PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Ida Tarantour Waxman.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Frances Helen Dawes Porteous.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Minnie Jones Chandler.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Elizabeth Irene Woolnough.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Ellery Sanford Johnston.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Faria Goldman Rother.-Mr. Jacobs.


Hon. RAYMOND MORAND (East Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I .beg leave to present the second and final report of the special committee on radio broadcasting also a copy of the proceedings and evidence. Further, I wish to give notice that on Wednesday I shall move for concurrence. The report is as follows:
Monday, May 9, 1932.
The special committee on radio broadcasting has the honour to present the following as its second and final report:
In accordance with the duties and responsibilities delegated to us, and the terms of reference submitted, your committee met on March 8, and, since that time, held twenty-seven meetings, heard evidence, received briefs and submissions from fifty-three sources, including governments, individuals, corporations, associations, leagues and clubs.
Your committee was seized, from the inception, of the national importance and international character of radio broadcasting, and the evidence submitted has ser%Ted to further consolidate our opinion of the far-reaching scope and benefits of proper, well-regulated broadcasting services throughout Canada, as a medium of education, thought-provoking development, and fostering of Canadian ideals and culture, entertainment, news service and publicity of this country and its products, and as an auxiliary to religious and educational teaching, also as one of the most efficient mediums for developing a greater national and empire consciousness within the dominion and the British Commonwealth of nations.
Your committee desires to express at the outset, to the present radio broadcasting stations, this tribute: That they entered as pioneers in a field of service in the art of radio, and, under trying handicaps and sacrifices, worthily kept pace with a science fraught with ever-changing improvements and development, and rendered this service under handicaps, which is most praiseworthy.
Radio-Report of Committee

Your committee is convinced, however, that the present system, excellent as it is in certain respects, does not meet the requirements in quality and scope of broadcasting to ensure its maximum benefits.
Reference No. 1
"To consider the report of the Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting, dated the 11th day of September, 1929, commonly known as 'The Aird report/ "
Your committee was fortunate in having the three members of the Aird commission appear before us to amplify and explain their report, and much valuable information was thereby secured, and, if we are unable to completely accept their findings, it must be obvious that there has been a great change in the science of radio broadcasting, and in the financial condition of the country, in the last three years.
Reference No. 2
"To advise and recommend a complete technical scheme for radio broadcasting for Canada, so designed as to ensure from Canadian sources as complete and satisfactory a service as the present development of radio science will permit."
Your committee recommends a chain of high-power national stations, operating on clear channels, located at suitable intervals, the location to be determined by a careful technical survey of Canada.
Your committee recommends that consideration be given to the use of five 50 K.W. stations, one in each of the following provinces of Canada, viz., British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and, in the maritimes, three 500 watt stations, one for each province, or one 50 K.W. station, as may be determined by the commission. In Saskatchewan and Alberta, we suggest two 5 KW. stations in each province, synchronized on a common channel. Further, a 10 K.W. station in northern Ontario and one in western Ontario, a 1 K.W. station at Port Arthur-Fort William, a 500 watt station in Toronto, and a 1 K.W. station at, or near, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec.
Your committee further recommends a number of stations, of 100 watt power and under, operating on shared channels, located where required,-
(a)	To serve areas not satisfactorily covered by the national stations.
(b)	For secondary stations in areas where there is a demand for several channels to be in operation at the same time.
(c)	For educational purposes.
fd) For legitimate experimental work.
(e)	For local broadcasting of community interest.
Your committee further recommends that the cost of radio in Canada be self-sustaining and that only the money available from transmitters' and receivers' licence fees, and advertising income, be expended, and that the question of the amount of receivers' licence fees be left entirely in the hands of the governor in council.
Reference No. 3
"To investigate and report upon the most satisfactory agency for carrying out such a scheme."

Your committee recommends that a commission be appointed, consisting of three adequately-paid coriimissioners; a chairman to hold office for a period of ten years; a vicechairman for a period of nine years, and the third commissioner, for a period of eight years.
That there be appointed an assistant commissioner in each province, who shall also act as chairman of such provincial or regional advisory program committees as may be formed; the assistant commissioners to be selected in consultation with the governments of their respective provinces.
Your committee further recommends that the commission be vested with the necessary powers to carry on the business of broadcasting in the Dominion of Canada, such powers to extend to the following matters,-
(a)	To regulate and control all broadcasting in Canada, including programs and advertising.
(b)	To own, build and operate transmitting or receiving stations in Canada.
(c)	To acquire by lease, purchase, expropriation or otherwise, any or all existing broadcasting stations.
(d)	To enter into operating agreements with privately-owned stations.
(e)	To originate programs, and secure outside programs by purchase or exchange, and to make the arrangements necessary for their transmission.
(f)	To determine the number, location and power of all broadcasting stations required in Canada.
(g)	To control the issuing or cancellation of licences to broadcasting stations.
(h)	To cancel the allotments of channels to any stations, or to make substitution of channels.
(i)	To prohibit the establishment of privately-operated chains of stations in Canada.
(j)	Subject to the approval of the parliament of Canada, to take over all broadcasting in Canada.
(k)	To be vested with all other powers necessary or incidental for the fulfilment of the objects of the commission.
Your committee recommends,-
(a)	That one of the first duties of the commission be the establishment of trans-Canada chain broadcasting through the securing of the necessary landmines as soon as possible.
(b)	That a nationally-owned system of radio broadcasting be instituted, and that all stations required for its proper organization be eventually acquired, same to be financed from the revenues accruing to the business of broadcasting, without expense to the taxpayers through the public treasury.
(c)	That all stations, 100 watt and under, not required for the national system, remain under private ownership, but be regulated as to programs and advertising, by the rules of the commission.
(d)	That all revenues obtained from licence fees, sale of advertisement, and other revenues accessory to the business of broadcasting, be used by the commission in the interest of radio.
(e)	That advertising be limited to not more than 5 per cent of each program period.
(f)	That the developing of Canadian art and artists, and the securing of outstanding programs from outside Canada, be encouraged.

Radio-Report of Committee
(g)	That the commission make available to the provinces, when possible, the facilities of national and chain broadcasting.
(h)	That the commission make special effort to give such programs as will be acceptable to provincial and local requirements.
(i)	That before making changes in Canadian radio broadcasting, the commission makes a complete survey of the present system, with particular reference to adequate coverage.
We desire to call attention to the extreme importance that the commission should not assume, or even be suspected of assuming, a political complexion. Your committee append hereto a copy of the proceedings, and evidence adduced before your committee, for the information of the house.
All which is respectfully submitted.
(Sgd.) Raymond D. Morand, Chairman, W. A. Beynon,
Onesime Gagnon,
R. K. Smith,
I). McK. Wright,
P. J. Cardin,
W. D. Euler,
J. L. Ilsley,
E. J. Garland.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: The report tabled contains a
recommendation for a technical scheme of broadcasting-pursuant to the terms of reference-which involved the employment of an increased number of channels of prescribed power, located within certain areas.
One of the outstanding difficulties in the establishment of a national system of broadcasting is that of coordinating the channels to be used with those used by neighbouring countries. Because of Canada's proximity to the United States, where a highly developed system of broadcasting prevails, this question of coordination and adjustment becomes one of peculiar importance. Having regard to this situation, and with a view to determining whether this recommendation of the committee could, in fact, be implemented without involving interference which would make it ineffective in practice, the chairman asked me, as Minister of External Affairs, to ascertain from the United States government if it was prepared to make such adjustments of channels in the broadcast band as would ensure the effective operation of the scheme. Thereupon, I requested the Canadian minister to initiate negotiations to that end. The notes which I shall read disclose the agreements which have followed upon these negotiations. I have only to add that the note of the United States government manifests a friendly desire to facilitate the effective development of the national project recommended by the committee.
The note from the Canadian minister to Mr. W. R. Castle, the Acting Secretary of State, Washington, dated Canadian Legation, Washington, May 5, 1932, reads:
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Canadian House of Commons recently appointed a committee to enquire into the whole position of radio broadcasting in Canada. This committee has under consideration a technical scheme for broadcasting in Canada which it is considered will provide satisfactory coverage in the chief population areas throughout the dominion and at the same time make provision for the community service that may be desired. This scheme is divided into two distinct parts:
(a)	A chain of high-power stations, operating on clear channels, and located at suitable intervals across Canada:
(b)	A number of low-power stations of very limited range, operating on shared channels, and located as required for community service.
If this scheme receives the approval of parliament, it is proposed to use 50 K.W. stations, one in each of the provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and eventually one in the maritime provinces. In Saskatchewan and Alberta it is proposed to use 5 K.W. stations at present, two being used in each province, synchronized on a common channel. In Ontario there will be, in addition, two 10 K.W. stations, one in western Ontario-and one in northern Ontario. Four smaller stations of one K.W. capacity each are provided for the Port Arthur-Fort William area, and for Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec. In the maritimes, three 500-watt stations are provided for the present, one in each province. The scheme also includes a 500-watt station on the shared channels for the city of Toronto for local service.
In adopting this plan, Canada would reserve the right to increase the power of the stations in Alberta, Saskatchewan, northern and western Ontario to 50 K.W. each, should such increase become necessary.
The committee, in addition to considering the power required, propose the following channels
as suitable for the main stations:

Prince Edward Island	 630
New Brunswick	 1,030
Nova Scotia	 1,050
Quebec	 930
Montreal area ( 1 K.W. ) .. ..	600
Montreal area (50 K.W.) . . ..	730
Ottawa	 880
Toronto area (500 watt)	 1,120
Toronto area (50 K.W.)	 690
Western Ontario	 840
Northern Ontario	 960
Port Arthur-Fort William area. 780
Manitoba	 910
Saskatchewan	 540
Alberta	 1,030
British Columbia	 1,100
In order to ensure satisfactory local broadcast service throughout Canada, it is proposed that stations, limited to a maximum power of 100 watts, be erected where necessary, and that they should be operated on shared channels. It is considered that one hundred or more such stations may eventually be required in Canada, and that twenty channels should be available for this type of service. In establishing such stations, it is proposed to maintain the same geographical separation between Canadian and United States stations as is maintained between United States stations of the same power.
Questions

Due notification would, of course, be given of the effective dates of any changes in the present operation to conform with the above plan.
In the event of the adoption of the above arrangement, it is understood that if, as the result of the Madrid conference, any additional channels are made available for broadcasting, a further allocation will be made, as between the United States and Canada, on an equitable basis.
I shall be obliged if you will inform me at your early convenience whether the United States authorities can make the necessary readjustments so that these channels will be available for effective use in Canada.
I have the honour to be, with the highest consideration,
Sir,
Your most obedient, humble servant,
(Sgd.) W. D. Herridge.
To which Mr. Castle, Acting Secretary of State, replied under date of May 5, 1932:
Sir,-
I am grateful for your courtesy in informing me by your note of May 5, 1932, of the technical plan which is being considered by the committee of the Canadian House of Commons as a means of providing Canada witfi satisfactory radio broadcasting coverage. You inquire whether the authorities of the United States can make the readjustment necessary to render certain channels available for effective use in Canada.
In reply, I am glad to inform you that as notice is given from time to time of the dates of changes to be made in the present operations of Canadian broadcasting stations t( conform to the plan set out, this government will be glad to make the necessary readjustments.
It is understood that, if as the result of the Madrid conference, any additional channels are made available for broadcasting, a further allocation will be made, as between the United States and Canada, on an equitable basis.
Accept, sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
W. R. Castle,
Acting Secretary of State.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Was Mr. Alphonse Garon, commissioner, in connection with charges of political partisanship, sworn before performing his duties?
2.	If so, where, on what date and by whom?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1 and 2. No, but subsequently on 21st October, 1931, at Rimouski, before Notary Marc Andre Filion.


DALHOUSIE, N.B.-MIGUASHA AND CARLETON, QIIE., FERRY
Mr. MARCIL:: What were the traffic returns of the subsidized ferry between Dalhousie, New Brunswick, and Miguasha and Carleton, Quebec, for the years 1929, 1930 and 1931 respectively?


Mr. MANION:: 1929	1930	1931Round trips	613	633	654Passengers carried..	6,756	6,388	2,531Tons of freight.. ..	32	32	33Automobiles	1,026	1,226	480Live stock, including teams	not stated	166Average per single trip- Passengers	
5	5	2Freight	52 lbs.	50 lbs.	50 lbs.Autos	S	1	iLive stock	-	-	i


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-QUEBEC PROVINCE
Mr. GOBEIL:: How many requests made to the dominion Labour department by the provincial authorities of the province of Quebec, for works in the various municipalities of said province in 1931-32, pursuant to the Unemployment Relief Act, were refused by said department.


Mr. GORDON:: All requests made by the provincial government for municipal works were approved by the Department of Labour and duly authorized by the governor in council.


MR. ISAIE SAVARD
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	Is Isaie Savard, of Montreal, in the employ of the government ?
2.	If so, what is his occupation, his salary and by whom was he recommended?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Inspector in charge of undervaluation investigations at Montreal-salary $3,720 per annum from 1st May, 1932. Mr. Savard was formerly division chief, customs excise preventive service, grade 2, with headquarters at Montreal-salary $4,500 per annum. In the first instance his appointment was recommended by the late F. W. Cowan, chief, customs excise preventive service.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. SPOTTON:: 1.	How many telephones were in operation in all departments of the federal government on September 1, 1930?
2.	How many telephones are at present in operation in the various departments of the federal government?
3.	What is the saving per annum to the government by the reduction of telephone service?


ST. LAWRENCE DREDGING CONTRACTS
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	To what companies in 1930 did the De-, partment of Marine grant dredging contracts
on the St. Lawrence, and for what amount, in each case?	_
2.	To what companies were said contracts granted in 1931?
3.	Will the department grant said contracts to the same companies in 1932?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. DUFF:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports and other documents, passing between any person in the province of Nova Scotia and any official of the Marine department, relative to the dismissal of Austin Carrigan, lightkeeper at Eddy Point, Guysboro county. Nova Sootia; also a copy of reports of investigation and evidence taken by N. D. Murray in relation thereto.



ROCKDALE, N.S., BREAKWATER

William Duff: For a copy of all paysheets, accounts, memorandums, letters and other documents, regarding the expenditure of money under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, in connection with extension to breakwater at Rockdale, Nova Scotia; also information as above in connection with the construction of a new wharf at Port Malcolm, Nova Scotia.



CARGO SAMPLES (FOR TEST PURPOSES

Mr. MOTHERWELL:: For a copy of all correspondence, cables or other messages, exchanged between the Minister of Trade and Commerce or any of his officers and Mr. F. W. G. Urquhart, secretary of the Liverpool Corn Exchange Association, since January 1st, last, regarding the securing of cargo samples for growing test purposes in Canada.



WINNIPEG RUST LABORATORY

William Richard Motherwell: For a copy of the agreement between the government of Manitoba and the federal department of Agriculture relative to the construction, maintenance and manning of a rust laboratory in Winnipeg, about the year 1925.



CARGO SAMPLES OF WHEAT

William Richard Motherwell: For a copy of all letters, cables or other communications between the Dominion cerealist, Ottawa, and Mr. W. A. Wilson, London, England, relative to the securing of reliable cargo samples of wheat for growing test purposes.



WHEAT GRADING

William Richard Motherwell: For a copy of all letters, memoranda, instructions or other communications that may have passed between the president of the 41761-171
9, 1932	2713
Arms and Ammunition Convention
National Research Council and Dr. Newton, prior to the latter leaving for Europe and Great Britain in September or October, 1929, relative to grading wheat or other matters.


Mr. SPEAKER:: In the absence of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) No. 8, may stand.



ARMS AND AMMUNITION


Richard Bedford Bennett: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the international convention for the supervision of the international trade in arms and ammunition, Geneva, 17th June. 1925, signed on behalf of Canada by the Hon. Raoul Dandurand on the 22nd September, 1925, and that this house do approve of the same.
He said: The international convention for the supervision of the international trade in arms and munitions together with a declaration regarding the territory of Ifni, was drawn up at a conference held in Geneva on June 17, 1925, at which Canada was represented by W. A. Riddell, the Canadian government advisory officer, Geneva.
The convention will enter into force four months after fourteen ratifications have been deposited by the signatory governments with the government of the French republic. So far, thirty-seven countries have signed the convention and thirteen ratifications have been received, but the majority of these are contingent upon ratification iby the producing powers. Of the latter, the following have not yet ratified the convention: Austria, Belgium, Czecho-Slovakia, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States of America. His Majesty's governments in the United Kingdom and in Australia have made their ratification contingent upon ratification iby all producing countries.
The convention was signed for Canada by the Hon. Raoul Dandurand, on September 22, 1925. At this point it might not be inappropriate to read the opening of the convention:
Germany, the United States of America, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, the British Empire, Canada, the Irish Free State and India, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Colombia, Denmark, Egypt, Spain, Esthonia, Abyssinia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, the Netherlands, Persia, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, Salvador, Siam, Sweden, Switzerland, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Czechoslovakia, Turkey, Uruguay Venezuela,
Whereas the international trade in arms and ammunition and in implements of war should bp subjected to a general and effective system of supervision and publicity;



Arms and Ammunition Convention
Whereas such a system is not provided by existing treaties and conventions;
Whereas in relation to certain areas of the world a special supervision of this trade is necessary in order to render more effective 'the measures adopted by the various governments as regards both the import of such arms and ammunition and implements of war into these areas and their export therefrom; and
Whereas the export or import of arms, ammunition or implements, the use of which in war is prohibited by international law', must not be permitted for such purpose;
Have decided to conclude a convention and have accordingly appointed as their plenipotentiaries:
The various persons representing the countries I have named.
Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:-
The first article deals with arms, ammunition and implements of war exclusively designed and intended for land, sea or aerial warfare. A description of what is included in that category is found at page 4 of the convention. It divides itself into twelve heads. Probably it would be inappropriate to take up the time of the house in reading them, but roughly they cover all forms of destructive implements and ammunitions, commencing with rifles, muskets and carbines and closing with tanks md armoured cars, and "arms and ammunition not specified in the above enumeration".
Then the convention deals wdth arms and ammunition capable of use both for military and other purposes. That is, it may be used for more than one purpose. Then it deals with vessels of war and their armament; then, with aircraft, assembled or dismantled, and aircraft engines. In category V we find gunpowder and explosives, except common black gunpowder, and arms and ammunition as specified. There is provision as to the supervision and publicity, the relative portions of chapter II reading as follows:
1.	The export shall be for a direct supply to the government of the importing state or, with the consent of such government, to a public authority subordinate to it;
2.	An order in writing, which shall be signed or endorsed by a representative of the importing government duly authorized so to act, shall have been presented to the competent authorities of the exporting country. This order shall state that the articles to be exported are required for delivery to the importing government or public authority as provided in paragraph 1.
Then there are further provisions looking towards the ultimate cessation of production of these weapons of war. I do not suppose however that the house desires me to read those provisions at length. Sufficient to say that having been carefully considered and

signed by our representative in common with the representatives of the other countries I have mentioned, it only becomes effective if as and when the ratifications I have mentioned are made by the producing powers. As a matter of fact all the producing powers have not yet signified their approval, but at this time the matter becomes important by reason of the fact that the disarmament conference is sitting, and it was thought desirable that Canada should not longer await the action of other countries to take the steps I now suggest.
The real truth is that this convention has its origin in the covenant of the League of Nations. It will be recalled that article 23 of the covenant provides:
Subject to and in accordance w'ith the provisions of international conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed upon, the members of the league . . . will entrust the league with the general supervision of the trade in arms and ammunitions with the countries in which the control of this traffic is necessary in the common interest.
On September 10, 1919, before the league had been able to take up the question, a convention for the control of the trade in arms and ammunitions was signed at St. Germain; the object of this convention was to ensure that the large stocks of war material accumulated by the various belligerents should not find their way into unsettled areas where thej' might give rise to trouble. These areas included, particularly, the greater part of Africa and certain regions in Asia, such as Arabia, and the shores of the Red sea and the Persian gulf. The provisions of the convention were stringent. No exports of arms to non-signatory powers was to be permitted and a measure of control under the league of nations was established. This convention, however, proved abortive, mainly because of its non-ratification by the United States who objected to control by a league of which she was not herself a member and to the prohibition of the sale of arms to non-contracting countries.
For several years the league endeavoured to secure the ratification of the convention by the United States and by . other countries, but in September, 1923, the fourth assembly accepted the fact that no further progress in the matter was likely and it instructed the temporary mixed commission-a commission consisting of a number of individuals, and not representatives of states-to prepare a new convention in such a form as might be acceptable to the governments of all countries which produced armaments and they invited the United States to cooperate in this work. The temporary mixed commission pre-

