending it considerably. I understood from some remark made from the other side, that a very considerable amount of money had either been expended or committed to expenditure from March 1 to the present time. If that be so, this amendment certainly involves an increase in the amount which was originally recommended to the house by the representative of the crown, as announced by the Prime Minister.


Olof Hanson: That is not the sense of the amendment as I understand it. I direct the attention of the house to May at page 510, which states:
As is subsequently explained (see page 531), the constitutional principle which vests in the crown the sole responsibility of incurring national expenditure, forbids an increase by the Commons of a sum demanded on behalf of the crown for the service of the state. This principle, however, is apparently disregarded when the recommendation of the crown is given to a resolution empowering the expenditure of public money which, framed in general terms, places no limitation on the amount of expenditure to be authorized by the resolution.
That is in point, and I rule against the point of order.


James Layton Ralston: I should have an opportunity to discuss it.


Olof Hanson: The point has been discussed two or three times.


James Layton Ralston: Do you rule, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot discuss it any further?


Olof Hanson: The hon. member may appeal from the chairman's ruling. Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question is put.


Olof Hanson: I declare the amendment carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that a certain deference is due to

the committee. There is no reason why on this particular resolution the committee should be treated any differently from what it would be on any other resolution. Never before has the chairman of the committee attempted completely to prevent discussion on a resolution.


Olof Hanson: The hon. gentleman was not on his feet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The committee was awaiting some further word from yourself, Mr. Chairman, as to whether you had pronounced the last word, and was considering whether or not it would appeal from your ruling. In any case we have not yet begun to discuss the resolution, and we wish to do so. I would like to begin by asking the Prime Minister a question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a question before the chair.


Olof Hanson: The question was put to the house and declared carried.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was on my feet raising a point of order, Mr. Chairman, when the question was put.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I ask you as the chairman of this committee, with considerable experience in the house, whether it is not wholly reasonable for members to ask for an opportunity to debate the resolution, Mr. Chairman, and whether they should not be given the same opportunity they would expect to be afforded with respect to any other resolution.


Olof Hanson: The answer is this, that when the question was put no hon. member rose.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was on my feet, Mr. Chairman.


Olof Hanson: While the question was being put the hon. member for Vancouver Centre rose to a point of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say that my understanding, and certainly what we understood on this side was that you yourself, Mr. Chairman, were to state further to the committee whether you had given a final ruling. We were awaiting from the chairman a final decision, and I submit that a courtesy of the kind should not be taken alvantage of to prevent discussion of the resolution.


Olof Hanson: Nobody rose.

Unemployment Continuance Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I state to you now, Mr. Chairman, as leader of the opposition, that the only reason I did not rise was that I had a question I wanted immediately to address to the Prime Minister. I was awaiting a pronouncement from you as to whether or not you had given the last word on your ruling.


Olof Hanson: I am sorry the right hon. gentleman did not hear me, but I put the question and declared the amendment carried, and nobody rose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There have
been many similar misunderstandings on previous occasions. Do I understand that the Prime Minister and hon. gentlemen opposite are unwilling to allow the committee to discuss this resolution and are going to take advantage of the technicality raised by the chairman of the committee to prevent further debate? If that is the decision, well and good; we will abide by it. But I submit that before that decision is given-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do not threaten.


Ernest Lapointe: That is a monopoly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no
threat in saying that we will abide by the decision of the chairman of the committee, but there is a very distinct threat when the Prime Minister gets up and supports the chairman in an arbitrary ruling which would shut off all discussion.


Olof Hanson: I take exception to the statement of the right hon. gentleman that I gave an arbitrary ruling. I submit that the ruling was sound. If it was not, there was the right of recourse by way of appeal to the Speaker.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman, for information? Assuming the amendment to have been carried in accordance with your ruling, the question still remains as to whether the resolution as amended shall carry, does it not? And debate may be carried on upon the resolution as amended?


Olof Hanson: That is my exact understanding of
the situation, that the debate may be carried on upon the resolution as amended.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not the point of order raised.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish to inform hon. gentlemen that I have the same 41761-951
rights on the floor of this house as any Tory in this assembly. I regret the highly nervous condition of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If hon. gentlemen opposite want any expedition in regard to this legislation, I would ask them who is now obstructing unemployment relief for the people of Canada. My hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) raised a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and you gave a decision on that point of order which, with all due respect, I submit was premature. You immediately put the question without extending to this committee the full courtesy of debating the point of order. I respectfully suggest that the point of order should be revived, because in my humble opinion the amendment that has been moved by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) is not a proper amendment to the resolution before the committee.


Harry Bernard Short: How do you know?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I know as much about points of order as my hon. friend. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and my hon. friend should know that better than anyone else.


Olof Hanson: The ruling of the' Chair was that the resolution was properly before the committee, and that the amendment was regularly moved.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall
not sit down until the chairman rises.
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Hanson,	York-
Sunbury): Will the hon. gentleman take his seat?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
different.
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Hanson,	York-
Sunbury): The position as I	understand it-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stand up.
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Hanson,	York-
Sunbury): I apologize to the committee. If I have been lacking in courtesy it is only because of inexperience. The position as I understand it is that the resolution was regularly before the committee on the vote of the house, that an amendment which was quite in order was moved by the Minister of Justice, and no one objecting the question was put and the amendment declared carried. The motion now before the Chair is the motion as amended, and it is quite in order to debate

Unemployment Continuance Act
that. The amendment has been declared carried.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By what procedure, Mr. Chairman, was it carried?


