OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, 1932, '] O THE TWENTY-FIFTH DAY OF APRIL, 1932, INCLUSIVE

[Stage Direction]
blouse of Commons Bebates
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 15, 1932
Ths house met at three o'clock.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have a motion which I should like to present to the house, but before doing so, I think a brief statement in regard to the question of garnet wheat might be advisable. My motion, I may say, is to refer the matter to the committee on agriculture. The statement is as follows:
Under section 25 of the Grain Act, 1930, a committee on grain standards is set up each year. For the crop year 1931-32 the committee on western grain consisted of:
E. B. Ramsay, Chief Commissioner, Board of Grain Commissioners; D. A. MacGibbon, Commissioner, Board of Grain Commissioner-; C. M. Hamilton, Commissioner, Board of Grain Commissioners; J. D. Fraser, Chief Inspector. Board of Grain Commissioners; George Serls, Chairman, Grain Appeal Tribunal, Winnipeg; George Hill, Chairman, Grain Appeal Tribunal, Calgary; C. R. Mana-han, Chairman, Grain Appeal Tribunal, Edmonton; Doctor F. J. Birchard, Chemist in charge, Grain Research Laboratory; L. H. Newman, Dominion Cerealist; H. Sellers, representing the millers; George Bennett, W. H. Fairfield. C. C. Gillis, W. McLeod, representing Grain Growers in Alberta; J. D. Read, Dean A. M. Shaw, J. Wellbelove, A. E. Wilson, W. Wright, representing Grain Growers in Saskatchewan; Doctor G. P. McRostie, P. V. Wright, D. A. Kane, representing Grain Growers in Manitoba; K. Campbell, representing Grain Growers in British Columbia; C. J. Drake, Secretary. In accordance with their usual practice, the committee selected and settled standard samples of the statutory grades. During the period of the discharge of their regular duties they were confronted with the problem of garnet wheat, and after full 41761-71
consideration passed the following resolution, which was included in their report to the Board of Grain Commissioners and by the latter included in their annual report as required by section 23 of the Canada Grain Act:
That this western committee of grain standards recommend that after the 31st of July, 1932, garnet wheat shall not be graded in the first four grades of red spring wheat as specified in schedule 1 of the Canada Grain Act, 1930, and further recommend that the following grades be established:-
No. 1 C.W. Garnet wheat;
No. 2 C.W. Garnet wheat;
No. 3 C.W. Garnet wheat; and that any garnet wheat that cannot be assigned to these grades on account of special characteristics shall be graded No. 4 northern, or in the commercial grades of red spring wheat according to the standards established for such grades.
This resolution has no effect in law, but is an indication of the composite view of this important committee on grain standards, and carries the judgment of the Board of Grain Commissioners and, therefore, cannot be ignored.
To give effect to the resolution, my opinion is that it .will be necessary to amend the Grain Act, section 24, which fixes the standards for western grain and to provide by statute for a separate grade for garnet wheat. I therefore suggest that this resolution should be submitted to the agriculture committee, where full consideration can be given to the whole question and a decision arrived at as to whether or. not the Canada Grain Act should be amended. I am not passing any opinion on the suggestion of the committee on grain standards, but I wish to move:
That the report of the committee on grain standards for the crop year 1931-32, in so far as it relates to garnet wheat, be referred to the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization with instructions that the whole subject be inquired into carefully and that the said committee shall have power to call for witnesses, papers and documents and to report to the house its findings.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Continuance Act


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Maclnnis be substituted for that of Mr. Woodsworth on the special committee on Civil Service and Civil Service Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timis-kaming):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. A few days ago the minister told the house there were negotiations with Germany in regard to a trade agreement. This morning there is a despatch to the effect that on the first of April Germany will place restrictions on Canadian goods unless Canada makes an agreement with Germany before the Imperial conference.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not catch all that my hon. friend said, but the answer, I think, is this: the government at the present moment have no statement to make on the subject.



NORTH AMERICAN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Yesterday evening the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) indicated that he thought my statement as to the common stock held by the North American Life Assurance Company was inaccurate. I find this morning from the Superintendent of Insurance that the actual percentage is 5-63, of which bank stocks, loan companies' stocks, and consumers' gas companies stock amounts to 5-16, and other utility and industrial stocks, i%oo per cent. I fancy it is the latter figure to which the hon. gentleman referred.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: I do not think I said the statement was inaccurate. I merely pointed out that common stocks were less than one-half of one per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are 5'63 per cent.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 11, 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.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, for the past
two weeks the house has been listening to a very lengthy debate on this resolution.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Two weeks?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Nearly two weeks. During this time many rather impassioned speeches have been delivered, directed largely to an attack upon the government on constitutional grounds. Perhaps it is advisable, once in a while during the course of a debate of this kind, to bring the attention of the house back to precisely what is proposed in the resolution. Last year an act was passed which was very fully considered by the house. This measure, which was presented in a constitutional manner, asked the house to clothe the government with certain authority and powers. There was very sound reason for the request. This country, in common with other countries throughout the world, was suffering under a very serious economic depression, and there was prevalent throughout the country a considerable degree of unemployment. While the house was in session it became evident to all that a condition was likely to arise in western Canada of the nature of a national calamity. The Prime Minister brought to the attention of the house the conditions due to the crop failure particularly in Saskatchewan and parts of the other provinces. In one large section there had been three successive crop failures, and the Prime Minister described it at the time as a great national calamity. I think the house generally most regretfully concurred in that view and it w'as felt that the situation was so grave that it warranted extreme measures. It was unknown at the time and unknown for some months thereafter just what the extent of the calamity was, and furthermore it was difficult for the government, and certainly most difficult for the house, to judge of what measures might be necessary to deal with the situation. I shall not go into any laboured argument in regard to that point

Unemployment Continuance Act
other than to attempt to focus the attention of the house for a moment upon the extreme difficulties with which the government was confronted.
It is true that at that time an appropriation might have been voted, and it was very largely the burden of the complaint of some hon. members that that was not done, but I invite hon. gentlemen to consider this, that when an appropriation is passed the purpose for which it is to be used must be specified, and the Auditor General and other officers of the crown in scrutinizing expenditures under such an appropriation always keep the government very closely to the purpose specified in such a vote. Now under the conditions obtaining a year ago it was quite impossible to determine what the requirements might be. Some question arose as to the amount, and I recall particularly that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and other hon. members opposite intimated that if it was the desire of the government to secure $100,000,000 the house was willing to grant it. At the same time, had it gone forth to the country that $100,000,000 or $150,000,000 had been voted for the purpose of unemployment and farm relief it is easy to visualize the effect which that might have had upon the public. There is always a tendency when it is indicated that there is available a large sum of money to feel that such a sum must be expended. The object which the government had in view was to do justice to the situation and at the same time to keep the expenditure to the lowest possible amount, and the government in its wisdom thought that the proposal which was submitted to the house a year ago was the most wise one to suggest. It is true that there were difficulties and objections, but after all the representatives of the people in parliament assembled passed the bill and clothed the government with those powers. I quite agree that in giving the government, as the house did on that occasion, a blank cheque, as it has been described, it at the same time laid upon the shoulders of the ministry very grave responsibilities in the discharge of their duties under that act.
The government carried on under that act until March 1 last. Now we come before parliament and say this: We carried on under that act until March 1 last, and we lay before parliament the result of our administration of the act. We have certain commitments which have been made under the act; that is, agreements have been entered into with each of the provinces and various works of a different character are being carried on
by the provinces with the aid of the dominion, and we ask for an extension of the act for two months, because the difficulties which then confronted the country have not been surmounted and further relief is required. So we are asking in this resolution for an extension of the powers conferred in that act.
Our hon. friends opposite and those who are critical of this course at the present time attack the government, very largely, if not solely, on the ground of the constitutionality of the government's course. But I draw this in particular to the attention of the house, that no serious challenge has been made of the manner in which the government has discharged its duty in the administration of this act.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit that with confidence, and a perusal of the utterances of even the most bitter critics of the government will not disclose, I repeat, any serious challenge of the manner in which the government has discharged its duty under the act.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend from Shel-burne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) the other day made-shall I say?-a very powerful speech weighted with keen legal argument about the constitutionality of the resolution, and he brought to bear upon the subject all of that ability and keenness of intellect for which he is noted. His speech was somewhat cynical, I will admit, but during the whole course of it he cited only two or three instances such as that in one case a man with a bank account had obtained relief. He cited a few other instances of that kind. Under the conditions that obtain to-day there is no doubt whatever that many individuals, as was stated very clearly the other evening by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) who were not actually in dire need did secure relief under the act, but this government in conjunction with the various provincial governments and municipal authorities has sought, so far as it is humanly possible to do so, to weed out any such individuals, eliminate any unjust claims and overcome any abuses of that character. That there have been such instances is I think beyond question. I myself have heard of just such instances, and have drawn them to the attention of the authorities administering the act, with the result that very definite steps were taken to correct such abuses, but I repeat, my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth did not during the whole of his speech point to any serious fault on the part of the

Unemployment Continuance Act
government in the administration of this act, other than to make the constitutional argument which he brought forward and which I think has been characterized by hon. gentlemen opposite as a very cherished doctrine of the Liberal party.


Mr. RALSTON:: If my hon. friend will
permit me-I am not going over my speech- but I did point out two things which perhaps escaped his attention. One was that only three days' work out of every month had been provided for those whom it was supposed the act was to benefit; and the other was that $146,000,000 had been spent and at the most only $44,000,000 worth of employment provided.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not intend, and I
do not wish to be drawn into an analysis of that part of my hon. friend's speech.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will dispose of it, however, in two or three sentences. In the first place, my hon. friend has placed upon Hansard and upon the front pages of the newspapers that there was $146,000,000 spent, in which was included the amount spent by this government and the amounts spent by the provincial and municipal authorities, plus a very large sum of money spent in the normal way by the railways at the instigation of the provinces and the dominion to help the situation. He lumped all of those sums into one composite sum of $143,000,000.


James Layton Ralston: No, I divided it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Mr. LAPOINTE:: Pass an act of parliament.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Parliament was not sitting.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. It was done to
redeem a pledge given by the government to the banks prior to the session of parliament.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When the order in council was passed parliament was not sitting.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely it had been sitting before.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it was not. Now I turn to another order in council prohibiting the export of gold. Was there an hon. member in this house who foresaw the possibility of Great Britain going off the gold standard late in September? No one had it in mind, no one suggested it, not even the leading
1126	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
economists and students of world affairs suggested the possibility. Canada was faced with an emergency, with a condition which called for immediate action. What action did we take? Under the powers of this act we passed an order in council prohibiting the free export of gold. In other words, we simply said this: Anyone desiring to export gold shall first obtain a licence from the Minister of Finance. The government in the best interests of the country took power to control the export of gold, and its export by the banks was allowed on licence from the Minister of Finance. Now I ask: Did we do wrong or did we do right? Was it in the best interests of the country to take that position, or was is not? Has the country suffered any injury as a result of the action then taken by the government? Can any hon. member say that a single constituent of his suffered any real injury as compared with the welfare of the country at large by the action of the government in that respect? I think the answer must be no, that there was no injury suffered, that it was an action which ought to have been taken and which was properly taken. And again I say it could not have been taken except under the powers given the government by this act.
Now, I turn to the insurance companies. The country was confronted with the possibility of the serious impairment of the interests of insurance companies generally-by the way, a very similar, problem arose in the United States-and under the powers given to the government by this act an order in council was passed fixing June 30 as the date at which securities held by insurance companies should be valued. Again I ask: Was that an action in the interests of the general stabilization of the conditions of the country, or was it not? Was it wise and advisable, or was it unwise and inadvisable? I think in this case as in the other cases the answer is that it was a wise act on the part of the government and well taken in the general interests of the country. The same thing applies to the action taken by the government with respect to bank securities. The action was taken in order to steady financial conditions and to prevent an unreasoned attack upon these great financial institutions. Such an attack, I believe, would have resulted in financial chaos in this country had the government not taken the action it did.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have these actions on the part of the government which I am certain were all taken in the national interest. There is one other order in council, and it

has been cited as evidence of the autocracy of the government. It is said there was an increase in the numbers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. What are the facts? Two hundred men were added to the force. Under legislation previously passed by this parliament and by two of the provinces the federal government was asked to take over the policing of those provinces, Alberta and Manitoba, and I think a third province has made a similar request. Was the action taken by the government in this instance necessary or was it unnecessary? Was it wise or was it unwise? Should the government be condemned for doing it? If so, why? Not a word has been said to elucidate that problem, only the general sweeping condemnation that the government has done something autocratic under this act.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have reviewed the various actions of the government which might be termed as abnormal actions under the terms of this act.


Mr. GARDINER:: What is the date of the order in council increasing the number of the mounted police?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think it was in December.


Robert Gardiner: That is before negotiations were opened with Alberta.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think so, although I have not the precise dates. Just at present we must prepare to take over the policing of the provinces; we cannot wait until the thing is all over. And the same remarks apply to two other provinces whose governments have suggested that we should take over the policing. But the point I am seeking to impress upon the house is that the government is challenged at the present time on the constitutionality of this act, and it is urged that by giving the government these unusual powers there is danger of their being abused. What hon. members opposite ought to be searchingly inquiring into is this: Having clothed the government with these powers some nine months ago, has this government improperly used those powers, has it abused them, has it taken any undue advantage of its authority, have any citizens suffered because of any action by the government under this act? The answer in every case is no. On the contrary, in every instance the action taken by the government under these special powers resulted in some marked benefit to large sections of the country.
I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to labour the point. We are asking the house to extend this legislation until the 'first of May. There are

Unemployment Continuance Act
commitments-when I say commitments, I mean there are works and so forth under way at the present time in conjunction with the provinces that ought to be carried forward: there is the question of seed grain; there is the question of continued relief until the spring months at least to the stricken area in the west; there is the question of unemployment relief in the great urban centres where in some instances certain works are now going on. I have in mind those municipalities where they have been unable to complete the work they have had under way for relief purposes because of climatic conditions, where only part of the money which was allocated has been spent, and only part of the work which was started has been carried out. They are entitled to complete those works, because unfortunately the condition of unemployment is still present. We are asking the house, therefore, to continue the powers granted to us last year until the first of May in order to give reasonable opportunity to complete those undertakings.
With due deference to my hon, friends opposite I think during the past week or ten days there has been altogether too much time spent on the constitutional side of this matter. That question was decided a year ago.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Decidedly. Let me put this to my hon. friends opposite: They were not satisfied, that is true, but after all, this house consists of that side and this side.


Charles A. Stewart: No, no.
Parliament consists of that side now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I am learning something new about parliament. I always thought that this house consisted of all sides.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friends opposite say no. I do my hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) this courtesy at least-I recognize him as an integral part of this parliament. True, he did not consent to the passing of this act last session; but the validity of a statute is not based upon the unanimous consent of the house. It is true my hon. friend spoke against the bill a year ago, but parliament as such,-this house and the other house-passed the bill and it became law.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend this question: Was not the bill that parliament passed last session for the express purpose of giving the government
power to act while parliament was not in session; and is not the present bill intended to give the government power to act while parliament is in session?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is quite
entitled to that view, but we are here now before parliament; I am giving the reasons why we are here, and justifying the course of the government under this act during the past year. I say to parliament that because of the course pursued by the government and because. of the absence of anything in the nature of abuses such as are indicated as being feared by hon. gentlemen opposite, the house is justified in extending this power until May 1, and that is all there is to it.
Let me remind the house that there was not an hon. member opposite, and for that matter there was no one in this country, who could have stated exactly what would be the requirements during the past year; it was a physical impossibility to do so. No one could have done it, and if the government had not possessed some power of this land it could not have met the emergencies which arose. The government does not propose that any unreasonable advantage shall be taken in connection with this bill; it does not intend that it shall be improperly used. The government simply desires that the general powers of the act may be used to meet the emergent conditions which arise from time to time.
It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to speak at greater length on this subject, but I do feel that the house should not weigh this matter with the view of raising once again an obscure constitutional question such as was successfully raised by my right hon. friend in 1926. I do not wish to be unkind to the right hon. gentleman, but as I listen to his unctuous declamations every day, I sometimes wonder if it is not his desire to stir up in the minds of the people a suspicion that some terrible inroads are being made on the constitutional rights of the ordinary people.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But my hon.
friend does not distinguish between obscure issues and fundamental issues. These are fundamental issues.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am reminded that at
the moment the fundamental issue here is the relief of the people and the bettering of conditions with which we are confronted to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And I might
add the immediate relief, which can be given at once if the government will bring in * supply bill this afternoon.
1128	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: No one knows better than the right hori. gentleman, and a certain number of those sitting around him who have had experience in administration, the difficulty of administering the affairs of a government, with conditions as they are to-day, under a specific appropriation of parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friends may
pooh-pooh the idea, but the fact remains. I have already cited a number of cases that could not have been dealt with under any appropriation which might have been made last year. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that in tins resolution there is no invasion of the public interest or the public right; on the other hand power is given to safeguard those rights, and I contend that last year, under this bill, the government was not guilty of any departure from regular constitutional procedure.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Did I understand the
minister to say that it was due to the fact that this bill was being held up that the farmers were not now receiving seed grain? I ask that because a press despatch was drawn to my attention yesterday stating that on and after to-day the farmers will receive that seed grain.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the answer to
that question is very simple. Seed grain relief is being directed by the provinces. Should this bill not pass and should the government not be clothed with the powers sought, the provinces will have to bear the burden alone, without the assistance of this government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; the government can bring in a proper supply bill.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Does the minister say
the seed has not been bought?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The seed is being purchased by the provincial authorities.


Mr. G. W. McPIIEE (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, the more I consider the resolution which is the subject matter of this debate the more I am impressed with the great travesty on responsible government which it contemplates. My hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) to whom I have listened with a great deal of pleasure for the last half hour, has not helped me very much; he has simply stated that the government is carrying into effect, as he said, the autocratic powers which it has been able to exercise because last year we passed the unemployment relief act. That bill is now dead; the resolution now before the house seeks to breathe life into that dead body, and so the whole question is opened up again.