The Late President Doumer
pared a draft which was accepted as a basis for discussion at an international conference which met in Geneva on the 4th of May, 1925. The convention that I have mentioned was the result, and was prepared for signature, on the 17th of June, 1925. As I have just indicated, it has forty-one articles and is divided into five chapters, the object being to establish a general system of supervision and publicity for the international trade in arms and munitions and implements of war, and a special system is set up for areas where measures of this kind are generally recognized to be particularly necessary.
I think I have sufficiently indicated the general purpose of the convention. The summing up of the result of the convention was made by the president of the conference, M. Carton de Wiart of Belgium, in these words:
We are able to present the world with a solid structure not built in the clouds, but founded upon the rock of solid realities. The reduction of armaments 'is not yet achieved, but an important step has been made towards it. For the first time, to use the apt expression of M. Paul-Boncour, the trade in arms is removed from the domain of private law and enters that of public law.
As it now stands the convention has been signed for thirty-seven countries but, as I have already indicated, it has been ratified by but thirteen, and of the countries ratifying it six have made their ratification subject to as yet unfulfilled conditions. The confident hope expressed by the president of the conference seven years ago has not yet been fulfilled, but it should not be said that any part of the responsibility for its failure to enter into force rests upon the Dominion of Canada.
We have not hitherto ratified the convention because independent and isolated action in this field seems futile. Concerted and simultaneous action by the great armament manufacturing countries is not only desirable, but fundamental. If the convention were to enter into force individual governments could hardly be expected to bind themselves to abstain from profitable traffic unless their competitors accepted a similar self-denying ordinance. In these circumstances it seems desirable that Canada should ratify the convention subordinating its ratification to the same condition as that made by His Majesty's governments in the United Kingdom and Australia, that is, the instrument of ratification would include a statement on these lines:
This ratification is subject to the reservation that it shall not take effect until ratifications of the convention shall have become effective, in accordance with article 41, in respect of Austria. Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States of America.
Being, in the language of the convention itself, the great munitions and ammunition producing countries.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I
have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister has just given to the house except to say that, so far as the opposition are concerned, we are in accord with the government in thinking that this convention should be approved by parliament without further delay.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That a message be sent to the Senate informing their honours that this house has adopted a resolution approving the international convention for the supervision of the international trade in arms and ammunition, Geneva, 17th June, 1925, signed on behalf of Canada by the Honourable Raoul Dandurand on the 22nd September, 1925, and request that their honours will unite with this house in the approval of the above-mentioned convention; and that the Clerk of the house do carry the said message to the Senate.	[DOT]
Of course, as I made it apparent to the house, this is subject to the reservation I have just mentioned when the ratification is exchanged.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will agree that it is altogether fitting that before we engage- in- the business of the day we should pause to express our very sincere and heartfelt' sympathy with the Republic of France-a great and friendly power from whose shores the ancestors of so many Canadians sailed centuries ago-in the loss of a well-beloved president, Mr. Paul Doumer, who so tragically met his death by the bullet of an assassin.
President Doumer had celebrated his seventy-fifth birthday and was beloved and revered by all the citizens of the republic. It was, therefore, through no animosity to the man or to revenge a personal grievance that the assassin destroyed so precious a life; nor does it appear to have been the result of a plot planned by an organization to take the life of a great public servant. It was apparently the act of one who in brooding loneliness conceived the idea of assassinating the head of the state and thereby creating confusion and dstrust from which he hoped benefit
271G
fhe Late President Doumer

would accrue to his own country. In view of the repercussions of the act of an assassin in Serbia in June, 1914, one can readily understand the reasons why such hopes might be entertained.
President Doumer had a varied and successful career. He was the architect of his own fortunes and had risen from humble beginnings to become the chief citizen of the republic by the sheer force of his ability and character. In the world of business as well as politics he achieved success without the aid of any of those adventitious circumstances to which public men in the older countries are so frequently indebted. His rise in public esteem was not meteoric. He served in the chamber of deputies, of which he ultimately became the president. He was Governor General of Indo-China for five years, and added to his reputation by the wisdom and prudence of his administration. He was twice Minister of Finance. During the war four of his sons gave their lives for their country. He was elected to the Senate, and it was while president of that body that he was chosen to be the chief executive of the French republic. Although but a short period president, his charm of manner, the benevolence of old age, the sorrow he had endured, and his simple, exact life and democratic conduct of the great office which he held secured for him the affectionate regard of the French people. A lover of peace, a devoted friend and benefactor of those who had survived the conflict of the Great war, as I have said, lie was beloved as a man of the people who interpreted to them the genius of his race.
Canadians of all races and creeds, mindful of the ties of sentiment, both ancient and recent, that connect the national life of our dominion with that of the Republic of France, will sorrow with their citizens in the loss of the distinguished head of their nation, and extend to them the sincere sympathy that springs from long and devoted friendship.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on oehalf of the opposition I should like to join warmly with the Prime Minister in what he has just expressed of appreciation of the character and high attainments of the late President of the French republic, and of the great personal and family sacrifices made by him; and also in what the Prime Minister has said on behalf of the government and people of Canada to the government and people of France by way of sympathy in their great national bereavement. The crime to which reference has been made has shocked '.he entire world, but I think we can honestly
(Mr. Bennett.]
say that in no portion of the globe has that crime served to bring forth a truer expression of sorrow or more genuine sympathy than in this country, which in addition to bonds of friendship is united so strongly by ties of race and language to the Republic of France.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: On behalf of the group in this corner of the house may I be permitted to join with the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition in expressing to the people of France, our sorrow in their great loss.



DEPORTATION CASES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: I should like to direct the attentibn of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) to two facts that have come to our notice since we discussed the question of these deportations the other day. The first is that it is stated that the warrants on which these men were arrested were signed on December 5. On the basis of that statement I should like to ask if it is the custom in the Department of Immigration to issue these warrants to the police in blank, to be used by them at their discretion. It does seem to us, who are not familiar with these matters, that this is not a very proper procedure. The other statement is that the instructions for the hurrying away of these men from Winnipeg to Halifax were issued by the commissioner of police in Ottawa. Certainly these two facts bring the matter under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice, though the other day we seemed to attach all the blame to the Minister of Immigration.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: When a request is made by the Department of Immigration for a warrant to take any person into custody, I do that as a ministerial act; I grant the request. That is the only knowledge I have of the matter.


John Livingstone Brown: What about the instructions from the commissioner of police to hurry the men away?


Hugh Guthrie: That is attended to entirely by the Department of Immigration. The act provides that these men shall be taken into custody on a warrant signed by the Minister of Justice, and when I receive such a request I grant a warrant purely as a ministerial act.

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: On March 14 last an order of the house was passed for a copy of all correspondence in connection with expenditures made by the New Westminster harbour commissioners under a loan authorized by the house last year. I should like to ask the minister when I may expect that return.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: When the order of the house
was issued the request was forwarded to the New Westminster harbour commission, and I am told that since then we have repeated that request two or three times. Recently a wire was sent asking for the information, w'hich we expect to receive any day now.


Thomas Reid: The reason I am asking is
that this loan was made under the authority and supervision of the Department of Marine, and I should think a copy of those expenditures would be on file in Ottawa.


Alfred Duranleau: We did not receive
any report with regard to the expenditures; the loan only was authorized by this house.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 72, respecting relief measures.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
this is the fourth measure to be introduced by the present administration, since coming into oflice, with respect to unemployment relief. The first was the Unemployment Relief Act of 1930; the second was the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931, the third was the measure passed, a little earlier in this present session, known as the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act of 1931. The present measure is designated as the Relief Act of 1932.
These various measures have had one characteristic in common; each has departed more widely than the previous one from the observance of the rights and powers of parliament in the matter of legislation, and in turning over those powers to the governor in council. The first measure named the large sum of $20,000,000 for the purposes of unemployment relief, and that sum was appropriated in very general terms. The period for which
that amount was appropriated extended beyond the period of the fiscal year. In those three particulars, in the failure to limit the time for which the amount was voted, the failure to designate specifically the particular purposes for which the money was voted, and the giving to the governor in council of a more or less free hand in the expenditure of public money, over which parliament had little or no control, the legislation was subversive of the rights of this house.
The next measure went a step further by according to His Excellency in council the power to legislate with respeot to peace, order and good government. When the present resolution was introduced, I mentioned that fortunately, and, I believe, wholly., as a result of the strong representations that were made by the opposition against the government usurping the powers of this house in the matter of legislation, that particular provision had not found its way into the measure now before us. But there is a new feature in this measure which will come as a great surprise, especially to those who may not have studied the bill with care. It is that the powers which are given to the governor in1 council-and they are very extensive, going much beyond the mere relief of unemployment-may be exercised notwithstanding the existence of any statute or law. I must confess that I think this is going very far indeed, particularly, when by reading the provisions of the act itself, it is apparent, as I have said already, that the measure relates not merely to the relief of unemployment but also to matters affecting the credit of Canada, even going the length of giving the governor in council power to give financial assistance and guarantees to corporations. That power is a very large one, and who is there who can say to what lengths it may be exercised. The fact that the proposed legislation states that it may be exercised notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law makes one rather wonder whether all legislation that has been passed by parliament in the ^ast for the protection of the people is not, as far as this provision goes, being wholly over-ridden by the powers we are now asked to confer upon the governor in council.
I have spoken so often of the subversive character of legislation of this kind, that I do not think it necessary to repeat at this time what has been previously said, but by way of emphasis I should like to draw attention to the language of the preamble, which demonstrates as clearly as words possibly could the difference in point of view between those of us who have been opposing certain provisions of
2718	COMMONS
Unemployment

Agreements with Provinces
the several relief measures that have been brought in, and the government which has sponsored them. There has been no difference between us as to the principle of voting unemployment relief. We on this side from the outset have held that we were prepared, subject to the government- advising us that in their opinion certain sums of moneys were necessary for relief purposes, to vote those sums as speedily as could be reasonably expected. We have recognized the necessity of federal relief in an emergent situation, such as exists at present, and we have been prepared to accept the government's word, upon its responsibility, as to the amount which might be necessary to meet the situation. But we have insisted that the government should give some statement to parliament as to the amount necessary, and specifically to designate, as far as might be possible, the objects on which public moneys were to be expended under the act.
May I read the preamble which, while it has little or no value as part of the enactment, nevertheless helps to disclose in terms the intent of the government in regard to the legislation:
Whereas by reason of the prolonged world wide economic depression, recovery to a more normal economic condition has been retarded in the Dominion of Canada; and whereas the provinces require assistance in carrying out necessary relief measures and to meet financial conditions as the same may arise; and whereas it is in the national interest that parliament should support and supplement the relief measures of the provinces and grant them financial assistance in such manner and to such extent as the governor in council may deem expedient; and whereas it is necessary to make special provisions to deal with the situation in the national parks of Canada and in the drought stricken areas of the province of Saskatchewan; and whereas for these and similar purposes the powers necessary to insure the speedy and unhampered prosecution of such relief measures and the maintenance of the credit of the Dominion and the provinces thereof should be vested in the governor in jouncil: Now. therefore. His Majesty, by and vith the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of * Canada, enacts as follows:

The clause in the preamble to which I wish to direct attention particularly is the one which reads:
And whereas it is in the national interest that parliament should support and supplement the relief measures of the provinces and grant them financial assistance in such manner and to such extent as the governor in council may deem expedient.
I cannot more clearly -bring out what we on this side have in mind than by saying that the government in that statement has mistaken the functions of the governor in council

and of parliament respectively. A correct statement of the constitutional position would be that the governor in council, in a matter of this kind, should act in accordance with the wishes of parliament rather than that parliament should act in accordance with the wishes of the governor in council. May I re-read t'he paragraph as it is, and then as I think it ought to read:
It reads:
And whereas it is in the national interest that parliament should support and supplement the relief measures of the provinces and grant them financial assistance in such manner and to such extent as the governor in council may deem expedient.
The paragraph should read:
Whereas it is in the national interest that the governor in council should support and supplement the relief measures of the provinces and grant them financial assistance in such manner and to such extent as parliament may deem expedient.
Parliament is the body that must decide what is expedient and what should be done, and any .power the governor in council may have must be derived from parliament. But here is a statement in the king's English to the effect that it is not parliament that shall decide what ought to -be done, and which gives to the governor in council power to act wit-h an authority with which .parliament alone is vested. In other words, when this clause is read in conjunction with the main enactment of the measure, which gives the governor in council power at his discretion to take from the consolidated revenue fund whatever moneys may be necessary for the purposes of the act, parliament 'becomes simply the endorser of a note which the governor in council may make to any amount for the -purposes named in the legislation.
If that is not subversive of the -powers of parliament, I cannot imagine anything that is; and when we consider that it relates to vast expenditures of -public moneys over which obviously parliament should have complete control, we see how entirely subversive of all the legislative rights and powers of parliament it is.
May I go a step further and direct the attention of the house to another clause of the preamble;
And whereas for these and similar purposes the powers necessary to insure the speedy and unhampered prosecution of such relief measures and the maintenance of the credit of the Dominion and the provinces thereof should be vested in the governor in council.
I submit that the powers that are necessary to ensure the maintenance of the credit of the Dominion and of the provinces are

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
powers which are vested, under the constitution, in this -parliament, and that they should not, and legally cannot 'by any enactment of this house, under our constitution as it stands, be transferred, in the words of any statute, to the governor in council, and vested in that body.
A great deal has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to the supremacy of parliament. They have argued, and I think quite sincerely from their point of view, that parliament is supreme and can make any enactment it pleases. In a broad sense, I admit that unequivocally. But I do submit that there is one difference between the supreme power of the parliament of Canada and the supreme power of the parliament of Great Britain, where the words relating to supremacy would apply without limitation, and that is that in so far as Canada is governed by a written constitution, whatever supreme powers this parliament may have are limited by the terms of that constitution. The constitution may be amended so as to alter or amplify existing powers but so long as they are set forth in specific terms as they are, we are bound by them. In Canada, we are governed, in the main, under the provisions of the British North America Act. Parliament has not the supreme power to go contrary to any provision that is set forth in that act. The British parliament, having no written constitution, might, if it so desired, enact any measure provided it could obtain approval from the majority, and in so doing it would be acting constitutionally. But that is not equally true of this parliament. This parliament has not the power constitutionally to go beyond the terms of the British North America Act with respect to anything in which its powers may be clearly defined therein. These powers, as I have said, it may alter by having the act amended, which it has -power to have done, but it is bound meanwhile by the provisions of the act as they are. In the British North America Act there is a distinct division between the legislative powers, the executive powers and the judicial powers. There is also a clear distinction between the powers of the government with respect to federal matters and with respect to provincial matters. Is there a single member of this house who would suggest that because this parliament is supreme, it would have the right to legislate on any matter coming under the head of t-hose which are exclusively assigned to the provinces? It -would be immediately asserted that we have no such powers because those powers have been assigned to the provinces. In order to bring the matter immediately into relationship with the bill now under
discussion let me ask; would any hon. member suggest that powers -which, under the British North America Act, with respect to legislation are especially assigned to the House of Commons, the Senate and the King's representative could by any statute of this parliament under the act as it stands be vested in the judiciary of this country? I do not think anyone would suggest that. Well, I submit that there is no more power to vest in the executive the legislative powers given under the British North America Act to the House of Commons, the Senate and the King's representative in this country than there is to vest them in the judiciary. All that this parliament can do is, within the limits of its legislative powers, to give certain rights to the governor in council in the nature of administrative powers, but not powers to legislate in the sense in which that power is specifically assigned to parliament by the act. It is the fact that in this proposed enactment the government is taking to itself power not merely to administer laws passed by parliament but to legislate in the stead o-f parliament that causes us to take the exception we do.
What I have just said answers completely whatever hon. gentlemen opposite may say as to the rights of the majority. The majority certainly has rights that can be exercised so long as they are exercised within the terms of the constitution of a country, whether it be written or unwritten. But the majority, simply because it is a majority, has no right to go beyond the language and intent of the written constitution of the land. The same is true with respect to the application of closure in regard to enactments. Closure has a proper place with respect to measures which may be brought before parliament, namely, to see that a measure that is appropriately and properly before the house is not unduly obstructed. But the closure cannot properly be used to prevent a house of commons from seeing that the constitution itself is not being undermined by any measure that may be under consideration. It is because the most important of all the achievements under British government has been the final and complete control of the Commons over all grants that it may make, over taxation, and the right and power of the commons to follow to the last degree the control of public expenditure, that we on this side feel so strongly about not parting with so fundamental a right even, as an exception, in connection with a measure which may relate itself to so important a question as the relief of unemployment. It is not as though the relief of unemployment could not be effected by constitutional means
2720	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
quite as well as by unconstitutional methods; it would be all the more effective if it were carried out in a constitutional way.
There is a further reason why at this time, with the knowledge we have of the manner in which this power has been exercised in the last two years, we should be even more guarded in giving it anew to the administration. I shall not go into the different orders in council that have been passed; I shall refer to only one which has already received some discussion in the house and in the committee on railways and shipping. I refer to an order in council whereby a sum amounting to something like one and one-third million dollars was appropriated for the purchase of railway ties. We were told by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) that this was a relief measure carried out under the provisions of the Relief Act. Regarding it as a measure under the relief act, we asked for particulars as to the manner in which contracts for ties had been given, to whom the contracts were given, how much was paid and the like. We were denied by the government the right to obtain the information for which we asked. It was asked for in the form of a return; the government and its followers voted down the motion for the return, and in support of their action the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) said that this was a matter which came more or less under the control of the Canadian National Railways and that they would not wish the information we were requesting disclosed. Recently the subject came up in the committee of railways and shipping, and there the information which was refused here was asked for. The chairman of the committee, one of the government supporters, gave as his ruling that the information could not be supplied before the committee, but that it could be secured in the house. As his reason that it should not come before the committee, he stated that it could be supplied in the house, though he himself was one of the number who voted against giving the information to the house.
I think I am right in saying that when the matter came before the committee the vote was very close, and it was the vote of the Minister of Railways himself which decided the matter in a way which made it impossible for it to be discussed in the committee.


Robert James Manion: May I interrupt my right hon. friend for a moment? I do not wish to interrupt him unduly, but I think he is unfairly stating the case as it came before the committee. The final vote in the committee was as to whether this information should

be given. My recollection-and I am speaking from memory-is that the chairman took the attitude that the house had refused the information and the committee could not give it. The chairman gave the ruling. I did not vote at the beginning. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) called attention to the fact that I had not voted, and since I was asked to vote I voted to support the chairman's ruling.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member has just said that his impression is that the chairman gave the ruling that as the information had been refused by the house, it could not properly be given to the committee.


Robert James Manion: That is my recollection.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He further says that he voted in accordance with the chairman's ruling. Page 87 of the report of the special committee on railways and shipping indicates exactly what took place, and in a sentence or two these are the w'ords showing what transpired:


The Chairman:: If they are under unemployment relief, I do not think we have a right to go into them. Do I understand, is it alleged that this is unemployment relief money?
Mr. Munn: Yes.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is quite outside the
jurisdiction of this committee You can get that information in the house.
What the chairman said was not that the house had refused it, but that it could be got in the house. He continued:
I think the minister has so stated, and that the railway company was authorized out of unemployment relief funds to purchase 2,000,000 ties; and a certain sum was allocated for that purpose, but no matter under that has been referred to this committee, and it is not in this reference.


Robert James Manion: I do not think that is the opposite of what I said. I think it is what I said to this extent: that it was the ruling of the chairman that the matter was not for the committee. In his opinion it should come before the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend's remarks will appear on Hansard. His statement was that he understood that the chairman took the position the house had refused the information and it could not properly come before the committee.


Robert James Manion: That is my recollection.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As a matter of fact the chairman stated to the committee that the information could be got in the house. Surely, accepting the position as it is beyond all cavil that it has been impossible

Unemploy merit-Agreements with Provinces
to get this information either in the house or in the committee, the only two bodies from which it is possible to obtain it, are we at this time, with that knowledge before us, to repeat what we were asked to do before this action was taken, namely, to give to the governor in council a completely free hand to make public expenditures in amounts totaling SI,000,000 at one time, when we know in advance this parliament may be deprived of all opportunity of tracing those expenditures as they should be traced to the last dollar? I may be incorrectly informed, but I believe, first of all, it is true that no tenders were called for with respect to the purchase of these ties. There is on the statutes an act which requires, with regard to the expenditure of public moneys on public works by the government. that where the expenditure runs beyond $5,000, tenders must be called for; that is a statute which has been enacted to assist in securing control over public moneys and to prevent political interference. But in this matter of the contracts, that statute has been set at nought by a' subterfuge, if you like; nevertheless it is the expenditure of public money voted by this parliament for relief purposes and used as such. Moreover, it has been stated, and I imagine on fairly reliable grounds, that great pressure was put upon the Canadian National Railways to accept certain contractors. Not only was political pressure brought to the point of compelling the railway company to accept as contractors, persons who were designated and to give the contracts to them, but the contractors to whom the contracts were given were practically all immediate friends of the administration, and the railway company was simply told that those persons were to get the contracts and the contracts went to them. Not only were there no tenders, but as I say, the impression abroad is that the officers of the company had pressure put upon them to award these contracts to definite persons named by the minister himself.