Olof Hanson: By yea and nay vote.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was never asked to record my vote on this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I rise, sir, to another point of order. I say in the first place that the amendment moved was not a proper amendment, but you have ruled against that. In the second place, on account of your putting the question so expeditiously, Mr. Chairman, hon. gentlemen on this side of the house have not yet been accorded the courtesy of having a vote on this particular motion, and I ask as a matter of courtesy and consideration-it may seem surprising to ask it at this late date-that the question be renewed.


Olof Hanson: The hon. gentleman has asked for something that does not take place in committee. There is no recorded vote in committee.


Ernest Lapointe: There is a standing vote.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we have the right to ask for a vote if we wish to have it.


Olof Hanson: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We do that now.


Mr. GARDINER:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Did not the Prime Minister move and the Minister of Justice second a motion that this house go into committee of the whole to consider the resolution?


Olof Hanson: Yes, that was carried in the house, and we are now in committee to consider the resolution.


Robert Gardiner: My point of order is that the Minister of Justice, having seconded the motion that the house resolve itself into committee of the whole, cannot move an amendment.


Olof Hanson: I rule against the hon. member. The motion does not even require a seconder.


An hon. MEMBER:: Can he amend his own motion?


Olof Hanson: Those in favour of the amendment will please rise.
[The Chairman.]


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Chairman-


Hugh Guthrie: Who is in charge of this committee, the chairman or someone else? Put the question.


Robert Gardiner: What is your ruling?


Olof Hanson: Is the hon. member bringing up another point of order?


Robert Gardiner: What is your ruling on my point of order? I cannot hear at this end of the chamber.


Olof Hanson: My ruling is that the point of order is not well taken, because the motion does not require a seconder; therefore I rule against it. Further, the point of order is not well taken because I do not understand that Mr. Guthrie did second the main motion. At all events, he is entitled to move an amendment.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, it is quite evident you did not understand my point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Gardiner: Very well, I shall stand here until order is restored in the committee. My point is that the Prime Minister moved, seconded by Mr. Guthrie, that the house resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider this resolution. Having seconded the motion to go into committee of the whole, I submit that according to the rules of the house the Minister of Justice is not permitted to move an amendment to the resolution.


Hugh Guthrie: What rule is that? There is no such rule.


Olof Hanson: The motion of the Prime Minister was before the house; this is a motion in committee. We have now reached the committee stage, and therefore I rule that the amendment is in order. Those in favour of the amendment please rise.
Amendment agreed to: yeas, 101; nays, 62.


The CHAIRMAN:: I declare the amendment carried, and the question is on the main motion as amended.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister a question. When last session we were debating what came to be chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, exception was taken by the opposition to the fact that as the time fixed for the expiration of the act was March 31, in all probability parliament would be in session at the time, and we would

Unemployment Continuance Act
be giving powers to the government to deal by way of order in council with matters pertaining to the peace, order and good government of the country, that we would also be giving to the government a blank cheque during a time when parliament was in session, and that that would mean a subversion of the rights of parliament. I think the Prime Minister will recall that I stressed that side of the question. In order to meet my objection my right hon. friend changed the date from March 31 to March 1. As his reason for the change he gave that it would avoid any question being raised of the subversion of the rights of parliament. In order that there may be no misunderstanding I will quote his words as they appear in Hansard of 1931 at page 4448:
I am not without full realization of what is involved in the bill, but in order to meet my right hon. friend I will shorten the time to March 1 and make it clear that we have no desire to usurp powers as was suggested.
What did my right hon. friend mean when he changed the date from March 31 to March 1 in order that there could be no question of a subversion of powers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that I am not here to be cross-examined. I have no observation to make at all as to what took place last session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As leader of
the opposition may I say I am here to discover what value is to 'be attached, to the word of the present Prime Minister. Last year the Prime Minister of Canada gave to this parliament a solemn pronouncement in the words which I havd just read and which he now repudiates, and which for the most part has occasioned the debate which has taken place. Last year we accepted in good faith the word of my right hon. friend; we believed he meant what he said. We did not think he meant to deceive parliament when this year came round.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We believed
he meant that on March 1 the act would expire, that parliament would be in session, and that no effort would be made to extend its provisions while parliament was in session. It was because of the promise which at that time my right hon. friend gave to the opposition that we then ceased to press our opposition to the measure. I ask: what guarantee have we that the change in date now being made has any significance whatever? Can the Prime Minister's word be relied upon?


Mr. BAKER:: Always.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is an instance where it cannot be relied upon. I wish to repeat that I have asked the Prime Minister what he meant when he gave his word to parliament.


Richard Langton Baker: He always means and makes good what he says.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I regret very
much that as leader of the opposition I have to say to the Prime Minister of Canada that he has broken faith with parliament-


An hon. MEMBER:: Never.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -that he has not kept his word, and that from now on we will be unable to accept his word in regard to any public measure.


Olof Hanson: Shall the resolution as amended
carry?