A hundred years ago, Mr. Speaker, those who laid the foundations of this great country had to fight against the old Tory Family Compact of that day, and after eventual bloodshed they secured for themselves and those who were to follow responsible government for Canada. No matter how distasteful it may be to hon. gentlemen opposite, it is a source of pride to us of the Liberal faith that on this side of the house we have two grandsons of the old rebels, Mackenzie and Papi-neau, in the right bon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa).
The rights so dearly bought for us should not be lightly given uf>. In those days the Family Compact, in their efforts to keep for themselves the power they then possessed, used methods somewhat akin to those adopted by the present government. For instance, every student of history knows that in Halifax they took the printing press belonging to one of the Reformers and dumped it into Halifax harbour, and they took the printing press of another Reformer in central Canada and threw it into lake Ontario. If that were done in these days I presume it would be said it was done for the peace, order and good government of Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, the actions of the old Tory Family Compact pale into insignificance when we consider the actions of the present government, autocratically demanding the rights that should be exercised only by the elected representatives of the people. This is the fundamental issue as far as I am concerned, and I submit that every hon. member of this house stands upon an equal footing. Each one of us has the right to say whether or not money shall be voted for this or for that and how it shall be spent. Let the right hon. gentleman follow the advice given to him by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and bring in a money bill for whatever amount is necessary. If that is done we on this side will guarantee that in half an hour the money will be voted in the way in which it should be voted by a representative parliament.
The whole question of unemployment and farm relief now is opened up. Let us consider what it all means. At the best this measure cannot be even a palliative because it leaves the victim in a worse condition than he was before. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that they have not received any constructive criticism from this side of the house, but I offer one bit of constructive criticism-let this government get off the backs of the agriculturists of Canada. That would do more to relieve unemployment than anything else.

Unemployment Continuance Act
The prosperity of this country depends upon the prosperity of the primary producers, and the' agriculturists are the greatest body of primary producers in this country. What is the true condition in which we find agriculture to-day as a result of eighteen months of the sort of government we have had in this country? The following figures giving the prices received by the producer are rather startling:
Cents
Wheat (per bushel)	 46
Oats (per bushel)	 18
Rye (per bushel)	 25
Barley (per bushel)	 26
Butter (per pound)	 20
Eggs (per dozen)	 15
Pork (per pound)	 3
Beef (per pound)	 3i


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: Oh, oh.


George Washington McPhee: Do I hear the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) cackling?
The price received by the producers for beef is only 31 cents per pound. How can the farmers of Canada exist with prices such as these? The other day the Prime Minister referred to seventy-six municipalities which had been drouth stricken in Saskatchewan but even had there been no drouth the condition of the farmer in western Canada would have been very bad. The fact is that he ernnot sell at a price which will return anything like the costs of production. As I said before, the best form of relief, as far as western Canada is concerned, would be for the government to get off the backs of the farmers.
There are no markets in which the farmer can sell his products. Belgium was a country with which we had a great deal of trade before this government came into office, and in order to emphasize the statement I have just made I shall read an extract from a newspaper in Brussels which is close to the government of that country. This article was published in January, 1931, shortly after the Imperial conference, and reads:
Just previous to his departure for the Imperial conference in London, Mr. Bennett brought down in the Canadian house a bill dealing with the tariff.	The tariff changes
which were immediately put into force were adopted by the Canadian parliament. It is of some interest to Belgium whose exchanges with Canada have favourably developed in the course of these last years, to examine the situation and to bring out somewhat the point.
The first truth which appears in consulting statistics with reference to commerce, is that the balance of trade is greatly in favour of Canada.
We learn, moreover, that Belgium is, with the exception of Great Britain, its best European customer in the purchasing of wheat, oats and barley, and ranks second or third of all Canada's clients in the purchasing of
these products: that it absorbs almost the total Canadian output of zinc ore and the greater portion of that of asbestos.
The balance of trade between the two countries, already greatly against Belgium, null certainly again be accentuated by this last measure.
Belgium can therefore not remain indifferent to Mr. Bennett's projected legislation of a distinctly protective character, and making for a complete revision of the Canadian customs tariff. It surely would be hardly conceivable that she should continue to be one of the best customers of a country which deliberately closes its doors to her products.
To counteract the Russian dumping, the government took the necessary protective measures which the situation demanded. Without there being any need of having recourse to such methods in the case of Canada, Belgium could very well abstain, in the future, from making her purchases in that country. Canada is not the only country which produces wheat;, oats, barley', asbestos and zinc ore. There is no reason why Belgium should not supply herself with these articles on markets which are more friendly to her productions.
Not only did Belgium act in that manner but thirty countries did likewise. As a result of the tariff manipulations and tariff juggling of this government, thirty countries retaliated against Canada with disastrous results as far as the farmers of Canada are concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman realize that these so-called retaliations were against all other countries including Canada? Before this government came into power every country in the world but one had increased its tariffs against all countries.


George Washington McPhee: The information which I am about to give the house was gleaned from The Commercial Intelligence Journal, a publication of the present government. Here is what it said a few months ago with regard to this action:
The countries which adopted unfriendly attitudes were Esthonia, Siam, Poland, South Africa. Germany. New Zealand, Mexico, Czechoslovakia, Bahamas. Italy. France, Argentine, Cuba, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, Colombia, India, Norway, China, Bolivia, Denmark, Uruguay, Greece, Switzerland, Belgium, United States, Netherlands, Jugoslavia, Sweden, Irish Free State.
These countries retaliated against Canada with disastrous results to our producers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
states he obtained his information from the official record, but that record shows that these countries enacted tariff legislation against Canada as well as all other countries. It was tariff legislation affecting imports; it affected Canada as well as other countries, it was not a case of retaliating against Canada alone.


George Washington McPhee: That does not lessen the
effect of my statement that they retaliated
1130	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
against Canada. These countries having retaliated against Canada, I presume it is the duty of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) to find other places with which we can trade. In common with other hon. members I found a pamphlet in my letter box this morning. This is an official publication of the Department of Trade and Commerce, presided over by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) and deals with the Falkland islands. It gives a short history of the islands, stating that they were first settled by the French, then by the Spanish and afterwards taken over by the British. The nationality of the occupants is now given as Scotch, and they total 3,378. The article states that the vocation of these people is sheep farming and whaling. I do not know what trade there could be between Canada and the Falkland islands. My hon. friend would not permit sheep to be brought into this country and I do not know about whales and their products. While the Canadian people will no doubt thank my hon. friend for the information regarding the geography and history of the islands, the striking point is the last sentence in the pamphlet where he says:
Canada has no direct trade with the Falkland islands.
And Canada has not very much trade with other countries of the world, and if the present
government is permitted to occupy the treasury benches much longer, that trade will dwindle down to practically nothing.
What is the result of this tariff manipulation and juggling? The figures for the total trade of Canada, according to the return, are as follows:
Total trade
Fiscal year	of Canada
1929- 30	 $2,392,000,000
1930- 31	 1,723,000,000
That shows a decrease between the two years of $670,000,000. These figures tell the story. What do they prove? The following are the prices of various commodities in the west:
March,	1928	March, 1932
Commodity-*	cents per lb. cents per lb.
Butter fat.	... 41	16


Mr. GOBEIL:: That is not true.


George Washington McPhee: It is true in western
Canada.
March,	1928	March, 1932
cents per lb	cents per lb.
Butter	 42	15
March, 1930	March, 1932
cents per lb.	cents per lb.
Pork	 13	3
cents per doz. cents per doz.
Eggs	 25	15


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Where?
Mr. MePHEE:	I am giving the figures
for western Canada:
Beef: 13 cents per pound; 3| cents per pound.
These figures tell the story of agricultural depression and the remedy is not the dole, but trade. Let us open up the channels of trade and prosperity will come back to the primary producers in the first place, the agriculturists. A week or ten days ago I had the pleasure, with other members of the House of Commons as guests of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), to meet the Right Hon. Winston Churchill. It has been my good fortune to read most of the writings of Winston Churchill and most of his speeches. As a matter of practice I have memorized the striking passages in Mr. Churchill's writings as well as in those of others. There are in Winston Churchill's writings many such passages that would help my hon. friends across the floor. This one comes to my mind. It is contained in an address delivered by him to the people of Manchester not many years ago. True, it was before he became a political apostate. This is an extract from the address and I commend the words to the leader of the government because he referred to Mr. Churchill as one of the leading statesmen of the day. These words were addressed to the people of Manchester:
Why did you build your ship canal? Why did you spend fifteen millions in bringing the sea to touch the inland docks of your great city? Was it to block its mouth with the sand banks of obstructive tariffs or to choke its fairway with the stake nets of protection?
I will commend these words to the right hon. leader of the government.


Walter Davy Cowan: What does he say now?
Mr. MePHEE: My hon. friend asks: What does he say now? It sometimes happens men who are brought up properly in a political faith, later on in life for some reason best known to themselves, forsake the political god of their early days and go over to the Tory camp. Sometimes I am sure our Tory friends are glad of the acquisition to their ranks.
These figures which I have just given relative to the prices of farm products in Canada, bring my mind back to the election campaign of 1930. For the purposes of the record let me put on Hansard the promises of the leader of the government in connection with that campaign.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give us something new.
MARCH 15, 1932	113X
Unemployment Continuance Act


George Washington McPhee: An hon. member opposite says: Give us something new. These gems of the Prime Minister were ambrosia to my hon. friends' nostrils in 1930, and it is no fault of mine if they are effluvia to-day.
In Winnipeg, on June 8, 1930, the leader of the government (Mr. Bennett) used these words:
Listen you agriculturists from the west and all the other parts of Canada-you who have been taught to mock at tariffs and applaud free trade

tell me, when did free trade fight for you? Tell me, when did free trade fight for you. You say tariffs are only for the manufacturers. I will make them fight for you as well. I will use them to blast a way into the markets that have been closed to you.
Speaking at Vancouver on June 18, 1930, he said:
If Mr. Mackenzie King thinks I will not so build up our agricultural and industrial life that its strength will drive our products into the markets of the world, then he is wrong, for that I will do. If he thinks I will not establish new markets for these products, strive with all my heart to retain them, drive our products with all my power into new markets, into old markets, into reluctant markets, he is wrong. For that I will do.
In order to complete the picture all he needed to have said further was:	"Come,
unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest." In effect that is what he said and yet in the month of September, following the election, we had a special session of parliament at which the sum of S20,000,000 was voted for unemployment relief. Last year at the regular session of parliament the government received a blank cheque to spend whatever money they wished, and yet, after all this, unemployment in Canada has doubled in the last eighteen months. And then a few days ago we had the spectacle of a few hundred people who took the Prime Minister at his word in 1930 parading to these parliament buildings, the deliberative assembly of the people, and these same poor people who took the Prime Minister at his word in 1930 were met at the gates by men armed to the teeth. It was that kind of political enchantment that won the election for my right hon. friend in 1930. Never did fabled enchantress lure her unsuspecting victims with such effect as did my right hon. friend at that time. It was that kind of political effervescence which placed the primary producers of Canada, the agriculturists, the lumbermen, the fishermen, and the miners, in the hopeless position in which they find themselves to-day. I remember one cartoon which was put out by the Conservative party during the campaign. It showed a Canadian wheat field with Jack Canuck standing in the centre
and with the then Prime Minister, now the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) standing to one side. Jack Canuck was saying to him:	"What are you
going to do with my wheat?"


Mr. ROWE:: What did he do with it?


George Washington McPhee: I will tell my hon. friend.
At that time wheat was selling at $1.10 per bushel. One year later it was selling at 69 cents, and to-day it is selling at 46 cents per bushel. How about the new markets? .How about the old markets and the reluctant markets?
I come to the matter of dairy products. Oh, the protective tariff so far as the dairymen of this country were concerned was going to be as a well of water to the thirsty soil. It was going to make the prairie provinces and the eastern townships of Quebec blossom as the vale of Sharon. I remember well that during the election campaign my opponent happened to be the manager of a creamery company, and he was supposed to know all about butter. If he had got into power with the right hon. gentleman he was going to smite the New Zealand treaty hip and thigh. So assiduously did the Conservative party carry on their propaganda against New Zealand butter and spread the doctrine of protection as a cure-all for the troubles of the dairymen, there were some even in my district who thought that the poor old female of the bovine species became influenced by it. I remember very well, Mr. Speaker, on the evening of the 28th of July, 1930, wending my way through the pleasing and pleasant countryside of the Yorkton district back to the city of Yorkton, there to learn the result of the battle of the ballots. I remember seeing many an old cow coming home a little earlier in the evening than usual to be milked, going by herself to the milking stool, lowing almost with tears in her eyes as she anticipated the increased reward for her labour when on the morning of the 29th of July, the buttermilk crew would be in charge of the ship of state of the Canadian nation. But oh, the great disillusionment, not only for the poor female of the bovine species but for the dairymen of Canada and for the business interests of this country. New Zealand retaliated with disastrous results so far as the industrialists of this country are concerned. No wonder that the farmers of Canada are now in dire need and require relief. It is because of the tariff juggling and manipulation of this government, and again I plead with my right hon. friend in all sincerity to get off the backs of the farmers of this country, and then prosperity will come to them.
1132	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
I must hurry on as my time is almost up. I have here a voucher sent to me by a farmer in my district who lives fifteen miles from the city of Yorkton. He killed four steers and brought their hides to market, one hundred and sixty-eight pounds of hides. The best price he could get for these hides was one and a half cents per pound, and he could not even get cash for that. Here is the voucher, and I place these facts in all sincerity before my hpn. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). The credit side of the voucher shows 168 pounds of hides at li cents per pound, $2.52; the debit side shows one pair of rubbers, $1.00; overalls $1.25; tobacco, 25 cents; credit, 2 cents. And yet the Minister of Agriculutre states that mixed farming is the hope of the west.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: Would my hon.
friend mind giving any authority at all for that statement?


George Washington McPhee: Does my hon. friend deny that he made the statement?


Robert Weir: I never made the
statement.


George Washington McPhee: I wish to be fair. I find
this in the Winnipeg Tribune and also in the Ottawa Journal:
Toronto, February 1.-Mixed farming west's hope, claims Weir.
My hon. friend has a very efficient secretary, and if he has not brought this to the attention of the minister, I will pass the clipping over to him as I have not time to read it now, and then to-morrow he can deny it if he wishes.
Hon. gentlemen opposite now as ever claim that the present hard times have been brought about by influences other than those arising from the actions of this government, A few days ago I was going through Hansard to read the budget speeches of the various Ministers of Finance during the past fifteen or twenty years. Here is one striking passage from the benediction pronounced by Sir Henry Drayton, Minister of Finance in the government of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, and delivered after ten years of Conservative government in Canada under Sir Robert Borden and the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen. In the last budget speech delivered by a Conservative Minister of Finance previous to 1921, Sir Henry Drayton paints this picture in his peroration of May 9, 1921.
The world is sadly out of tune. May we help in restoring harmony. Trust and confidence are sadly lacking. Class interests are
rMr. McPhee J
advanced with selfish insistence. Unemployment is with us. Faith in our fellowmen is weakened. Doubt of the future is often voiced.
Those words, Mr. Speaker, are applicable to the present day. But listen. The next two lines are gems:
The sun still shines, the rivers still sparkle, our lands are as great and fruitful as ever- our resources just as vast.
Thank Heaven, Mr. Speaker, that the sun still shines and that the rivers still sparkle on their way to the sea. Thank Heaven that this government, and especially the right hon. gentleman who leads it, has nothing to do with the shining of the sun, because if he had, and he used the same mad-bull-in-a-china-shop methods with regard to things celestial as he does with respect to trade terrestrial there would be chaos in the firmament and darkness would be over the land.
My parting word, Mr. Speaker, as an elected representative in this house would be this:	Let the government get off the backs
of the farmers of Canada; let them get away from the stifling of trade, and then this great country will take its place among the nations of the earth that God Almighty intended it should take, by virtue of the almost illimitable natural resources that have been placed at our disposal.


Mr. ONESIME GAGNON (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee), but I fail to see any connecting link between the legislation now before the house and butter or wheat. The hon. member has intimated that butter had something to do with our coming into power. That may be. I say however that the bread we are now giving to the poor through the legislation before the house will keep us in power.
I have listened with care to the speeches made by my hon. friends opposite, and I regret to say I have not been struck by their extreme moderation. This debate has lasted more than a week, and I am sorry to note that many hon. members have indulged in personal attacks against the leader of the government. May I, Mr. Speaker, pass in review some of the very pleasant compliments paid by hon. members opposite to the right hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues. The hon. member for Teimiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has referred to monkeys, and the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and ten or eleven of his followers have referred to the regime of the French revolution and have called our leader a despot and an autocrat. Last but not least the hon. member for Mel-

Unemployment Continuance Act
ville (Mr. Motherwell) called us collie dogs. After listening to such convincing arguments I am sure you sir, will be struck by the soundness of the constitutional doctrines propounded by hon. members opposite. I would certainly be surprised if you, sir, were not moved by their logic and consistency expressed in such glowing terms of admiration.
Having listened to them I cannot but remember that the depression we are passing through has shaken the whole world. In all countries political parties are confronted with a similar situation but they take different views as to the different questions at issue. In Great Britain I understand a by-election is being held in the county of Dumbartonshire, and on Saturday morning last the papers reported that Premier MacDonald had sent a letter to his standard bearer in which he said:
Return to-day to partisan polities would shatter the foundations of confidence at home and abroad on which all the national services must rest.
These are the views of a real statesman. Everywhere in the overseas dominions, in Australia, in New Zealand political parties are trying to cooperate in order to achieve a return to prosperity and the end of unemployment. In the Free State of Ireland the elections are over and we hear with pleasure that Mr. Cosgrave is extending a friendly hand to Mr. De Valera. Should a foreigner visit Canada certainly he would be led to believe after reading the speeches of hon. members opposite, that an entirely different situation prevails here. He would be led to believe that here in Canada constitutional liberties are being crushed by the Conservative party; he would be led to believe that the people are oppressed, that the leaders of the opposition have been muzzled and representatives of the press imprisoned.
Why such violence of language, why such a display of literary indignation? Have the banks closed their doors? Has the Liberal party in Quebec repealed the famous Dillon bill and let the sixty election contestations be argued on their merits before the courts? Has the government refused to relieve the unemployed? Has the constitution been suspended? No, Mr. Speaker; no such unprecedented or unforeseen events have taken place. The government of the day, to comply with the numerous petitions they have received from all over Canada, has decided to give two months' further time to the municipalities and provinces to carry to completion their works of relief. That is the purport of the legislation this party is desirous to put through parliament; nothing else.
May I read the 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.
That is all. That resolution is being moved to give bread to the needy and comfort them during the last days of winter. The other day the hon. members for Lake St. John (Mr. Duguay) and Champlain (Mr. Baribeau) told of petitions they had received from their constituents. I received a similar petition from the city of Levis, one from the city of Riviere du Loup in the constituency of my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), and a telegram from Colonel Lavigueur, the mayor of Quebec, who was a distinguished member of this house, asking for an interview with the Prime Minister tomorrow morning to submit a similar petition with regard to the unemployed.
May I pass in review some events of the past with respect to unemployment? During the session of 1930 this parliament voted $20,000,000 for the relief of the unemployed. The critics on the opposition benches, in no mild terms, stated that that amount was not sufficient. During the session of 1931 hon. members opposite, especially the hon. members for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) and Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) censured the government for doing nothing at all. Finally, realizing the situation was becoming worse and worse in Canada on account of the disastrous crop failures in Saskatchewan, and that conditions were tantamount to a national calamity, the government presented the bill from which came the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931 authorizing parliament to meet the emergency, and providing adequate measures to meet the lamentable situation the equal of which no parliament in the history of Canada had before to meet. Many hon. members to the extreme left of Mr. Speaker expressed their willingness to vote for the bill. It appears however that followers of the leader of the opposition had not yet emerged from the valley of humiliation and unfortunately for themselves expressed their willingness to vote against the measure.
But, Mr. Speaker, a by-election was to be held in the constituency of Three Rivers-St. Maurice, and general provincial elections were imminent in the province of Quebec. It was decided therefore by hon. gentlemen opposite to strike a great blow. Their legal advisers were hastily summoned, and after many hours of desperate juggling with constitutional precedents, they decided to resort
Unemployment