Robert James Manion: I deny that there was
pressure, but I will deal with the question after my right hon. friend is done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this debate. In fact, I had expected to meet people in my room, and would not have been in the house had not my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) discussed the tie situation. However, there has been so much talk about that matter that perhaps a statement from myself, which I have given very briefly on other occasions, might well be placed before the house.
The right hon. gentleman has made a number of statements which are not correct. I do not say he has made them intentionally, but at the same time they are not according to the facts. At least some of them are inaccurate, and some carry implications which, owing to conclusions which could be drawn from them, might not only do serious damage to the Canadian National Railways but, if correct, would constitute a clear criticism of this government, not in my view, justified by the facts. For instance, he said no tenders for ties were called this year. That is quite correct but easily explained. Due to pressure from various parts of the country to the effect that the lumber men were very badly in need of work, at our request the Canadian National Railways purchased 2,000,000 ties. At first the railways took the attitude that they required no ties. In fact, if the truth is known they bought so many in the two years immediately preceding the election, at a time when my right hon. friend was leader of the government, that they were well supplied, did not require any more, and do not now require them.
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It must have taken a lot of political pressure to make them buy the extra millions.


Robert James Manion: It took pressure in this way; we had representations from all over the country, with the exception of Prince Edward Island, that to relieve unemployment it would be helpful to order two million ties for which the unemployment and farm relief fund would pay. It is true that in past years tenders were called for, but no attention whatever was paid to the prices put in the tenders; for both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific in all past purchases of ties fixed the prices themselves, as they did this year. I say now that the Canadian National fixed and are paying a lower price this year than they have in any year since 1923.


Mr. RALSTON:: And for every other commodity.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps for every other commodity, but it is rather strange that although many other commodities were coming down in price until my hon. friends opposite went out of power, yet the prices of ties were holding pretty well. That is a fact. So the Canadian National Railways dealt largely with the people who had been handling tie contracts, and they let the contracts, as they have always let them in the past, without paying any attention to requests for higher prices; the Canadian National fixed the prices themselves and made the contracts themselves, and this government had nothing whatever to do with the letting of any contracts or the fixing of prices. In view of the fact, as I have said, that these ties have been secured at a price lower than any paid within the last ten years, I do not see what advantage there would have been in calling for tenders.


Mr. VENIOT:: Did not the order in council fix the price?


Robert James Manion: No. The order in council stipulated a maximum price of sixty-five cents, because that was about the average price in the previous year; but the Canadian National management placed the price at fifty-two cents, which was thirteen cents lower. In fact the price this year is so low that this very day I have received from a big lumber man in Port Arthur, E. E. Johnston, a statement that he had no intention of carrying out his contract because nobody can do so this year without losing money. That is the condition brought about by the Canadian National management. I am not criticizing them for putting the

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
price so low, but certainly neither the government nor the Canadian National Railways will lose any money at that price.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Why was it
necessary to pass an order in council for purchasing ties?


Robert James Manion: I have already explained that, but perhaps my hon. friend was not listening. It was done because of requisitions from all over the country for business in the bush sections, and we asked the Canadian National Railways to buy two million ties for which the unemployment fund would pay. The order in council was simply passed to authorize us to give the Canadian National Railways out of the unemployment fund the money to pay for the ties.
Then the right hon. gentleman said that great pressure was put on the Canadian National Railways to make them take these ties from our friends. That is not correct, in fact it is absolutely untrue. No great pressure of any kind was put on the management. In a moment I will deal with the question of who got the contracts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend say that he himself did not try to influence the management as to who were to receive those contracts?


Robert James Manion: If my right hon. friend will allow me to finish my statement. Recommendations were sent by me because people had applied to me, some of them Liberals- in fact right at this moment three Liberal members who sit behind my right hon. friend are interested in tie contracts, and not one member on this side is. I do not say that in any spirit of criticism. They are justified in being interested in tie contracts if they are in the lumber business, as at least two of them are, but we did not give-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the minister owes it to the house to bring down the names of all who received contracts, and what contracts they received.


Robert James Manion: I will bring them down for the past few years and show whether it was pressure from my right hon. friend who overruled the Minister of Railways so often.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a moment. The minister has stated that I overruled the Minister of Railways on frequent occasions. I say that statement is not correct, Mr. Speaker, and I ask him to withdraw it.


Robert James Manion: I will not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when my hon. friend makes a statement which I say is not correct he is bound to withdraw it.


Robert James Manion: It is a question of fact.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The minister must accept the denial of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he says the statement is not correct.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that when a statement of fact is made it simply becomes a difference of opinion between us. However, if you rule that I must accept the statement I will accept it. I will bring down the evidence. The fact remains that when tie contracts were let by the late government practically none were let to Conservatives. I submit this is not a Conservative road, this is not a Liberal road; this is a national road. That is why when we got into power I did submit to Sir Henry Thornton that as of the tie contracts let in the past only about ten per cent were let to Conservatives, it was but fair that these contracts should be divided between different classes of people politically; and they were. For example, I was given a list of thirty-four contracts let in the province from which the Prime Minister comes. Of those thirty were let to Liberals and only four to Conservatives while my right hon. friend was in office.


James Layton Ralston: You reversed that.


Robert James Manion: No. I was foolish enough in the heat of the moment to make a remark of that sort before the committee, but later I corrected it, showing that many Liberals have contracts at the present time. I gave some illustrations of this a few moments ago. Another illustration is that a Liberal organizer in St. Felix in Quebec has been given a contract. As showing the training that the purchasers of ties for the Canadian National Railways got under my right hon. friend and his government, they gave eighty-four of these contracts out of 325 or 330 this year without any consultation with me at all, and they were practically all given to Liberals.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When my hon. friend says the late government did not interfere with the Canadian National Railways he is stating what is correct.


Robert James Manion: I am afraid my right hon. friend is drawing too optimistic an inference from what I said.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Just a question.
2726	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces


Robert James Manion: I should like to proceed
without too much interruption.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: It is just a short question.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, in the last
two years since we came into power six million ties have been bought; two million this year under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, and four million last year in the ordinary way. When they called for tenders for the four million ties they got tenders for forty million, and it made it very difficult for the Canadian National management to deal with all those tenders. That is one reason why this year no tenders were called for the two million ties. While my right hon. friend and his government were in power the Canadian National Railways bought from twelve to fourteen million ties in each year.


James Layton Ralston: More business.


Robert James Manion: Yes, for business.


James Layton Ralston: I say " more business."


Robert James Manion: Yes. When we got into
power there were twelve million ties on hand, and Mr. Vaughan before the committee said that they were using from six to seven million a year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then there was no justification for your buying an extra two million.


Robert James Manion: Absolutely correct-except to relieve unemployment; that is the only reason. The Canadian National management, I repeat, set the price this year as they set it in all years; they made the contracts, they did everything as they had done in the past-with this exception, they did not buy all their ties from Liberals, they bought from tie contractors of both parties. I do not believe it is fair under this government to buy entirely from Conservatives, any more than it was fair under the late government to buy entirely from Liberals. To the extent of at least 90 per cent the ties bought under the late government were obtained from Liberals. I will admit quite frankly that under this government half or a little more were bought from Conservatives; I say I admit that quite frankly, because I do not believe this national railway should be used, as I believe my right hon. friend used it in the last year or two before he went out of power, as a political club.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That may be
very smart rhetoric, but it is no argument,


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend may have
uttered some very smart statements, but they are not facts. Another statement made by the right hon. gentleman was that he understood that many men secured tie contracts who were not tie contractors. Let me mention one or two people who secured tie contracts under my right hon. friend's government. One Boudreau, in Alberta, a bootlegger, secured a contract for 50,000 ties during the last year my right hon. friend was in power.


Charles A. Stewart: May I say
to my hon. friend, for his information, that when Mr. Boudreau obtained his tie contract he was in the tie business.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The Minister
of Railways has the floor, and unless he allows it he may not be interrupted.


Charles A. Stewart: But, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it fair to make statements in this house reflecting on the character of gentlemen outside the house.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. It is
not a question of privilege.


Robert James Manion: I state that according tomy best information, and I believe it is correct, one Boudreau, who was a bootlegger and who was not in the tie business, secured a contract for 50,000 ties.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask
my hon. friend-


Robert James Manion: No, I will not allow these interruptions. My hon. friend can make his statement later.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is Boudreau a friend of yours?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Boudreau is a friend of mine, and I am not ashamed to admit it.


Robert James Manion: I state also that an hon.
member now sitting behind the right hon. gentleman, who was not then a member of the house but who was a very strong Liberal, secured contracts for 300,000 to 400,000 ties every year for five or six years when my right hon. friend was in power and I do not blame him for it in the least. He got a contract also this year. I state also that a man named Paradis, in the province of Quebec, who plays Liberal politics all the time, secured contracts for about half a million ties each year and has a contract this year.


Charles A. Stewart: Who is
complaining about that?

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces


Robert James Manion: My right hon. friend
should not complain that some men who are not in the lumber business obtain contracts from this government when the same condition existed under his. I state also that during the time the right hon. gentleman was in olfice a section man obtained tie contracts, and there were various other similar cases. But I make this statement here and now, and I want it emphasized: Not one cent was lost by the Canadian National Railways, either this year or last year, through the purchase of ties. I say they set the prices; they signed the contracts and this year, so far as they are concerned, the whole, amount will be paid out of the unemployment relief fund, so the Canadian National Railways will not lose one cent so far as contracts for ties are concerned. This year I believe between three hundred and four hundred contracts have been let, in every province from coast to coast with the exception of Prince Edward Island. As I have already said, some of these people were recommended to me in different ways, some by those in politics. Some were recommended by hon. gentlemen opposite, while others were recommended by clergymen who pointed out to me that their section of the country was in great need ol some unemployment relief, and those people got contracts. For example, up in the north country one firm by the name of Poupore, a lumber firm, obtained a contract on my recommendation because a clergyman and some of the citizens, whose politics I do not know, came down here and laid the case before me, and I told Sir Henry Thornton that they were in need of help.
As I have already stated, eighty-four of these contracts, or in other words twenty-five per cent, were let by the Canadian National management without consultation with me in any shape or form. When I checked up the names later I found that the vast majority of them were Liberals and; as one provincial cabinet minister said, they were not only Liberals; they were fighting Liberals.
Now in regard to the prices paid for ties, I should like to give the average price each year from 1923:
1923		
1924	______ _______________
1925		
1926		
1927		
1928. .'	
1929		
1930		
1931		
1932	
Apparently the Dominion of Canada is not paying an overly high price for ties, when
they get them for 52 cents as compared with the previous low price of 64 cents, paid last year also under this government, while the lowest price paid under the late government was 72 cents. It would seem clear that the Dominion of Canada is not being robbed, and that no special favours are being shown Conservatives or even Liberals who secured contracts at this price. I may say frankly that no one is satisfied with regard to the tie business. Last year 40,000,000 ties were offered while only from 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 were asked for. This year all the people who wanted contracts, whether Liberals or Conservatives, protested when those contracts were not forthcoming. Seventy-two per cent of all the contracts let were for less than 5,000 ties; in other words a very large proportion of the contracts was given to settlers and small tie dealers in various parts of the country.
My right hon. friend implied in his remarks that the government at the present time has been using the Canadian National Railways in some manner, through these ties, for political purposes. Let me repeat that there has been nothing of the kind, except in this respect, that this is a national and not a Liberal road. Tie contracts should not be let only to those belonging to one particular party, and under this government they have not been let entirely to any one party; they have been divided between the two parties. I do not know that I would care to apportion the contracts or say how they were divided, but at any rate they were divided between the two parties, whereas under the late government the contracts were given to Liberals to the extent of about 90 per cent.
In regard to purchases in general, the right hon. gentleman referred to some of the evidence which has been given before the committee on railways and shipping. I do not intend to refer to more than one statement, and that is with regard to the purchases, made each year, which I am going to put on Hansard. The total purchases of all materials, including materials purchased for United States lines, were as follows:
Cents	1923			 $141,823,566
	1924			 103,175,658
. 74	1925	
80,423,520. 79	1926	
88,482,180. 80	1927	
115,280.811. 76	1928	
107,185,818. 72	1929	.. . . 132,676,905. 78	1930	
103,746,949. 76	1931	
70,813,195
64
It will be seen that last year the purchases amounted to just more than half the total purchases for 1929. I will admit without question that part of that reduction was 4ue to the
2728	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
fact that the business of the railway decreased, but some of the purchases made in 1929 look suspiciously like pre-election purchases. In that year the total purchases amounted to the greatest sum so spent in any year with the exception of 1923, when the roads were beginning to be coordinated by Sir Henry Thornton. There was not only the purchase of materials in general; there was also the purchase of dead, useless, non-paying lines in different parts of this country, practically all purchased in 1929, amounting to from 830,000,000 to 840,000,000. The late government introduced legislation in this house in 1927 providing for a $20,000,000 branch line program which was not to be completed, and which was not completed, until 1930 or 1931. That was a three year program, but in spite of that fact in 1929, with an election in sight, another branch line program was brought in amounting to another $30,000,000.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: And you voted for it.


Robert James Manion: We did not object to it, naturally, because in those days if any man dared open his mouth to criticize any measure brought in by the late government with regard to the Canadian National Railways, he was accused of attacking the national road. We had to get into power in order to find out how the Canadian National Railways were run under my right hon. friend and his followers, and to protest against the foolish and wildly extravagant expenditures on unnecessary hotels, on the Montreal terminal which was not needed at that time, on steamships that were not required and so on, amounting to tens and scores of millions of dollars, authorized in the dying years of the late government, headed by the right hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition, who in 1929 put upon the Canadian National Railways committals to the extent of $270,000,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know whether this discussion is pertinent to the matter now before the house. I am quite prepared to discuss with hon. gentlemen opposite matters pertaining to the Canadian National Railways when they are properly before us, but when my hon. friend undertakes to review the whole railway situation he might choose another time so to do.


Robert James Manion: The whole railway situation was brought up by my right hon. friend.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I was speak-.ng of one matter only which came appropriately under unemployment relief.
[Mr. Manion.J


Robert James Manion: My right hon. friend does not like these other matters to be discussed, because they affect him and his late government. I say that the right hon. gentleman and his party, when in power, used the Canadian National Railways as a political club and that they went far to wreck the national road by using it in such a way, by building useless hotels and making various other foolish expenditures totalling tens of millions of dollars, some of which, on the best information I can get, they forced the Canadian National management to carry through. That is the best information I can obtain. When we came into power, with all these hundreds of millions hanging around the neck of the Canadian National, we found it necessary to institute economies.


James Layton Ralston: You started to wreck it;
you are the one that started to wreck it.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend and his
friends are the people who nearly wrecked it, just as they nearly wrecked the Canadian Pacific Railway in the early years of the century by permitting the construction of two transcontinental railways where one would have been ample. These conditions were brought about in the early years of the century by the Liberal party, and the position of the Canadian National Railways to-day has been made preeminently worse by the fact that my right hon. friend and his friends permitted, if they did not force, the Canadian National Railways to spend scores of millions which should never have been spent: If they had been living up to their trusteeship, not only on behalf of the people of Canada but on behalf of the Canadian National Railways, they would never have permitted some of the wildly extravagant schemes to go on that went on under their regime through the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Tell him about the two
hotels in Halifax.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell him about the one in Vancouver.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for
Shelburne-Yarmouth knows a good deal about the hotels in Halifax, and I should be glad to have him get up and explain how it is that the Canadian National Railways were permitted or forced, perhaps, to build a second hotel when one would have sufficed. That was done under the regime of the hon. gentleman's leader. The Canadian National was either permitted or forced to build useless

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
hotels all over the country, such as the Saskatoon and Vancouver hotels. It was permitted or forced to build steamships which it does not require, to the extent of nearly $10,000,000 worth of shipping on the Pacific coast, which the railways are wondering now what to do with. In fact, these ships are lying at ease in the docks throughout the country and the Canadian National Railways are wondering what to do with them. That is the type of trusteeship which the right hon. gentleman and his friends displayed with respect to the Canadian National Railways during the years they were in power-a trusteeship which nearly wrecked the system and nearly ruined the country.


Charles A. Stewart: It is not my intention to speak at any length on this question. I simply want to refer my hon. friend who has just spoken {Mr. Manion) to the fact that never until to-day in this house, when all these items were before the committee and were recommended by the committee, was there any criticism. And if I mistake not he was a member of the committee.


Robert James Manion: He was not; only part of the time.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, he
never raised his voice in opposition. There was no opposition except on one occasion, and the honour of that belongs to the leader of the government. He was the one who raised his voice and raised it rather vehemently on one occasion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Twice.


Charles A. Stewart: Twice, perhaps.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Make it three times.


Charles A. Stewart: At any rate, the occasion which I have in mind was followed the next morning by criticism in the organ supporting the right hon. gentleman. It gave him a beautiful trimming for what he had said the day before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And now they admit he was right.


Charles A. Stewart: I am merely recounting history for the benefit of the Minister of Railways. Let me say that, so far as I am concerned, I deny having ever tried to influence the Canadian National Railways to do anything. I tried hard to sell them the Alberta railway on one occasion, and I had 41761-172
the railway sold to them over night; but the next morning they woke up and the Minister of Railways decided that it was not a profitable investment and did not make the purchase.


Robert James Manion: They have it now and they are losing millions.


Charles A. Stewart: They refused to buy it at that time. As a matter of fact, they could have bought it at a much lower rate than has been paid for it in recent years. My hon. friend will admit that if the railway were offered for sale to-day people would not be so keen about purchasing it.


Robert James Manion: I should say not.


Charles A. Stewart: Personally,
I have had far more satisfaction from and more favour shown me by the Canadian Pacific Railway than I have ever received from the Canadian National Railways. Indeed, I have never asked them for any favours. What I rose for particularly, however, was to deal with the statement of my hon, friend in regard to an individual who has two or three contracts for supplying ties and who was in the lumber business-the hon. gentleman said he was not. He was manufacturing and' selling lumber, and the statement that he was a bootlegger is totally unwarranted. The minister cannot point to any place in which this gentleman was ever designated as so despicable a character.


Robert James Manion: That is my information.


Charles A. Stewart: Then I say that in all fairness the hon. gentleman should be careful about assertions of that kind. The gentleman about whom he speaks was a member of the Alberta legislature for a number of years. He was a druggist and a hotelkeeper, and he was also in the lumber business.


Mr. STANLEY:: Whilst he was a member of the Alberta legislature and the keeper of a drug store during prohibition days, he was shown, before a special committee of the legislature, to be illegally handling liquor.


Charles A. Stewart: I remember the circumstances very well. He was filling permits on the advice of doctors, under their signature.


George Douglass Stanley: Absolutely illegally, in tremendous quantities.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not *accusing my hon. friend of having granted more permits than he was entitled to; I do

2730	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
not know anything about it. I do know all about the investigation, however, and I know perfectly well that it was held for the purpose of trying to reflect upon the character of the gentleman in question. But I do say that no minister or member of this house has the right to rise in his place and reflect in that way upon any gentleman, no matter what may have happened, so long as he was not convicted of the offence of which my hon. friend has accused him.
So far as the railways are concerned, may I say to my hon. friend that I do not. think very much will be gained by the statement that when the Liberals were in power all tie contracts went to Liberals. So far as I know, that was not the case in western Canada. It may have been the case in Saskatchewan; I do not know about that; or it may have'been so in eastern Canada. But to say now that the government is handing out contracts under direct relief in the same manner is no answer to the charge that a good many people got contracts when the government was directly controlling the matter, as my hon. friend admits, except the sixty-*


Robert James Manion: I did not control it at all; I deny that.


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry; I retract that. That, however, was what I gathered from my hon. friend's remarks. Let me repeat before I resume my seat that it is unfair for any hon. member to make assertions of the kind which I have just dealt with.


Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: As a member of the committee, I wish to make one or two corrections. I am sorry I cannot effectively reply to the minister; I am not a politician. Listening to his address and the manner of its presentation, one would conclude that an election was on. The minister made the statement that in 1928 and 1929, prior to the last election, there were heavy purchases of ties and materials. That was explained by the purchasing agent quite fully in the committee, to the satisfaction I am sure of anyone who wanted to be fair. I cannot understand, therefore, why the minister should bring this up in the house and play politics when the matter was so satisfactorily explained before the committee by the purchasing agent. If hon. gentlemen will look up the records for themselves they will find that it was explained that during 1928 and 1929 demands were made for special equipment, ties and material, and that was fully explained. As regards prices, I may say that I am a lumberman myself, although I have no contract and never sold ties to 
Canadian National Railways. As everyone knows, prices have dropped not because there has been a change of government but the fact is that they have dropped very viciously. In the committee I asked for a list of all tie contractors. I have a partial list; I explained in the committee that I had a list of some of the contractors, and I could not understand why so many people who were in the tie business did not receive contracts while others who would not know the difference between a tie and a saw-log, were awarded contracts. Of course I did not get the information; we were voted down. The minister, both in the house and definitely in the committee, opposed the production of that information. Now in the house he plays politics. So far as I am concerned, I shall not play politics, but I like to see people stick to facts.
_ Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :	Mr. Speaker, I am going to make a
very few observations in answer to the statements of the leader of the opposition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend has already spoken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think lie moved, the second reading.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; the Minister of
Labour (Mr. Gordon) did so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the first instance, the right hon. gentleman was of the opinion that last year's relief measure did not provide for the measure itself being operative, notwithstanding the provisions of any other statute. If he will be good enough to look at chapter 58 of last year, assented to on August 3, he will find these words:
Without restricting the generality of the terms in the next preceding section hereof, and notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law, the governor in council may-
Those are the exact words in the bill now before the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But they extend to many matters to which no reference was made in the previous enactment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that. The language is exactly the same. The second point which the leader of the opposition has made is that the legislation deals with matters other than unemployment relief or relief. It is quite true it deals with questions affecting the national credit and that of the provinces.

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
It was thought desirable, for purposes of conciseness and availability of the statute in use that this should be done, and I see no reason why it should not. Certainly anything that has been said by the leader of the opposition does not induce one to change his opinion in that regard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Also loans to
corporations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that. The third (point that the right hon. gentleman made was that it provides for loans to be made to corporations and certain undertakings. When I was speaking to the resolution, I explained that in the United States, on the conditions that obtained, it had been found desirable to create a corporation which was authorized to make advances to banks and other financial institutions and corporations and that corporation had a capital of $500,000,000, this amount of course being all subscribed by the United 'States. In fact it is provided that the money itself shall be taken out of the treasury of the United States out of any unappropriated balances, and notwithstanding that fact, it became essential, in order that the operations of the corporation might be continued, that the money should be borrowed. The bulletin of the Federal Reserve Board for April, 1932, contains a full statement of the operations of the finance corporation to date and a short summary that was published by the department gave a clear indication of just how it was proceeding with its work. I need only point out that the statute under which the corporation is incorporated provides, as I have said, for an immediate capital of $500,000,000 being available.
I have endeavoured and, I fear, not successfully, to point out to the house that there is an emergency in Canada as wed as elsewhere in the world. I have tried to the best of my ability to indicate that we are living in the most abnormal conditions under which any people ever lived; that because of the failure *of the first effort to rehabilitate the whole [DOT]financial structure in the life of the world and consequent upon the failure of the Bank of England in September, 1931, to maintain its gold reserves, our position has become very much more difficult than it has been heretofore and that we are in the face of one of the most serious crises which the world has ever known; that Canada with its 10000,000 people inhabiting half a continent, cannot possibly be free from the operations of the great currents that move round about us, currents that make for depression, destruction of values,, almost every peril to which the financial structure of a country could be subjected. I 41761-1721
think it is in the minds of most people that we are living in the most difficult days this country has ever experienced. I believe every thoughtful man who looks below the surface of things, realizes that never before has a greater crisis confronted the Canadian people.
In the face of those circumstances and of that crisis we have suggested that it is desirable that we should foe in a position to do at least what we can to save the credit of Canada and of the provinces and of the whole life, financial and otherwise, of the dominion if the necessity arises. I trust hon. gentlemen realize that other countries some in one way and some in another, are taking the steps we propose to take. I suppose it is in the minds of most who read the papers the other day that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England set aside a sum amounting to several hundred million dollars for the purpose of protecting exchange. Why? Because the life of Great Britain was threatened nationally and financially', and he desired to protect the structure. The United States is acting in another way. Some countries are repudiating their obligations entirely', and with respect to their external debts they say: We shall not [DOT]pay. And they are not paying. For instance, on Saturday last the securities of a South American republic that sold its bonds at a high price during the last two years, stood at $4 for a $100 bond although the interest rate was six per cent. I give that as an illustration- and I can mention many-of the fact that on these two continents, the North and South American, we 'have a very acute situation, one which is accentuated so far as Canada is concerned, by reason of our juxtaposition, our geographical location to the greatest population inhabiting one area in the world, that population experiencing a condition which is certainly much more difficult, they say, than ours, and however much it may 'be that hon. gentlemen opposite deprecate the actions we have taken, belittle the efforts we have made, and scoff and scorn at what we have endeavoured to do, the fact remains that in the minds of others who are keen and shrewd observers, this country has done very well up to the present. In fact, there are those who think it has done 'as well as, if not better than, any other country in the world.
It may be that misery loves company; it may 'be desirable to say that all the world is in the same position as Canada, and Canada is in the same position as all the world; but to state this is just a common, ordinary everyday fact, and if the measures we suggest fall short of meeting the situation, then indeed we would be blamed. If the measures which we
2732	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
suggest have so far met the situation, fairly- I do not say tranacendentally-better than was to be hoped for, then I think we are at least warranted in asking parliament to enable the government to continue to discharge its functions to the best of its ability. What the leader of the apposition has said is that the government finds itself unable to grapple with this, that or the other problem. When I hear those statements .made and I am reminded of the situation that confronted us in June and July, 1930, I wonder if this is the day of Rip Van Winkle, when men who have been asleep have suddenly wakened up and cannot realize the tremendous world changes that have transpired meanwhile. This government is always willing and ready to accept its responsibilities and to carry them out. But when conditions have changed, when such a crisis as the world has ever known is upon us, I say it is neither fair not does it appeal to the people of this country for a single minute to make comparisons of that kind. What is more, every day brings communications to one member or another of this government, barely a day goes by that I do not personally receive communications from people asking, when they knew this measure was before us, how otherwise could we proceed?
I am not going to labour the point. I have already dealt with it to the best of my ability. I have endeavoured to impress on my fellow-Canadians the gravity of the situation and the extent of the crisis that confronts this country. Hours and days have been taken up in discussing the resolution on which this bill is based. Now we have once more paraded in this house the long and dreary tale of our constitutional wrongs and of the evils that will follow from the application of the principle of this measure. We heard it last year. We have heard it this year three times already. I can almost recite what the right hon. gentleman will say as soon as he gets on his feet. I know that the word "subversive" will be used just as frequently as it is possible for him to use it, and that the word "constitution" will flow from his lips with as much ease as it is possible for words to flow, and you know how easy that is. The constitution is being wrecked, something entirely subversive of the interests of Canada is being proposed, and I cry aloud and none heeds my cry-that is the position of the right hon. leader of the opposition. The whole pillars of the state are being wrecked, and will not one hon. gentleman opposite come to the rescue, come and put down all this tyranny and avoid all the evils that will flow to the Canadian people from this measure

that the government is proposing? That is the position of the right hon. gentleman. Is it any wonder that the people of this country are getting a little weary of that sort of thing and saying that the time has come when men should take action and not indulge in mere words, mere talk about something subversive of the constitution. Oh, the evils that have been wrought in the name of the constitution 1 The right hon. gentleman has never forgotten that a constitutional issue whereby a letter written by the representative of the crown was not made known to the people enabled him to receive power when he should not have had it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. friend has restated something that he said a little earlier in the session. I intend to reply to him by quoting the communication in full a little later on. In the meantime I say to him that he is making a statement that is entirely unwarranted by any communication to which he has referred.


William Richard Motherwell: And it is the third time he has done it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And I say it the fourth time. I would not expect the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) would understand it, but what was done was this, and there the record is, and it stands for itself and can be read of all men. It is not what I say; it is what the record contains. It was a statement written by the right hon. gentleman himself, to which a reply was sent by a representative of the crown, and there are men in this house who went to and fro in Canada in 1926, and I look fairly now at one of them who gave an interview to the Manitoba Free Press in which he spoke of dictatorial powers being used for the purpose of enabling England to trample upon the rights of this country, and that Downing street had suddenly taken the place of Ottawa and dominated the situation in Canada, and that this parliament had not been free to exercise its rights. Read that correspondence. I make no comment; read it. But I do say this, that if the people of Canada had known of that correspondence as they should have, the constitutional issues that we have been hearing about ever since would not have been talked about so often.
Either the right hon. gentleman has become obsessed with this talk about the constitution or else he knows nothing about it-one or the other; for to-day, in dealing with the question of the relative rights of parliament and the executive he exactly reversed the decisions

Unemployment-Agreements mth Provinces
of the privy council in dealing with those problems. Parliament is all-powerful to deal with our constitutional position, but parliament must delegate its powers to commissions. The railway commission is one. Parliament has appointed that commission and has delegated its powers to it. It has provided how those powers shall be exercised and by whom. Parliament appoints other commissions from time to time and confers upon them the necessary authority for their action. All power must spring from parliamentary action, and when parliament has conferred the power it is determined by parliament who shall exercise that power. Shall it be by a railway commission or shall it be by the executive, and the executive is the governor in council? Parliament is being asked now to confer upon the governor in council, the executive of this countrj-, the power to carry out its will; that is all. When parliament conferred upon the harbour board of Montreal the right to issue securities without limitation and determined that the governor in council might guarantee those securities, if the argument of the right hon. gentleman is right, then every one of those securities is invalid; but everyone knows that they are not invalid, that parliament conferred upon the executive the right to guarantee those bonds without limiting the amount. Parliament was not aware at that time that a few months before the election a couple of millions were to be issued to bring the total up to nineteen and a half million dollars altogether, whereas the representations were that the cost was going to be six million dollars. But parliament conferred the power, and having conferred the power, parliament must be bound by the exercise of it.
In this measure parliament is asked to confer on the executive these powers. I have said, and I repeat, that under conditions so abnormal, in a crisis so great, you will find no case in which there has been any suggestion of corruption or of -wrongdoing within the proper meaning of those words in connection with the exercise of these powers by the governor in council during the last two years. It is true that there are cases in which there are differences of opinion. It is true that there are cases in which there is criticism. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) has dealt with the criticism of the leader of the opposition as to the exercise of the power in granting to the Canadian National a sum of money with which to buy ties for relief purposes. What happened was this: If the Canadian National without our passing an order in council or granting them a single dollar
had gone out and spent money to buy ties, and had then put the cost in as part of its deficit,, as it would have done, and parliament had then voted the money, as it would have done, you would have had exactly the same, identical result. But parliament clothed the executive with power, and the executive in the exercise of that power granted money to the Canadian National to the extent of over one million dollars for the purpose of buying ties, and the Canadian National bought the ties and paid for the ties. It may be that the price paid for the ties was less than it should have been. I have heard it suggested that the price was too low, that it was not a fair price, that a man could not make a living wage making ties at that price. I have heard that suggested by hon. gentlemen on this side and by my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Yeniot) on the other side, and I know when he said it that he meant and believed that the price at which the Canadian National let its contracts for ties was a price not fair to the producer. The Minister of Railways has stated to-day that the price for the ties averaged 52 cents as against a higher price prevailing in days gone by. Mr. Speaker, the principle is that the executive, having been authorized by parliament to make grants for relief purposes, did make that grant to the Canadian National on condition that the money should be expended to buy ties, and the Canadian National bought ties with the money.
It is said that the Minister of Railways indicated that the contracts should all be let to contractors of one political faith, and that in the giving out of relief work it should be kept in mind that all the people of Canada did not belong to one political party. Now as to the extent to which his direction, if you call it that, putting it at the highest, was carried out, it is perfectly pertinent and proper to inquire, but the inquiry must be as to the administration of the railway and not as to the administration of relief. I think all will agree as to that.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: We cannot get the information either place.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. For the second time this session, the Prime Minister referred this afternoon to a communication which passed between a former Governor General, Lord Byng, and myself in the month of June, 1926. The Prime Minister stated that this communication bears out the contention which he made by inference this afternoon, and which he stated in a very direct way on February 8 in this house, that I was seeking to raise a constitutional issue between the governor general and the government of the day which would make it appear that Downing street was controlling matters in this Dominion, rather than that any action of mine in relation to the former governor general was taken wholly with the view of averting any such constitutional issue. At the time the Prime Minister referred to this matter earlier in the session he said that he had under his hand-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, that when a debate is concluded in this house it is finished. The rules so state. The right hon. gentleman is entirely within his rights in bringing up a question of privilege, but it must be confined at least to that question of privilege as it has arisen. The other day his colleague
2738	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
raised the point that unless the question was taken up immediately and dealt with it was not proper for the Minister of Finance to deal with a reflection upon the conduct of the members of the government. That was the view then taken. Now I only desire to point out, sir, that the question of privilege must be dealt with as it arose this afternoon; it must not be some question of privilege that arose some months ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am a little surprised that the Prime Minister, on a matter which affects a former governor general as well as a former Prime Minister of Canada, should not wish this house and this parliament to have an exact and full statement made. When the matter came up previously I asked the Prime Minister to read in full the document from which he quoted the last paragraph. He was unwilling to do so, and in fact refused to do so. I had not the document with me at the time, as he well knew, and therefore I was not in a position to read it then. But the Prime Minister referred to the matter again this afternoon in the light of what he said on a previous occasion, and I have under my hand the return which was made to this house with respect to the correspondence with the governor general in regard to the dissolution of parliament in 1926.
In his remarks my right hon. friend deliberately conveyed to the house and the country the impression that I was seeking to raise a constitutional issue which would have it appear that this country was being dominated from Downing street and that Downing street was responsible for the decision of His Excellency the Governor General refusing to accept my request for dissolution at the time I was Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What did you say?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just read it, and then there will be no question about it. I will not have any talk of that kind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend has asked me to read it, and I will do so. I refer to Hansard of February 8, 1932, where he is reported as follows:
When the right hon. gentleman saw fit to endeavour to criticize the position taken by myself with respect to the crown and the representatives of the crown, I think it would have come with better grace had some other person made that obse-vation. For I recall-[DOT]

and I have in my hand a document that was kept without being made public in June, 1926 -a great campaign in one of the provinces waged on the ground that Downing street was dominating Canada, and the only suggestion that Downing street should be consulted with respect to the matter then to be decided was made by the then Prime Minister, the present leader of the opposition, who asked Lord Byng to be pleased to have his resignation withheld pending the time it might be necessary for His Excellency to communicate with the Secretary of State for the Dominions.
Mr. Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker-[DOT]
Some hon. Members: Siit down.
Mr. Mackenzie King:	All I ask is that
any document from which my right hon. friend quotes shall be laid on the table of the house in the usual way.
Mr. Bennett:	Mr. Speaker, the document
is taken from the sessional papers of this house;
I sent down and got it, anticipating that very objection. So the solicitude for the crown, in which the right hon. gentleman has been so considerate to-night, is one of the new-born faiths that come when one finds himself in opposition and not in power. My right hon. friend was willing to have the representative of the crown in this country attacked from platforms throughout Canada on the ground that Downing street was being permitted to govern Canada-
Mr. Mackenzie King:	Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister is talking about something about which he knows nothing whatever, and is saying things that are absolutely incorrect.
Mr. Bennett: This is not the only instance to which I shall point, not only with regard to inconsistency but worse, before I conclude.
I want the right hon. gentleman to understand, when he makes the observations he has made, that I am reading from sessional paper 91 of Monday, February 14, 1927, and the closing paragraph of that letter-
Mr. Mackenzie King: Read the whole letter-[DOT]
Mr. Bennett: The closing paragraph of the letter, which is signed by W. L. Mackenzie King, reads as follows:
If there is anything which, having regard to my responsibilities as Prime Minister, I can even yet do to avert such a deplorable and, possibly, far-reaching crisis, I shall be glad so to do, and shall be pleased to have my resignation withheld at Your Excellency's request pending the time it may be necessary for Your Excellency to communicate with the Secretary of State for the Dominions.
I am, Your Excellency,
Yours very sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
And then a whole campaign was conducted; and within the sound of my voice there are members who declared time after time that this country was no longer a colony and could not be ruled from Downing street, while the right hon. gentleman sat mute from malice. Not a word did he ever say as to the truth; not a word did he ever communicate to the Canadian people as to the fact that he had asked Lord Byng to appeal to Downing street and that Lord Byng had declined. So^ the campaign was finished. That was the solicitude shown for the crown by my right hon. friend; [DOT] there you have the position clearly defined.

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
Now, in the first instance, referring to the document that was under my right hon. friend's hand and which he said was concealed throughout the campaign, may I direct attention to the fact that the document was in the nature of correspondence which had passed-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is that necessary to the question of -privilege which the right hon. gentleman is raising?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is necessary for me to explain the correspondence in order to discuss the question of privilege, which is whether or not I was trying to raise a constitutional issue in the correspondence I had with His Excellency the Governor General, or whether, as I -contend, I was seeking to avert such an issue. I wish to make it clear that I was seeking to avert a constitutional issue, and I can do so only by reading in full the communication to which reference has been made 'by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has read only the last paragraph, and I wish to read the whole of the communication. First of all, I wish (to make clear whether or not, as insinuated, the document was held back. As a matter of fact, the document itself was the last one that passed between myself and the then governor general when I was Prime Minister, and it could not have 'been brought out in public until this parliament authorized the production and publication of the correspondence between His Excellency the then Governor General and myself. That publication was asked for as soon as parliament met in the next session and was (brought down in the form of a formal return which was made to this house, having been asked for from the government side of the house. Had there been a desire to conceal any communications, certainly the motion for the return would have been refused, had the government wished to adopt that course; but above all it would not have been asked for by the government itself if there was any desire other than to have the facts known.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In view of all that, what is the question of privilege?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid you were not in the chair, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister spoke earlier this afternoon.
I rose then and said that I would take immediate opportunity, upon the conclusion of his remarks, to deal with the matter. The -question of privilege is this: I am being placed in the position, before the country, of one who during his incumbency of the office of Prime Minister sought to raise a constitutional issue by compelling or seeking to compel the then governor general to communicate with Downing street with a view to getting refusal from Downing street, which would have permitted a constitutional issue to be raised-, as to the domination of Canada by Downing street.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was not even suggested.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The correspondence bears out directly the opposite.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: After all, that is only a matter of political debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, Mr. Speaker. It is a most vital issue that has been raised, one which affects the office of Prime Minister of this country.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: One party says that an effort was made to raise a constitutional issue, and the other -party denies that this was done. It does not seem to me that the right hon. the leader of the opposition has made out a question of privilege.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not yet read the -communication, and I ask, as leader of the opposition and a former Prime Minister, the right to place the -communication in full on record.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Any hon. member on either side of the house -might object to quotations from his speeches or remarks during the last campaign, and that would be just as much a question of -privilege as that which the right hon. gentleman is now raising.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It affects my honour as one who has held the office of Prime Minister, and after recess-it is now six o'clock -I intend to -continue, or at any rate to endeavour to have placed on Hansard the full communication, which I say will bear out my contention that instead of seeking to raise a constitutional issue, I was doing all in my power to avert one.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The right hon. gentleman might have done so when addressing the house this afternoon, or on numerous preceding occasions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I could not at the time, Mr. Speaker; I rose at once-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It does not seem to me that the right hon. gentleman has laid the foundation for a question of privilege. It being six o'clock I now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
2740	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
at six o'clock I was speaking to a question of privilege. May I state more particularly the point that I should like to have in Your Honour's mind at the moment? In the course of my remarks this afternoon, I referred to some observations made by the Prime Minister, and the right hon. gentleman asked me to read exactly what he had said. I complied with his request in that particular, and in so doing, placed anew on Hansard a portion of a communication from which the Prime Minister had quoted in a previous debate, but which, read by itself, along with the words of the Prime Minister, leaves an entirely erroneous impression. The impression which my right hon. friend endeavoured to convey was to the effect that in my last communication to the then Governor General, prior to the dissolution of 1926, I had sought to raise a constitutional issue, which would have it appear that Canada was still to some extent under the control of Downing street.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Once more I am sorry to interrupt. That is not what I said or what I endeavoured to convey. I said that was what the right hon. gentleman's followers did in the country, and they canvassed throughout the dominion that w'e were dominated by Downing street.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If there were
any such action on the part of my followers it was taken without my consent and without my knowledge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The newspapers were full of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly it
was without any justification as a consequence of anything that appeared in any communication from me to His Excellency, the then Governor General. May I read the entire communication? I hope it will clear up once for all the situation as it then existed.
Before doing so, I should like to make a correction with reference to a statement that I made just before recess. I said that the return which was brought down had been brought down at the instance of the government of the day. I have since had an opportunity to verify the facts as to how the return came to be brought down, and I believe it was on a motion by the then hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. That, however, does not affect the matter in any particular, as had there been a desire on the part
	.
of the government not to bring down the correspondence, the return might have been voted down as other motions for returns have been voted down in this house this session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the right hon.
gentleman will remember, if he will look at the same Hansard, he greatly deprecated the correspondence being asked for.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That may be.
I do not know that any useful purpose was served by bringing it down, and I had no desire to continue any controversy on a matter which I thought had been finally disposed of.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: May I repeat what I said before six o'clock? I cannot agree with the leader of the opposition that he is in order in treating this as a question of privilege. Personal explanations are often allowed by the house, and if the house has no objection, the Speaker has none to a personal explanation being made by the right hon. gentleman, but as regards treating it as a matter of privilege, I am quite confident it is not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope the
house will take a broad enough view of a matter of this kind, which affects the honour of the leader of one of the political parties in the house and one who has held the office of Prime Minister, with respect to an action of his as Prime Minister, to permit me to place on record the complete communication from which a portion has been selected by the leader of the government of the day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to make an observation in that regard. The other day the ex-minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) said in this chamber that rules were what governed the conduct of the house, and in the face of that statement he called upon the Speaker to prevent any explanation being made as to charges that members inside the government had not converted their securities. He said: It is not a question of privilege; the rules are there to govern, and he said: I rely upon the rules. Your Honour is the custodian of the operation and administration of the rules of this house. Whatever Your Honour decides as Speaker of this chamber, we shall endeavour to obey. But when the colleague and deskmate of the leader of the opposition takes that view with respect to a matter which affected at this time the honour of members of this house who are sitting on the government benches, and invoked the rules in support of his position, if I venture to say to you, sir, that whatever your interpretation of the rules is should be obeyed equally by the government and the opposition, I would be stating the fact.