James Layton Ralston: No, Mr. Chairman. I
desire to ask the right hon. Prime Minister by whom the returns are made which are summarized on page III of the Report of the Dominion Director of Unemployment Relief.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not the report
beside me. But if the figures are those to which I think the hon. gentleman refers, they are sent forward by the provincial governments to the federal government, if the expenditure is partly discharged by the municipalities, partly by the provinces and partly by the dominion. If the expenditure is made directly by the federal government for public works or matters of that sort, the ordinary vouchers are provided through the Auditor General's department and are purely matters of federal administration. I think that is a correct statement of the position as far as I know.
. Mr. RALSTON:	I had before me a very
recent number of the Labour Gazette which purported to show the number of man-days employment provided under the provisions of this act as being something over 7,000,000. I notice that this report shows less than 7,000,000. I want to find out how the discrepancy occurs and whether those returns were made up by the Department of Labour on a basis different from the basis employed by the Dominion Director of Unemployment Relief, who, I understand, is an officer of the Department of Labour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman perhaps knows that an effort was made to bring the report down to date. But he will find there is no discrepancy between those figures

Unemployment Continuance Act
and1 the figures appearing in .the Labour Gazette. It merely means that the latter figures are later in point of time than those appearing in the report. They are made up from the same report by the same gentleman. Mr. Hereford is an employee of the Department of Labour. The report in the first instance, now before the house, was made up to a particular date with respect to these figures. He did not give the date of the Labour Gazette, but I take it to be later in point of time. There can be no discrepancy because the figures are arrived at in the same way.


James Layton Ralston: I remember now that the figures were given not in the Labour Gazette, but by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) in a speech he made a short time ago. It will be found on page 441 of Hansard as follows:
Under that legislation, 334,301 persons have been given employment up to January 31, 1932, the total number of man-days being 7,415,973.
I call the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that the report of the director of unemployment relief shows that up to January 31, 1932, employment was afforded to 339,007 individuals-that is about 5,000 more than the figures quoted by the Minister of Labour; but the number of man-days is only 6,917,366 -a difference of half a million for exactly the same date. That is why I am trying to find on what date the reports are made up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have explained the
information is made up from reports furnished on printed forms supplied by the Department of Labour. Those reports are returned by the provinces. It may be there were some discrepancies. If the hon. gentleman had directed attention to it I would have seen that the matter was disposed of. I find that at page 441 of Hansard the Minister of Labour said:
The figures I have given will be subject to some flight variation when the report is tabled, which I trust will be shortly.
I think that is perhaps the explanation. I recall that the computations were hurriedly made.


James Layton Ralston: The point was raised by the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Piset)-the Prime Minister was not in at the time-with regard to what was covered by these expenditures. He pointed out that on page 5 of the report of the director of unemployment relief is contained the form of agreement between the provinces, the municipalities and the dominion. Paragraph 13 provides:
13. All public works and undertakings to which contributing may be made under the

provisions of clauses 6, 8, 9 and 10 of this agreement, are to be carried on from the date of their commencement to the date of their completion, which latter date shall not be later than the 1st day of May, 1932.
Take page 35 of the report, where a total expenditure of $20,000 is apportioned between the municipality, the province and the dominion-fifty, twenty-five and twenty-five. The dominion proportion is $5,000. Does that $20,000 represent money actually spent, or is it a commitment for the work under the agreement, the form of which I have already referred to?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think if the hon.
member will look at the top of the page he will get the information.


James Layton Ralston: The columns are headed: Schedule number-description of work-total expenditure-percentage, municipal, provincial, dominion-dominion proportion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The two questions the hon. gentleman has asked are answered in this way. As to the first of May being fixed as the period of time within which the agreements were to be completed by the execution of the work, the Department of Justice ruled that with respect to matters of that kind there should be a reasonable time within which to close out the work, provided a contract, so to speak, had been let. I made personal inquiries about it when it was brought to my attention, and that was the explanation given. So far as the other point is concerned, I have not the report before me, but in some instances-and I think they are detailed in the report-expenditures actually made are distinguished from expenditures authorized. I will give the hon. gentleman an illustration. Works in the province of Quebec are being paid for by the dominion, and the province and the municipalities are each making a definite contribution. An agreement has been drawn up and executed by the province and the dominion, the only body with which the dominion has contact being the province. In the instances indicated in that report it will be found that the whole of the contemplated expenditure is expressed-that is, we will say for the sake of argument, not exceeding $20,000 by the dominion, $10,000 by the municipality and $10,000 by the province. There are other instances in that document in which the work has been actually completed and the expenditure made.
The hon. gentleman raised another question, with which I will deal, as to whether under the several agreements executed between the dominion and the provinces, obligations were created before March 1. In point of fact no fresh obligations have been created since March

Unemployment Continuance Act
1, and I should like the hon. gentleman to follow that. The department decided, as a matter of law, that a reasonable time in which to close out work that was under way, and with respect to which the contract was outstanding, was sixty days; hence the reference to May 1 with regard to which the hon. gentleman from Rimouski raised a question.
I should like to quiet my hon. friend's mind with respect to one other point. Apparently he thinks expenditures have been made without warrant and without authority, but this is the position: Some question has been raised as to whether or not, under chapter 58, there was power to pay obligations already created prior to March 1 but which came in for payment subsequent to March 1, and there was one order in council to which attention was directed by the hon. member for Quebec East, dated March 2, which authorized payment to the province of British Columbia of $500,000. That is my memory as to the amount; I speak subject to correction on that point. With respect to that, since the statute was held to be uncertain, we held up every order in council so that there would be no question, after the passing of this bill, that they could be paid. Numbers of these orders in council are now awaiting the passage of this legislation, in order that no question may be raised with respect to their payment.