Continuance Act
to the old cry, "Let us save the constitution." The cry of conscription was stale, so they had to resort to the cry, "Let us save the constitution."
For days, Mr. Speaker, this government has been assaulted and, 'by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) the Conservative leader has been compared with Lenin, while another eminent hon. member has compared him with Mussolini. Finally, however, at the last session of parliament, the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931 became law 'because it was necessary in the public interest as the only means to face the emergency. When it was adopted the election was in full swing in Three Rivers-St. Maurice, and the Liberal party decided to lead the attack on the government on that very question. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) went there and denounced the so-called "blank cheque" legislation and the so-called "despotism" of our leader. A great battle was waged. In the course of his attack the hon. member for Quebec East referred to the French revolution, and gave to the electors of that constituency the first edition of the interesting speech he made in the house a few days ago. On a beautiful Sunday night at Shawinigan Falls he said:
Parliament committed suicide for six months. It does not count for anything. Bennett has established in this country a real dictatorship. He leads by force. He is a true dictator. If Nero at the time of the Roman empire kept the people in misery and gave them bread and circuses to amuse them, Bennett gives them bread but gives it through force.
I quote those words from page 7 of La Presse, the great Liberal daily paper of Montreal, of Monday, August 3. A few minutes afterwards the hon. member added, speaking of the government and of Conservatives:
They capitalize the sufferings of the people. The Tories are only the members of depression, the offspring of the crisis which is passing over the country.
These are samples of some of the mild expressions that were used by the hon. members opposite when attacking the government during the by-election at Three Rivers-St. Maurice. A very interesting speech was also made by the former Secretary of State, the hon. member for St. James. Explaining what was meant by the words "peace, order and good government" in the bill, he stated to the crowd that those words meant that Mr. Bennett wanted to impose that bill on parliament in order to revive conscription. He also stated that every attempt would be made by the government to curb the liberties of the

people. But the humble Conservative members of this house, guided by their ministers from Quebec, went into the constituency and ventured to explain to the people the real purpose of the legislation, that it was presented to the house in order to give bread to the poor and the needy during the depression. They also stated in their humble way that the government 'was doing its very best to redeem its pledges, and that the Prime Minister had resorted to the legislation reluctantly because he deemed it was the only way to face the emergency.
The hon. members of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, were much more violent in Three Rivers than they have been in this house, but nevertheless the constituency of Three Rivers-St. Maurice, which for more than thirty years had never elected a Conservative, chose for its worthy representative an eminent lawyer who at one time had been the baton-nier of the bar of this province, a true Conservative-my friend Mr. Charles Bourgeois. In that instance the province of Quebec gave parliament and this country unmistakable evidence of its good judgment and its political sagacity. It expressed its willingness to cooperate with the English-speaking people of the other provinces in order to solve the pressing problems which confront the government. The province also gave the Prime Minister testimony of its admiration and gratitude for the strenuous work he has been carrying on to save Canada from bankruptcy. The county of Three Rivers-St. Maurice expressed the real mind of Quebec, which hon. members-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Onésime Gagnon: -which hon. members
opposite do not seem able to understand. The province of Quebec has always been ready to respond to any expressions of good will, and bonne entente. The province of Quebec has been deaf to the cry of conscription and despotism. The people of Quebec do not believe in appeals to passion and prejudice. The county of Three Rivers-St. Maurice gave a vote of confidence to the Prime Minister which did certainly console him for the base accusations that were heaped upon him by many members of the opposite party, and especially by the former Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) when he stated that the Prime Minister in his capacity of (Minister of Finance proposed to amend the income tax in order to de-tax himself and his multimillionaire friends thereby increasing the burdens on the shoulders of the poor.
Since the Three Rivers-St. Maurice byelection the Conservative party has done its

Unemployment Continuance Act
best to redeem its pledges to relieve unemployment by cooperating with the municipalities and with the various provincial governments all over Canada. In this respect millions have been spent and the credit of Canada has not been shaken. Owing to the devotion of the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) more than $5,000,000 have been put at the disposal of the district of Quebec for the relief of unemployment. I may not be endowed with the great vision with which hon. members opposite have been favoured, but I fail to see in the legislation voted last July all the evils which characterize a usurpation of power. This legislation is of a remedial character. Its object is to carry out a scheme of unemployment relief in cooperation with the municipalities and the provinces. Relief moneys have not been spent in the fanciful way depicted by hon. members of the opposition; many people had to be consulted. According to the regulations adopted by the Department of Labour, all requests for public works had first to be submitted to the municipal authorities, who discussed the measures and adopted the resolutions which afterwards were sent to the provincial authorities. The provincial authorities on the other hand made an investigation through their inspectors and sent a list of questions to the municipal councils with respect to the number of unemployed and the nature of the public works necessary to relieve unemployment. In short, Mr. Speaker, all relief measures have been thoroughly discussed and submitted to the people-first to the municipal council, secondly to the provincial authorities, and when the provincial authorities had come to an agreement with the municipal authorities, the proposals were submitted to the federal government. In no case has the federal government ever refused to comply with the requests of the provincial governments.
Now that I have stated how the relief scheme is operated, can it be said that the government is acting arbitrarily, despotically and extravagantly in the measures which it has taken to relieve unemployment? As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, the federal government has never refused to comply with the requests of the provincial authorities, which requests sometimes, especially in Quebec, were submitted with a view to prejudice the Conservative party. The other day the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bou-rassa) denounced in the most emphatic way the partisanship which was displayed by the Liberal party in the spending of relief money in his county. I may say that in the county of Dorchester, which I have the honour to
represent, the same situation existed. For instance, though a large number of municipalities and the county council of my county recommended to the provincial government the expenditure of $75,000 for the construction of a road, that recommendation was not approved because the provincial authorities did not want the credit to go to a certain extent to the Conservative member for Dorchester. But, while the provincial government thought it extravagant to build a good road for the use of the farmers, which would have provided work for about one thousand unemployed, that same government authorized the expenditure of $75,000 for the construction of a zoological garden near the city of Quebec. I am not opposed to the construction of this garden, *which will prove an asset to the province and to the county of Quebec-Mont-morency in which it is situated, but why should the provincial government refuse to spend $75,000 for a road which would give bread to the poor farmers while they consent to the diversion of 375,000 of relief money to provide a shelter for animals? I give that example, Mr. Speaker, not in a spirit of criticism but only to show that the federal authorities have never put obstacles in the way of provincial authorities. They have accepted even such schemes as the one to which I have referred, which may be considered rather a doubtful way to relieve unemployment.
Coming back to the constitutional issue raised by the hon. .member for Quebec East (Mr. Laipointe), I agree that legislation by order in council in ordinary circumstances ought to be resorted to only in cases of necessity, but the Prime Minister stated in this house that he assumed this power reluctantly and only because we were facing a national calamity, and he and his colleagues knew of no other way to deal with the situation. In the past the great Liberal party has resorted to that method. We all remember the election of December, 1921, when the issue of conscription was raised in Quebec. The ministers were sworn in some time in January, 1922, and early in February the hon. member for Quebec East, who was Minister of Marine, by order in council transferred the entire administration of fisheries in the province of Quebec to the government of the province without receiving the authority of parliament. Does my hon. friend think that, when one morning the Canadian government learned with great surprise that England was off the gold standard, the government should have waited fifteen days to call a special session of parliament to pass the necessary legislation? That would
1136	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
not have been a wise thing to do. The Prime Minister could deal with the situation instantly, because he was given the necessary powers during the last session of parliament. The hon. member might agree that in this instance we could cite the old axiom "Gouverner, c'est prevoir." The Prime Minister would not have been the statesman he is if he had not foreseen, when the bill was before the house last year, that the time might come when such power would be needed, and I am not surprised that our Liberal friends are dissatisfied because the government is doing so well in keeping Canada in safety.
Perhaps it would be refreshing for all of us to find in the speeches of hon. members opposite good reasons far holding to the stand we have taken. Speaking in Quebec, when the election in Three Rivars-St. Maurice was proceeding, the hon. member for Quebec East condemned the remedial legislation passed last year with regard to unemployment. He eloquently appealed to the passions of the masses, and among other things he said:
"What can be said about those who have just voted $15,000,000 to give a premium on wheat to the western farmers, when they do not give a cent to the Quebec farmers whose butter does not sell?"
The hon. member does not deny having made that statement; he repeated it in Three Rivers, and it went all over the province during the campaign. I have great admiration for the hon. member for Quebec East, and I must say that he is faithful to the doctrines he has often enunciated in the province of Quebec during elections, and he has been faithful to the tactics of his party and orators who are accustomed during election times to arouse province against province and race against race. The hon. member is too wise to repeat those words in this house or in western Canada.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers o>f Quebec are suffering, but they are not unmindful of the sad plight of the farmers of the west. We members from Quebec, however, are handicapped in our efforts to aid the farmers by such statements as those made by Mr. Taschereau at St. Raymond on June 15 last, when he said:
It is agreeable for me to be able to say to the people that we are able to help the province without compelling it to fall in debt. When Ottawa is found with a deficit ot $75,000,000, and facing a deficit of $105,000,000 for the current year; when Ontario and the other provinces of the west are bankrupt, tbe province of Quebec has a surplus of $5,000,000.
In 1930 Mr. Taschereau stated there was no unemployment in Quebec; in 1931, by the
TMr. Gagnon.]
w.ords I have just quoted, he implied that his province did not need any help from Ottawa. A few days ago, when the governments of all provinces were asking civil servants to accept reduced wages, the premier of Quebec said that the credit of the province of Quebec was still good, suggesting thereby that it was not necessary to practise economy. I say to the hon. member for Quebec East and his friends sitting opposite that we do not receive any cooperation whatever from the Quebec government. How can we tell the leaders of 'this government that the farmers of Quebec are ruined while- the premier of that province boasts of a surplus of $5,000,000? When the hon. member for Quebec East spoke in Quebec on August 7, Mr. Taschereau was present, and he cheered the remarks of my hon. friend. What logic! what consistency! The hon. member for Quebec East, during the course of his eloquent speech, said "Bennett does nothing for Quebec," while Mr. Taschereau says "We do not want any help from Ottawa." I ask you, Mr. Speaker, which of the two leaders voices the sentiments of the province of Quebec?
I have a great liking for the hon. member for Quebec East; but I would like to refer to another part of his famous speech delivered in the city of Quebec on August 7 last. Speaking of 'the remedial legislation of 1931, he denounced the so-called autocracy of our chief and the wickedness of our policy. In referring to the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act he said that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) referred to it as being sovietism, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) referred to it as being fascism, and he added "I call it Bennettism, which is a mixture of fascism and sovietism."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Onésime Gagnon: I am not surprised at hearing hon. members opposite cheer the words of their leader. Unfortunately some of them cheer too often when the word "sovietism" is mentioned in this house. I ask myself if the great Liberal party of Canada will not, as has the Liberal party in England, some day fall into sovietism and communism. Now, with all due respect to the hon. member for Quebec East, I contend that he was wrong when he tried to associate two contradictory terms such as sovietism and fascism. A study of what is going on in Germany, Japan, China and Russia will convince one that some day we may have to choose between sovietism and fascism. Speaking for myself and for my friends on this side of the house, I prefer Bennettism, because in these days of struggle

Unemployment Continuance Act
and strenuous efforts our chief symbolizes the aspirations of the younger generation of Canada.
The young men and women of Canada are fed lip with party politics as they have been played during the past eight days. More than fifty speeches have been delivered from the other side in order to prevent this government granting an additional sixty days to the municipalities and provinces to complete the works started to assist the unemployed. The young men and women of Canada are disgusted to hear hon. gentlemen apposite say, when we happen to laugh in this house for one reason or another, that we on this side are laughing at the sufferings of the people. They are amazed at seeing the leader of what was once a great party take thirty-one minutes of the time of this house to define the word "humbug" and eighteen minutes to define the word "demagogue". The young men and women are disgusted with such .practices; they want men, they want leaders, they want action, they want order, discipline and security and this party is the only instrument whereby they can get what they hope for. The name of the Prime Minister Bennett forever will be associated in history with order, discipline and security. It will always be associated with the slogan "Canada First". "Canada First" has been proclaimed in Westminster as well as in Quebec city, Toronto, Montreal and Winnipeg, and that will be the rallying cry of our party. The words "Canada First" embody all our social, economic and political aspirations. Because young men and women in Canada, love order, peace, discipline and security, they love Bennett, they follow him. And they follow Bennett because they love Canada.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to follow the last speaker in the amiable attempt he made to bring harmony into party strife. In his condemnation of party politics I am afraid he overlooked the fact that in the delivery of his speech in which he sought to castigate the party system he himself was possibly one of the most guilty. I wholly agree with him that there is nothing so futile or stupid as an attempt to carry on the public business under a party system which has shown that it is more interested in inter-party strife than in the affairs of the country. The last orator- I think I am entitled to call him that, for I have seldom heard such a flow of words from the lips of any hon. gentleman; showed his talent in excellently-studied language- was describing Bennettism. If I were one of his race and a member of his party I think 41761-72
I should attempt to describe the present proposed legislation as an attempt to induce this House of Commons to give its "Bennettietion" to the laying of the corpse of constitutional liberty and of custom long established and approved. However, I do not think that language of that kind can be fittingly applied to this question.
There are several reasons why both sides of this house should not support the proposed introduction of the measure suggested. First, this resolution asks for greater powers than have ever been asked for in this House of Commons since the day it first exercised its functions as such. It asks for greater powers than were granted under the War Measures Act; it asks for greater powers than were granted under the war appropriations acts, in fact it asks for greater powers than were granted by all these acts combined. The second reason I have for objecting is that the procedure followed is utterly unnecessary. Parliament is sitting, as has been said time and time again; I simply repeat that in passing.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) defended the introduction and passage of this measure last year on the ground that we were about to prorogue and that an emergency faced both agriculture and labour. He stated that these matters could be dealt with in the intervening period only by the passage of legislation such as this. I disliked it and I disapproved of it last year; when I spoke on the question I pointed out that the introduction of the measure had been made necessary by neglect on the part of the administration to make the necessary plans and preparations to meet a crisis of which it had been forewarned during the earlier part of the session. We knew it was coming; it was inevitable and nothing could stop it. Yet the present government delayed taking action until the closing days of the session, when it placed this proposal before us and demanded that it be given the most amazing and extraordinary powers with regard to the voting of moneys and any other legislative action it might desire to take.
The third reason why I oppose this measure is that unquestionably it is an attempt on the part of the administration, supported by a supine majority, to take away from parliament the rights and duties which we have sworn to undertake. I am quite willing to admit at the outset that the unemployed man who is hungry and cold is not interested in constitutional questions. Heaven knows, there are many of these men. We have heard the protestations of hon. gentlemen opposite,

1138	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
we have heard of the statements of Mr. Taschereau, but nevertheless it is a fact that the misery which exists from coast to coast is heartrending. The farmer in the west who is facing the crisis of supplying himself with seed when he has no money, of financing repairs to machinery and the preparation of the land, is not interested in the constitutional aspect of this matter. But that does not relieve us as members, their representatives in the House of Commons, of the obligation of observing our sworn duty and it is not our part, whilst parliament is sitting, to relinquish into the hands of an executive the power that parliament alone should exercise.
The struggle for this very liberty that we have to-day is not of contemporary history. It stretches away back for hundreds of years. If a student looks the matter up he will find that it is 635 years ago when the right of parliament to grant moneys to the crown was first determined under statute 25 of the reign of Edward I in 1297. The language used in that Confirmatio ohartarum is:
No aids, tasks and prizes are to be taken except by the common consent of the realm and for the common profit.
Thenceforth the crown, asked parliament for the assent of the nation to its financial proposals. There were of course, one or two attempts on the part of the crown, as there is on the part of the present administration, to usurp that right and it was not really until 1407, or 525 years ago, that the definite principle that all money bills must originate in the commons, was first established. Then the powers of the commons slowly expanded under parliamentary practice and procedure, generation by generation, parliament by parliament, in spite of the stubborn, almost rigid opposition by Conservatives in those days, just as to-day. It was not until several centuries had elapsed that the practice of setting up committees of supply and committees of ways and means was established. The reason for the setting up of those committees was that they might determine first the amounts of money that parliament was to be called upon by the administration to vote, and, second, the destination of the amounts. Only by those two methods has parliament a certain control over the amounts and their destination. It is true that under Public Accounts, established about the same time, we can ascertain afterwards the character of the expenditure of the money. Let me put the matter in this way: Anson, in his Law and Custom of the Constitution, has clearly indicated that in recent generations the power of parliament is steadily being encroached upon by the cabinet, age 
by age and parliament by parliament. At pages 133 to 135 of volume 2 he uses this language:
"The modern rules of procedure and the closure place both business and discussion in the hands of the cabinet." . . . Hence the' Commons have become dependent on the cabinet, rather than the other way round, and a threat by the cabinet to dissolve parliament may command the continued support of a working majority long after the Commons has ceased to really represent the political opinions of the country.
Now we come to this particular case. If you turn back the pages you will find that in volume one of this book he indicates the last five remaining measures of control that parliament has over the executive. The third of these, which is relevant to this discussion, is as follows:
The Commons exercises control over the executive as to spending departments, by committee of supply to vote money, by committee of ways and means to raise money.
Now the effect of this legislation will be to remove from us the power to consider in committee of supply the amounts to be voted, nor shall we be able to determine the destination of the vote. Last session it was indicated to the house-and many of us gullibly believed it-that this money was to be voted for farm relief and for unemployment relief. I was astonished when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) spoke, that he did not, in discussing the orders in council, appear to be seized of the fact that the government did not live up to that understanding, but diverted sums of money to other purposes than either farm or unemployment relief. There is no question they had power to do that, but we had no understanding that that was their purpose, and if in the absence of understanding they were guilty of so much in one year, of what may they not be guilty if we renew that vast power to them? The Minister of Trade and Commerce mentioned the orders in council; he disposed of them with an airy, discursive statement in respect thereto, and asked the general question: Was it not all in the best interests of the country? Did anybody suffer by it? That is not the question. It is as to the powers to be exercised under legislation of this character. While parliament is sitting, parliament has no right-and I say this advisedly-in the face of its sworn obligation to do its duty in respect to certain matters, to delegate to an executive the power to legislate. The power to legislate as well as the power to vote money is inherent in parliament itself, and while it is sitting, it cannot, constitutionally, without doing violence