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have already ruled it is not a question of privilege on which as such the leader of the opposition may address the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think, sir, Your Honour also said that if the house were prepared to accept a personal explanation which would necessitate my reading the full communication, I might have the privilege of reading it. Of course, if the house denies me that privilege, it has a right so to do; but I really cannot understand why the Prime Minister, of all others, should wish to deny to one who has held the office of Prime Minister, the reading of any communication which is as important in its bearing as this one is, particularly when he himself has quoted only a part of it. If I may then read the communication, it is as follows:
Ottawa, June 28, 1926.
His Excellency
The Right Honourable
The Baron Byng of Yimy, G.C.B., IC.C.M.G., Governor General of the Dominion of Canada, Ottawa.
My Dear Governor General,-
Your Excellency having declined to accept nry advice to place your signature to the order in council with reference to a dissolution of parliament, which I have placed before you to-day. 1 hereby tender to Your Excellency my resignation as Prime Minister of Canada.
Your Excellency will recall that in our recent conversations relative to dissolution I have on each occasion suggested to Your Excellency, as I have again urged this morning, that having regard to the possible very serious consequences of a refusal of the advice of your first minister to dissolve parliament, you should, before definitely deciding on this step, cable the Secretary of State for the Dominions asking the British government, from whom you have come to Canada under instructions, what, in the opinion of the Secretary of State for the Dominions, your course should be in the event of the Prime Minister presenting you with an order in council having reference to a dissolution.
As a refusal by a governor general to accept the advice of a prime minister is a serious step at any time, and most serious under existing conditions in all parts of the British Empire to-day, there will be raised, I fear, by the refusal on Your Excellency's part to accept the advice tendered a grave constitutional question without precedent in the history of Great Britain for a century and in the history of Canada since confederation.
If there is anything which, having regard to my responsibilities as Prime Minister, I can even yet do to avert such a deplorable and, possibly, far-reaching crisis, I shall be glad so to do, and shall be pleased to have my resignation withheld at Your Excellency's request pending the time it may be necessary for Your Excellency to communicate with the Secretary of State for the Dominions.
I am, Your Excellency,
Yours very sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
I submit that communication makes it quite clear that what I was seeking to do was to avoid the raising of a constitutional issue. I knew that only a short time before a dissolution had been granted to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald at the time he was Prime Minister of Great Britain, after he had been in office for only ten months, and I was sure that any advice which would come from the British government to the then governor general would be to suggest to him to accept the advice of his first minister. This was only one of different courses I suggested with a view of avoiding, if at all possible, the raising of a constitutional issue. It was not done in any attempt to have it appear that the British government were seeking to dominate affairs in Canada. On the contrary I expressly stated at the time that I did not wish even to be informed as to what opinion might come from the British government to the then governor general in answer to any questions in that regard he might submit to the British government.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: I listened this afternoon to the
remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) with a very great deal of interest. I was somewhat surprised at the manner in which the Minister of Railways concluded his remarks, by bringing in the question of expenditures by the Canadian National Railway in 1929, especially in view of the fact that the railway committee is still sitting and has not yet made its final report. But inasmuch as the minister criticized the late government for expenditure in connection with the Canadian National Railway and brought up the matter of the report, I might be pardoned, Mr. Speaker, if I read what happened in the railway committee on May 3, 1932.


Robert James Manion: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not bring up the question of the report of the railway committee, and I did not quote from that report in any way, although members opposite did. I think that the report should not be dealt with in the house until the special committee makes its final report.


Mr. RHODES:: I must respectfully rise,
Mr. Speaker, to another point of order, that it is not competent for the hon. gentleman to refer to proceedings in a committee which has not yet reported to this house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think both points of
order are well taken.
2742	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces


Peter Heenan: I have the matter in my
mind anyway. I happened to be sitting in the railway committee room while that portion of the investigation was going on.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is just as much out of order to quote from memory as to read from the report of the proceedings of the committee before the report itself is brought in.


Peter Heenan: I can recall the Minister
of Railways this afternoon dealing very exhaustively with expenditures by the Canadian National Railway in 1929 and blaming the then government for the expenditures of that year, and I was about to quote the explanation given by Sir Henry Thornton. But if I am not allowed to quote from the proceedings of that committee, to my mind the explanation of the Canadian National management would be that by reason of the railway equipment becoming obsolete there was a danger that it would be refused on other railways. For instance, they had wooden frames on some of their cars, and generally the equipment was becoming so dangerous to life and property that American railroads, and probably other railroads in Canada, might refuse to accept the Canadian National equipment. That is the explanation that will be given by the management and will be read in the report.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter Heenan: Another reason will probably be given by the railway. In order to operate the railway economically, locomotives of greater power were necessary, and it had been decided by the directors of the road in the fall of 192S that as soon as the finances of the road would permit, larger locomotives would be purchased in order to enable the Canadian National to compete with other roads. When railway conditions in 1928 and 1929 are compared with the conditions of 1931 it will readily be seen that the time to renew or purchase new equipment was in 1928 and 1929. For instance, in 1929 there were moved on our railroads in Canada 115,187,028 tons of freight, and in the same year 39,070,893 passengers. In 1931, there was a reduction, as compared with 1929, of 41,357,028 tons of freight moved, and of over twelve and a half million in the number of passengers carried. There were employed on our railroads in 1929,
187.846	employees, and in 1931, 154,000, or
33.846	less in 1931 than in 1929. The wages paid to railroad men in 1929 were $290,732,500, as compared with $228,260,000 in 1931, or a reduction in 1931 of approximately $61,500,000. So comparing the number of tons of freight

and the number of passengers moved and the wages paid in 1929 and 1931, it will be realized that the proper time to make purchases, if the' railroad wanted to renew its equipment, was in 1929.
The increased power on the railroads necessitated stronger equipment throughout the trains. The larger the train the greater the danger through weakness in any one part. For instance, in an emergency application of the brakes, a car with a wooden frame is likely to buckle up and cause not only damage to property but possible loss of life. Our railroad record in Canada is second to none in the world. The. records show that our Canadian railroads move approximately twelve thousand tons of freight more per man than do the railroads in the United States. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I consider that whatever the management wanted to do in the way of keeping up the equipment they had a perfect right to do.
There seems to be a conflict of view between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways. While the Minister of Railways did not say so specifically, I understood him to take the view that the railroad management and the government ought to have seen in 1929 that economically things were going wrong in the world and consequently they ought not to have entered upon large purchases, but should have saved the money. On the other hand, the Prime Minister said that no one in 1930 could foresee what the economic conditions of the world might be. However much they differ, I do not think we on this side ought to be compared with Rip van Winkle. No one should deny to the Canadian National Railway, our own railway, the right of keeping the road abreast of other systems on this American continent.
I regarded the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon as a frank confession of failure on the part of his government to meet conditions in this country. He gave as an excuse that no one could foresee in 1930 what the conditions of the world have turned out to be. But I recollect that very many Liberals, as I did myself in some of my speeches on the hustings, blamed conditions in Canada upon world economic conditions. I can recall the then premier of Ontario, the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, now High Commissioner for Canada in London, making fun of that on platforms throughout northern Ontario. He said it was the Minister of Labour's duty to see that conditions in Canada were all right, and that he should not bother about other parts of the world. I can recall speeches made by the present Prime Minister wherein he stated that

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
to refer to conditions existing in other parts of the world was no excuse, that if he were elected to office the government would do its duty, and there was no excuse for any man or woman willing and able to work to be out of employment. It may be that the right hon. gentleman expects the Canadian people to forget those statements, but I doubt very much whether they will.
The Prime Minister to-day tried to hide behind the constitution. Of course it is ail very well for him to taunt the leader of the Liberal party for being a stickler on constitutional questions. I find, however, that the present government on every possible occasion hides behind the constitution. There was a constitution in Canada in 1930, which I do not think has been changed since.


Mr. ERNST:: What about the statute of Westminster?


Peter Heenan: In that year the matter of unemployment was before the people. In no uncertain terms the Prime Minister said it was the duty of the federal government to provide work and that if that government fulfilled its duties there should be no unemployment in Canada. He said a government should find a job for every man and woman able to work, and he undertook to do it. At that time there was no suggestion that it was the duty of the provinces. There was no suggestion that the provinces should take any responsibility, or that the action of the federal government would be merely supplementary. On the contrary the Prime Minister made specific promises that if the Conservative party were elected to power they would end unemployment and treat it on a national basis; there was no question whatever of the provinces coming into the picture. Since that time however, after elected to power, the government headed by the Prime Minister brings in legislation involving provincial obligations. First come the municipalities, then the provinces, with the efforts of the smaller bodies to be supplemented by the federal government. Since the election, therefore, we have witnessed a turn-about-face.
A few days ago the Minister of Labour was answering questions on the national highways matter, and whether or not he endeavoured to evade questions the fact is he was not very frank in his explanations. There are some hon. members on this side of the house wrho would like to know whether or not the government intend to go on with the national highways they promised, or whether they intend only to contribute to the provinces when they are in need. We should like to know the stand now taken by the government. In 1930 no constitutional question was raised. The words of the Prime Minister at Cobourg on June 24 are reported in the London Free Press of June 25 as follows:
A national highway for Canadians. A highway in Canada, not through some other country. A highway in which you can leave Cape Breton and arrive in Vancouver without going into a foreign land. Mr. Bennett declared the undertaking must be accomplished by the hands of the federal government.
At that time there was no question of constitutionality and no suggestion that the provinces would be expected to contribute. A direct promise was made that the national highway would be built, and that promise was one of the weapons used against your humble servant during the last election campaign. Federal Conservatives promised that the highway would be built; the provincial Minister of Lands and Forests and his colleague the then Premier of Ontario, the Hon. G. Howard 'Ferguson, promised from the hustings that the highway would be built. What are we going to do? The Prime Minister has asked for concrete suggestions from this side of the house. The bill now before us provides for only direct relief. If I understand correctly the bill before us, together with the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour, we have nothing in view to-day but direct relief. True, the Ontario government through its Minister of Lands and Forests has stated that there are certain camps in northern Ontario to which anyone who is without a home may go. Those men will be given eight hours' work each day constructing highways, they will be fed and given five dollars a month to boot. That, however, is not a serious attempt to build highways. I am sure the government will not secure men who will be content to work eight hours each day out in the boiling sun constructing highways, and receive in return only five dollars a month.
I should like to know this: Is northern Ontario again to be treated to another period of highways political expediency? The highways in northern Ontario have for years been kept for political expediency. After the money which was spent last year on the highway are we this year simply going to close down those expensive camps? I have no complaint about them, because I do not think anything can be too good for the men in that part of the country. But in view of the expenditures which have been made in camps and equipment, are we going to allow the parts of highways already constructed to grow up in bush and weeds, or are the people in that part of the country to receive the justice which for years they have been seeking?
2744	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
I am pleased that on many occasions the Prime Minister has acknowledged-that the highways in Canada would be an asset, not a liability. From time to time he has referred to the great value to Canada of the tourist traffic. In northern Ontario we have one of the finest tourist districts to be found anywhere on the North American continent. Lakes, rivers, streams and forests abound, with fish, game and all sorts of possibilities for sport. Only an expenditure of a few thousand dollars is necessary to connect that great portion of the country with western Canada and the United States. The history of the northern highways is one upon which we cannot look with any degree of pride. I can recall that in 1921 the government of the day in Ontario was persuaded to cooperate with the Manitoba government in connecting the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba. In 1921 contracts were let and the work proceeded fairly well until 1923. Then the government changed in Ontario and the work was practically closed down. In 1924 Mr. Lyons, Minister of Lands and Forests, made several speeches in that part of the country and emphatically put his government on record as being determined to complete the highway from the Manitoba boundary to Sault Ste. Marie. Nothing was done except scratching the surface. In the provincial election of 1926 the highway was again promised; in 1926 during the federal election the highway was again promised; but nothing much was done. The Conservative candidate had been elected in the 1926 elections, but at the next provincial election in 1929 the electors declined to accept any further promises, and he was defeated. In the meantime the Manitoba government had gone ahead with the construction of their portion of the highway. Owing to the urgent representations of the present local member in the Ontario legislature, backed by others, the Ontario government did go ahead, and during the federal election of 1930 the provincial Minister of Lands and Forests specifically promised that the highway to Manitoba would be open for traffic in 1931. We have been a little delayed, but now we are assured that it will be ready for traffic by the first of July this year. I gladly take the opportunity to invite every member of this house to be present on that occasion so that they may have the pleasure of visiting one of the finest tourist districts in the whole dominion.
I am hoping that the government will not be a party to the arrangement said to have been made with the provincial government, but that they will undertake to carry out at least one of their pledges to the people, even

if it is only the connecting up of the provincial highways. Sixty-one miles of construction would complete the highway from Ignace to Winnipeg. There are a few miles of uncompleted road here and there; in addition another twenty-nine miles of construction work is needed to complete the highway between Sioux Lookout and the town of Dinorwic and Dryden; then we have a highway under construction to the south connecting up Kenora and the Rainy River districts. In other words, it will take sixty-one miles of road work to complete the main highway, another twenty-nine miles across to Sioux Lookout, and sixty miles across to Rainy River; these will connect up the whole of new Ontario with western Canada and the outside world. Figuring the cost at $S,000 per mile this work can be completed for $1,200,000. I am satisfied that if the Prime Minister and his government will proceed with this highway construction they will be doing something for that part of new Ontario and at the same time they will be creating a national asset and it would be much better to provide work in this manner than by direct relief. I am making the suggestion at this late hour in the hope that the Minister of Labour will see to it that this highway work is proceeded with. On the last occasion when I was speaking on this subject I pointed out to him that it was false economy to go ahead with road construction work in the winter season and then to suspend operations in the summer. Winter temperatures in that country run from 20 to 40 and even 50 degrees below zero. Hon. members will readily understand how hard it is to construct highways under such severe climatic conditions, but the work has been gone on with all winter; now the men are being laid off and put on direct relief, although the camps are fully equipped for continuing the work. The provincial Minister of Lands and Forests, speaking in Kenora in July, 1931, said, according to the Miner and News of July 15, 1931:
Winter work in road building was only carried out to relieve distress. Winter work was a nuisance and a criminal waste for they did not get value for money expended. The men could not possibly give them value under winter conditions.
It will be observed that he bears out what I said on a previous occasion. I think this government will be lax in its duty if they do not undertake to complete that highway now that we have so many men out of work and when it could be proceeded with under conditions which would permit the men to work in comfort and render full value to the country.

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
A little while ago I said I did not think the Minister of Labour was altogether frank the other day when I asked him several times in respect to this highway. To say the least he did not give a direct answer. The -provincial Minister of Lands and Forests, however, has made a statement in connection with the matter. It may be that he is wrong ;-if the Minister of Labour says he is I will not quarrel with his statement, for I have often found him wrong-but this is what the provincial minister said as reported in the Kenora Miner and News of April 27 last, the report being copied from the Mail and Empire:
Hon. William Finlayson, Minister of Lands and Forests, announced last night that the plan worked out by the dominion and provincial governments is purely a relief measure to afford shelter for men in the camps who have no other means, many of whom have expressed a desire to stay in the north after the official closing time, rather than coming into the cities.
The men will be given board, lodging and five dollars a month spending money, and will work eight hours daily under the supervision of the permanent engineering staff of the Department of Northern Development. Notification of this arrangement was given to the camps yesterday.	'	.	.If that be true, the Minister of Labour might have been frank enough the other night to say so. I think that when a member from this side asks a question he is entitled to an answer. But I hope it is not true, I hope the Minister of Labour-who belongs to the north country himself, and I know is just as solicitous for its development as I am-I	hope he will not be a	party tothe closing down of the camps and so render more or less useless some portions of the work already done. It is ridiculous to ask workmen to go into that part of the country and labour for five dollars a month. The Hon. Mr. Finlayson wanted to do that over a year	ago,	at that time	he	suggesteda remuneration of fifty cents a day. Apparently he	was	shamed out of	that,	but nowhe does	not	even offer fifty	cents a day.
Five dollars a month is not even twenty-five cents a day, and I hope the present federal government will not be a party to paying men a pittance of five dollars a month and board and lodging. Therefore I beseech the Minister of Labour, the members of the government, and in particular the Prime Minister, to go ahead and carry out what they obligated themselves to do in 1930, and construct the highway through new Ontario.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
*' Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Agreements . with provinces authorized.
Mr; NEILL: The other day in committee I suggested to the minister that he put a little more into the act and a little less into the regulations, but that has not been done. Now I hope the minister will at least give us some information to amplify what seems to be lacking in the bill. This section gives the government power to enter into agreements with any of the provinces with respect to relief measures, and it is extremely vague in its terms:
(a) Enter into agreements with any of the provinces respecting relief measures therein;
That might cover a lot of things or it might cover very little. One might take it to include the elaborate system of unemployment relief work carried on last year, but we have been told more or less casually that this is not intended, that we are to have only direct relief. At the present moment I am only anxious to find out exactly what is our position, and I submit that with the experience gained in years gone by it would have been quite appropriate for the minister to state more definitely in the act what his policy is going to be. We have been told that at the conference of provincial premiers it was unanimously agreed that only direct relief measures should be carried on. If that is the case the British Columbia representatives have changed their point of view very considerably and very rapidly. About a fortnight ago the legislature of British Columbia adopted the report of an unemployment committee containing a number of recommendations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I may interrupt, I
tried to make clear this afternoon that the position was not quite as the hon. gentleman has said. I stated that some of the provinces wanted the men to do something for the sustenance and support they received, but they did not determine how much that should be. I tried to make that clear this afternoon; I spoke of sustenance and support and said the men would have to do something for it. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has mentioned that one province wanted to pay five dollars a month, but I did not mention any amount.

2746	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces


Mr. NEILL:: Does the Prime Minister
say I was mistaken when I said that British Columbia objected to direct relief?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. British Columbia
did object to doles, as my hon. friend is now using that term; they wanted to provide some work so that any man who received sustenance woujpl have, to do some work for it.