James Layton Ralston: Can we take it from my right hon. friend's explanation that no payments have been made or authorized since March 1, except the 8500,000 to which my right hon. friend referred?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I speak subject to correction, but I have looked over the matter very carefully, and I have had it looked over very carefully, and so far as I know no order has been signed constituting a charge against the consolidated revenue since March 1, except the one to which I have already referred.


James Layton Ralston: Then can we take the
words "total expenditure" as they appear in the table setting out municipal works to which the dominion contributed, as meaning that this money has been actually spent?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am now advised that the cheque for $500,000, in point of fact, was held up in consequence of the question as to the certainty of that legislation.


James Layton Ralston: I was referring to page 35 as a sample page, and I am asking whether the column headed "total expenditure" represents money actually spent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. As the hon. gentleman will see by reference to the context, in
every instance starting with page 10 or page 11 these columns indicate the works that are covered in the agreements with the several provinces. That is, they were approved by the provinces and by the dominion, and if the work had been carried to completion the obligation imposed upon the province would be that mentioned in the one column, the obligation on the dominion would be that mentioned in the other column, and where there would be a municipal obligation it would be that mentioned in the first column.


James Layton Ralston: This is the reason for my difficulty in understanding the report; while the column with regard to municipal and provincial works is headed "total expenditure," which in ordinary English language means that the money has been spent, the column with regard to public works-and I refer my right hon. friend to page 61-is headed "amount authorized," which I should think would be the appropriate term to use in connection with these municipal works if the expenditure was not actually made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman will turn to page 35 he will see that the first item appears as number 133 in the schedule. The description of the work is "sewers and water mains in Grantham township" and the total expenditure contemplated is 820,000.


James Layton Ralston: It does not say "contemplated."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the way it was made up, and it is stated that of that expenditure the municipality is to pay 50 per cent, the province 25 per cent and the dominion 25 per cent. It is set out in this way in order that this House of Commons might have full information as to the way in which the work was to be paid for. As to page 61, that being our own transaction over which we had complete control, in that particular case the Department of Public Works was able to indicate the exact sum expended up to February 29, 1932, and that sum appears opposite the amount authorized.


James Layton Ralston: What I am finding fault with is that with reference to municipal works the column is headed "total expenditure," which we are told means only the amount authorized, but when we come to page 61, which has to do with federal public works, the heading is " amount authorized," and we are told that means only the amount expended. Mr. Hereford wrote me about this and I asked the question in the house as to how much we were committed to in connection with municipal public works, because all

Unemployment Continuance Act
that appears in the report is expenditures and not commitments. Now I understand the Prime Minister to say that, keeping to page 35, the column headed "total expenditure" really means total commitment?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it means the total
authorized expenditure under the terms of the agreement to which these several schedules were attached.


James Layton Ralston: And does not really represent expenditures?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


James Layton Ralston: It represents only the
amount authorized or approved under the agreement ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: lit might well be that in some cases the sum was expended by the end of February.


James Layton Ralston: But we can take it that nothing has been expended since March 1?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said no payments had been made, but no works have been discontinued by those carrying them on under the agieements which provided for the carrying on of the works authorized.


James Layton Ralston: Then I take it that in the bill which will be founded on this resolution no authorit}' will be given to contribute the full amount for which the federal government is committed in connection with municipal works which as yet have not been completed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I explained to the hon. gentleman that in my judgment that is perhaps not a correct way to state the situation. The question has been raised as to whether under chapter 58 there is ample power to complete the payments on work already started, as authorized by the agreement.


James Layton Ralston: Is there really any question about that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think there might be, and those who have had to do with it in our own business think there is no doubt about it in the ordinary course. If the work is not completed within the given time there is still an obligation to pay. But in order that any difficulties might be removed and that it might not be said that there had been any effort to do this, the house is being asked for authority to make matters clear in that regard.


James Layton Ralston: There is no doubt that
the Auditor General would not pass any payment made under this statute after the first of March.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think there is doubt
as to that. Provided that the work was commenced before the first of March under a contract between the province and the dominion, approved by order in council, the obligation being created and the work being completed, the obligation to pay would continue. But in order that there might be no difficulty about it the house is being asked for authority. The only order in council that was presented was one on March 2. I thought it had gone forward but I am told that as soon as the question was raised-and it was not raised by the Auditor General but by others-it was thought undesirable that the cheque should go out, and the cheque did not go out.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend says that I suggest there is no doubt. I feel satisfied that there would be no doubt in the mind of the Auditor General and that he would refuse to pay a cheque issued after March 1 for money authorized under the authority of the act which expired on that date.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not clear.


Eugène Fiset: The Prime Minister stated that no commitments have been made since March 1. Have any payments been made since that date on old commitments?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In answer to the hon.
member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), I explained that the only order in council authorizing payment subsequently to the first _ of March was that with respect to British Columbia, on the second day of March, and which as a matter of fact was not made. And there are awaiting action of council a very large number of orders in council which represent in some instances work completed up to March 1 but which did not get here until the 10th, 12th, 13th and so on, They have not been paid.


Peter John Veniot: I should like the Prime
Minister to make some explanation with regard to item No. 10 on page 12, relating to loss of stumpage due to reduction in stump-age rates. I see there is a total expenditure of $120,000 divided fifty-fifty between the dominion and the province, the dominion's share being $60,000. Can the Prime Minister inform the committee whether that is an estimate or whether that amount has been paid?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is an estimate.