Unemployment Continuance Act
to the oath of office taken individually by its members, delegate such powers to the executive.
In respect to one of these orders in council, the last one mentioned by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I wish to make some comments. I find that on the 16th December, 1931, the executive, the governor in council, passed an order in council diverting moneys to the establishing of an additional number of Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said 200, but I think that must have been a slip on his part. He does not often make slips like that, but as a matter of fact the number was 300, or an increase of one-third. Then he argued that this order in council was made necessary by an agreement entered into by Alberta and another province in respect of policing. I challenge the hon. gentleman in that regard. This order in council was passed on the 16th December, 1931, and no agreement, even with Alberta, was entered into until the end of January, 1932.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: And no agreement with Manitoba was contemplated at that time.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am now informed that no agreement with Manitoba was even contemplated at that time. I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and to the house, that this order in council does not indicate in any way anything that would justify his allegation that it was for the policing of Alberta or any other province. The fact is, as he must know, that it was for the purpose of increasing the personnel of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under the jurisdiction of this administration. The money diverted amounts to quite a sum, more than a quarter of a million dollars diverted to the addition of 300 men to the force and, amongst other things, to the purchase of bombs, riot equipment. Imagine money alleged to be voted for the purpose of unemployment and farm relief being diverted, as we now find, to the purchase of riot equipment, bombs, artillery, ammunition, additional horses, including $1,750 to pay twenty special agents! Another item is $20,000 of unemployment relief funds used for the general expenses of secret investigations by the police force. That may all be justified, but it certainly was not what parliament was led to believe last year. This type of legislation by order in council is unjustifiable, and it should always be submitted to parliament. Above all others, a type of legislation involving the peace, order and good government of Canada should be submitted to parliament itself.
41761-72i
I said a moment ago that this statute would give to the executive greater powers than had ever been given to any executive in the country before. I say it advisedly. I challenge hon. gentlemen to study the War Approprition Act where some $50,000,000 was voted, and the amount was stated definitely, for past appropriations made by governor generals' warrants for requirements prior to the sitting of parliament.
The next is the War Measures Act. It did not give the government of the day any right whatever to appropriate sums of iponey for war purposes, not one cent. Not even during the war crisis, the greatest with which this country was ever faced-not excepting the present one, although this closely parallels it so far as suffering is concerned-was the House of Commons asked to divest itself of constitutional customs. All the appropriations for the carrying on of the war were voted in the estimates annually and discussed by this house annually.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Under the name of war appropriations.


Edward Joseph Garland: Exactly, and the fullest discussion was afforded before the money was voted except in regard to the war appropriations bill, which was for commitments entered upon prior to the sitting of parliament.
When the Prime Minister spoke the other day he made a very good case. He spoke eloquently, as he always does, and signified that we ought to be proud of the fact that under the act of last session work had been provided to something over three hundred thousand men. They had been provided with six million hours of work. It sounded splendid. The Prime Minister said six million hours. Iam sure he must have been mistaken. He possibly meant six million days, but I take the statement as recorded in Hansard and as I heard him say it. Six million hours' work for three hundred thousand men gives them exactly twenty hours' work during the six months period of operation of the act that we were being asked to consider. At the rate of thirty cents per hour, which is the rate paid in part of my province, twenty hours' work gives them six dollars for six months' work. That is something that we ought to be very proud of! May I say right now that if I have any complaint in regard to the unemployment relief scheme it is certainly not on the ground of extravagance on the part of the government, but on the ground that the government has not taken the neces-
Unemployment Continuance Act

sary measures adequately to deal with unemployment throughout the various municipalities of this country.
The Prime Minister then went on to discuss the Saskatchewan farm relief emergency, and again pointed with pride to the fact that three hundred thousand persons had been fed plain but ample food-that is his own language; had been provided with fuel, and in addition to both those, with medical care. All three had been, he stated, adequately provided. I am prepared to accept his word as I would that of any hon. member of this house, but let us analyze that statement. It means, with a total cost of $5,250,000, which was the amount stated, the sum of $17 per person for a period of six months, or 72 cents per week per person. That is, adequate food, adequate fuel, and adequate medical care was provided at a cost of 72 cents per person per week. My benediction, Mr. Speaker, on efficiency of that kind, and if that can be done throughout the country there certainly will be no criticism from me in regard thereto. The point I wish to make in that regard is that I would like to have the matter further discussed. I would like to find out the exact measure of relief that was extended to those districts, and whether it really was adequate as the Prime Minister would persuade us to believe. I will say this, however, that whether it was adequate or inadequate, we in the province of Alberta feel that we have a distinct grievance in regard to this matter. There are districts in Alberta suffering as acutely as any of the acute drought-stricken districts in Saskatchewan. Reading the Prime Minister's statement and listening to him the other day I would gather that the province of Alberta, having made a careful survey of the situation, was satisfied that $140,000 was sufficient to take care of immediate requirements; that that is what they asked for. Is that correct? If the Prime Minister intended to say that that is all the province asked for and that it is satisfied with that amount, the statement is grossly misleading. The province is not satisfied with that. I have a telegram here from the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Alberta dated March 8, 1932, similar to telegrams which have been quoted by hon. members from other provinces:
Following wire to Minister Agriculture sets out our position relative seed grain.
Have been obliged make arrangements to assemble required amount seed grain for distribution dry area.
Haying regard burden now thrown upon municipalities and provincial government respectfully urge dominion should assume one-third freight rates and one-third loss to municipalities resulting from such distribution.

I understand that so far no satisfactory action has been taken by this government to meet the requests of the province in that regard. This is dire necessity in the province of Alberta. This need must be met. The government of the province of Alberta has asked this government to grant to certain areas in the province affected in exactly the same way as certain areas in the province of Saskatchewan just the same treatment as is being meted out to Saskatchewan, and we have been refused. This government has not indicated its willingness to treat certain areas in the province of Alberta, involving an area twelve or fourteen municipalities in extent-I am speaking from memory-in the same way that it has been treating like districts in the province of Saskatchewan. We do ask the government-I petition the Minister of Agriculture myself-that at the first opportunity he take this matter up.


Robert Weir: I do not wish to
interrupt, but Alberta has been given exactly the same opportunity.


Edward Joseph Garland: My information is to the contrary. I had a meeting with the cabinet in Alberta in January last, and both the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture of the province asked me to see that the matter was brought to the attention of the minister. I spoke to him the other day about it, urging that exactly the same measure of relief, that is one hundred per cent federal liability, should be assumed by the federal government in respect of certain areas in Alberta which were in precisely the same position as certain drought-stricken areas in Saskatchewan. I ask the Minister of Agriculture, is his government prepared to take upon its shoulders the burdens of paying one hundred per cent relief in the areas I have mentioned in Alberta on the same basis on which it is giving relief now in Saskatchewan? I pause for a reply.


Robert Weir: My understanding
is that the Prime Minister met the government of Alberta in Edmonton and asked them the very definite question, had they any area with similar conditions to those prevailing in the seventy-six municipalities area in Saskatchewan, and that their answer was no. When I met them later on in the year they gave me the same word.


Edward Joseph Garland: What time was this?


Robert Weir: September or October.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Edward Joseph Garland: At my
interview with them in January I was informed to the contrary. Will the minister say that he has received no communication from the Minister of Agriculture or the Premier of Alberta during this winter asking for the application of one hundred per cent federal relief to certain areas in the province of Alberta?


Robert Weir: There have been
no requests such as that so far as I am aware.	.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have
been informed that such requests have been sent in to the minister, but I unhesitatingly accept his word. I shall ascertain from the provincial government at the first opportunity their position in respect thereto. But on my own behalf I urge now on the administration, from my knowledge of the conditions that exist in the southern half of my own riding, in a large portion of the riding of my hon. friend from Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), and in the riding of my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw), that exactly the same terms of relief be extended to us, because certain municipalities are utterly unable to finance their share of the crop requirements.
I will give to the minister one or two statements in that regard. Perhaps one will be ample. I received this statement from the municipality of Blackfoot, No. 218, in a letter dated February 25:
The finances of this municipal district are in poor condition on account of uncollected taxes, and whereas the conditions are such that it has become impossible for the taxpayer to pay higher taxes, therefore be it resolved that this municipality can give no financial assist; anee to the financing of seed grain and feed this coming spring.
Certified copy of resolution passed by the council of the municipal district of Blackfoot, No. 218.
I have received a very great number of statements describing conditions not exactly in the same language but very similar, from almost every part of my riding. They have suffered three successive years from crop failures. In each of those years the prices were so low that the receipts were not equal to the costs of production. A letter from one of the districts in question might be in order:
The conditions in the Hussar and Chancellor districts are very bad. At a recent meeting of the Hussar U.F.A. local attended by 40 farmers, only seven-
Remember, only seven.

had their seed for this year.
The farmers of this district who have had no crop for three years fully expected the
federal government to grant us a measure of relief, even if it was only enough to get our seed and feed or fuel for the tractors, as no one has any credit; in fact the bank has been closed up.
There is some talk of just letting the lane ready for crop go unseeded.
My hon. friend from Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) quoted prices. I think in our district we could surpass the horrible state of price levels he described. Eggs are selling at 12 to 16 cents per dozen, butter at 15 cents per pound, the best cattle at 4 cents per pound and poultry at 6 or 7 cents per pound. Letter after letter brings stories of that kind to my desk. The government is well conversant with the recent crash in the live stock market which has rendered very pitiful the state of many of our people in the west. One of them states that since July 31, nearly 100 rural telephones have been withdrawn from operation in the Vulcan district. That is merely an indication of conditions. The letter from Vulcan states:
I believe there are not many who have paid their taxes in the past two years.
Another letter states:
Most everyone is on relief or trying to get there. Several farmers had to move their stock out of the district last fall.
Through lack of feed. Another letter states:
From what I can gather, practically no one has paid taxes.
Another:
Practically everything else has been sacrificed to make possible clothing ourselves and eating. Even then a great deal of Red Cross aid has been necessary. Many are without seed, and for those who have to buy it Mr. Bennett's bonus has worked an additional hardship.
From Wayne I received the following:
I personally have farmed for forty years and have not seen anything like compared to that we are going through now. The banks refuse to assist. I only see one way out of it, and that is the farmers will have to quit.
Just as an example: I met a man yesterday and talked over the matter and he told me that he would not be able to treat his grain with formaldehyde because he did not have any cash to buy it.
From Rosebud comes the following:
I know of two cases, one a neighbor with five children who are trying to live on the proceeds of a three-gallon can of cream a week probably worth $1.30. The other has nothing; I do not know how he exists. Everyone is up against it: I do not see how they can get their crop in. You hear on every side, "If I had my debts paid I would get out of here." In this district we were able to dig coal or else there would have been terrible suffering. The people are desperate in their feelings. They seem to see no hope ahead.
1142	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
From Swalwell district, a district which until recent years has been fairly prosperous and in which there are many excellent farms, such as those described by the Prime Minister, comes the following:
No words of mine can describe the hopeless conditions which the people of this western country are facing. They are not living, but leading an existence; everything has to be sold at a loss.
I have no desire, Mr. Speaker, to prolong the discussion. I do submit to the government, however, that its duties extend to the districts I have mentioned just as urgently and as definitely as to the areas in the province of Saskatchewan to which reference has been made.
I know the Minister of Agriculture is not unsympathetic, and I say to him that in the southern half of my constituency, due to the inability to supply proper food and clothing, there has been a considerable increase in minor ailments, many of which may lead to serious complaints such as tuberculosis, pneumonia and so on. For years the doctors in those areas have not been properly paid. I have before me some very harrowing letters from doctors in that connection. I ask that adequate provision be made for the medical care of these people who are suffering under present conditions not only tremendous losses but dire destitution. A doctor in one of these districts writes me as follows:
Next door to me a child was prostrated with double lobar pneumonia. The widowed mother who was receiving government aid applied to the village authorities for medical treatment for her child. The village council refused. She was already owing me over $100 for past services, and did not call me. However as soon as I heard of the ease I went without being called. Now 99 per cent of all our patients, not mine particularly, are cases of destitution. How is a local doctor to stand the financial strain of treating all these eases?
In one of his communications this doctor gave me facts relating to amounts of remuneration he fhad been able to receive during the last year, and I believe the figures would astonish the house. In May 1930 his earnings were $126 and his receipts only $12.50; in May 1931 his earnings were $100, and his receipts only $77.50. Hon. members will notice the increase in calls for his services. In June 1930 his earnings were $187, and his actual receipts $27.50. In June 1931 his earnings were $298.50 and his receipts $8.50. Nothing could indicate more definitely the very serious condition of affairs in so far as the physical health of the people in those districts is concerned.
I do not need to stress that point further, but I am satisfied the matter deserves the 
particular attention of the minister. The doctor to which I have referred writes further:
My practice, which means greater expense on my pocket book, has increased perceptibly, while my receipts have decreased more rapidly.
Further on he states:
The question is cannot something be done for the struggling, self-denying, starving, philanthropic rural physicians whose services cannot be dispensed with by the poor impoverished settlers of those drought areas of western Canada. We have appealed to the municipal and provincial authorities, but they claim they are financially unable to help us, while they recognize that widespread indigency is the rule now and not the exception as it was a few years ago.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the position. I could amplify the statements made by the hon. member for Yorkton; if I were permitted to do so I could talk from now until six o'clock concerning those conditions. I wonder if hon. members realize that between the years 1929 and 1931 there has been a decline in the price received by the wheat growers for their product of $360,000,000. Between the years 1930 and 1931, one year only, there was a decline of $202,000,000. So the story goes. I pick up another extract which is as follows:
With 2,000,000 pounds of creamery butter awaiting export in western Canada, probability is that the present record low price for butter fat, 12 cents a pound, will fall still further, according to II. S. Brockner, sales manager of the Alberta Hairy Pool Limited.
I have a clipping before me taken from the Calgary Herald, a daily newspaper very friendly to this ministry. It is as follows:
Three Hills, Feb. 23.-Further examples of the topsy turvy condition of the markets have been given by local farmers. Recently a farmer shipped a ease containing 21 fine pullets to Calgary. Eight of these weighed 30 pounds and graded No. 2. They brought him the munificent sum of $1.50, being five cents per pound. The remainder of the shipment, weighing 33 pounds, was marked "no value."
The freight charge on the whole shipment was $1.50. and the other charges were 25 cents, so the adventurous shipper was out 25 cents. He lost his 21 pullets and suffered 25 cents loss.
Another story is told of a farmer who shipped 100 pounds of wool for sale and received a three-cent postage stamp in return. He was lucky compared to another who shipped wool and did not get enough returns to pay shipping charges. It would be interesting to know who got the pullets-and at what price. Also who got the wool-and at what price.
Three years of crop failures have brought about these pitiful conditions. A correspondent from Standard writes:
The five cent bonus on wheat gives to the man who doesn't need it, and the man who needs it the most gets nothing. For example a man with a 40 bushel per acre crop gets $2 per acre bonus, a man with no crop at all gets

Unemployment Continuance Act
nothing. That kind of legislation is more suggestive of the deliberations of the inmates from an insane asylum than from a legislative assembly.
This writer states that 156 parcels of land in the Blackfoot municipal district will be up for sale for arrears of taxes on March 29, 1932. Frankly I do not think it will be any use offering that land for sale, for it will be merely a formality-you cannot sell land out there. The Bureau of Statistics shows the price of land over all Canada has dropped $10 an acre in four years.
No words lof mine, Mr. Speaker, could exaggerate the gravity of agricultural conditions, and indeed of unemployment conditions, in this country. I heard that eloquent orator from Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) discussing the absence of any real emergency or crisis of unemployment in the province of Quebec. On another occasion I will give him some facts in that connection which may disabuse his optimistic mind of the opinions he now holds.
I will take such measures as will provide for the giving of work to every man and women in this country prepared to work.
We know the source from which that statement comes, and we also know that at the present time the expense apparently of providing work is so great that there is a likelihood that the actual relief programs will be stopped, and that from now on a measure of dole-if you like to call it that; it is no disgrace-will be administered. Hon. gentlemen opposite are inclined at times to discredit the dole. Personally I prefer work, it is far, far, better for the character of our people, but if it is found to be impossible for this government to finance any further relief works, the dole is the only alternative. Of course it would not be impossible if they would adopt some of the proposals suggested by members in this corner of the house, but unfortunately the government will not sweep aside the orthodox rules of finance. If they would do so, it would take them more quickly out of the bog than anything they have in their minds at the present time. In the absence of any disposition on their part to discard orthodoxy, there is no other course open to them than to cut down expenditure on the relief works that were provided, as they declare, to preserve the morale of the people of this country and supply needed relief.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to the points I have already mentioned, I regard the introduction of this measure as utterly inexcusable unless in the event of war or famine. We have no war in this country,
unless it be, as someone suggested to me the other day, a class war. If the government recognizes that it is now, or may be, confronted with a class war, then possibly on that ground it can justify this astonishing legislation. The government will not assert that. But it admits that condition by increasing the police force, by keeping up the morale of the naval and military forces by not cutting their salaries, and by maintaining the judiciary in good spirits by not reducing their salaries. The police, naval, army and judicial forces are favoured-the story is plain for those who would read.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that a condition of war does not exist. Nor can it be argued by anybody that a condition of famine exists in this country. A condition of shortage does exist in certain territories, which condition can be met with our adequate transportation facilities and our vast supplies of goods. Therefore I am definitely opposed to this measure. I will vote against the resolution, and I will vote against the bill when it is introduced.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex):: 1 desire, Mr. Speaker, to make a few observations on the resolution which is now under consideration. First of all -may I express my regret that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the members of his cabinet did not see their way clear to accept the proposition which was made by my right hon. leader (M-r, Mackenzie King), that to meet the purposes of unemployment and farm relief a supply bill should be brought down. Had that been done, members on this side of the house would have cooperated to the fullest extent to facilitate the passage of the bill at the earliest possible moment. That, to a large extent, is the issue, and i-t is the reason for the discussion which has taken place during the past week. We all regret the very serious economic -condition throughout the country, and it is a pity that the government has not taken such a course as would have enabled every member to discharge what 1 submit is his first duty to his constituents- the consideration in committee of supply of estimates to meet the urgent necessities of the country.
The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) eloquently and ably defended the system of relief in operation in Saskatchewan during the past year, and dilated upon the excellent manner in which the Saskatchewan Relief Commission had discharged its duties. While he was pronouncing those eulogies I could not help thinking what an
1144	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
excellent thing it would have been for the country as a whole if a commission had functioned for the whole dominion.
I am glad to see some of our Ontario ministers in their seats. I must add my protest to that so forcibly expressed by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). It has been my privilege for a good many years to be very actively identified with the farmers of the province of Ontario, and I deeply regret to say that I have seen more real financial distress among the very best farmers of this province in the last six months than during all the years that I have had the privilege of doing business for a great many of them. The situation has become much more serious since this government has been in power. About the only effect the actions of this government have had on the farmers in Ontario has been to increase the spread between what they have to pay for the things they buy and what they receive for the things they sell. About the only way they have been affected by the present government has been by the increases in tariff, which have been made as a part of this relief, and I want to say very seriously to the members of the government that it has brought anything but relief to the farmers of Ontario. The spread between the price they pay for what they buy, and the price they get for what they sell has greatly increased.	*