Alan Webster Neill: Their recommendation was
that direct relief, being wasteful and demoralizing, as far as possible should be discontinued in favour of work for which some remuneration could be given. It may be that the word "dole" would not be a good description, but certainly the resemblance is very close. I take it that British Columbia wanted to go on with a policy of providing work rather than a policy of direct relief. However, we will suppose that the policy to-day is to be one of direct relief, so the next thing we want to know is what share of that expenditure is to be borne by this government. I think that question was directed to the minister when the resolution was in committee, and we were told that it had not been decided. That is a very important point. I do not intend to quibble with the government with regard to the constitutional point of view, but here is the government announcing its policy, so surely it would be appropriate to tell us at least what proportion of this direct relief it contemplates paying. Section 2 gives the government power to enter into agreements, but it does not say what percentage shall be borne by the federal authority. We have only the experience of the past to guide us, and we know that last year the cost of direct relief was paid equally by the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion, each paying 33i per cent. Is that plan to be. followed again this year? We do not know, and I think it is highly important that we should know. For one thing it materially affects the interests of the province and of the municipality. Last year they each paid 33i per cent of the cost of direct relief, but in connection with unemployment work the province only paid 25 per cent and the city paid the same. That would make a very substantial difference to the municipalities in my. district, and I am free to say that they cannot pay that proportion this year. It is not fair to compel them to adopt a policy under which, instead of paying less, they will pay more than they paid in the past.
There is another point I should like to raise iu that connection; I do not know that it particularly arose in British Columbia but a case did come under my observation in

connection with a town in Ontario. They exhausted the money available for unemployment relief work; they could have fallen back on direct relief, but they did not want to do so and the men did not want to receive orders for groceries and give nothing for them. So the city allowed them to continue working and paid them by these relief orders, but they were told; either by the province or by the dominion that they would have to discontinue this practice or they would not get the dominion government's share of the cost of direct relief, which was supposed to be limited to the giving of grocery orders to people who were not working. I should like to know if that contingency has been provided for; certainly it should be. The other day I saw that the city of Nanaimo had adopted what seemed to- be a reasonable policy of what they called direct relief. Attached to it was a condition whereby the unemployed people who received these grocery orders worked them out on the basis of $31.50 a month for a married man. This amounted to eight days' work a month, but perhaps there would be the danger that the city, and in its turn the province, would not be eligible to receive the share of the Dominion government, because it might not be called direct relief inasmuch as the men did some work. The minister may tell us that this is not so, but that is what we want to know. We want to know, to put it in the vernacular, where we get off. We want to be able to go home to our municipalities and tell them just what are their rights in the matter.
While my next point is not exactly pertinent to this section I might just introduce it here. Under section 7 the regulations and orders in council made under the provisions of the act are not to be laid before parliament-until the following April 15. These regulations especially, and the orders in council as well, should be made public at the earliest possible moment. By this time the cities of British Columbia have acquired a sort of aloof attitude towards the provincial government; the cities feel that they must be rather careful in their dealings, and they, want to know what are their rights. Within a very few weeks the government must inevitably pass these regulations indicating what their policy is, and I submit that they should be in this bill. Suppose they state the policy in the regulations; then I say that the regulations should not be merely sent to the province to leak out by slow degrees to the people in the districts, but at the very earliest moment they should be published in the Gazette so that everyone would know just where he stood. If they cannot afford to do

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
this, or if there is some constitutional ob-jection^and there is none-then at least the minister should give us an assurance that he will circularize the members of parliament so that at least one man in each district will be cognizant of the regulations, apart from the provincial authorities. I hope he will give us that assurance. Before this section passes I should be glad if the minister would be kind enough to tell us whether it has yet been decided what percentage of relief moneys the government will pay to the different provinces, and through the provinces to the cities.


George Gordon: There is no desire on the part of the government to withhold from the committee any information with respect to the tentative arrangements, if I may so describe them, that have at present been advanced by the provinces to the Dominion government with reference to the various localities in the different provinces. The Dominion government is considering with the provinces the question of food and clothing and shelter, and the subsistence allowance in the camps to which reference has been made, and the proposal is that the Dominion government will contribute fifty per cent with the provinces. Then there are other situations that arise in the various provinces. In at least three of the middle west provinces the municipalities affected have made submissions, together with their respective provincial representatives, that with respect to directing towards assisting people on lands the moneys that otherwise would be paid in direct relief, the moneys be devoted in a little different way; that is to say, the municipalities-the larger municipalities-are prepared to advance money, while the provincial governments and this government will do the same. At the moment, these agreements, of course, have not been reduced to writing, nor have we gone so far as to enter into a verbal agreement, because, as everyone will understand, we have no right to do so until the legislation passes.


Alan Webster Neill: That is the land scheme.


George Gordon: Yes; that would be if the present negotiations with these provinces become effective. I hope that it will be a threeway agreement, because the municipality affected is relieved of a certain responsibility, the province and the dominion contributing.


Alan Webster Neill: Thirty-three per cent each.


George Gordon: Yes; that is the present arrangement at any rate. I am sure the hon. member will readily understand that there are situations in certain parts of Canada that render it most difficult for the province to 4X761-173J
identify clearly the problem with which it is confronted. That must be apparent, because we have now quite a floating population: Indeed, we have always had one although we have not recognized it fully until this time of depression. So that those agreements that touch special cases will have to be deferred, I am afraid, until the province can make a submission to us with any degree of clarity, in order that we may get down to an understanding that will, on the one hand, enable the problem to be adequately handled, and, on the other hand, help the provinces where help is necessary. I do not know that I can say anything further on that phase of the subject.


Alan Webster Neill: I thank the minister for his information, and in all courtesy perhaps he will allow me to say that it would have been better had this been stated in the act; it would have been more satisfactory. However, he has given me much of what I asked for. We now glean that as regards the camps, the Dominion government and the provinces will pay fifty per cent each; that as regards the land scheme, this is a matter for future negotiation, though at the present time the minister has in mind a contribution of thirty-three and a third per 'Cent each; and that, as regards the floating element and unforeseen conditions generally, this question has not yet been decided on.
There is just one other matter in regard to which he might give me some information, and from what he has said I gather that he is in a position to do so. Take the ordinary small municipality-not the big city, but the small municipality where what I would call ordinary relief is given. I am not referring to those *who will go to the camps, those who are, for the most part, single men; I have in mind just the ordinary relief that is afforded. Has it yet been decided, and if not, why not, what share the dominion will pay? Are they going to compel the cities, through the provinces, to pay thirty-three and a third per cent? If so, will not the minister admit that this will be a greater infliction on the city than under the old scheme of contributing to unemployment relief work, where they paid only twenty-five per cent? Under the direct relief it was thirty-three per cent. What is the policy in that regard?


George Gordon: With respect to direct relief generally-and this covers all the instances to Which the hon. member has referred-the present discussions have been on the basis of contributing fifty per cent. I do not know that any better arrangement can be made. That again, of course, may be subject to some review
Stt'8	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
WMh the agreement with the provinces is con-eluded. A't the moment, however, and I do not think it is likely to be changed, direct relief generally will likely be on the basis of a fifty per cent contribution.


Alan Webster Neill: , The * municipality will pay twenty-five per cent.


George Gordon: Whatever arrangement the province! concerned makes with its municipalities, we cannot, of course, control; but I am sure that the provinces, in making an agreement with the municipalities, must, of necessity, review the situation and determine that question'. Some municipalities are able to pay more than others.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister says that the Dominion government cannot control the share -paid by the municipality. Unless my memory is at fault, it seems to me that the regulations which he issued last year, or the agreement made with the province, stipulated that the province was to pay twenty-five per cent and the city twenty-five per cent. The Dominion government, in other words, did assume some control.


George Gordon: That was a matter of agreement, though.


Alan Webster Neill: Can the minister give me some assurance that if he cannot publish these orders in council and regulations in the Canada Gazette he will at least take steps to make the regulations generally public as soon as possible?


George Gordon: It may be because of my lack of experience in these matters, but I was under the impression that all orders in council were published in the Canada Gazette.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, they are not.


George Gordon: Well, there is no reason in the vvorld that I can see, apart from the expense, why they should not be published.


Alan Webster Neill: And the regulations?


George Gordon: The regulations also.


Alan Webster Neill: Thank you.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Will the provinces be automatically empowered under the bill to work out the relief accounts? That is to say, a certain amount of relief is direct. The province then undertakes to have the recipients do some road work or other necessary public works in payment of these accounts. Will the federal government then demand the payment of that money back in the event of the province working it out?


George Gordon: The money which the federal government will contribute by way of direct relief is non-recoverable. The province,1 of course, is closely in touch with the local situation and it -would be utterly impossible for the Dominion government to take charge' of the direct relief, or even of any other work, except; perhaps, in an advisory way; but the contribution made by the Dominion government with respect to relief is non-recoverable.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am glad to have that explanation, because I may tell the minister that this is not understood iby the government of Saskatchewan at the present time. The minister is aware that 25,000 or 30,000 people at least have moved from the dry districts into the north and have settled for the most part on -bush lands that .belong to the provincial government. In my district I have endeavoured for a long time to get the provincial government to work out the accounts for relief that is administered directly to those settlers. This is a very important problem. Thousands of those men have come into the bush areas where no roads, no facilities whatever were provided. The provincial government, as the minister knows, is not in possession of the necessary funds to build roads, and those men having received and still being on relief,. and who further, I take it, will be obliged to be on relief for a considerable time, there is a means there of getting those roads built. But the Saskatchewan government at any rate understands that if it secures payment of those accounts by way of road work, the federal government may demand the return of the money. I should like to get that point clear, because it is very important. A large amount of money and the welfare of many people are involved, because the settlers cannot continue to remain in those districts unless they, are provided with roads. As I have said, the provincial government is not in possession of funds to enable it to build roads. The money has already been spent. For the most part, the settlers to whom I refer are willing to work out their quota on the roads, to chop out bush roads, build grades and do the necessary work, but the provincial government understands it has no authority to have the accounts worked out in that way, because the federal government has an interest in the relief that is being handed out. : I should like to have the minister make that clear so that there will be no misunderstanding.


George Gordon: The only money that the
federal government expects to have returned to it is that which is loaned to the province

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
concerned-and this affects all three western provinces alike-to pay its share under the agreements that have heretofore been entered into. , What the province is doing with respect to its share, I am not aware. I promise the hon member, however that when the new agreements are entered into, I shall go into that question with the officials of Saskatchewan in order that, if they will give me the information, a clear picture may be had. Then I shall be glad to let the hon. member know exactly what the situation is as between the provinces, municipalities and individuals as nearly as I can get the information.


Milton Neil Campbell: I thank the minister for making the point clear.


Peter John Veniot: I desire, for the sake of
information, to call the attention of the minister to paragraph (a) of clause 2 which reads:
Enter into agreements with any of the provinces respecting relief measures therein.
Under that will the federal government enter into an agreement with the provinces to pay any part of the cost of public works carried on for the relief of unemployment, or will they simply lend the money to the provinces that desire to carry out the work?


George Gordon: It is not the intention of
the government to contribute towards the construction of public works that are started as a measure of relief-


Peter John Veniot: By the provinces?


George Gordon: Yes. The question of
loaning money: for that purpose, when a province desires such work to be carried on, can, of course, be taken up with it at the time.


Peter John Veniot: Having received that
answer, I understand the minister said that as regards food, clothing, and so forth, in camps, or what would be called direct relief, the government would pay fifty per cent. Am I correct in that?


George Gordon: That is under review now
with some of the provinces. With other provinces we have not got that far.


Peter John Veniot: That being direct relief, the people being housed in tents, is the federal government not contributing to public works if the people housed in those camps are engaged in the construction of roads and bridges for the provinces?


George Gordon: To that extent we are,
but where camps are available to which men can go and receive food and clothing and are willing to work, as has been pointed out, they
will be on a subsistence basis. My view is that men who cannot be employed as they would be in normal times, will be very happy to take advantage of just such camps and to do a few days' work.


Peter John Veniot: Then the Dominion government will pay fifty per cent of that?


George Gordon: Yes.


Milton Neil Campbell: Before I leave the
question which I raised with the minister a few minutes ago, I should like to get this point, clear. He has made it plain that in so far as the grant under this bill is concerned, the province will have the right, if it so desires, to work out those accounts. What I want to get clear is the right of Saskatchewan to work out the accounts that were given out last year. Does the same system apply? The farmers to whom I refer are those from the dry districts who moved up into the north and are under the direct jurisdiction of the relief commission as farmers from the drought area. I understand the federal government is paying one hundred per cent of the relief. Will the provincial government have authority to work out those accounts? The money has already been disbursed; notes have been taken. The notes of course will never be paid in cash; we quite realize that. The roads are necessary if the people are to be kept on the land, and it is most important that something like that be done. At the present time the provincial government feels it is not in possession of sufficient legal authority to work out those accounts. The ministers with whom I have discussed the matter-and I have discussed the matter-and I have discussed it with at least two of them-feel that if they work out those accounts, have the notes paid in that way, the federal government may claim part of that money from the province.


George Gordon: It is obvious that this
government in no case could claim it all, even if it were worked out hundred per cent, because a percentage of that money was contributed by the province itself.


Milton Neil Campbell: I understand with
regard to those farmers in the drought areas [DOT]-and they are the men to whom I refer- hundred per cent of relief was paid by the federal government. Is that not so?


George Gordon: Does the hon. member
refer to the notes, to which reference was made, that were taken by the relief commission?


Milton Neil Campbell: Yes.
2750	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces


George Gordon: Since the debate upon the resolution, I have been endeavouring to get a complete statement from the province with respect, first, to the reason for taking notes- although I have been advised in a measure as to what it was, namely, that some people insisted on giving them

and, second, to the steps, if any, that have been taken or are in contemplation with regard to enforcing payment of those notes. I may say, just at this juncture, that the government feels, and I am sure the members of the committee will agree, that even if a particular advance were recoverable and it was so stated at the time, it would be a most unfortunate attitude for this or the provincial government to assume to press for payment of the account until the recipient of the money was well on his feet again. I can only say I shall have a more complete picture with respect to that particular phase of the Saskatchewan difficulties, and I shall be glad, even if it does not come until after this bill is through, to make a statement in the house before prorogation.


Milton Neil Campbell: .1 am very glad to hear that, but I think the minister has missed one point. What the provincial government is concerned about is that they, not the farmer, will be asked for the money. As far as the settlers who have moved up into the bush areas are concerned we might as well recognize that they never will be able to pay off that money in cash. It will take thorn half a lifetime to get established in that bush country, and without roads they are going to be forced to move out unless something is done. It is a matter of urgent importance that something be done there immediately, and yet the ministers of the Saskatchewan government feel that they are not in possession of the authority to have these accounts worked out. It is not a question of collecting from the farmer, because they know that the farmer cannot pay. It is clear that the provincial government, having secured payment of these notes in road work, will not be asked to pay that money back to the federal government? If that point is cleared up we can have road gangs started out in that country in a few weeks and a lot of good work can be done.


George Gordon: So far as imy knowledge goes the government of Saskatchewan unfortunately, has not taken that particular phase of the matter up with this government, certainly not with ime. I will get in touch with the officers of the provincial government and find out from them just what the situation is. fMr. Campbell.]
It certainly cannot give rise to any great difficulty, because if the situation is as the hon. member has described it, it would appear that there must of necessity be some help given there. So far as experience has taught us, I seriously doubt if there is any use-I am quite in agreement with the hon. member-in taking notes from people who have suffered the reverses that the farmers in the dried out areas in Saskatchewan have suffered. I do not think the matter will give rise to any serious difficulty, but I shall have to get in touch with the representatives of the province of Saskatchewan, because I do not think a submission has ever been made to this government along the lines mentioned by my hon. friend.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am not objecting to the taking of the notes. In fact these men are quite ready and wilding to sign the notes and work them out, and I myself rather subscribe to the principle of taking notes and giving the people concerned an opportunity to work them out where work is available.


Mr. YALLANGE:: In other provinces than Saskatchewan where direct relief was given, was any note taken from the recipient of relief?


George Gordon: I am not in possession of any information with respect to that.
Mr. VALLANiCE: Then am I to understand that the individuals in Saskatchewan who received direct relief from this government were the only ones who had to sign notes?
Mr. 'GORDON: Others may have, but I can only repeat that it was not done at the suggestion of or with the approval of the Dominion government nor was it done in Saskatchewan at the suggestion of or with the approval of the Dominion government.


John Vallance: But the notes are payable to the Dominion government.


George Gordon: I a,m told so, though I have never seen one of them.


John Vallance: We have one here.


Peter John Veniot: I referred a little while ago to men working in the camps. That is one system of direct relief. The other system of direct relief, I take it, would be that people who were unable to get work, or perhaps were even unable to work, would get direct relief in the shape of food, clothing and shelter from the provincial government and the municipal

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
authorities. So far as that system is concerned, is the federal government prepared to do as it did last year, assume 33i per cent of the cost?


Alan Webster Neill: Fifty per cent this year.


Peter John Veniot: The federal government
assumed only 33^ per cent last year. If they assumed fifty per cent in other places, they did not in New Brunswick, at all events. I am not referring to that in criticism of the government at all. My point is that direct relief will have to be distributed in some systematic way, and as the federal government assumes 33^ per cent, or fifty per cent if you like, of the cost of direct relief, should they not indicate to the provinces how, in the opinion of the federal government, this relief should be distributed? The reason I ask the question is this: For the first time since 1930 the county of Gloucester, which I have the honour to represent, is receiving, and has received I believe since last September, direct relief, one-third of the cost being borne by the municipalities, one-third by the province and one-third by the federal government. It appears, in fact it is certain, that in certain sections of the province an organization that we call the Fathers of the Poor, which is appointed by the municipal council to see that people shall not suffer from hunger during the winter, has been completely ignored and the municipal councillors themselves are distributing this direct relief. Would it not be possible for the minister, in negotiating the agreements with the provinces, to have it understood or stipulated in the agreement that this direct relief shall not be given out to the poor by the municipal councils, but that those named under the Poor Law in each county shall be the ones to distribute this direct relief? I am laying this matter before the minister now in the hope that next year I shall not have to make the same complaints that I made this year as to the distribution of relief by way of public works. I followed very closely the administration of this relief in my county, and I say it is a crime to allow municipal councillors to say who shall and who shall not get relief. The element of politics immediately enters in. Though we take our politics very seriously in the maritime provinces, and especially in the province of New Brunswick, our county councillors take their municipal politics even more seriously than do the members of the local legislature or of the federal house. Having drawn the minister's attention to that situation I would ask him
to be good enough to have the matter looked into with a view to having this direct relief distributed through other channels than, at any rate, the municipal councils.


Mr. SMITH (Victoria-Carleton):: For the
sake of information may I ask if the municipal councils are not responsible for the appointment of the poor authorities which my hon. friend has mentioned?


Peter John Veniot: Certainly they are.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Then
does my hon. friend think it would be advisable, after all, to take from the municipal councils, which have to contribute one-third of the cost, the right to have something to say as to how the relief shall be distributed?


Peter John Veniot: I am not taking the right
from them. I shall be perfectly satisfied if the officials named by the council, namely the Fathers of the Poor, will distribute that money. The distribution of the money in New Brunswick offers a different problem. In that province there are some parishes with almshouses and some without them. There is an almshouse in the parish of Bathurst in which the poor are placed, and if it overflows the remainder are left outside. In the parishes where there are no almshouses the three officials named by the councillors who administer the dole to the deserving poor in that parish are known as the Fathers of the Poor.
1	am in favour of a continuance of that practice, but I do not want municipal councillors to go about allotting the money voted by the federal government and passing through the provincial government for the relief of the poor.


John Vallance: May I say to the hon. member for Gloucester that I wish the municipalities in Saskatchewan could distribute their relief moneys. Before allowing section
2	to pass I should like to ask the minister a question concerning subsection (d), which reads as follows:
Loan or advance money to, or guarantee the payment of money by any public body, corporation or undertaking.
Who is the "corporation"? What would come under the term "undertaking"? Does the government purpose loaning money to private corporations?


George Gordon: That clause has been explained by the Prime Minister, and I do not know that any useful purpose would be served by repetition.


John Vallance: Very well.
:7f2	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like -and which are very great indeed, should not
to direct the attention of the minister and' be made subject to existine statutes and laws
be made subject to existing statutes and laws, I would be inclined to move an amendment
hon. members to the very extensive powers given the governor in council under section. 2, and to draw particular attention in that connection to the significance of the words: "and notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law." This section gives the governor in council the power, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon, to:
(a)	Enter into .agreements with any of the provinces respecting relief measures therein;
(b)	Grant financial assistance to any province by way of loan, advance, guarantee or otherwise;
(c)	Take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to protect the credit and financial position of the dominion or any province thereof;
(d)	Loan or advance money to, or guarantee the payment of money by any public body, corporation or undertaking.
The governor in council is given power to do all those things which, in themselves, are very wide. The clause as it reads, however, goes even farther, because it gives the governor in council power to do all those things "notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law." In other words, all the laws or statutes this parliament may have enacted which relate to any of the matters dealt with bjr this section may be set aside by the governor in council, if in entering into agreements, making loans or advances under this section or in dealing with other matters referred to he so decides. Subsection (d), to which reference has just been made, is as follows:
Loan or advance money to, or guarantee the payment of money by any public body, corporation or undertaking.
That includes loans, guarantees or advances to banks, trust companies, insurance companies, investment companies, transportation companies, construction companies. The section as it reads means that any of these bodies if large enough, may receive public moneys in the form of loans, guarantees or the like at the discretion of the governor in council, notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law which may have been enacted by this parliament to safeguard public interests in any dealings with corporations such as I have mentioned. I should like to hear from the minister his justification for those words. Instead of the words of "notwithstanding the provision of any statute or law' I think there should be substituted "subject to the provisions of any statute or law." Unless the minister can give some real or substantial reason why the powers here being conferred on the governor in council,
[Mr Vallance.]
making them subject thereto.


George Gordon: Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the powers sought in this section are wide. I do not think I should be serving any useful purpose if I were to dwell at length upon the comprehensiveness of those powers, because I am sure every possible angle of this legislation has been explored not only during the last two sessions but during this session. Of course the statute is comprehensive, and if my memory serves me correctly the same language was used in the enactment of 1931.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but the
present bill goes farther, has other clauses to which this language now applies.