Peter John Veniot: In assuming responsibility
for the payment of fifty per cent of this

Unemployment Continuance Act
estimate, did the Department of Labour see to it that reasonable wages would be paid to the men in the woods in view of the reduction? I understand that wages are being paid at a very low rate. The lumbermen are getting the benefit of this reduction of $120,000 and the men are getting wages as low as S15 per month. If that is the ease, the Department of Labour ought to look into the matter before payment of this $60,000 is made. As I say, the lumbermen are getting the benefit of the reduction of $120,000 and they should certainly be in a position to pay the men more than $15 or $16 per month.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And their board.


Peter John Veniot: I should like the Minister
of Labour or the Prime Minister to look into the matter, in the interest of labour, before the dominion's share is paid over.


George Gordon: We must be a little reasonable in regard to the rates that obtain in connection with relief. The hon. member probably forgets that there is a great difference between 'the rates of wages paid labour in connection with relief work and those that obtain in the ordinary course of business. The difference is obvious to everyone. So far as these works are concerned, where it is a matter of relief the control is very largely in the provinces, the municipalities and those concerned with caring for people in distress. With respect to federal works, in the ordinary course the rates of wages for labour are governed by the rules, practices and law that obtain in establishing, through the Department of Labour, such rates as men are entitled to.


Peter John Veniot: This is not in the form of relief. It is relief in one sense, to the lumbermen, but not relief to the unemployed: If the lumbermen are going to get a bonus of this kind to encourage them to go on with operations which they otherwise would not carry on, it cannot be called relief to the unemployed. It seems to me that the Department of Labour ought to be in a position to ensure that a reasonable rate of wages will be paid before the dominion's share of $60,000 is paid. I can readily understand that in these times of distress one would not expect, in connection with relief work, that such rates of wages would be paid as were paid prior to 1930 or even 1931. But surely when the government are assisting the industry through a bonus they should see that at least reasonable wages are paid, and not starvation wages of $15 a month.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Fifteen dollars and board.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, but in 1929 men were being paid $45 and $60 and board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is
in error with respect to the bonus. All that happens is that the province has abandoned the claim to stumpage, which amounts to $120,000, and the dominion government has assisted the province, as against the loss of the whole, by paying them half of it. The hon. gentleman knows how it has been carried on.


Peter John Veniot: I did not mean to give
it any other interpretation. The province of New Brunswick said to the lumbermen, "We will give you a reduction in stumpage provided we can get a return from the dominion of a certain loss." That was done, and the dominion entered into this agreement with the province-I believe it is the only province in the dominion with which such an agreement was entered into. I am not criticizing the government for having entered into that agreement, and perhaps I am using the wrong term when I speak of a bonus; but I do say that where federal money is furnished in a matter of this kind we should see to it that reasonable wages are paid.


George Gordon: I must confess that I could not hear all that the hon. gentleman said, but the tenor of his remarks was that reasonable wages were not paid. Let me make myself abundantly clear, if I can. In all contracts that have been let in connection with this legislation, the wages were determined by the Department of Labour in the usual course. There were some works, some places of employment where people could not be established on the rate of wages that usually obtains in the Department of Public Works. With respect to that we had to do and did do the best we could in the way of trying to take care of people who were needy and in distress. Surely the hon. gentleman recognizes that. But in no case has the Department of Labour adopted an attitude that is calculated to imperil the rights of the wage earners as regards his standard of wages or standard of living. We must draw a line of demarcation between standard of wages, standard of living and relief.


Mr VENIOT:: In the establishment of a system of relief as contributed to by the federal government, there was made with the provinces an agreement under section 14 of which the government stipulates that the province must do so and so. It states:
A maximum work day of eight hours shall prevail on works and undertakings carried on under this agreement, unless a modification of

Unemployment Continuance Act
this requirement is previously agreed to by the Minister of Labour.
On that ipoint I am in agreement. It would be very difficult to establish an eight-hour day in a lumber camp if the work is to be properly carried on. Therefore I am not referring to that; I am reading the section merely to come , to the next point. It continues:
Fair and reasonable rates of wages shall be paid by the province and municipalities but such rates shall not be in excess of the rates required to be paid by the federal government for the character or class of work in the district.
And so forth. The reply may be made to me that this is work carried on, not by the province, but by virtue of an agreement entered into between the dominion and the provincial governments that they will become responsible for so much loss owing to the reduction in stumpage rates and therefore it can reasonably be called one of those undertakings or enterprises in. which a reasonable rate of wages shall prevail. What is the use of having an agreement such as there is under section 14 if the lumbermen are permitted to pay as low as $12 a month? A little while ago I said $15 and I can prove the statement that such low rates have been paid. On the other hand, what do we find under this very section? We find lumbermen instead of hiring, contracting with men at a very low rate of pay, a rate at which they cannot make a living in the cutting of pulpwood, and saying to these men in their agreement: In that district we have a camp opened and you shall board at it; we shall board you and charge you seventy-five cents a day for your board. The men in accepting a contract of tihat kind, have not been given the privilege of boarding themselves. Therefore, at the rate of $1.50 which they receive per cord of pulpwood, which they have to haul and pile, making their own roads, no lumberjack can handle more than two cords a day and, indeed, he is a good man who can do that. He pays 75 cents for his own board; he has to .pay the board of his horses and then at the end of the month there is nothing left for his family. It is for those reasons that I offer this, not in a critical mood;
I wish the government or the Department of Labour, if in future they are .making any such agreements as this with a province, no matter what province it may be, they will see that the labour men or lumberjacks receive a fair day's rate of wages.
I wish to direct attention to another section on page 63 of the report, where I see under the amount authorized for the county of Gloucester:
Little Shippigan-proposed wharf (estimated cost $30.000)-amount authorized, $15,000.
[Mr. Veniot.)
Perhaps the Minister of Public Works can give me the information I seek. Why has this work not been carried on? Heaven knows, unemployment in that section of the country is very acute. Among the recommendations I made in response to the request of the Department of Labour was one that this work at Little Shippigan be carried out. In 1930 I think $30,000 was estimated for that work. Tenders were called for and received, the lowest tender being $26,000. When the present government came into power in that year, they .withdrew from the expenditure of that money; they did not award a contract. I took the matter up in the bouse in 1931 and the minister promised consideration. I was pleased when in November last I saw published in the St. John Telegraph-Journal among a list of projects for the province of New Brunswick, that the Little Shippigan proposed wharf at an estimated cost of $30,000 was one of the projects agreed to or ratified by order in council. I see nothing has been done. If there is in New Brunswick a -place where unemployment is severe, it is in that section of Little Shippigan. The people there are not farmers; they farm very little; they are fishermen and last year fishing was a failure both in quantity of fish and in price obtained. There has been real hardship in that section of the county of Gloucester ever since the close of the fishing season. I should like to know why, after this work had been approved by order in council, it was not carried on. I do not think the reason was that I had recommended it; I have more faith than that in the Minister of Public Works or even in the Minister of Labour.