Mr. ROSS:: No, no.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will have an opportunity to speak later on; I am only going to take a few minutes of the time of the house. I think if he were more familiar with what is going on in the farming districts of Ontario he would not even interrupt when I say how serious these conditions have become.
What is the primary duty of a man sent to parliament to represent a constituency? May, who is one of the great authorities on parliamentary procedure and practice, in his rules of procedure, thirteenth edition, at page 64, says:
The most important power vested in any branch of the legislature is the right of imposing taxes upon the people and of voting money for the exigencies of the public service. The exercise of this right by the commons is practically a law for the annual meeting of parliament for the redress of grievances; and it may also be said to give to the commons the chief authority in the state.
Then there is the old standard authority, with which your honour is very familiar and on which most of your decisions are based;
I refer to Bourinot, who says at page 415 of the fourth edition:

One of the principal purposes of the House of Commons is the consideration and criticism of the estimates and the taxes required to meet the public expenditures.
At page 404 he states:
The most important of the committees of the whole house, in the commons, are those or supply and ways and means. . . .
The rules of the house with respect to the expenditure of public money and the impositions of burthens upon the people are in conformity with the practice of its English prototype. All the checks and guards which the wisdom of English parliamentarians has imposed in the course of centuries upon public expenditures now exist in their full force in the parliament of the dominion. The cardinal principle, which underlies all parliamentary rules and constitutional provisions with respect to money grants and public taxes is this-when burthens are to be imposed on the people, every opportunity must be given for free and frequent discussion, so that parliament may not, by sudden and hasty votes, incur any expenses, or be induced to approve of measures, which may entail heavy and lasting burthens upon the country. Hence it is ordered that the crown must first come down with a recommendation whenever the government finds it necessary to incur a public expenditure, and that there should be full consideration of the matter in committee and in the house, so that no member-may be forced to come to a hasty decision, but that every one may have abundant opportunities afforded him of stating his reasons for supporting or opposing the proposed grant.
The main purpose for which we are assembled at the present time, Mr. Speaker, is ourselves to do the very things which we are asked to delegate to the government by the measure now before the house. What difference does it make to the people of the country, during a crisis such as this, whether we pass a little amendment to the criminal code, or what takes place with regard to some of the acts relating to noxious weeds, insect pests, cutworms and all that sort of thing? The real duty of parliament, if this resolution carries, is being handed over by the representatives of the people to the executive while the house is in session. If the act of last year had worked out in even a reasonably satisfactory manner there might be less objection to the course now proposed, but I venture to say that in not one province of the dominion has there been even fairly general satisfaction with the act and the way it has worked in affording unemployment relief.
I want to make this further submission:
If we look at the report of the director of unemployment relief, tabled in the house the other day, at page 66 we will find the item having to do with harbours and rivers. This constitutes a set of estimates, and the work done cost 8204,440. If we look at page 3 of the report we find that the regulations provide:

Unemployment Continuance Act
All agreements with provincial and municipal authorities shall contain a provision to the effect that all persons employed on the works or undertakings referred to herein shall be residents of Canada, and so far as practicable of the locality in which the work is being performed, and in no case shall discrimination be made or permitted in the employment of, or in the granting of direct relief to any British subjects by reason of their political affiliations, race or religious views.
Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that of the $216,442 expended under that order in council on harbours and rivers, if I have the figures correctly only $12,000 was spent in ridings not represented by supporters of this government?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: You are wrong
in that.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend says I am wrong; I know he must think so, but of course I think not. It is a bit difficult to tell where some of these places are, but I have done my very best, and I know where most of them are located. One of my hon. friends suggests that I know where Haileybury is, and that is so. It is not my purpose at this time to say anything as to whether or not these expenditures were necessary in the places where they were made; hon. members of this house have never had an opportunity of ascertaining from the minister in charge of these expenditures what was the need at the particular place, who were asking for it or what amount of relief was likely to be afforded by that particular vote.
My hon. friend has referred to the grant for Haileybury. The sum of $17,809 appears to have been spent in Haileybury. I have no information which justifies my saying that that was not properly expended and that it was not needed, and I do not propose to make any such statement until I know. However, I do say that that is something which should never have appeared under the heading of unemployment relief. The house sat last year until August 3, and this order in council was passed on October 15. Would it have been too much to ask the government to bring down an item in the estimates for public works and to give every hon. member an opportunity of discussing this matter before a decision was arrived at?
My objection to the substitution of "May" for "March" is that it is, in principle, the wrong kind of legislation. No hon. member can go home and face his constituents and justify the fact that while the house was still in session he sat in his seat, with his hands folded, and said: "I will leave this to the executive; it can do this in the way in which
it has been done in the past, although I am bound to say that that way has not proven satisfactory to many portions of the country."
The experience gained in the last year or two should have enabled some changes and some improvements to be made. Such experience should be of value in formulating a policy for the coming year. If the government would say what amount was needed and this house had an opportunity of discussing the proposed policy in the regular way, surely some good would come from the discussion. This matter should be discussed in committee of supply.
I do not propose to take up the time of the house at any length, but I do desire to point out that this is the most objectionable legislation which any parliament could enact. I realize that we are living in a strenuous period, but that is all the greater reason why the safeguards which the experiences of various free governments have thrown around the rights of the people should be preserved. I submit that this resolution should not pass but that a supply bill containing the necessary items and providing a means of discussion as to whether or not such items are necessary, is the proper method of procedure. I see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) across the floor, and I contend that all work in the way of public works should be done by his department. I have great faith in what can be accomplished by the Department of Public Works, and whatever money is to be expended on public works by the Dominion of Canada should be expended under the supervision of that department.
A cursory glance at the item will show that $12,000 out of $216,000 was spent in ridings which apparently needed no relief and which unfortunately are represented by opponents of the government. Perhaps these ridings do not need as much relief as do the ridings represented by supporters of the government.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: London got some.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think the minister claims paternity for these estimates; I take it they were put into his hands. I hope that i3 the fact because I should not like to think they bad been prepared by him. It seems a bit remarkable that when a Conservative government is in power, not only is there more relief needed for the country as a whole but the ridings represented by supporters of the government require six times as much relief as the ridings represented by those opposed to the government.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Ottawa and New York Railway
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 31, respecting certain patents of Autographic Register System, Limited.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. T. SHAVER (Stormont) moved the second reading of Bill No. 32, respecting the Ottawa and New York Railway Company.
Mr. NEILL:: Explain.


Mr. SHAVER:: About thirty-five years ago the Ottawa and New York Railway Company constructed 'their railroad between Ottawa and Tupper Lake, New York. This railroad crosses the St. Lawrence river at Cornwall, and about three-quarters of the bridge over which the railroad crosses the river is located in Canada. About fifteen years ago the Ottawa and New York Railway Company leased this bridge to the New York Central Railway Company, which has been operating it ever since.
The purpose of this bill is briefly, to authorize the Ottawa and New York Railway Company and its lessee the New York Central Railway Company to enter into an agreement with the toll bridge company to plank this 'bridge and operate it for .vehicular traffic. I might quote very briefly the original act of incorporation by which this company came into being.
In the year 1882, an act known as 45 Victoria, chapter 78, and entitled "an act to incorporate the Ontario Pacific Railway Company," was passed by the parliament of Canada, authorizing the construction of the bridge and the construction of the railroad. In 1884 an act known as 47 Victoria, chapter 57, and entitled "an act further to amend the act to incorporate the Ontario Pacific Railway Company," was passed by the parliament of Canada. Clause one of this act provides that the said company may construct with their railway bridge over the St. Lawrence river a passage floor or way for horses, carriages and foot passengers; and that they may make the same during the construction of the said railway bridge, or at any time after the completion thereof; and in the event of their electing to construct such passageway or foot-bridge they may make, amend, repeal, reenact and enforce all such by-laws, rules and regulations as seem to them proper and necessary, as to the management, control 
and use thereof, and as to the toll and fares to be received and charged for passing the same-such by-laws, rules and regulations and tariff of tolls and fares and every amendment or reenactment thereof, to be subject to the approval of the governor in council.
In 1915 an act known as 5 George V, chapter 50, entitled "an act respecting the Ottawa and New York Railway Company" was passed by the parliament of Canada, authorizing such company to lease its undertaking to the New York Central Railway Company, and authorizing the latter company during the currency of such lease, to exercise the powers and rights and be subject to the applications and be entitled to the immunities provided by Jthe act respecting the Ottawa and New York Railway Company, and in the Railway Act and in every act for the time being in force.
From this it follows that since the Ontario Pacific Railway Company had the right to plank the New York Central bridge for vehicular purposes, by the act above referred to, its lessee the New York Central Railway Company by the act of 1915 referred to herein, should have the like powers. It also follows that if the New York Central Company did not desire to plank the bridge itself, it could lease the bridge to some company and allow this company to do the planking. Some difficulty arose, however, because it was found that on the American side there was no similar act to the act of 1915 and to the act of 1884 authorizing the companies in which the railroad and bridge were vested to plank the same for vehicular purposes. So a bill was prepared by the New York Central solicitors and brought before congress. This bill has already passed the lower house and I have been advised that before long it will have passed the senate.
The people of eastern Ontario, and particularly those of my constituency and especially the town of Cornwall, are very much interested in the success of this bridge. For a number of years the Cornwall board of trade, as well as 'the chambers of commerce of two or three [DOT]large towns on the United States side of the river, have been promoting this project. If this bridge is planked for vehicular traffic, it will provide the only highway bridge across the St. Lawrence between the Victoria bridge at Montreal and lake Ontario, a distance of 190 miles. For 116 miles of this distance the St. Lawrence river forms the international boundary between Canada and the United States, and in 1929, 150,000 vehicles crossed the river by ferry. This project will, I think, commend itself because it will not be an expensive bridge as compared with the cost of

Bank Act
constructing a new one. The bridge is already there and the iplanking of it and the building of the approaches will be comparatively inexpensive. In the Canadian section this will furnish work for 75 to 100 men for a period of four or five months.
Without going any further into the details, if the house will allow the bill to pass its second reading, I shall move that it be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines so that gentlemen who are interested in the bridge may come before that committee and explain every detail.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Was this bill, or a
similar one, before the house a year or two ago?


Frank Thomas Shaver: This bill has not previously been before the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 16, to amend the Bank Act.
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put, I should just like to point out that in the votes and proceedings there is a recommendation of the select standing committee on banking and commerce that this bill be not proceeded with. I have just heard in an unofficial way that the action of that committee was based on a feeling on the part of certain members that they should not proceed to inquire at any length into this matter this session because the Bank Act was to be amended next year and that this matter might very well be left over until then. I think conditions throughout Canada at the present time are such that action in connection with this particular matter should not be left over until next year. One of the great difficulties with which people are faced to-day is paying any rate of interest. I believe there never was more need in Canada than at the present time for limiting the rate of interest which can be charged. I think it was the wish of the house when this bill received its second reading that it should be carefully considered in all its phases and the merits of the question carefully gone into by the committee, and as I am not sure that that has been done by the committee I beg to move in amendment:
That the house do not now go into committee of the whole on Bill No. 16, but that the said bill be referred back to the select standing
committee on banking and commerce for further consideration with respect to limiting the interest charges to seven per cent on bank loans.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: The amendment which has just been moved by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) should, for various reasons, meet the wishes of a great many members of this house. First of all, when this bill appeared before the banking and commerce committee the other day the committee was not at all well represented. It is true that three or four members of the committee had to leave to attend other committees on which they were sitting, but when the vote took place in the banking and commerce committee only fourteen out of a total membership of fifty voted, which shows how very few members of the committee were present.
The usual quorum of the committee is fifteen, but a week ago it was cut down to ten. Personally I think that that was a great mistake. I believe that many of the members thought it was necessary to reduce the quorum because otherwise we might not be able to get a quorum on Mondays and Fridays. But the meeting which was held the other day when this bill was considered was not held on a Monday or a Friday, and therefore the members of the committee had ample opportunity to be present except those few who happened to be working on other committees at the time. I say therefore, first of all, that the bill was not properly considered by a sufficient number of members of the committee, only fourteen taking part in the actual vote.
Secondly, the only argument that I have heard advanced as to why we should not go on with the bill is that the Bank Act will be coming up for revision in 1933, and it would therefore be advisable to leave the matter over for another year. I contend that that was not a wise suggestion at all. I support the hon. member for Macleod in his statement that there is altogether too much unrest in this country over the excessive interest rates that are charged by the banks, and the bill should have been proceeded with. In that connection an excellent precedent was set by the government of the day only last year, when by order in council they did interfere with the Bank Act even though it is coming up for revision in 1933. I have before me order in council P.C. 2693 which was passed on October 27, 1931, and which says in part:
Whereas the chartered banks are required, under the provisions of the Bank Act, to show investment securities in their monthly and annual financial statements at not in excess of market values;
Bank Act

That provision was altered by order in council and the following provision is being acted upon to-day, or at all events was acted upon until the first of March of this year:
1.	That for the purpose of the return provided under section 112 of the Bank Act and schedule "G" thereto, and the annual report as directed by section fifty-three of the same act, the chartered banks of Canada shall, until this order is amended or rescinded, value the securities ovraed prior to the 31st day of August, 1931, at not more than the book value, or the current market prices thereof on the exchanges at the close of business on the 31st day of August. 1931, whichever may be the less, and the securities acquired since the 31st day of August, 1931, at not more than the cost price thereof.
2.	This order shall come into force and effect on the 26th day of October, 1931, shall apply to the returns of the chartered banks as from September 30, 1931, and shall continue in full force and effect until the 1st day of March, 1932, unless sooner amended or rescinded by competent authority.
That order, it will be observed, came into operation on the 26t.h day of October, 1931, and no suggestion was then made, or if it was made it was not acted upon, that because the Bank Act would be revised in 1933 nothing in the meantime should be done. I say therefore, Mr. Speaker, that if this very important change can be made in the Bank Act by order in council in spite of the fact that the Bank Act is to be revised next year, it would be perfectly in order at this time to insert in the act a clause providing a penalty if the banks of this country charge more than the legal rate called for.
It is well to remember also that we are working under a federal act, not under a series of provincial acts, and when the act says that seven per cent is the maximum that shall be charged it means that that shall apply in every province, not simply in two or three provinces. But we know full well that different rates of interest are being charged in different provinces on exactly the same sort of business. The people of western Canada are particularly indignant about that; we consider it a very unfair way of getting around the Bank Act, and discriminatory against one particular part of Canada.
The banks may say that they cannot carry on if they are not allowed to charge these rates. I would point out that of all the businesses in Canada that I can read about the only one that seems to be able to pay regular dividends on its shares is the banking business. I have before me a statement showing the rate of dividends declared by the chartered banks of Canada as shown in their

returns for the month of December, 1931, as
follows:
Per
cent
Bank of Montreal	 12
Bank of Nova Scotia	 16
Bank of Toronto	 12
Banque Provinciale du Canada..	..	9
Canadian Bank of Commerce	 12
Royal Bank of Canada	 12
Dominion Bank	 12
Banque Canadienne Nationale	 10
Imperial Bank of Canada	 12
There is not another business in Canada which in these difficult times can make as good a showing as the banks, as indicated by the figures I have just quoted. The banks must be making considerable profits, and therefore the excuse that these high interest rates have to be charged if the banks are to carry on is not supported by the facts.
To show that what I am advocating is supported not only in the province of Alberta but in the province of Manitoba also, I wish to quote from a resolution passed at the last convention of the United Farmers of Manitoba :
Resolved that we, the United Farmers of Manitoba, favour the inclusion in the Canada Bank Act of the penalty of $5,000 for any infringement of the clause whereby the legai rate of interest is seven per cent.
From time to time we have heard in this house a good deal concerning the advisability of those interested in agriculture carrying on mixed farming. I understand certain bank presidents have made this suggestion. May I put on record two short letters respecting the treatment some of those people who have gone into mixed farming are receiving. One letter from Wilhelm Brothers, dated at Swift Current, Saskatchewan, July 8, 1931, which they are perfectly willing should be read, is as follows:
It might be interesting to know how some of the banks are assisting, the farmers out of diversified farming. We own and operate a fair size farm consisting of 25 quarters of very good land and complete equipment, a 60 cow dairy and liog ranch.
Our dairy has paid most of the running expenses so far this year and we expect the dairy and hogs to pay all expenses and any money due this year leaving 1,800 acres of very good crop to the good.
On February 7 last we gave a note to the Royal Bank of Canada due April 15. On due date we found it impossible to get $500, consequently asked the bank if they would renew this note until fall or until August 15 when we expected to market a ear of hogs.
The Bank manager, Mr. Lancaster, refused flatly and demanded immediate payment.
On June 17 the Royal bank issued a writ against us. In order to raise money to ward off judgment we were compelled to sacrifice our herd of 40 brood sows. We spent several years

Bank Act
developing this herd and they were as good as can be found in Saskatchewan, but being our only source of immediate revenue they had to go. This will put us out of the hog business for at least a year.
Use this as you see fit. We would appreciate, seeing these facts in the Western Producer, or any other farm papers.
Although I have a great many more such letters before me, I shall refer to only one more. This comes from the secretary of the Saskatchewan section of the United Farmers of Canada:
I have obtained the enclosed statement from one of our members. I think if you will study this statement and affidavit you will find that we have at least one concrete case of the unreasonableness of the bankers. I believe the documents are self-explanatory. This man was fortunate in that he was able to borrow his financial statement from the banker. He brought it to my office and we made copies of it. It is very plain and can easily be understood.
We here have a farmer who shows a surplus of $30,348, and whose chattels are absolutely clear. Pie owed the bank $475. He went to the bank to pay up some of his indebtedness but was wise enough to ask the question, before he handed over the money, as to whether or not the bank would advance him $200 wherewith to carry on the balance of the year. You will note that his request was refused and that he kept the money and has now been threatened with suit. I am in hopes that this information will be of some use to you.
I put these two letters on record because they are similar to a great many we are receiving. Instead of the banks fighting a bill such as mine, they should be perfectly willing to keep within the letter of the law so far as seven per cent interest is concerned, but they charge a higher rate, if they can get away with it. I think the recommendation of the banking and commerce committee that this matter should not be considered for another year, was not in the best interests of this country. Therefore I am in entire agreement with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Macleod, to the effect that this bill be referred back to the committee on banking and commerce for further consideration.