George Gordon: The same language was used with respect to investing the governor in council with the powers the enactment contemplated, notwithstanding any statute or law. If the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman were accepted, we would defeat the very object of the legislation. There might and probably would be laws on the statute books which would prohibit the carrying out of this proposed legislation, and that is the reason the powers are so comprehensive. On the sanity and care which is exercised in the administration of this legislation which would vest in the governor in council very wide powers, this government of course will have to be judged. We will have to accept that judgment, whether it be one of condemnation or otherwise.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the substitution of the words I have suggested for the words appearing in the bill would defeat the object of the legislation then I cannot comprehend the extent of the power the governor in council may wish to have. What is the present .position? All legislation enacted by the government to-diay is subject to existing statutes and laws except to the extent that existing statutes may foe repealed. They are [DOT]asking for additional powers for the governor in council; surely if they are given all the additional powers they seek they ought to be content to accept them subject to existing statutes or laws. If there are statutes or laws standing in the way of the powers they wish to take unto themselves, let them indicate what those laws may be, so that we may deal with them specifically, and if need be let us remove them. I do submit, however, that to grant this further power to the governor in council by legislating far and beyond anything

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
parliament itself usually attempts is going altogether too far. I cannot see that there is any justification for going the length suggested in this section. Accordingly I move:
That section 2 be amended by striking out the word "notwithstanding" in line 24, and substituting therefor the words "subject to."
So that the section will read:
The governor in council may, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon, and subject to the provisions of any statute or law-
Then follows an enumeration of what the governor in council may do under the additional powers here vested in them.
Amendment negatived.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Lost on division.


James Layton Ralston: May I refer to subsection 2 (d). This gives sufficient power to the governor in council either to guarantee the bonds of the Beauharnois undertaking or to advance money to the corporation. Is it intended to act under this subsection in connection with the Beauharnois project?


George Gordon: So far as I know the matter has never been the subject of discussion. But I believe the hon. member is quite correct in suggesting that the subsection is broad enough to permit such being done if in the judgment of the government, it were a desirable thing to do.


James Layton Ralston: Is it intended by this subsection to ratify the guarantees which have been given to the extent of some six or seven million dollars?


George Gordon: There has been no discussion so far as I am aware as to adopting the course suggested under this section.


Charles A. Stewart: The Prime Minister's words were fairly specific this afternoon with respect to this question. He said it was for the purpose of guaranteeing in any manner deemed advisable by the government a corporation that might be set up to carry out certain provisions of this bill. Surely this legislation takes on a different aspect altogether if the government are going to seek authority to deal with the Beauharnois project, and so ignore parliament entirely. Last session the government introduced a bill to deal with that project alone, stating that their predecessors in office had dealt with it by order in council, the legality of which they doubted. Now if this legislation is to be used for the purpose it is a real affront to parliament. Surely parliament is entitled to know if it is to be so used.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Some of us are rather curious to know just what the Prime Minister meant when last July he referred to receiving a great many telegrams from people in Saskatchewan requesting that they be allowed to give notes in return for relief granted to them. An order was passed on the 23rd of March for the production of those telegrams, and I think the minister should have them before him before the section passes.- Has he on file the telegrams, or does he know anything about them?


George Gordon: I have not the telegrams to which reference has been made; as a matter of fact I have not seen them.


Robert McKenzie: Why is it that from March 23 up to the present time they have not been brought down? Four or five days ago I asked why they had not been tabled, and the Prime Minister said he was under the impression that they had been. There should be no difficulty in getting those telegrams. We are anxious to know who in Saskatchewan requested that the farmers alone should be required to give notes.


Mr. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: They are honest people, why quibble about it?


Robert McKenzie: Certainly.


Mr. GERSHAW:: The minister has told us something about the drought-stricken area in Saskatchewan, for the relief of which this government has provided one hundred per cent. If the people of Alberta applied for similar consideration would it foe extended to them? The drought-stricken area does not stop at the boundary; there are men in Alberta adjoining Saskatchewan who have lost three crops and are in a very unfortunate position. Of course, they are getting some relief, and I am not so much interested in the source of the relief as in the method, because they find it much more difficult to get relief than do their neighbours across the boundary. It looks to them very much like unfair discrimination.


George Gordon: I think the hon. member raised the question when the debate took place upon the resolution. I thought I made it clear at that time that if representations are made by the premier of Alberta, and it is apparent that there is a condition such as the hon. member describes, and the province is unable to take care of it, the same consideration will be given to Alberta as has been given to Saskatchewan.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: Is not that applicable to every province?


George Gordon: Quite.
2754	COMMONS
Unemployment

Agreements with Provinces


Alan Webster Neill: 'Under the subsection (d) there have been repeated reports in the western newspapers

and I think that is sufficient justification for me to ask the minister if there is any foundation for them -indicating the intention of the government of British Columbia to apply for the extension, either in whole or in part by the Dominion government, of the Pacific Great Eastern railway under this legislation. Has the minister had any formal or informal applications to this effect from the government of the province?


George Gordon: I can state with a great deal of confidence that no such request has come to the Labour department. I am sure it would have been referred to me if it had come in. I know of no such request so far as the Labour department is concerned.


Alan Webster Neill: You limit it to the Labour department?


George Gordon: Yes. So far as the government is concerned I believe there have been some representations made.


Alan Webster Neill: Thank you.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I understand that in some of the western provinces work on the trans-Canada highway is to be stopped at the present time. If a western province should apply to the federal government for a renewal grant for the national highway construction, would it be granted under this bill?


George Gordon: What grant has the hon. member reference to?


Edward Joseph Garland: I refer to the share of the cost of the trans-Canada highway that the federal government is supposed to have contributed in connection with the construction by the provinces last year.


George Gordon: I believe that if a province makes representations to this government with respect to the trans-Canada highway and the continuance of work thereon, particularly in sections where work on that highway, through the agency of the camps to which reference has been made, is desirable in order to give relief and to provide a home and subsistence to those in need, this government would look favourably upon any such application.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: In connection with the drought-stricken area of Saskatchewan, where a relief commission has been established, in reviewing the correspondence that has passed, particularly between the Minister of

Agriculture and the government of Manitoba, it is recognized that the drought area extends into both Manitoba and Alberta. I should like to know whether the governments of Alberta and Manitoba, in order to have direct relief provided1 in those areas, will be required to establish relief commissions similar to the commission established in Saskatchewan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since I made the arrangement with the province of Saskatchewan the Minister of Labour suggests that perhaps I might answer this question. The province of Saskatchewan was in a peculiar position. Last year it seemed to be the unanimbus opinion of this house that where there has been three successive crop failures the event should be treated as a national calamity and the dominion should undertake the responsibility for all relief expenditures in that area. The commission has been administering relief in that area since that date, on that basis, except that with respect to seed grain the dominion has not incurred responsibility for distribution but has merely enabled the province to acquire the grain and make the distribution through its own officials. So far as the other provinces are concerned, namely Manitoba and Alberta, in neither province was there such a condition as that to which I have referred, that is, three successive crop failures. Where there had been one or two failures special provision was made to deal with the situation on an equitable basis under the terms of agreements made between the provinces and the dominion. The dominion has not insisted that commissions be established. If the provinces believe they can best discharge their duties without a commission we have not endeavoured to impose our will upon them. Thus far the other two provinces have functioned through their governments rather than through commissions.


James Layton Ralston: While the Prime Minister was out I was asking the Minister of Labour with regard to subsection (d), the powers under it and the intentions of the government in connection with it. I asked whether or not by any possibility it was intended to use these powers in order to make advances or guarantees in connection with such a project as Beau-harnois, and I thought the minister rather intimated that this might be possible. I think what he said was that the power was wide enough for that purpose. I understood the Prime Minister to say this afternoon that the corporation contemplated here was a corporation which the government might think it advisable to form for the purpose of administering relief measures and matters of that sort. If that is not so perhaps the Prime

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
Minister could give us a little more detailed explanation, as to what sort of corporation is contemplated here, because this provision was not in the old act at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman misunderstood what I said this afternoon; perhaps I was not speaking sufficiently loud to be heard. What I intended to say, and what I think I did say, was that this was intended to take the place of such a corporation. I stated that in the United States they had incorporated a finance corporation with a capital of $500,000,000, and when the resolution was before the house some time ago I pointed out what had been done in other countries. This afternoon I instanced the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England in connection with exchange; I pointed out that some countries in South America had defaulted in the payment of interest on their external debt, and I stated that this was the case in other countries as well. This clause is intended to enable the government, instead of creating a corporation, all the capital stock of which it would hold, to make such advances to public enterprises or undertakings as may be necessary in the interests of the well-being of this country as a whole. Undoubtedly that is what is intended. There is no doubt that the provision is broad, but it is not so broad as what is now being done by the finance corporation in the United States, and I think it only fair to say to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth that I was endeavouring to avoid what I think he will agree it is desirable we should avoid, namely the creation of an organization for the purpose of doing just what the finance corporation is doing in the United States, relieving institutions of their difficulties in connection with frozen assets. Perhaps the hon. gentleman knows better than I do what would happen if we had such a corporation in this country; it would be asked to accept all the wildcat securities there were in Canada, and that I desire to avoid.
Without going into any very great detail I think it is not unfair to say to this committee that I do not suppose there is one member who does not realize that a condition might arise-and some prophets of gloom say it will arise-in which it may be most desirable in the interests of this country as a whole that we should prevent attacks upon our credit such as would bring about the results we have seen in the United States, where in two years some four thousand banks failed and innumerable trust and deposit organizations were compelled to close their doors, with a
reorganization possible only by regard being had to the provisions of the finance act. I was told what I believe to be the truth, that half a billion dollars will not be sufficient for the purpose but that much larger sums of money will be required. We have not inexhaustible sources of supply, and it is my conviction that this clause is preferable, in the interests of the country and the orderly conduct of its business, to the creation of a corporation with power to do what the finance corporation is doing in the United States.
I can see how the hon. gentleman misunderstood what I said this afternoon. I was comparing what has been done in the United States with what we were endeavouring to do, and I suggested that the method we are adopting is preferable to the method wdiich has been adopted in that country. In every case the public weal must be the determining factor, and the effect upon the national credit must be the matter that will influence any government in taking whatever action it may desire to take in the premises.


James Layton Ralston: I appreciate the Prime
Minister going into the matter so thoroughly, but the point I had in mind has not been quite cleared up. That point is whether or not the Prime Minister intends that this shall constitute a power whereby the government may guarantee or loan money to what we know as a private corporation, even though it may not be a private company as defined by the Companies Act. That is to say, the Companies Act provides for private companies, as my right hon. friend knows. I am not referring to those; I am speaking of large industrial private corporations doing business in this dominion, which may not be financial institutions, or municipal institutions or public bodies. I am giving Beauharnois as an instance; does the Prime Minister intend that this act shall be sufficiently wide to enable him to assist an undertaking of that kind, or is it intended to apply only to undertakings such as financial institutions, which I take it he has in mind, whose credit he desires to preserve for the general benefit of the national credit?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I confess to the hon. gentleman that I would find it difficult to answer his question antecedently to the event. If a situation arose in this country in which I believed it desirable from a national standpoint to assist any public enterprise, which is defined as meaning an enterprise with more than thirty-five shareholders, I would not hesitate to recommend that th's should be done. I say that very
2756	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
frankly to my hon. friend. But the test must be the necessity of the case, and the necessity of the case must, in turn, be determined not only by the immediate effect upon the enterprise itself, which is not the primary consideration, but by the effect upon the country as a country. I need hardly say to the hon. gentleman that there are contingencies that might arise in this country, if the prophets of gloom are correct, that have no relation to the resources or the strength of the enterprises or institutions inherently; but because of, shall I say, panic conditions in other parts of the world, the immediate effect might be so great as to render it desirable to bolster them up for the moment with the public credit of this country. That is the purpose of it, and I put it to this committee whether it is more desirable to create an institution, just as was done in the United States, in which we should have to find the money to enable it to function and name two or three men as board of governors to do it. It might be done in that way, and it is not improbable that we should find ourselves in a position of very great difficulty by reason of the facts to which I have just alluded.
My best judgment is this-and I am not seeking to impose my judgment on the committee: I can only say frankly that I have given this phase of the matter much more thought and consideration than any other branch of the bill in consequence of what has been communicated to me by persons living outside of Canada who have endeavoured, with some degree of success, to impress upon me the fact that we may be faced with extremely difficult conditions on this continent during the next few months. International transactions of a large character have been carried on by this country in the past and we are not living solely to ourselves; and it might be desirable, in the judgment of those whose opinion I respect, that we should have some power such as this. Because I have myself a strong desire to be in a position to protect the credit and the safety of the financial structure of the dominion and of the provinces, this power is sought. I am only giving my private opinion when I say that unless I felt that the effect upon the country of any particular enterprise-using the word which I think my hon. friend used-being permitted to become insolvent or bankrupt -unless, I say, the effect of that upon the public, or upon the welfare of this country -perhaps that is a better word-were apparent, I should hesitate to recommend that the power should be used. If, on the other hand, the evidence of that result were there, I do not think any government could hesitate IMr. Bennett.l
at a time like this to ask for its use and to use it.	.
I am afraid I cannot usefully give any more extended explanation except to say that in connection with Beauharnois I cannot recall that it has ever been suggested that the power should be invoked for that purpose. But if the necessity became sufficiently great the power would be employed for that purpose. I think it is only fair to answer the question that way, although that is not the purpose for which the power is put there. It is put there to meet a situation which I am bound to say one of my most valued colleagues strongly thinks could best be met by establishing a finance corporation. But my own judgment, my conviction is very strong that it would not serve the purposes we have in mind at this time to create any such institution. I am afraid I have gone as far as I reasonably could without putting myself in a position where I might find it difficult to reconcile my statement with the necessity that might arise; and if the necessity arises I do not desire to be limited either by any antecedent promise or by any restriction of interpretation upon the power here conferred.


Mr. POWER:: I do not think anyone desires to embarrass the Prime Minister by asking for a more lengthy explanation. With respect to the clause itself, I suppose that those of us on this side of the house who think that the government has already taken sufficient power might oppose it; but I will agree with the Prime Minister that there is room for very wide divergence of opinion as to the method which he proposes to follow in loaning or advancing moneys. I suppose the Prime Minister has given-in fact he says he has-very careful thought to this matter, but it would appear to me and, I believe, to a great many of us, that the opinion of his valued colleague, to the effect that it would be 'better to have some kind of finance corporation or some kind of commission to deal with matters of this sort, would perhaps be worthy of more consideration than appeal's to have been given it.
The Prime Minister realizes better than anyone else does the amount of work which the members of his cabinet will have to do. They will be employed during a good part of the summer dealing with problems arising out of the imperial conference. It seems to me that it would be only the fair thing to relieve themselves of this burden, and they would be giving the best thought and consideration to matters of this kind if they set up some kind

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
of commission-iand I am not saying that because I personally approve of commissions, for I think we have too many already. But this is possibly the most important section of the bill. The Prime Minister must be aware that, by inserting a clause of this kind, he is substituting himself and his government, and the Minister of Finance, I have no doubt, for a commission. All sorts of applications will be made for the backing and guaranteeing of wildcat schemes such as he has referred to, and I have, no doubt the government have the strength of character to refuse these applications. On the other hand, it seems to me that the Prime Minister and the members of his government, or the treasury board,-I assume that they will be dealing with these matters- are taking on themselves a most intolerable burden. There are institutions in this country, there are public corporations and companies which are in urgent need of financing, and after hearing or reading the Prime Minister's statement of to-night they will, I have no doubt, be camped on his doorstep to-morrow. Personally I would suggest that this power and authority be curtailed somewhat, even if the minister were to accept an amendment, that such advances or loans should not be made unless they were in the interests of unemployment relief. The credit of the country can already be sufficiently protected by steps taken under clause (c), which declares that the governor in council may:
Take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to protect the credit and financial position of the Dominion or any province thereof.
It seems to me that is going pretty far; it is going almost far enough. If we are going to protect the credit of private corporations, I very respectfully suggest that that is a power that should not be in the hands of a political body such as the ministry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In last year's act. paragraph (c) of section 3 read as follows:
Assist provinces, cities, towns, municipalities, and other bodies or associations, by loaning moneys thereto or guaranteeing repayment of moneys thereby, or in such other manner as may be deemed necessary or advisable.
Under the provisions of that statute moneys were loaned .to four of the provinces and in respect to another an undertaking was made which happily had not to be carried into effect. No loans were made to municipalities, because we took the ground that there was no contact between municipalities and the dominion. If the hon. gentleman reads the clause to which he has just referred, he will observe that it covers cases dealt with partly
in paragraph (c) of Section 3 of the statute of last year,, and also special provisions with respect to the provinces themselves.
I do not fear any camping upon the doorstep of the government by any enterprises, because the government has no intention that this power shall be utilized except under the circumstances that I have indicated. This power under paragraph <c) has been referred to on more occasions than one, but we have not yielded to such requests, nor have we any intention of doing so. I may say, however, that unless conditions were emergent, we should not have this bill before the house at all, and it will be borne in mind that when this afternoon we were discussing the nice division of power between the provinces and the dominion, their lordships of the privy council, speaking in connection with the regulation of paper prices, were good enough to say that there may exist in this country an emergency under which the powers of the provinces must be subordinated to, must be overborne by that of the dominion, for the national good.
In this instance, subject to whatever limitations may be imposed upon an executive by reason of a sense of the gravity of a situation and the responsibility they owe to the people at large, I know of no other way in which, without creating an invitation for the government to undertake to liquefy vast volumes of securities that are now frozen-which action it has no desire or intention of taking -we can accomplish what we have in mind. And because we desire to utilize these powers only where the national good is affected, although it may be charged that this is a political body, I should like to remind the committee that it is a political body which every year determines just what advances shall be made under the Finance Act to the banks of this country. It may be political, but I am only saying that is so and has been for years, yet I have not heard anyone say that this power has been exercised for political consideration. Every year the Minister of Finance and the treasury board must consider to what amount advances under the Finance Act shall be made to the chartered banks of Canada. The banks make their applications; they are rarely granted in full. The government, that is the treasury board, determines what action it shall take and grants the credits accordingly. No greater power is involved in the exercise of what is provided for under this clause than is provided for under the provisions of the Finance Act and the Bank Act, and I have not heard it charged that this political body has for political considerations exercised that power.
2758	COMMONS
Unemployment-*-Agreements with Provinces


Charles Gavan Power: I am sorry if the- Prime
Minister thinks I, suggested that. I. did not mean to do sOi


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was suggested it was
a political body-


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -and if it was suggested, it was for the reason it might not properly discharge its functions. I am mentioning only by way of illustration that, that power has been exercised for at least twenty-five years by the treasury board and there is no record of which I have any knowledge that it has been exercised except for the public weal. I might go on for a long time giving illustrations. If anyone for a moment suggests that this power is being sought merely to provide a little more work or a little more responsibility, he is entirely mistaken. It is an effort, if possible, to avoid some responsibility and to lessen the demands that may be made. I am practically certain that as regards any corporation that might be created of which the government would be the sole shareholder, the demand would be far greater for political influence than if it were regulated by the known considerations that affect governments in connection with matters under the Bank Act,. the Finance Act and others to which I might refer.