George Gordon: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but surely no complaint can be made so far as this government is concerned. This work 'has been approved, and if it has not been proceeded with, why criticize this government?


Peter John Veniot: Why not go on with it?


George Gordon: The work has been
approved. We are ready to .pay the money for it.


Peter John Veniot: What is the good of the approval to the men who are out of employment unless the work is .being carried on?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: When it was decided to embark upon a program of works for the relief of unemployment the engineers of the Public Works department were asked to go over the list of works which they had under consideration and make up as complete a schedule as they thought they could carry

Unemployment Continuance Act
out. My hon. friend will notice that the total expenditure for this wharf was estimated at $30,000, while the amount authorized was only $15,000. After the order in council was passed, the engineers went over the schedule of works which had been approved and were instructed to undertake only such works as, considering the season of the year and the time available, and having regard to works best suited for the relief of unemployment, they could hope to complete by the first of March. Making a study of the situation it was found that this particular work was one which could not be completed by that time, and therefore it was not undertaken. The appropriation was not sufficient in any event to complete the work, and it was thought inadvisable to undertake the work and leave it half finished.


Peter John Veniot: The explanation given by the minister is not as reasonable a one as I expected from him. I have found him in my dealings with him very reasonable, but when it comes to giving an explanation for avoiding an expenditure he is not as clear as I would like him to be. If I understood him aright he said that the engineers were asked to go. over a schedule of projects and recommend only those which they felt they could complete before the fir^t of March, -and secondly that the appropriation was not sufficient to complete this work. I do not wish to introduce the element of politics, but I am afraid that I shall have to do it.
Let me say to the minister that this particular work was approved during the by-election in Gloucester county, and it was heralded all over the county. When I attempted to say that I had recommended the work to the minister and that I was glad the minister had accepted my recommendation, I was pounded by the other side as hard as a man could be pounded on the ground that I was trying to take too much credit to myself. I do not wish to imply that the approval of this work was made public for any effect it might have in that by-election, but the fact is that the knowledge that it had been approved came out just at that time. Let me go further and say to the minister that other projects were approved and contracts let without the full amount of the cost of the work having been voted. That has been the practice all through, and it is a proper one. Sufficient money is voted to permit of the minister entering into a contract, and then, when the tenders are in, the amount is known and the minister can provide the further amount required in a supplementary estimate. All that he would have to do would be to get another order in council
passed. A contract could have been let for this work in the month of November last, and the work could have been gone on with and relief given to these people. The work of providing the lumber and gathering the stone for the ballast for the wharf could have been gone on with during November, December, January and February. The work of construction in that secluded and protected area within Miscou harbour could have been gone on with in the winter time and could have been constructed, as has often been done in the shallow waters, on the ice, sinking their cages with ballast. In that way the work could have continued right along.


George Gordon: By day labour?


Peter John Veniot: No, by contract. The
government is carrying on a lot of public works to-day under contract for the relief of unemployment. I would not suggest that a work of this amount, $30,000, be carried on by day labour. The government is perfectly justified in calling for tenders, providing the wage-earner is protected under the contract, which matter is looked after by the Department of Labour. If that work had been carried on the municipality of Gloucester to-day would have been relieved of the demand which is being made for direct aid in that district. The county of Gloucester has sent in an estimate for direct aid amounting to $110,000. That will give hon. gentlemen some idea of the distress in that county. A great many of the people in Gloucester county are fishermen; in fact, I think I am safe in saying that one-half of the population depends upon the fishing industry. All along that coast where this wharf was to be built, there is no farming. There is a shifting, sandy soil, and the people do very little farming, but they fish. As I said before, the fishing season was a failure both as to quantity and price, and I now appeal to the government to take the necessary steps to proceed with this work as soon as it is possible to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We cannot until the
statute passes.