Mr. R. C. MATTHEWS (Toronto East Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the banking and commerce committee I feel I should say a few words concerning the bill brought before it. It was discussed in committee a few days ago for a period of more than an hour and a half. The hon. member who has just taken his seat spoke in committee at least a half a dozen times; there was no limit whatever to the discussion. Representatives of Canadian banks were prepared to give evidence, but when the suggestion was made that they should take the stand, objection was taken to hearing them.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Would the hon. member tell why objection was taken?


Robert Charles Matthews: Objection seemed to be taken because there were not men from the west to give such evidence as-


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I should like to point out to the hon. member that objection was not taken to the bankers giving evidence at all. It was pointed out by other members of the committee that if the bankers were permitted to come there and testify, they reserved the right to call debtors of the banks as well.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Charles Matthews: Objection seemed to be raised because customers of banks in western Canada were not present to lay their side of the case before the committee. Such evidence as has been given to-night was not presented to the committee. I am here to state however that every hon. member of the committee had an opportunity to speak. Full opportunity was given for discussion. Then the question was asked as to whether or not the bankers should be heard, and among other gentlemen the hon. member who has just spoken was one who requested that the banks be not heard. A vote was taken-


Henry Elvins Spencer: Only on condition.


Robert Charles Matthews: The vote stood ten to five. The hon. member for Battle River requested that the vote be recorded and accordingly the names were called, each member answering his name. There was no suggestion in the committee by anyone that the discussion wras in any way curtailed, that it was unfair or incomplete. Therefore I am surprised that the hon. member for Battle River has seen fit to speak in such terms to this question to-night. At least I do not think his attitude is very sportsmanlike.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, it may be that the votes recorded in the banking and commerce committee were but a scant fifteen. Hon. gentlemen will recall, however, that shortly before the vote was taken a system which prevails in the house was followed in that at least to some extent pairing took place. For instance, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) and I who unfortunately were not on the same side of the argument, left the committee room together. The argument put forward in committee by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) was not the one he has made this evening. At that time he said the banks were in breach of the law, when taking more
Bank Act

than seven -per cent on loaned money and that it behooved institutions to respect the law, even though they happened to be possessed of a large quantity of this world's goods. That argument was developed. Hon. members attempted to show it was very improper that banks should be allowed to disrespect the law, when individuals were held to strict accountability for their actions.
It was pointed out that the clause of the Bank Act relating to interest is in the following terms:
The bank may stipulate for, take, reserve or exact any rate of interest or discount not exceeding seven per cent per annum, and may receive and take in advance any such rate, but no higher rate of interest shall be recoverable by the bank.
That is, a bank may legally charge any rate of interest it sees fit to charge which is not usurious within the meaning of our statutes; but it may not recover before the courts any rate of interest which is in excess of seven per cent. Transactions of this character are not restricted to those coming within the Bank Act; there is a whole category of transactions in which men engage from day to day, in which large sums of money change hands, but which are not enforceable before the courts. If a bank lends money for ten per cent it may not go before the courts and enforce collection, because in so far as enforcing collection is concerned the banks are restricted to seven per cent; and if a gentleman having engaged to pay ten per cent, refuses to pay more than seven per cent, he cannot be coerced into paying the higher rate. As I said in the committee, that may be one reason w'hy interest is collected in advance.
Coming to the merits of the bill, Mr. Speaker, most commodities have a price, a price which fluctuates, and money is one of them. I can assure the hon. gentleman from Battle River (Mr. Spencer) that there are very few members who do not wish that money did not cost as much as it does to-day, just as there are many members who wish that wheat and butter cost more than they do to-day; but prices fluctuate from causes over which men cannot at all times exercise control, and unless the hon. gentleman is willing to go to the length of enacting legislation to coerce and conscript capital, I doubt if this bill will bring to his constituents the measure of relief which he is seeking for them. It will merely mean that people will not get money if money is worth more than seven per cent-unless they are dealing with a philanthropic society; money will go where it can get its price and it will not be loaned or

sold for less than the market price. That is a truism.
I mentioned the other day in the committee that the provisions of this bill, while possibly new to this house, did not contain an idea that is entirely novel. It has been incorporated into the banking laws of several New England states, where I know that it is just about as effective as is the eighteenth amendment to the American Constitution. There are ways around it. When money is worth more than six per cent, which is the legal rate in Vermont, for instance, where it is not competent to a national bank to lend money at a higher rate of interest, methods are devised to defeat the	law-commissions,	gratuities,
arrangements for insurance, and so on, all of which result inevitably in the borrower paying the current rate of interest. Some 3'ears ago-and this is entirely by the way [DOT]-I attended a prosecution of a bank manager in Vermont, who it was proven had loaned money at a rate of interest in excess of that fixed by the statute; he was liable to a penalty similar, although not identical in amount, to that suggested by the member for Battle River. The ways of juries are strange, I will admit: the facts were clearly proven, but the jury refused to find the accused guilty, simply because the borrower had, of his own free will, stipulated to pay seven per cent when money was worth seven per cent.
The hon. gentleman from Battle River has told us that banks are the only institutions which have not reduced their dividends. That is true, but only technically so. They have not in most instances reduced their dividends, but they have reduced their payments to their shareholders. I am sure that the hon. gentleman knows that our chartered banks have for many years paid to their shareholders, two, three and four per cent in excess of dividends by way of bonuses, these amounts have been paid regularly and have been relied upon by the recipients as part of their revenue. I assume he knows, as I do, that in almost all instances these bonuses have ceased to accrue. So in fact banks, like other institutions in the country, have been confronted with reduced earnings.
Wc saw the other day that the province of Alberta negotiated a loan. We know that it is a rich province, we know that its credit is good, yet its six per cent bonds were sold on a basis of six and a half per cent, and probably they cost the province, taking into consideration the incidental cost of financing, between six and a half and seven per cent.

Bank Act
It may be said that that circumstance can be turned against the banks, and it may be a reason to conscript wealth. But it is an incontrovertible argument, I think, against the proposed legislation contained in this bill, because it shows that, regardless of credit, money has its fixed price, and that that price must be paid by those who would enjoy its use at this time. The important point, I think, is to make it clear that whatever may be said for or against the banks, they have carried on their business and are carrying it on legally. I submit that as a matter of business my hon. friend from Battle River has given the very best reason for money being high in the part of the world to which he refers. Interest rates depend to some extent upon the solvency and the liquid state of the assets of the debtor. When the debtor is in difficult circumstances; when he has no security and cannot pay, the hazard is greater and of necessity the rate is higher. My hon. friend told us of an unfortunate farmer who could not pay, whose stock was seized and who was sold out. That is unfortunate, but is that not the law in its common application to everyone, whether he be big or small, who cannot pay an obligation to which he has committed himself?
I am opposed to the amendment because I do not think it will yield the hon. member for Battle River and his constituents the assistance which he is seeking for them.


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



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of the Prime Minister that Mr. COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
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.
Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact
that I am a layman the house will be surprised at my venturing into the realm of legalities. I wonder at the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). I always looked upon him as being a wizard among the great lights of the legal world. However, since taking my seat in this house I have often thought we have had to listen to more trash in the way of legal technicalities than I have heard during all my previous life. The resolution reads:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931. striking out the word "March" m section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor.
Section 8 of the act reads:
This act shall expire on the 1st day of March, 1932.
The first point I wish to make is, I am not dealing with legal technicalities, but sojourning in the field of common sense. Here we are discussing on March 15, the question of amending this act. One grain of common sense should tell us that this act is just as dead and defunct as is Mother Shipton, with whom my right hon. friend is so pleased to converse, and who, I am sure, must have expired one hundred years ago. Why should we discuss an act of this kind? Is it not reasonable to request the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to withdraw this legislation in order that we may discuss something into which we can instil life? The resolution upon which this act was based reads:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to confer certain powers upon the governor in council in respect to unemployment and farm relief; and for the maintenance of peace, order and good government in all parts of Canada; and to authorize the governor in council to expend for the said purposes out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums as may from time to time be necessary.
What is the meaning of that resolution upon which the act was based? Does it not mean that the government asked for authority to be allowed to ride roughshod over the constitutional rights o-f parliament and to do anything which the most abandoned citizen of this country might feel inclined to do? I do not say that the government will do that, but
[.Mr. MacLaren.]
the power is there. I will discuss this phase of the matter later on, but I ask the house to realize that this is March 15, fifteen days after the act expired. I ask the right hon. gentleman to bear in mind the warning given by Julius Caesar-Beware the ides of March.
This legislation is but the logical sequence of the record of this government since it obtained office on August 8, 1930. During the election campaign the Prime Minister promised that he would end unemployment by federal means. He referred to the members of the King cabinet as "this group of mercenaries holding office by sham and subterfuge. Look upon them as treacherous to you; self-confessed, deserving of your passionate condemnation;" hurl them from place and power and select the great I Am who will lead you into the promised land and do that which ought to be done for the welfare of this country. That was the promise he made during the elections. That promise was implemented when in September, 1930, he called the special session of parliament presumably for the purpose of ending unemployment by federal means. In about as little time as it takes to tell, he scrapped the whole theory of ending unemployment by federal means, sought a vote of 820,000,000 for the purpose and saddled over three-quarters of the cost upon the provinces and municipalities of this dominion. What else did he do? His first expression on the floor of parliament as Prime Minister of Canada was "that in so far as possible the requirements of the ten millions of Canadian people must be produced at home," thereby showing at once that he and his government did not wish to encourage the importation of any lino of goods which could be produced in this country, thus drying up the stream of trade and paralyzing our greatest industry, that of agriculture.
His next act in amplification of this course was to jack up the Canadian tariff against the importation of British goods almost to the prohibitive point, practically wiping out the British preference before he and his colleagues ever went to the Imperial conference, thereby ejecting British goods at the toe of the boot from Canadian markets which they had en-joj'ed for a lifetime.
His third act was to pass some of the most unreasonable customs and tariff legislation ever forced through the parliament of any country, and he did this under the threat that until all this legislation to which I have referred, was passed, he would refuse to leave Ottawa to go to the Imperial conference. It is well known that every member of the house wished the Prime Minister to perform his

Unemployment Continuance Act
duty at the Imperial .conference in London, and we allowed these acts to pass without sufficient analysis or discussion. The Prime Minister with his colleagues went to the Imperial conference, leaving us with a lavish promise that there would be free and open discussion at the next session of parliament.
The next session commenced on the 12th day of March, 1931. Every representative came to Ottawa with the idea of hearing something of what should be done to cure unemployment in Canada, because we know at that time it was worse than it had been since he assumed the reins of power. As I say, the house assembled on the 12th day of March. On March 20 the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) rose in his place and asked the ministry if any special measures were contemplated to cope with the unemployment situation. There was no answer from any member of the cabinet. On March 23 the hon. member for Ivenora-Rainy (River (Mr. Heenan) rose in his place and asked what the government intended to do with regard to unemployment in his constituency. There was still no answer. The Prime Minister said that the question could stand. On March 31 the hon. member for North Winnipeg rose and moved the adjournment of the house, but his motion was ruled out of order. On April 17 the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River again brought the question before the house, and failing to get a satisfactory answer from the government, he moved the adjournment of the house, but the motion was defeated. This was the manner in which we were allowed a full discussion of the problem of unemployment.
On April 24, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) asked whether the government intended to call a dominion unemployment conference. The Prime Minister replied:
The hon. member will be advised when the event happens, if it does happen.
On May 25 the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) directed the attention of the government, and particularly the acting Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) to the desperate condition existing in the city of Nanaimo over the matter of unemployment, and urged the government to deal with the situation immediately. The minister said that the matter was purely a provincial one, and this in face of the fact that during the election campaign., as I have said, the Prime Minister had stated here and there throughout Canada that this had become a national problem and we should deal with it in a national way.
On May 26, on the motion to go into committee of supply, the hon. member for Comox-41701-73
Alberni discussed the urgent necessity of holding a conference. A lengthy debate followed, but not a word was uttered by any member of the government. On June 8 the hon. member for Comox-Alberni brought the matter once more to the attention of the government, but the Deputy Speaker ruled him out of order. On June 29 the hon. member for Kenora Rainy River again brought up the matter and the Prime Minister replied;
At an appropriate time a statement will be made. . . . The primary duty with respect to unemployment does not rest with the federal government.
That shows the way in which he scrapped the theory which he had announced to the electorate of Canada during the whole period of his election campaign, of ending unemployment by federal means.
On June 30, the hon. .member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) directed attention to the appalling situation in Saskatchewan, and the Prime Minister replied:
The primary responsibility . . . rests with the municipal authorities and the province.
This is the manner in which the government continued until July 29 when legislation was introduced. The Prime Minister then said:
What alone concerns us is that many of our people are now in want, and unless extraordinary measures are taken many more will know hardship' and privation in the coming months of winter. Knowing this it becomes our solemn duty to aid them. In the short session of parliament last September and in the one now drawing to a close this government did all within its power to strengthen our economic structure and to repulse the wave of worldwide economic depression which was then upon us.
I would say that the effect of all his work has rather been to plunge this country into the most desperate economic and unemployment condition which exists to-day. I can tell the Prime Minister that in my section of Ontario there is a decided feeling of scarcely *concealable unrest and dissatisfaction over the. way in which the government has been administering the affairs of this country, mors particularly along economic and unemployment lines.
On a recent occasion when I visited my own home I met one of the most prominent citizens, a lifelong Conservative, but a man of sterling integrity. He had represented his township at the county council for many years. His first expression was: "What are you fellows doing down there at Ottawa?" Of course, I explained to him that we were tied hand and foot, that we of the Liberal party could do nothing, that we had a Prime



Unemployment Continuance Act
Minister who was acting in an autocratic manner, and that although he had surrounding him a cabinet of ministers who ought to be good men, yet they seemed to act as though they were minions at his feet. My friend would not allow me to say another word. "Mac," he said, "you know what I have always been in politics, and I can tell you that if we only had an opportunity to cast our ballots the government would wonder where their support had gone in my section of the country."
I speak the mind, I believe, of every member of this chamber when I say that we assembled here on the 4th of February with the intention of helping to discharge the business of this house with all reasonable despatch. That was proved to be the intention at least on this side of the house by the fact that we passed the address in reply in less than two days, first because there was nothing in the speech from the throne, and secondly because we did not want in any way to hold up the business of the house. From that time to this unemployment has repeatedly struck the House of Commons.
As I say, the resolution which I have read and which forms the basis of the bill to be enacted, gives the government power to ride roughshod over the constitutional rights of parliament and to do anything which they may be disposed to do without asking the members of the House of Commons anything about it whatever. It is simply trampling under foot the very first principle of constitutional government, namely government of the people, by the people and for the people. The only reason why the people themselves do not all come down here-for we are living in a free democracy-to help carry out the work of legislation is that it is not practical for them to do so; therefore they have chosen the members of this house as their representatives to act for them in this parliament. But by enacting this legislation the government practically says to the members of this house:	You had better go home,
because you are of no use here.
I hold in my hand the estimates for the present fiscal year. The action which this government is inclined to take in passing this legislation is such that they might just as well present the estimates in a bulk sum and say to us: Here is a total of some $356,000,000 of estimates. Pass them at one gulp. If you do not do it, it does not make any difference, because we will pass them anyway. Under this legislation, Mr. Speaker, the government if they were so inclined could change these estimates at any time. That is the sum and

substance of the legislation which this government is asking the house to pass. What are we here for? Is it not to use our best judgment in helping to legislate for the good of this country? Or are we here simply as puppets to bow and scrape at the nod and beck of the grasping, self-willed, autocratic, dictatorial power which now exercises sway over this House of Commons? I would ask the government to realize that all despotism is bad, but the worst kind of despotism is that which is exercised with the machinery of freedom.	I would ask you, Mr. Speaker,
and through you the members of this house, to realize that we have recently emerged from the greatest conflict of the ages, and this world is groaning with the financial burden as a result thereof. I am reminded of the words of Lord Byron, who in his ode to Napoleon Bonaparte at the close of the Napoleonic wars, said:
Then haste thee to thy sullen isle,
And gaze upon the sea;
That element may meet thy smile-
It ne'er was ruled by thee!
Or trace with thine all idle hand In loitering mood upon the sand That earth is now so free!
But, Mr. Speaker, subsequent events have proved that after all this world was not so free as some of the historians of that day evidently thought it was, because after the lapse of another hundred years we have recently emerged from the greatest conflict of the ages. What was the cause of that conflict? It was caused by the prosecution of the doctrine that the freedom and liberty and humanity of the subject is a matter of no concern, that the people are simply the serfs and chattels of the state, and that the state and high command should be all supreme. That is the doctrine against which we fought for four long years, and we know well that we should now be under the yoke of autocracy and despotism had the allied powers not gained the victory. Yet in imitation of the kaiser himself, in the guise of a dictator, we have the government through the medium of this bill laying down the law of autocracy when it in effect says that the representatives of the people here assembled are of no more account, that they are no more needed, than a herd of dumb, driven cattle; that in effect they should be silenced and told to go home because their services are no longer needed here.
This is the most vicious legislation, Mr. Speaker, of which I can conceive. I am surprised at the attitude of tmy hon. friends apposite, and more particularly of my good friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MARCH 15, 1932
Unemployment Continuance Act
Ryckman) who sits in his place smiling, and who has an absolute disregard for the rights and privileges of a free people. I am led to that conclusion after the manner in which he has discharged his duties since the short session of parliament in September, 1930. He knows that because of legislation for which he is responsible the stability of business has been destroyed to such a degree that every prospective trader is afraid to launch out and do business because he may never know the valuation upon which he will have to pay duty. Common sense should tell us that the valuation which should be put on goods imported into this country is the reasonable price paid for them. Yet under the legislation to which I have referred power can. be given to the Minister of National Revenue to set whatever valuation he may wish, without any reference whatever to the purchase price, and whenever he feels inclined to do it.
That is the sort of legislation to which we are opposed, and which we will not suffer. That is the type of legislation which is placing the people of Canada in a restive condition, and is making them wonder how long such a condition will continue. Legislation such as that is something against which every fibre of my nature rebels. What does it mean? It means that under the measure which the government now seeks to pass, and which has been in existence since August 3 last, any man may be deprived of his home, separated from his family, thrown into prison, his property confiscated-all those things without a fair trial at the hands of his peers. For my part, Mr. Speaker, I have no desire whatever to impede the business of the house, but concerning an autocratic measure such as this I would be disposed to stay here as long as possible to' uphold the rights of the people and perform the duties allocated to me by my constituents.
The Prime. Minister talks about preserving untarnished the dignity of the high position he has been permitted to fill. By his attitude he has grovelled in the dust and exposed to public view, those who are near and dear to him, whereas if he had only considered the source whence such scurrilous attacks had come, and let that fact be sufficient for its own condemnation, I am certain he would have had the approval of every right thinking person in Canada,. AVhere do we find him to-day? By his prosecution of this vicious legislation he is doing more than words can. express to dishonour the high position he is now allowed to adorn. Does he not know it is just such legislation as the government is mow trying to put through the house that 41761-73i
in days gone by caused the heads of kings to be toppled into waste baskets?
0	wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!
1	feel like making a further quotation from the works of the same national poet:
But mousie, thou art no thy lane
In proving foresight may be vain;
The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!
I appeal to the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet, I appeal to the Minister of Justice to withdraw this legislation. If they will present a reasonable supply bill in a constitutional way we will pass it at once. If they will proceed in a proper constitutional manner we are willing to help them. I have reviewed the discussions of last session on the legislation then put into force which took from parliament matters which should be under the exclusive control of that body. That legislation established a virtual dictatorship, violated the basic principle of the control of parliament over national expenditures, and was more sweeping and far-reaching than the war measures introduced by Sir Robert Borden. As has been so often said by hon. members on this side, during the whole period of the war Sir Robert Borden never ventured to do anything in the autocratic and despotic manner now being followed by this government.
I need not review all the measures they have been enacting; we have heard about them time and again. However I ask the government to realize that they are pursuing a doctrine which, if persisted in will destroy the liberty of Canadians, and one which is taking the power from the hands of parliament to do those things parliament should be allowed to do. Certainly parliament in session should not be deprived of such powers. Any time within the next two months this government would be at liberty to call upon parliament to pass a supply bill, and there is no doubt that any reasonable legislation presented in a constitutional manner would be passed without delay. The more I think of it the more I think hon. members on this side of the house should uphold our principles to the bitter end. If there is a possibility of preventing the passage of the proposed legislation now before us, certainly we should at the present time take steps to that end.