James Layton Ralston: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: I only desire to make this further observation. With the closing words of my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth I have no quarrel. It was Jefferson who said that government was best conducted that interfered the least with business, and it was a great American who coined the phrase:	He
governs best who governs least, with respect to business. Business is not the function of government. I have publicly and privately expressed that opinion so frequently that I suppose it is well known to everybody. I do not believe it is any duty of a government to conduct the business of this country, and were it not for an emergent condition in which the national interest is affected it would not be even considered or mentioned so far as I am concerned.
With respect to what the hon. gentleman has just now said as to the method by which it is proposed to give effect, if effect is given, to the authority thus conferred upon the executive, I think in the very nature of things it would be done through the institutions of the country. No one is expecting that John Smith's company is going to come up and ask for a loan and get it, and if that is what the hon. gentleman is worrying about I can assure him that no one is going to deal with the matter in that way. My hon. friend is now discussing another phase, namely the method by which it would be done. I fancy if some of my colleagues were to tell the hon. gentleman exactly what my views are as expressed he would have no difficulty in learning, as naturally anyone with any experience at all would realize, that it would not be a proper exercise of power except in the most exceptional circumstances to undertake to make a loan to an enterprise as such, but one would through the constituted channels of business give effect to the provisions of the statute. When I say constituted channels of business I mean what the hon. gentleman is referring to, the banks and various other financial
institutions that have to deal with the question of finance and credits. I am not unmindful, in fact, I have too much knowlf edge of what the hon. gentleman says as to the undesirability of governments trying to conduct business. I am having it brought home to me almost every day by the demands that are being made to meet the obligations which we have guaranteed of various enterprises simply because we found ourselves in business. Last week, for instance, it was the Montreal harbour commission in connection with the bridge; or it is the Quebec harbour commission; the Three Rivers harbour commission; the Chicoutimi harbour commission; the Halifax harbour commission; the St. John harbour commission. All these do not have their securities maturing on the same day, and the obligations are being constantly thrust upon us. There are others that might be mentioned. No one would think for a minute, if that is what the hon. gentleman has in mind, that one would desire to add to his responsibilities, or that any member of the government desires to add to his responsibilities by endeavouring to conduct the business of other people whose special knowledge should enable them to conduct it better than anyone else could. But there are enterprises in this country that are as much a part of this country as the country itself. There are great enterprises in this country to which references have been made in this house during the last few months. No one could contemplate disaster overtaking some of them, as the hon. gentleman himself said some evenings ago, without using every possible effort to prevent it. One does not know what may happen. I am not endeavouring in any sense to alarm this house, but I do know that every day one hears further tales of a situation that is not blamable to Canadians nor yet to a Canadian situation, but which obtains by reason of our relation to world business and world enterprise. I can assure the hon. gentleman that so far as I am able to control it, I should not endeavour to utilize these powers by direct action between the enterprises themselves and the dominion except, for instance, in a case such as he has mentioned, in the case of the Beauharnois undertaking-I did not think of it until he mentioned it-where the canal is completed and provides for navigation facilities, and for the sake of continuing the enterprise we acquire the bonds or short term notes, whatever they might be, that represent the cost of the navigation undertaking. That would merely mean a temporary loan pending the financing of the organization in accordance
2760	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
with the terms of the order in council.1. That would not be in any sehse an interference with business. That would mean the acquisition of securities that represented money spent for the building of a canal for navigation purposes, but being a much more comprehensive scheme than is necessary for merely power purposes. I mention that because the hon. gentleman has just brought it to my attention. But as to the methods to be employed to accomplish that end I have not given any thought to it: I do assure my hon. friend and this committee that no man who. has had any experience in business in Canada under present conditions would think of endeavouring to have the government conduct business as such, but would look to the constituted organizations. and institutions created by this parliament and otherwise for the purpose of dealing with these matters, feeling a sense of security in so doing and using entirely their own judgment in connection with the matter.
As an illustration I once more refer to a matter very painful to discuss, and that is the Manitoba savings office. It was just because we had no facilities to engage in the business of banking that we were not able to take over that enterprise. We had no facilities for that purpose, and all we could do was to utilize the existing facilities. One of two things had to be done. It was suggested that we take it over and say: Everything is safe, we will guarantee and take the business over. But we had nobody to put in the office. The office had to be continued or else closed, and I certainly gathered that it was intended to close it. It it were closed it would naturally be taken over by the only institutions that this country has to deal with that business, namely, the banks. The banks divided these deposits of about 40,000 people and became responsible for the payment to them of their deposits. All they had as security until we came into the picture were pieces of paper signed by the province of Manitoba, which had exhausted all its collateral securities, by sale or hypothecation, and which had left as security no money but only pieces of paper belonging to the province. They called them exchequer bills, and under those circumstances, just as the hon. member has pointed out, the banks said, "We will not add to our present securities of that kind; in fairness to our depositors and our business, we cannot. "But," they said, "if you will say that we are not going to be losers in this transaction, we will take over those deposits"-and we did. That is an illustration of the similarity of views between the hon. member and mj'self.
[Mr. Bennett.!
. I; do not think we are in a position to conduct that. sort of business. If this country desires to nationalize its banking facilities, well and good. By a majority vote of .parliament and by the government of the day introducing proper legislation it can easily do so. Until that time, however, I agree with the hon. member that the conduct of that business must rest with those who [DOT] are specially trained arid have had years of experience in the discharge of that kind of obligation and the transaction of that form of business. So far as possible I assure the hon. member that is exactly what lies in the minds of the government, if the powers under this section have to be invoked.


William Richard Motherwell: Following the question by the hon. member for Assiniboia I should like to ask a question respecting the proposed dollar an acre on a seeded acreage basis. I think the ministry knows all about it, and they will be able to answer without the petition or the correspondence before them. This is the third time I have asked the question, and I do not wish any hon. member opposite to accuse me of nagging if I persist in my efforts to obtain an answer. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture are both present, and are familiar with the circumstances. The Minister of Immigration is in the chamber, but because of his short term of office in the Department of Labour he may not be quite so familiar with the facts. I should like to know, Mr. Chairman, the definite attitude of the government with respect to the proposed dollar an acre on the seeded acreage basis. All hon. members know that the north country which had excellent crops was treated magnificently. In some cases bonuses to individuals ran up to SI,000. The man who had much was given much, and the man who had nothing was given nothing; he had not enough to feed or clothe a canary, but was given the opportunity merely to sign a promissory note. We do not wish to speak to this matter over and over again, but we do want to know if that is to be the policy of the government as to the relative treatment of those two classes oi people. I do not want a long answer; yes or no would be satisfactory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The anxiety of the exMinister of Agriculture should not long remain unsatisfied. Petitions were presented, and those who presented them, without having to wait for an answer, were told that it was not the intention to pay a dollar an acre.


William Richard Motherwell: It was not feasible?

Unemployment

Agreements with Provinces


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were told that at the time, and the government of Saskatchewan was told the same thing weeks and months ago. Therefore there could have been no difficulty in understanding that the government had declined to me.et that request. It has declined as courteously as possible; it has declined as firmly as possible; there was opportunity for neither ambiguity nor misunderstanding. They simply said, "no" as politely as it could be S&id. I am sure it was said as politely as any observations made by the hon. member for Melville in this or any other session.
That being so, the hon. gentleman says that the north and south have been treated differently, and he makes the further statement that the bonus resulted in some receiving large sums of money; he mentions the sum of $1,000. The bonus was paid for one reason, and for one reason only, namely that the cost of production exceeded the cost obtainable for the grain, owing to the depressed conditions throughout the world. I do not know, but I am told by one of the prime ministers in the west that had it not been for the intervention of the federal government the price of wheat would have fallen to forty cents a bushel. Whether that statement is correct or not I cannot say.
So far as those in authority is concerned,
I wish to go further and state that when we made provision for the bonus the crop reports were somewhat different from the actual returns, and the crops in the north were much more favourable than had been anticipated. In other words there was a larger crop harvested in the west than was expected at the time we took action, and I am very glad that was so. I do not think any of those who received the bonus find themselves so rich that they have had difficulty in disposing of their money. In the south, where the crop was a partial failure, the government was called upon to make very substantial contributions. The hon. member will no doubt recall that in cases fifty per cent and in one or two cases sixty per cent was paid either by way of direct assistance, or otherwise, to enable those who had gone two years without a crop, or with only half a crop, to find themselves in a better position. It does not follow that this seeming inequality resulted in as great hardship as would appear; in fact the hardships were not nearly as great as they appear when stated. I think I can say I have answered the hon. gentleman's question, and I am sorry he was not aware of the answer that was given some months ago.


William Richard Motherwell: That is quite-satisfactory. I do not say-the solution is satist-factory, but at least we have had a stater ment, and that is the first time such a statement has been made in my hearing in this house. The last statement was made by the Minister of Agriculture, and was very plausible. He took the ground at that time -and I think he was justified-that inasmuch hs there were certain adjustments to take place between the dominion and the province of Saskatchewan a definite answer could not be given until the end, of the fiscal year. So far as the delegation is concerned, may I say they went back home and had nothing but good things to say about the way the Prime Minister had received them. He gave them everything but an assurance that they would receive the bonus. They were not turned down, however; there was still hope of some alternative, or something to come in the following year. They certainly did not consider they had been turned down flat. Now, however, when we know the situation, we will not persist any longer. I know the policy of the government, and I shall not discuss the relative merits of the two kinds of treatment. At a later time when I shall have something to say, I shall know my ground.
Perhaps now at this time we could get some information concerning the promissory notes. The hon. member for South Battleford asked one or two questions, but the Minister of Immigration seemed to shy a little bit from an exhaustive or definite answer. The people of Saskatchewan do not want to be beggars, but at the same time if there is going to be a dole policy in all other -parts of the dominion and a promissory note policy in Saskatchewan, why the discrimination? Why should we be thrown into the hands of the Saskatchewan government subject to whatever action they wish? When we ask this government what it means they disclaim any responsibility in the matter. I should like to have a statement from the Prime Minister- that is good enoungh for me. If he tells us that the government will continue the promissory note plan with the Saskatchewan farmers and the same if there is any further seed to be obtained, and if he will say that they are not going to insist upon that policy in any other part of the dominion, we will know then what opinions to form of the disparity between policies-between	the treatment
Saskatchewan gets and that given to the balance of the dominion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the provision for the taking of seed grain liens for

2762	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
seed grain advances is a matter wholly determined by the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan. I only know we were assured that they were by appropriate legislation making provision in that regard. As to the details of it, I am not in a position to speak because the government did not believe it had, for the reasons given this afternoon by the leader of the opposition, the right to ask the provinces how they did their business. Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta borrowed from the dominion government money to pay for seed grain, and that seed grain was sold to their citizens-that is my advice-and for that they took a statutory lien specially provided for by the respective legislatures. My memory is that having told us they proposed to do that we merely said: We assume you are taking the security that you mentioned-because part of it was verbally said-in this regard. I do recall that one province proposed that the seed should be paid for within one year, and some I thmk within two years. The details of that each province has to work out itself. I am bound to say I have not even seen the bill that was passed by any one of the three provinces to deal with this matter. They have all been treated on the same basis, and they are the only provinces thus far that have sought advances from the dominion to buy seed grain. It is not the obligation of this government to supply seed grain; when those provinces were part of the Northwest Territories it was, for then they were wards of the dominion. Every province stands in the same position, and none other than three western provinces has asked for money with which to buy seed grain. That is so far as my memory serves me at the moment. The advances that they desired were very substantial. For those advances they gave us treasury bills to the extent of one hundred cents on the dollar. As they are only permitted to give treasury bills for a year at a time, I think they were all payable one year from date, with interest at the same rate as that at which we borrow money.


William Richard Motherwell: The Prime Minister was not in the chamber the night when I first deal with this matter. I have since called up the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) and find that the Saskatchewan bill dealing with the incorporation of the relief commission and authorizing them to do so and so with respect to relief and seed grain has been received by him and forwarded to the Justice department. It is known as Bill No. 54, and anyone can find the bill there. Evidently this Saskatchewan relief commission is to be an incorporated

body to act for some time and clothed with all kinds of power. But that is not answering the question with regard to the promissory notes. Are we up there to sign promissory notes while everybody else gets relief gratis? That is what I want to know.


Robert McKenzie: The Prime Minister was not in the house a short time ago when I asked a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) with regard to an order of the house that was passed on the 23rd of March for a return showing the telegrams that the Prime Minister had received and to which he referred in his speech of July 29th last. On that occasion he said that he had received several telegrams from the province of Saskatchewan suggesting that it was not desirable that direct relief, which might be regarded as charity, should bn accorded to those in distress, and they were asking for permission to sign some documents. I think the Prime Minister told me a few days ago that he thought the return had been brought down. Can he give us any information now before this section passes as to why the return has not been tabled?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gave instructions that
any telegrams asked for be given to the Secretary of State and laid before the house. Beyond that I have not been able to pursue the matter myself. I thought any correspondence referred to had been brought down. Personally I was informed by the Saskatchewan government when I was in Regina in the fall of last year-as the hon. gentleman knows it was in the newspapers-that a number of people did not desire to be the recipients of charity and suggested they should give notes. But that is not the matter we are now talking about. The hon. ex-Minisier of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is asking about seed grain, and I am talking about the seed grain of this year in answer to his question. I have endeavoured to make it perfectly clear that the province of Saskatchewan has passed legislation that deals with this matter and has bought and paid for the seed wheat, or whatever seed it might be, although we took some preliminary steps to assist them in the first instance by ascertaining there was seed grain that might be available in the event of its being paid for. There were difficulties, as the hon. gentleman knows, by reason of delays in getting the money to pay for the seed grain. So far as giving notes is concerned, I had not known what the form

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces
of the note was until the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) was good enough to send me over a copy. He will recall my asking him to do so.


Robert McKenzie: This matter of the notes given in Saskatchewan has been discussed right along since this bill has been before the house. The Prime Minister was not in probably when we were talking more particularly of the notes. There are other members in this house as well as many people outside-there are some in my constituency-anxious to know who the individuals were who telegraphed the Prime Minister to be permitted to give notes. Will the minister bring down those telegrams?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will ask my secretary to try to ascertain where the documents are. I do not think I fully understood what the hon. gentleman meant until this minute. He is talking of the form of notes of last year; I was talking of another form this year. It is true I was not in the chamber this evening, but on the other occasion I asked that the return be located and the papers produced. I do not keep a record of all these things in my head.


John Vallance: It seems that the whole matter of relief is being dealt with on clause
2.	So far I have refrained from discussing the subsidy for field, farm, forest, sea and river and mine products until we reach section 3. Are we privileged to discuss it now, or would the minister prefer to have it dealt with on section 3?


George Gordon: I think it desirable that
we dispose of section 2 before starting section 3.


William Richard Motherwell: Before we take up section 3 I want to get an answer to my question. Ever since last year until quite recently the commission in Regina has been extolled from the housetops as being the most wonderful institution of its kind. Now we find nobody around here wants to speak a word for it? What has happened? Can't we get something more about what it is doing and who is responsible for it? We know who appointed the commission; of course the Saskatchewan government appointed it, but there are three supervisors, and we would like to know more about them; we understand they were appointed by the Minister of Agriculture. Then we have a super-superviser in the person of Percy Gordon, and we would like to know more about his duties. We want to know first if this is to be a dole all over the dominion with the exception of Saskatchewan, 41761-1741
and if Saskatchewan is to be expected to pay back everything it gets. Are they all to be treated alike or are they not? Is the government to hold itself responsible in any measure at all for the policy of the Saskatchewan relief commission, or are we to be thrown into the maw of this commission and just take what we can get? I do not want to be too insistent about this, Mr. Chairman, but please do not call this section carried until we get a more specific answer with regard to these promissory notes which the Saskatchewan farmers have to give for everything they get. The Minister of Immigration knows that I asked these questions last Friday. I did not request a reply; I asked him to discuss these questions with his colleagues over the weekend and try to give us a reply later. I said it as nicely as I could, but we are still without a reply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have endeavoured to
answer categorically the questions asked by the hon. gentleman, and I will do so again. Seed grain is covered by a statutory lien which was created by the legislature of Saskatchewan. This government had nothing whatever to do with it beyond supplying the money, for which we obtained the treasury bills of the province, to enable them to purchase the grain sold to the farmers. My understanding of the bill, which I have not read, having seen only what was said to be in the bill, is that it provides for payment out of the proceeds of the crops of this year and next year of the moneys advanced for seed grain and other purposes. Is that a clear statement of the situation? The province borrowed the money and with it bought seed which it sold to the farmers of Saskatchewan, obtaining therefor statutory liens which were adopted at the last session of the legislature. That is the position.


William Richard Motherwell: My right hon.
friend is about two laps behind everyone else. I put all that information on Hansard away back on March 31. I could read it, but the Minister of Justice would check me up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then why ask for that
information again?


William Richard Motherwell: I am not asking
for it again; that has nothing to do with the promissory notes. I think these two hon. gentlemen had better get their heads a little closer together and see if they cannot answer the question I am asking. I supplied the answer myself with regard to the seed grain liens, and I had the bill here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
2764	COMMONS
Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces


William Richard Motherwell: You can smile
about it; I suppose you think it is a great joke, but you are not appearing to very great advantage just now. On March 31 I put on Hansard all that information, and neither of the hon. gentlemen who are looking after this bill were in the house at the time. Now they go warbling around about where this bill is now. I have told them where it is; it is in the office of the deputy Minister of Justice. It is not scheduled yet by the number of the chapter; it is just Bill 54 as it came from Regina. I do not want any more information about that bill; I gave that information about a month ago, and I do not want hon. gentlemen opposite to retail that back to me to-night as news or information. I want to know about the promissory notes and the relief that is to be given between now and next harvest. Is the promissory note system to be continued by the Saskatchewan government on behalf of this government? That is what they are doing; they are taking promissory notes collectable by the relief commission on behalf of this government, and we hold this government rather than the Saskatchewan government responsible for the whole business.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By his observations my
hon. friend has indicated that he was asking questions with regard to which he enlightened this house himself, and for which he takes great credit. We have now to deal with the other question, that of promissory notes for relief given last year by the commission, and continued. Some months ago I explained to the house as clearly as I could that these notes were taken by the commission. In consequence of statements which were made I inquired and found that the commission had taken notes from all persons who received relief, and that the notes were made payable to the crown in the right of the dominion. The hon. member for Weyburn showed me one of the notes, the first I had seen; he sent it to me across the floor of the house. I said further that those notes were taken, as I understood it, because many of the applicants for relief said they did not wish to be in the position of receiving charity, and as a consequence they gave notes. In practice it has been found very excellent in preventing abuses. In other words, by giving a note, whether or not they ever intended to pay it, at least they placed a limitation on what they were receiving, and I can only say further that in one or two cases in which there were abuses, to which I directed attention some weeks ago in this house, it will be remembered that relief had been obtained (Mr. Motherwell.]
by some who were not entitled to it, and the very notes they had given formed the foundation upon which appropriate action could be taken.
I can only repeat to the hon. gentleman that notes haye been given payable to the crown in the right of the dominion. These are printed forms which have not been departed from by the commission that took the notes. So far as I know, notes have been taken by the commission, wdiether or not in all cases I cannot say, but certainly in the cases to which reference was made when we were discussing this matter some weeks ago. We can neither add to nor detract from that fact; notes have been taken and given. They are payable to the crown in the right of the dominion. The commission asked for and received the notes; those who received benefits gave the notes as indicating the extent to which those benefits were received, whether in the w.ay of provisions, clothing, or whatever it might be, in consequence of the orders given by the commission.


William Richard Motherwell: This is all with
reference to the past, and we know about the past. My hon. friend from Weyburn told the right hon. gentleman about these matters a couple of months ago, and he was the first to inform my right hon. friend about these notes. What I should like to know now is what will be done between now and next harvest. Are these notes to continue until then? Will this government hold itself at all responsible for anything the Saskatchewan government may choose to do? What will be the policy with regard to this matter for the next few months?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a matter entirely in the hands of the commission and the government of Saskatchewan. It is perfectly clear that this must be so.


William Richard Motherwell: Then we want to
know more about the commission. Who are these supervisors? We should have a pretty good commission there now; we have these three supervisors as well as the extra supersupervisor supervising them. I do not know who is supervising this super-supervisor, or whether we can go back indefinitely, but we would like to know all about them. I think the Minister of Agriculture should come to our assistance in this regard; I believe he was responsible for their appointment. I do not wish to drag him into this discussion at this late hour, but he took a lot of pride in the fact that when he was absent he would have two or three supervisors keeping this commission on the right track. I think perhaps

Civil Service-Report of Committee
there is something to be said for that idea, but I would like to know more about this super-supervisor,-Mr. Gordon, who is over these three supervisors. What is his salary? We should have a great sense of security now; we should not be alarmed about the policy that is to be adopted, and we would not be alarmed if we could be sure that all these gentlemen were one hundred per cent for the farmers and that they were entirely nonpolitical as at one time it was claimed. If the Prime Minister has no further information to impart I will not ask any more questions just now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Powers of governor in council.
John Vallance: I notice that subsection (b) states that the government may:
-assist in defraying the cost of the sale and distribution of the products of field, farm, forest, sea, river and mine.
I should like to ask the minister this question: Is it the intention of the government to carry on the subsidy paid last year for wheat, or are they going to extend this to the products of farm, field, forest, sea, river and mine, as was suggested by the hon. member for Simcoe? I believe it was in the budget debate that he suggested that the subsidy that was given to wheat should be extended in some measure to the other products of the farm. I should like to know from the minister-I notice the Prime Minister is with him-just how far the government intends to go in subsidizing the various products of farm, field, forest, sea, river and mine.


George Gordon: With respect to this clause, there has not been, up to date, one single thing decided as to what may be done with regard to any of these items. With respect to the five cents per bushel bonus, that has not been decided, nor has any decision been arrived at regarding any of the other items. The clause is there, so that if occasion arises and it becomes desirable and necessary the government will have the power to take such action as seems proper.


John Vallance: May I assume that if the government, in July or August, say, decide that conditions in the wheat market, in view of the crop situation, warrant action, then they propose by this legislation to take to themselves power so that at any time they may say to the farmers or to the fishermen or to the miners just what they intend to do for them? Have the government no fixed policy in this regard? Is that what I am to understand from the minister?


George Gordon: It would be most difficult for any government to fix a policy to-day to meet events that have not yet occurred.


John Vallance: You did it last year.


George Gordon: No. The same clause that appears in this bill appeared in last year's bill, and when the situation arose with respect to the bonus on wheat, which was long after the bill had been passed, then appropriate action, or what the government considered appropriate action, was taken. Surely the hon. gentleman realizes that until the necessity presents itself the policy of the government cannot be declared, even if it were desirable to anticipate what that policy might be or to disclose it before the event.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned* without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 10, 1932.