Peter John Veniot: Oh, yes. The hon. gentleman could have done it by awarding the contract at the time that approval was given to the project, and if the contract had been let the work could have been carried on beyond the first of March because under the agreement the time can be extended by order in council to the first of May. Even Bill No. 58 is being extended by order in council. It may be quite true that the work is held up now, but between now and the time when the bill passes


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The resolution now before us is rather scarred. In its original form the resolution read as follows:
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, and on the proposed motion of Mr. Weir (Melfort): "That this question be now put."
That was the resolution as it stood yesterday afternoon. The amendment by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) is to extend until May 1, 1932, the operation of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931 which expired on March 1, 1932. Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask this question: By what process of law can this extension be made? Notwithstanding the wonderful legal attainments -and they are well known-of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice how, may I ask, can we extend until May 1, 1932, the operation of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931, which expired on March 1, 1932? It is not a question of asking leave to introduce a new statute or to revive an old one, but to extend the operation of a statute which, on the admission of the government itself, is dead and has expired. I challenge the Minister of Justice, who at one stage of this debate said he would be heard, but who has kept a most religious silence, to pledge his standing as an eminent jurist at the bar, and say that there is some process of law whereby the operation of an expired statute can be extended.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes; this parliament can
extend a statute any time it wishes. In that

Unemployment Continuance Act
respect parliament is clothed with every power.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That may be so, if we desire so to stultify ourselves.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the only question.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I do not wish to be a
party to that stultification.


Hugh Guthrie: Very well, that is your
answer.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: This government is
omnipotent; the Prime Minister has stated that he has a comfortable working majority and that he cares not-n-o-t or n-o-u-g-h-t, whichever word you choose to use-for the rights of minorities. Therefore, with an accommodating majority at his back willing to pass the proposed legislation, of course it will be passed. However, they will have to take that step on their own responsibility.


An hon. MEMBER:: We will.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The responsibility will
be on their own shoulders, if they wish to place themselves in that awkward position. In their eyes might is right. If they wish to extend the operation of the statute, they are welcome to do so, but it is their responsibility.


Harry Bernard Short: Why worry about it?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I wish the hon. member would tell us what is worrying him.


Harry Bernard Short: Nothing.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Well then, why does he not keep quiet? What has surprised me throughout this debate is that hon. gentlemen sitting on the other side have kept wonderfully and religiously silent; from the one hundred and twenty of them we have heard nothing; but the moment we put a finger on a sore spot they jump up like so many marionettes, as was said this afternoon. But up to the present not one of them has dared to say where he stands on this question.


An hon. MEMBER:: V ou got it on the
vote, didn't you?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: If they have so much to say, why in mercy don't they stand up and make a speech?


An hon. MEMBER:: You make one.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: If the hon. gentleman
who is so prone to make these interruptions would speak for twenty minutes only once during the session I would listen to him and say he might interrupt as often as he liked for the remainder of the session. But he is
satisfied merely to grunt, to make these disturbing noises now and then. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) says we may extend the operation of a dead statute, but I do not want to be associated with this strange fashion of legislating. I do not know if any of his colleagues, if for instance my hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) who is also a member of some standing at the bar, is prepared to subscribe to the idea that we may legally extend the operation of a dead statute. On the opposite side there are many men of eminent legal attainments, and I am quite sure that one of the reasons why they have not endorsed the view of the Minister of Justice is that they have some respect for their standing a-t the bar. When the Prime Minister introduced this motion he said he wished to extend the operation of the act. Quite properly he stated even last year that he had some hesitation as to the constitutionality of this procedure. I quote from page 4279 of Hansard of last session:
I will say frankly to the house that in asking what euphemistically is spoken of as a "blank cheque" we are not unmindful that we are asking very considerable from this House of Commons.
I pay the right hon. gentleman this tribute to his legal acumen, that he knew he was skating on thin ice, but was willing to take a chance. This session I find that at page 335 of Hansard he said:
I would not ask this power from any parliament except very reluctantly.
Again I pay him the tribute that he had some hesitation because of his legal attainments and felt that he was on very thin ice. The Prime Minister smiles. I do not wonder at his smiling when he realizes the position he has placed himself and those who follow him. If it were not for the fact that he has such a very accommodating majority behind him he would not dare take such a position. I am confident that before the Privy Council he would never venture to propound such an unsound theory. The Prime Minister brought this motion down for the purpose of amending the statute, but as we hammered away at it he finally found himself on the road to Damascus-and the light started to shine. In the course of the last few days he said-I am quoting from page 1407 of Hansard:
The government is determined it would renew the statute.
The Prime Minister did not say the government were going to amend the statute, but that they were going to renew it. No