Unemployment Continuance Act
I often wonder what kind of common clay members of the government think Liberals are made. Do they not know that we possess the same spirit by virtue of which in days gone by we fought autocracy and despotism and which made possible the enjoyment of our present freedom? The freedom enjoyed in Canada and throughout the world is due to the sacrifices of those who have gone before. As they have sacrificed for us, it is our duty to sacrifice for those who will follow us. It is the same spirit which courses through our veins that led that Scottish national poet to say:
If I'm design'd yon lordling's slave-
By Nature's law design'd-
Why was an independent wish E'er planted in my mind?
If not, why am I subject to His cruelty, or scorn?
Or why has man the will and pow'r To make his fellow mourn?
It is the same spirit which moved Robert Burns when in speaking of his native country, he said:
0 Scotia! my dear, my native soil!
For whom my warmest wish to Heaven is sent,
Long may thy hardy sons of rustic toil
Be blest with health, and peace, and sweet content!
And 0! may Heaven their simple lives prevent From luxury's contagion, weak and vile!
Then, how'er crowns and coronets be rent,
A virtuous populace may rise the while,
And stand a wall of fire around their much-lov'd isle.
It is the same spirit which coursed through his veins when he said:
0 Thou! who pour'd the patriotic tide,
That streame'd thro' Wallace's undaunted heart,
Who dar'd to, nobly, stem tyrannic pride,
Or nobly die, the second glorious part.
That is the spirit which actuates the members of the Liberal party in opposing the legislation now before the house.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Smith, Cumberland):: Order. The hon. member has
spoken forty minutes.


Mr. W. A. BEYNON (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some diffidence that I rise to address the house after the poetic eloquence of the member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan). I do not intend to devote any considerable time to a discussion of the constitutional question involved in this resolution, but rather to deal with the practical question of unemployment relief.
Last Friday evening the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) treated us to one of his characteristic speeches and dealt

at some length with the administration of relief in Saskatchewan. One of the first questions he propounded to this side of the house was: Why were the municipal organizations of the province not used for the purpose of the administration of relief? That question can be very easily answered. The municipal organization had been used before the relief commission was set up, but the results were so unsatisfactory that it was deemed advisable to make a change. The hon. gentleman stated that the municipal councils were wholly nonpolitical. Regardless of his statement, I say without fear of contradiction from the people of Saskatchewan that to a large extent that was not true. There were municipal councils that were wholly non-political, but they were few in 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. Another reason was that even where the municipal councils were non-political and did their utmost to administer relief-


Mr. TOTZKE:: Did the hon. member say
the municipal councils were political?


William Addison Beynon: Oh, yes.


Albert Frederick Totzke: What does he mean by that?
Mr.. BEYNON: The hon. gentleman heard me the first time.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Yes, but what does the hon. member mean by that?


An hon. MEMBER:: They were Grits.


William Addison Beynon: I do not think anyone coming from Saskatchewan seriously disputes it. In fact, I might just tell the house that for the last twenty-five years there was very little, if anything, in the province that had not had politics in it.


Walter Davy Cowan: On the wrong side.


William Addison Beynon: That is common knowledge in Saskatchewan and I can get confirmation of it from members not on this side of the house. Even when the municipal councils that were not political tried their utmost to administer the unemployment relief fairly, their efforts caused dissatisfaction for the reason that naturally the various municipal councils would not have the same 'basis on which to administer relief. Consequently one council would adminster relief more generously than another; a man living on this side of the road in one municipality would get more than his neighbour on the other side

Unemployment Continuance Act
of the road in another municipality. Therefore there was very great dissatisfaction. In those cases it was not the fault of the councils administering the relief, it was the fault of the system. Added to that was the fact that each councillor wanted to get the utmost for his division, which was quite natural, quite human; but that also led to great dissatisfaction, because the more energetic, the more forceful character got a greater share of the relief for his.division than others who were not so aggressive, and this of course caused great dissatisfaction. For all these reasons it was deemed advisable to set up an absolutely independent organization to administer this relief uniformly and equitably over the whole province. It is significant that the testimony from both sides of the house shows that the course taken was more than justified by the results.
Then the member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) and the ex-Minister of Agriculture devoted some attention to the personnel of the commission and the general manager and officers thereof. The member for Weyburn stated that all the relief officers were appointed by a political organizer. Naturally he does not know that of his own knowledge, but he draws that conclusion from certain facts that did come to his attention, and largely on one fact in particular, that he went into the office of the relief commission and one of the commissioners told him that they had the list and were going to appoint the relief officers at the next meeting. Being politically minded the hon. member naturally assumed that this was a list prepared by a Conservative organizer and handed in to the commission. That the commission had the list is true. At least I assume they did have such a list, because I do not think the commission should have attempted to appoint relief officers from the voters' list. Certainly some preliminary work would have to be done and was done. What is more, those men could not be compelled to accept the office; they had to be consulted and give their consent. This was done; in fact they signed an undertaking to carry on the work. After they were appointed they were given their instructions and advised how to carry on. So when the member for Weyburn says all these .men were appointed by a Tory organizer he is merely drawing a conclusion and not stating a fact of his own knowledge.


Mr. YOUNG:: Mr. Speaker, the fact I stated was that they were selected by a Conservative organizer. That is a fact.


William Addison Beynon: It is equally untrue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Addison Beynon: I may also inform the hon. member for Weyburn that one of those relief officers was recommended to the commission by the Hon. James G. Gardiner, ex-premier of Saskatchewan, and by a peculiar coincidence-perhaps it was anly an accident-he named a Liberal. Another officer, the relief officer of the municipality of Baildon, is the reeve of that municipality, which is down near my hon. friend's constituency of Weyburn. If my hon. friend goes to that municipality and tells that relief officer he is a Conservative, he had better take someone along to call an undertaker, because he will need one. There never was a man in the province of Saskatchewan more anti-Conservative than the relief officer of that municipality, and if any Tory organizer chose him for political purposes that organizer was simply crazy.
I have referred to two of these officers. I will tell my hon. friend further that I do not think one of the relief officers in Last Mountain is a Conservative, and I do not think there is even a Conservative on the committees in that municipality. Yet the hon. member comes here and says all these people were chosen by Conservative organizers.
Now I will say just a word as to the commission itself. Hon. members opposite were very careful not to criticize the personnel of the commission or adversely to criticize its functioning. I did not know the chairman of that commission, Mr. Henry Black of Regina, until he was appointed. He is a man of means; he is a busy man, but he has given a great deal of his time to the service of his country without remuneration, and naturally hon. gentlemen opposite hesitate to criticize very severely one who has rendered such wonderful service, and without playing politics at all. Mr. Yuill, another member of the commission, has been a lifelong Liberal. The ex-Minister of Agriculture described him as a sort of indifferent Liberal, but I say he has been a very consistent Liberal, and for some time his brother has been president of the liberal association of Saskatchewan. I will say this for Mr. Yuill, however, that in his capacity as commissioner he has forgotten politics, and he is the first Liberal I have ever found who could do that. Hon. gentlemen opposite dare not criticize that commission because the Liberal member of it would come out in the press and tell them, as he has told many people already, that he has never found a better, more non-political, more self-sacrificing or more devoted body of men.
Now I come to the general manager, and this was where the ex-Minister of Agriculture took a little slap at myself. He said this

Unemployment Continuance Act
gentleman organized the Conservative campaign in the constituency of Moose Jaw. That is very true; he did, and that is why I am here.


John Vallance: Is that much of a
recommendation?


William Addison Beynon: Just as much as it is for
the man who is responsible for my hon. friend being here. I will tell you this, that the people of Moose Jaw, regardless of their political affiliations, agree that that was the cleanest campaign ever staged in that constituency.
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; he had to go out among the unemployed and the needy and choose his staff and form his organization. He did that. An organization was built up, with inexperienced people, men and women taken off the streets, and in a very short time the organization was functioning. Indeed, people all over the country marvelled at the expedition with which that organization was built up and put in operation, and now it is functioning in as nearly a perfect manner as it is possible for a human organization to function. What was the. result? The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) could tell you the result; he has already told the house At page 1041 of Hansard, speaking of the Prime Minister, my hon. friend said:
He boasted the other night of the achievements of the Saskatchewan Relief Commission; he told us how efficient they were, how honourable and trustworthy, how impartially they had done their work. I agree with him. There is credit coming to that commission. From what I have seen they have functioned efficiently and impartially from the time they first began to function. No doubt if my hon. friend had so desired he could have set up a commission that would have played politics and would have tried to make political capital for himself and for his party out of the situation: but he did not do so, and we give him credit for it.
Does the ex-Minister of Agriculture expect me to apologize, after a man of that character has been appointed to be general manager of the commission, simply because he organized my campaign? My only regret is that I cannot take all the credit for having had that man appointed as head of the commission. Not only has the commission functioned efficiently and impartially, but there has not been even a suggestion of graft made

in connection with it, though it has handled millions of dollar's. I think this is one of the few times in the history of Canada that such an undertaking has been accomplished without some suggestion of graft or mismanagement.'
Then there is another feature. There never has been such an undertaking carried on at such small expense. I happened to be in Regina a few weeks before I came down here, and there I met a lady who is a very good supporter of the Liberal party. I was talking to her, and she referred to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). She said to me, in a very confidential tone of voice, "You know, he is our greatest expert on the cost of relief administration, and he tells us that you cannot administer reiief at a cost of less than 18 per cent." Of course he was talking of relief carried on under Liberal administration. The cost of administering this relief in Saskatchewan will be less than 4 per cent; as a matter of fact I think it will be less than 3J per cent. No such record has ever been made before, but the exMinister of Agriculture comes along and says, "I have not much to say about Mr. Daniel; he is a good man, but a Tory organizer."
Going a little further, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make just one more reference. The fame of this Saskatchewan Relief Commission has spread far and wide; letters come to its offices almost daily from all over the United States and other countries of the world, asking how the commission is operated and how it was set up, and inquiring as to the secret of its unprecedented efficiency. Such is the fame of the commission with which my hon. friends tried to find fault.
I want to refer further to the speech of the former Minister of Agriculture. At one point in this speech I began to get rather apprehensive; I thought that something had really happened of which I had not heard. He is reported on page 1060 of Hansard as having said:
Mr. Kendall, therefore, holds the key to the entire position. How has he used it?
A question like that naturally makes one a little apprehensive. He continued:
T will speak only of my own municipality and allow the house to come to its own conclusions.
It is a little hard for anyone living in Saskatchewan to know just how to find the municipality of the hon. gentleman. It might be in the electoral district of Assiniboia, it might be in Qu'Appelle, Melville or Kinders-ley; one is in danger of getting lost when

Unemployment Continuance Act
trying to find this itinerant parliamentarian and gypsy politician. However, if one follows his trail he will find where the covered wagon is parked, and most likely that will prove to be the former minister's political home for the time being. That may be where his municipality is, but I do not know.
After the ex-minister told us of what had been done in his own municipality, we on this side began to feel a little nervous. I will read on and see what this dastardly thing was in connection with which he asked the house to come to its own conclusion. He said:
There were ten relief officers there, one being paid and nine non-paid. The paid officer is Mr. J. R. Dinnin. If the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) is here,-
I began to get frightened right there.
-he knows that you cannot get a more respectable citizen than Mr. Dinnin. As it happens, he was my Conservative opponent in 1925.
The former minister continued:
I will guarantee that he will discharge his duties as squarely as he knows how.
I began to feel a little relieved, and then I began to think that he could not be giving all this commendation unless there was something desperate to follow. He continued:
Then you have three of them. Of the other seven, six are Conservative.
I began to wonder what was coming next. He said:
I have not a word to say against them,-
That struck me as being rather peculiar. I thought perhaps if he had not a word to say against any one individual he would have something to say against them collectively, but here is what he said:
-but they are no good to me in election time,-
That is the thing which he left to this house to be judged. The minister of elections is running true to form.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Finish that sentence.


William Addison Beynon: He said:
-although they are a lot of good to the other fellow.


John Vallance: That is the reason why they are there.


William Addison Beynon: Then he went on to try to make out that a deal had been put over on the Liberals. He said that a Liberal had been appointed here and there to act as a scapegoat, so that if any blame was to be put upon the commission it could be saddled on the poor Liberals.	I think his
own fellow members have answered this. The hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher), and the hon. member for Weybum have said that no scapegoat is necessary, that no fault can be placed on anyone. The former minister continues:
They have appointed a body that is actually worse than if it were one hundred per cent Tory,-
If there were Liberals on it, of course that would be true. It is sometimes necessary to sacrifice efficiency in order to be fair. Wherever a Liberal was appointed, an extra good Tory was placed alongside him and the thing worked out very nicely.
That is the whole sum and substance of the criticism by the former Minister of Agriculture of this commission. His whole cry is that Mr. Daniel was a Conservative organizer, If there is a job to do and there is a qualified man available-the former minister says himself he was an efficient organizer-one does not stop to question the man as to his politics, his race or his creed. That is exactly what we did in the formation of this relief commission in Saskatchewan, and the fact that hon. members on the other side have stood up and given it, a clear bill of health is the best evidence of what we have accomplished.
The former minister then devoted a little time to another gentleman, Mr. P. H. Gordon, K.C., of Regina. I happen to know Mr. Gordon, he has practised law in Regina for a great many years, having commenced as a young man. He has worked up to the top of his profession and there is no citizen in Regina more highly respected than Mr. Gordon. He is a gentleman who stands high in his profession and in the community, and has devoted himself to the public service in all branches of community work. He was asked to assist in the supervising of this commission. There was no remuneration attached to the position and he was a very busy man, in fact, no lawyer in Regina has more cases in the courts of appeal or. in the trial courts than Mr. Gordon. He told me that this work takes up about nine-tenths of his time, and all the thanks he gets is to have the former Minister of Agriculture come here and throw out insidious insinuations, veiled inferences and subtle innuendos. How can we expect the people of this country to come out and render public service if this is the treatment they are to get from an ex-minister of the crown, a man who should stand up for all that is best in this country and have some regard for those who are trying to render service in a time of crisis?

Unemployment Continuance Act
He then said that the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) should have resigned rather than to allow his estimates to be cut. The former minister has made a great contribution to agriculture. The following report appeared in The Leader-Post of Regina, on October 19:
That a fresh foundation had to he laid for agriculture in Canada both east and west if the country and towns are to be saved, was the statement made Saturday morning by Hon. W. R. Motherwell, of Abernethy, Minister of Agri-cullture in the King administration.
The task ahead is beyond the lone efibrt of any individual or any government, according to Mr. Motherwell. He believes a royal commission can get at the facts, can find out how other countries have met the physical problems confronting Canadian agriculture to-day, and will have prestige enough to cause the country to take note of what has to be done.
He acted for thirteen years as provincial Minister of Agriculture and for nine years as federal minister, and yet he says that a new foundation has to be laid for agriculture and a royal commission should be appointed to find out the facts. I do not know anything about the facts, and if I did I have not the prestige to get the people to listen. The hon. member comes along and says to the Minister of Agriculture that he should have resigned rather than submit to a cut in his estimates. He looked over at the minister and said: I resigned once from the government and I stayed resigned until I got what I wanted. That is true. He did resign. As I watched his face the other evening, I just wondered whether he had seen the joke or whether he thought we had not. The fact is that he stayed resigned and when he handed in his resignation to the government, the government got what it wanted. Consequently, it withdrew the obnoxious measure, but held it in readiness lest the cat should come back. Ever since then the hon. member has been a little slow about resigning, and that perhaps accounts for the fact that he did not listen to the pleadings of his present leader when he wanted to use him as an instrument to redeem his long-forgotten pledge to reform the Senate.
There was one other matter to which the ex-minister referred, and I should like to mention it. He said that we on the back benches, along with the ministry, must share the responsibility of standing behind the Prime Minister, and he threatens us with political extinction, political death if we do not rise up and by our resignations compel the Prime Minister to take some other course than the one he has taken. Well, you know there are some leaders who need to be bullied in that
	.
way. Then there are others who are in a position where they do not need bullying. If there is some question as to whether the leadership should remain in Prince Albert, or be taken to Nova Scotia, or perhaps out to Vancouver, then a leader is very sensitive and responds very quickly to any threat of resignation. But if a leader has a good, substantial and loyal following; if he has personality and force of character, and if he outlines a policy that will apoeal to his followers, he has not very much to fear in going ahead and carrying it out; and even the admonitions from the other side are not likely to do him very much harm.
The hon. member wanted to know why we took promissory notes; and further, what authority we had for taking them. He said that the people of Canada had not urged this. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Leader-Post of February 18, 1932, and one would almost think it had been prepared by the hon. gentleman himself, because the body of it is so very far from the headline that it sounds quite Liberal:
Farmers deny Bennett statement they asked to sign relief notes.
That is the headline. Then it goes on:
There are scores of farmers receiving relief in the drought areas of Saskatchewan, who do not agree with the statement from Ottawa, quoting Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, Premier of Canada, as saying Wednesday that "the system under which drought sufferers in southern Saskatchewan who obtained government relief were required to sign promissory notes was adopted at the request of the beneficiaries themselves."	-
Just listen to this:
Two of many such are F. C. Parchman and J. H. Hicks, Lafleche,


An hon. MEMBER:: They found two.