Unemployment Continuance Act
one in this house knows better than the right hon. gentleman that there is an absolute difference between renewing and amending a statute. At page 1409 he again used the word "renew." He also said:
I desire that this statute be revived.
Not that its operation be extended, but that it be revived. He knows there is an absolute difference between reviving and amending a statute. At page 1410 he said:
Shall the Canadian parliament through a government supported by a majority in this house-
And a very accommodating majority.
-be permitted to reenact by proper words the legislation of last session?
Not to amend, not to extend the operation,
but to reenact, to do something absolutely new7, to start de novo. Now watch how the Prime Minister is coming down very reluctantly, but he is finally driven to this point. At page 1418 he said:
The use of the appropriate words to enable the principle of the legislation to be made effective.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the right hon. gentleman, even with all his legal attainments, took some time to find out that his magic was dead, that there was no process under British law whereby a dead statute could be amended, but instead of coming out frankly he has hedged all along. Now he asks that the operation of this expired statute be extended until the first of May, 1932.
There are many other reasons why I would have opposed the passing of this motion, but I think that one of the soundest reasons is to take the stand that you cannot extend by any recognized legal means-although you may do it by a majority of this kind-the operation of a dead statute.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As we know,
under this bill power will be given to the governor in council to pass orders in council up to the first of May. May I ask: will any such orders in council have any effect after the first of May, or will their operation cease entirely on that day?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except for the purpose of enabling payment of balances unpaid on contracts not completed; they would cease to be valid on the first of May.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister refers to orders in council that may relate to money payments. There may be orders in council relating to other matters. I assume such orders in council will have no force and effect after the first of May?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman is quite correct. It is proposed in the bill that orders in council shall forthwith be laid on the table of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
that. With regard to payments between now and the first of May is it the intention of the government to initiate new contracts or to make fresh commitments which will run beyond the first of May, or will everything be confined to the first of May?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a question, Mr. Speaker, which at the moment I cannot answer. For instance, a few days ago a delegation from the city of Quebec waited upon the government, and my right hon. friend's colleagues 'who were present suggested that there should be an extension of time in connection with work which was to be done in that city, which climatic conditions had made it impossible to complete during the winter. The hon. member for Gloucester urged that since spring was coming on, and unemployment was so serious, the matter should be so dealt with. I could not say definitely that pressure of conditions such as those existing in Quebec, for instance, might not have some effect. I was quite convinced, I may say frankly, by the statement of the mayor of Quebec city that they were unable to complete that work, and might not be able to complete it by May 1. They asked for an extension of time, the matter being already reduced to a contract for which authorization was given in the report tabled in this house. I cannot answer that question beyond saying that the necessities of the particular case would have to govern.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend refers to a contract, the terms and extent of which are already known. My question refers to something which at the moment is not known. Between now and May 1 will the administration make any new contracts which will run beyond May 1?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
William Richard Motherwell: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question which has already been asked once or twice on the orders of the day. Does the relief commission at Regina take seed grain liens on all crops resultant from seed grain advances, and if so when are they payable?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question of the character of the security taken by the commission is something between the commission and the provincial authorities, and the dominion has nothing whatever to do with it beyond the fact that we are given to understand, and do understand in advancing the money, that the commission is adequately protecting itself with respect to the crops. I cannot say whether a lien is taken on one or two crops, but my understanding is that the lien has to do with the first year's crop, and in some instances with the second year's crop, but the money is loaned to the province of Saskatchewan, which province is responsible for the arrangements made between the relief commission and the farmers with respect to the collection of the sums so advanced.


William Richard Motherwell: My understanding
is that this government has already agreed to the use of the relief commission as a collection agency for this government. If there is an understanding of that nature I think the government should be aware of what kind of security is being taken from the farmers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The relief commission is
a provincial body set up by the provincial government, and as such it is subject to provincial control. They made the arrangement with themselves. All we did was to supervise, so far as we could, the proper expenditure of the money in the manner indicated in this house. The form of security they may take, in order that they may be able to repay to the dominion the moneys advanced, is not our business.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not see why
we cannot get this information now; we have asked for it several times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall be glad to give
the hon. gentleman any information I have.


William Richard Motherwell: In the application
for relief made by a farmer in Saskatchewan, the farmer faithfully promises to pay to the Saskatchewan Relief Commission, on behalf of His Majesty the King in the right of the Dominion government, on or before such and such a date, all advances made to him by way of relief or seed grain, at the value and prices stated by the commission. I take it that the
obligation is assumed by the commission to collect for the seed grain as well as for the relief on behalf of the government of Canada, and with all due respect to my right hon. friend I do feel that someone in the government should be able to give this information.
I think the Minister of Agriculture was asked the question, but he was not in a position to answer it very definitely. Before going further I think we should have this question answered I have before me a bill which recently passed the Saskatchewan legislature incorporating the Saskatchewan Relief Commission, and the way in which our farmers are being hog-tied in connection with these seed grain and feed advances is simply terrible. I do not think we should go further without complete information in this regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will answer the hon.
gentleman, and I hope he hears me. First, the province of Saskatchewan is making the arrangements, through its relief commission, with the individual farmers with respect to seed grain; second, the seed grain is being provided by the Dominion government; third, the province is undertaking to repay to the Dominion government the money expended in the purchase of seed grain; fourth, my understanding-and I am not advised fully-is that the legislature of Saskatchewan is taking such steps as are regarded as essential for the purpose of enabling it to secure repayment of the advances so made.


William Richard Motherwell: Then are we to
understand that this government accepts no responsibility at all for the terms imposed upon the farmers by the Saskatchewan government or the relief commission?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Richard Motherwell: I suppose in Regina they will say the same thing, that they have no responsibility either.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Richard Motherwell: I submit that there is an individual as well as a joint responsibility resting on both governments in regard to the terms upon which these farmers get this seed grain.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are a
number of questions we should like to ask in connection with this resolution, but I understand that when the bill is in committee ample opportunity will be given for discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, and I think it will expedite matters when the committee has the bill before it. The only reason I have
Questions

remained until this hour is because some safeguards have been suggested to me, but I believe it will be much clearer when the house is in committee. Then we will be able to answer any questions that may be brought forward.
Resolution as amended reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bennett thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 24, respecting unemployment and farm relief.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Bennett moved the adjournment of the house.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What will be the business this afternoon?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will continue with
this bill. If we finish it we will take the motion with regard to supply which is now pending.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 4.20 a.m. (Wednesday).
Wednesday, March 30, 1932