William Addison Beynon: Yes, and they are down in the constituency of the hon. member for Willovy Bunch (Mr. Donnelly).
-who told the Leader-Post Thursday morning that they had not made any such suggestion, even to the municipal officials, when these officials started to organize for relief in June, 1031.
So there are two men in Saskatchewan who had not suggested that.
Both Mr. Hicks and Mr. Parchman said-
It is qualified here.
-they had no recollection of suggesting promissory notes in payment of relief-
Listen to what follows.
-but-
This sounds like the hon. member for La-belle (Mr. Bourassa).

Unemployment Continuance Act
*-but they agreed with the principle of repayment of an advance by promissory note. Both said they did not want to get anything for nothing, that they wanted to pay for what was advanced to them. They added that all the farmers they knew in their district were of the same opinion.
Yet this is quoted as purporting to deny what the Prime Minister said about this taking of notes being at the instance of the people themselves. That is the best story they could make out.
As to the right to take such notes, the exMinister of Agriculture) the other night held the act up and said: Where in this act is there any authority to take a lien note? Where in this act are there provisions for seed grain liens? He referred to the fact that he had consulted the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and that the latter had assured him there was no such provision in the act. Need it be stated to the house again that property and civil rights are entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces; that this relief is being given to the provinces; that the money is being sent out there and paid to those people through the provinces; that they have passed the legislation respecting seed grain liens, and that any man who pays money has, under the law of Canada, the right to get a promissory note if he wants one? Frankly, I think he was putting a little more than was right on the shoulders of the, ex-Minister of Justice, and from the aspersions of his colleague I would rescue the reputation of the ex-Minister of Justice.
There is only one other point with which I want to deal. A good deal has been said by the other side about the matter of cooperation. Whenever we mention that, they say: You do it in this way and we will cooperate. That is rather characteristic of the Liberal party; they believe they govern this country by divine right, and that they have a right to govern it whether they are in opposition or on this side of the house. Consequently, when they go over there they say: We will cooperate with you if you will govern the country in the way we tell you to, and on no other basis will we cooperate. In other words, they say: Whether we are on the government benches or in opposition we are going to be the government or there is going to be no cooperation and there is to be no passing of the business of the house in a reasonable time and in a reasonable way.
That is the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite. The people of Canada, and particularly of western Canada, are not going to forget the attitude of the opposition when they say: You have to put through this relief measure
in the way we tell you or it is not going through the house without a great deal of delay.


Mr. J. K. BLAIR (North Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat says that this side of the house believes in divine right. I am inclined to think that is true, but we believe in the divine right of vox populi, vox Dei-the voice of the people is the voice of God. We do believe in divine right, but we do not believe in the divine right of any individual.
The issue before us is an old one. It has arisen in every age and in every country. It is simply a matter of who shall control the treasury of Canada. We do not believe the representatives of the people should hand over control of the treasury to one individual. It is bad enough when the Conservative party as a whole has control of it, but it will be very bad if one individual has control. On this side of the house we are prepared immediately to vote to the government any reasonable sum they will suggest, but to give absolute control of the treasury so that he, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) can use that money when, where, how and as much as he wishes, is not Liberalism and is not in harmony with the British constitution. I cannot understand how any individual could ask for such power. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, a school section, a township, or any organized body of men saying to one individual: Here, you take charge of all these moneys that we vote, and spend them how, when, where and as much as you please. While the government has no doubt power to vote this legislation through the house, under the pretence of an emergency measure, we would not be true to ourselves or to the British constitution, to Canadian traditions or to the spirit of our fathers, we would indeed be traitors to the constituencies that sent us here and would write down our names in disgrace in Canadian history, if we allowed a measure of this kind to go through without lodging a strong protest. Often there has been observed in this country a tendency to remove control of expenditure from the people who pay the taxes. We find that same tendency in the school sections and in the townships and counties. We have noticed it in our home districts for years. I have always earmarked it as a Conservative tendency, and now I am sure that it is, because right at the summit, here in the federal capital, we find the Prime Minister asking that this domineering role of having complete control of the treasury be assigned over to him. He in effect simply
1162	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
says to us: You are only the representatives of the people; hand over the treasury to nay care.
It is a peculiar coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that we should just be passing the Ides of March. Caesar was a man of exceptional brain power, perhaps the brainiest man in Europe. So large was his brain that natural birth was impossible. He became dictator of Rome, and the politicians, suspecting that he would acquire complete control of the government, had him put to death on the 15th of March. The Roman governors were afraid that Caesar would get absolute control of the treasury, but Caesar perhaps had qualities to recommend him for such a high position. The temples were fdled with his statues; everywhere laurels were heaped upon him. He had won victory after victory. All nations were at his feet. He was put to death by his best political friends, not that they loved Caesar less, but they loved Rome more. But I do not think the present Prime Minister has won so many laurels. He was handed the gift of an election by the people, but that was something passive, not -active. There is a vast contrast between Caesar and the present Prime Minister. This attempt to take control of the expenditure away from the people has been made time and again in British history. The Stuart sovereigns wished to have control of the British treasury, and in consequence of the struggle that ensued one of the Stuart kings lost his life. We find the same thing coming up in connection with the family compact. We all remember the misery which it caused to the poorer classes of the people in this countiy, but after a long struggle the people in Canada, with the aid of the British government, got control of the treasury. We say, Mr. Speaker, that having gone through that struggle, history should not be repeated here to-day, but we are being asked now to hand control of the treasury over to one individual. No; we firmly believe in the principle that the people who pay the taxes should have absolute control. People should vote for their own pockets.
Speaking of the money that was appropriated for unemployment relief last session, I wonder if hon. gentlemen observed that out of every $100 spent, only $30 went to the labouring men. That just shows how leaks can occur in public expenditures. It would be interesting to know where the other seventy per cent went. The hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Beynon) spoke as if some of it went to some of the Liberals who had charge of administrating these funds in different

parts of the country. Certainly it did not look good to some of us that seventy per cent of the money should go to the white collars and only thirty per cent to the labouring men.


Mr. TURNBULL:: Is it not a fact that seventy per cent was spent largely for materials which in turn were the products of the labouring man?


John Knox Blair: I am not sure that seventy per cent went into materials, but no doubt a considerable part of it did. I understand that in British Columbia many of the materials and supplies are lying around and have never been used. I have it on good authority that a great many of the tools, for instance, were never used, but were given over to individuals. But no doubt some of the seventy per cent went into the purchase of supplies.
Speaking about wages, I would refer to the cut that was under discussion here in this house the other day. The general principle was not altogether right. The first suggestion was that there should be a horizontal cut of ten per cent in all civil service salaries. Then at the request of some hon. members that proposal was changed so that the smaller salaries were cut only five per cent. That principle should have been carried still further, so that those receiving salaries of fifteen or twenty thousand dollars should be subjected to a greater percentage of reduction than those drawing salaries or indemnities of four thousand dollars. I also believe that the mounted police and the naval and militia staffs should have received the same cut as the rest of the service, and that judges should have had their salaries cut just as much as members of parliament.
The Prime Minister in his attitude towards labour shows plainly that he does not understand the poorer classes. It may not be his fault. Perhaps he has not had any experience with them. To understand people you have to sit where they sat; you have to have had similar experiences. The Prime Minister and this government have a tendency to hand to the poor a bowl of soup or some food. There is too much of the attitude of "take that and go." What the government is doing to-day makes no provision for the future. It is an improvident way of looking after the unemployment situation. We do not think Canada can keep up this incessant giving. Of course we must necessarily feed those who are in need, but we should look to the future and take steps to obviate as much as we can a repetition of present conditions. In this country we are blessed with vast resources, and surely

Unemployment Continuance Act
the government is not so barren of constructive ideas that no provision can be made for giving the people continuous work. We have vast forests, mines and fisheries, and we should devote some attention to their development, rather than be content with handing out a dole, a policy which we all dislike.
The farmers in this country are being taxed almost to bankruptcy. The debts of the farmer could easily be reduced by lowering the price of the things he has to buy. Reducing the tariff would do that. His debts could also be reduced by increasing the prices of the things he has to sell. That could also be done by lowering the tariff. Another great help would be to reduce the interest rate on money. I think when the rate of interest was raised a fatal mistake was made. The high rate of interest was due to a wrong idea on the part of the Conservative governments, both federal and provincial. The fact that government loans were oversubscribed showed that the money could have been secured at a lower rate of interest. I am told that the last provincial loan carried a rate of six and one-half per cent. How can the farmer expect to get a mortgage if a man with money to invest can secure a government loan carrying a rate of six and one-half per cent? Where is the town man to get money to place a mortgage on his house? It will be practically impossible for the farmer, the labourer or the tradesman to pay that rate of interest for mortgages.
I believe rural Ontario should not be asked to care for the unemployed in the cities. Factory owners in large centres, such as the city of Toronto, are subsidized in times of prosperity by tariffs, and supported in times of adversity by direct taxation. The wealthy people in the city of Toronto should make provision for their own poor; that responsibility should not be left with the federal government. One measure which showed the disposition of this government, and which to my mind was a great mistake, was the heavy tax on overalls, children's clothing and baby carriages. I think the government in placing a tax on baby carriages showed a most contemptible spirit. It is unfortunate that the wealth}' men in Canada should want to extract a tax from children. Even school supplies are subjected to taxation. ,
Before the election the Prime Minister was very happy to state on many occasions what he was going to do. He was going to do this and he was going to do that. In Toronto some time ago, speaking about conditions in Canada, he said that nothing but the grace of God could save the country. Before the election he was going to save it, but it would seem
that after the election he is content to sublet his contract to the Deity. I do not know if the Deity will take up the contract; I should think the Prime Minister would have to carry on his own business. I am afraid he cannot expect the Deity to study the laws of economics so that his plans may be fulfilled. He has undertaken his task, and I think he will have to continue.
One remarkable feature about the present government is that although we are in the third session they have never acquired the use of the past tense. In the utterances of government members one may notice its absence. As hon. members opposite have been speaking I have sat in my place and jotted down the tenses they have used, and the remarkable fact is that they almost always use the future tense. A few days ago one of the ministers, it is true, during the course of his remarks used the past tense, but he qualified it by employing the subjunctive mood. Broadly speaking, however, the government have not been using the past indicative tense; they do not tell us of what has been done. When one measure fails they hold out great promises for the next; when the next one fails, we have promises of another, and so on. That is the way the people are led.
1 have to admit that they are making an effort to feed the people, but I do not think hon. members opposite will congratulate themselves on the fact that they are handing out doles. To my mind that constitutes an open declaration of weakness of the government. That doles should be handed out is an indication of the inefficiency of the government of our country. One thing after another undertaken by the government seems to be full of disappointment. The public expects help, and when they reach for it they find nothing but the apple of Sodom, which resolves itself to ashes in their hands. That has happened so repeatedly that in the minds of our people there has developed an element of distress and disappointment.
Hon. members will recall that the special session of 1930 was called with great dramatic effect. I have no doubt an attempt was made to impress upon the past government the fact that they had neglected their duty. The fact that a special session was necessary was advertised m all the papers and trumpeted far and wide. Now, however, at a time when unemployment is far worse, when people are starving, when thousands are unemployed, practically no legislation to relieve the situation is brought forward for the consideration of parliament. What are the great questions before us? First we were informed by the

Unemployment Continuance Act
Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) that somebody had paid somebody else's railway fare, and some distant Liberal had made a remark about it. We were not interested nor did we care who paid the railway fare. Next we had to consider the boundary line between Alberta and British Columbia. We did not care much about that boundary line. Next we had to consider juvenile delinquents, and then legislation concerning fish inspection, and then a change in the Patent Act.
In times of distress I cannot understand why we have been called here to blather about all this nonsense which has been lined up for us by the Minister of Justice. The matters I have mentioned are at this time of no interest to the people of Canada. What did we care about a trip to New York, or who paid the fare? What did we care about the juvenile delinquents or the boundary line between Alberta and British Columbia? Not one of those questions is of importance to the country as a whole. The great problems have been left unsolved, and have not been brought before us for discussion.
The government make so many mistakes that I sometimes feel they should hold post mortems on the enterprises in which they have failed. I am sure the government would derive some benefit if thes' adopted my suggestion, because when a patient dies and is examined by the doctor he is sure to find where the mistake was made. Whether or not the government were able to find their mistakes, I feel they would get the benefit of suggestions which might help them in the future. Members of the government must be very expert bridge players; they never hold post mortems. When they make failures, one after another, they go right ahead and try something new.
The government would have done well to give further consideration to its tariff changes. In that connection I should like to read an article which appeared in the Toronto Daily
Star:
Thirty nations in 1931 hit back at Canada for soaring tariffs. France and South Africa copied the anti-dumping measures passed by Canada against Great Britain when the mothei country went off the gold standard, imposing them against Canadian produce on the ground that the Canadian dollar was depreciated in the currencies of France and South Africa.
The question of trade has been discussed many times in this house. I remember on one occasion we were told by an hon. gentleman that trade is war, while the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) told us that trade is exchange. Last

year at Buenos Aires the Prince of Wales gave this definition of trade:
Failure to recognize trade as interchange.
and obstacles placed in the way of reciprocal trade are perhaps the main causes for the world's present troubles. The British people have the idea of. commerce running strong in their blood.
That speech was not made inadvisedly or thoughtlessly; no doubt it was the summary of the views of the leading British statesmen. When it comes to placing obstacles in the way of reciprocal trade, this government affords us a striking example in its policy towards Russia. I think we lost heavily by the government declining to have any further trade relations with the Russians. The glory of Britain and her sons is that they will trade with any country in the world, regardless of its religion; whether it be Turkey, China, the Fiji islands, it makes no difference to Britain whether her customers are Mohammedans, Confucians or cannibals, she never attempts to interfere with their domestic concerns.
I believe the time is not far distant when in our churches instead of praying "Help us to be subservient to those that rule over us," we shall pray for judgment to elect sensible rulers. Our prayer will be the prayer of a citizen, not the prayer of a slave. The present prayer has come down to us from a thousand years, and I think it might well be dispensed with. If we prayed for judgment to elect sensible rulers it would give an element of individuality and sturdy citizenship to our people. I do not think our churches that pray so fervently for the British empire can slap the Imperial conference in the face. Neither can I understand how the church with one hand lifted in prayer can with the other slap the Imperial conference in the face at a time when Britain is in dire distress. Neither can I understand how our lodges that wave the flag of patriotism with one hand can slap the Imperial conference in the face with the other. We made a great mistake when we loosened our connection with British trade and commerce. In my view the Imperial conference was the economic Vimy ridge of Canada and it was up to us to have held that position. We lost it simply because our Prime Minister wanted to be the generalissimo of the conference.
The members of the government have tried to maintain prices at a high level, even though they knew wages were cut on every side and many men were filling the ranks of the unemployed. The great masses in the lower ranks are rapidly deteriorating. We are in an age of poverty and disease. Our

Unemployment Continuance Act
tubercular hospitals are full and hundreds of patients are on the waiting list. The people are not getting the care and comforts they got under the preceding government. They are not properly fed, they are not properly clothed, the school children are suffering from lack of food and clothing, and while they are being helped to a certain extent there is not sufficient provision made for their physical safety.
We have heard reference made to a sales tax. In my opinion this is a very injurious tax to the poor classes. Congressman Cannon said:
A sales tax is the most iniquitous, most reprehensible, most unconscionable device for plundering the people ever devised since the days of Captain Kidd. Secretaries of the Treasury possessing vast fortunes all urge a sales tax, wealthy profiteers urge a sales tax. The requests of these men we understand. They want to lift the burden of the government from the great incomes to the backs of the farmers, the wage earners, the small tradesmen, to the mass of the people. They want to shift the burden of taxation from the rich to the poor and they know the sales tax is perhaps the most convenient way of doing so.
I should like to enumerate a few things which to my mind show that in many particulars the government favours the rich. Its preelection promises to the poor were absolutely broken. I grant that you give them the dole all right; but that is not what you promised them,-you promised employment. You promised the farmers a reasonable market for their *wheat; that promise has been broken. You ruined our butter industry by allowing butter to come in from New Zealand and then releasing it all in one day. You increased unemployment. You spoiled our trade relationship at the Imperial conference. You raised the interest rates on money, trying to carry the rich people in an economic sedan chair. You reduced wages. In this connection I may say that one of the great difficulties at the present time is that there is too much money at the top and too much poverty at the bottom. How can we improve the condition of the people by reducing wages? It seems to me that to reduce wages simply aggravates an already bad condition. Since this government has been in power we have seen trade and commerce stagnate, our railways ruined and our farmers driven into bankruptcy. There was a time when a Roman took pride' in his citizenship. As Rome became wealthier, tolls were levied on the highways and the tax collector was always at the gate. As a result the money came pouring in to the wealthy people while the poor classes became poorer, and this continued until the wealthy people became indolent and lethargic. The poorer
classes were largely composed of people who had become slaves either through failure to pay their debts or through being taken prisoner's of war. So it went on until there were a great many poor people and a large number of very wealthy people, while the intervening middle class, upon whom they depended for the defence of the empire, kept getting smaller. As a consequence, when they were called upon to fight they could not rely upon their slaves; the wealthy people were not capable of going into the army, and the middle classes were few in number, so eventually the Roman empire fell.
In our own country we have some people moving into the upper classes, but we have also a great increase in the poorer classes, and I believe that the tariffs and tolls that we are collecting have a tendency to make the rich richer and poor poorer. I believe that in this country, as in Rome, if we keep on levying taxes on everything that is bought and sold by the poorer classes, eventually the upper classes will become very wealthy. You know, in every country we have two kinds of parasites; we have those of the poorer class who cannot maintain themselves properly, and we have the parasites of the upper class as well. In other words, we have parasites patrician and parasites plebeian, and of the two the parasites patrician are the most dangerous. You can see the parasites plebeian; you know where they are and what they are doing, but the parasites patrician are hidden in the background, and it is impossible to watch them. So I say the parasites patrician are much more injurious than the parasites plebeian; they will bleed you economically.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call it eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 16, 1932