[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 17, consideration of the motion of the Prime Minister that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor.
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay):: Mr. Speaker, to any keen observer of politics it is apparent that the government is not on "easy street" to-day. It does not like the turn that this debate has taken, and hon. members opposite who have spoken in support of the resolution have tried to introduce political issues entirely apart from the subject matter and thus to becloud the real issue before the house. This is done in an endeavour to have- the country forget the two main points of this resolution, to wit, relief for farmers and the unemployed, and the constitutional aspect -of the powers sought by the government to carry out this relief.
By some hon. gentlemen on your right, Mr Speaker, we have been accused of playing politics, and we have been severely criticized for the course we took during the by-election in Three Rivers-St. Maurice, and throughout the late provincial election in Quebec. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) was severely taken to task by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) for some of his utterances during the campaign in Three Rivers-St. Maurice. The hon. member for

Unemployment Continuance Act
Dorchester attempted to make political capital out of the result of that by-election. Apparently to please his political chief, he told the house that the result of that byelection represented the unanimous opinion of the province of Quebec in favour of the Tory party. That is far from the fact. The hon. gentleman forgot to state that another byelection took place about the same time in the riding of East Hamilton in this province, always regarded as a safe Conservative seat, but the government candidate was overwhelmingly defeated, and to-day East Hamilton is represented in this house by a Labour member. The hon. member for Dorchester also told the house that the people of Quebec, and more especially the younger generation, were enthusiastic in their admiration of the right hon. leader of the Conservative party, that in fact he was the idol of the province. Many counties in my province, including the county which I have the honour to represent in this house, gave very large majorities to the supporters of the Liberal party at the election in 1930, and I affirm to the house and to the country that the majority of the electors of Quebec as well as the younger generation are not at all enthusiastic admirers of the right hon. leader of the government. Our young men do not regard him as their idol and they decline to follow him. Speaking for my own county, I am confident that our people both old and young are ardent supporters of the right hon. leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Mackenzie King) and our leader in Quebec, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe).
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that those hon. gentlemen who have followed the lead of the hon. member for Dorchester do not represent the real feeling of the people of my province. Those hon. members, it is true, were returned to this house at the election of 1930, but at the last provincial election they were not able to return any of their candidates for the local house. Last August the province of Quebec in the most unmistakable terms returned a verdict of confidence in the Liberal administration which has been controlling the affairs of the province for the last thirty-four years. On that occasion the electors of Quebec had a chance to choose between the Hon. Mr. Tasehereau and Mr. Houde, and by an overwhelming majority they showed their preference for the leader of the administration that had enjoyed the confidence of the province for the past thirty-four years rather than turn to a demagogue like the provincial leader of the Tory party. Let me remind hon. gentlemen to your right, and more especially the

hon. member for Dorchester, that although they may try to belittle our leader in Quebec, my hon. friend from Quebec East, they are playing a very poor game, and they may rest assured that long after they have gone into the valley of oblivion the name of the Hon. Ernest Lapointe will be held in honour and esteem by many generations yet unborn, for he will stand in history as one of the greatest men of our race both in the province of Quebec and in the dominion.
It is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, to hear our hon. friends opposite talking in such a reckless fashion. They were over-enthusiastic after the general election of 1930, and they thought they could repeat their success by fooling the people again in 1931 at the provincial election, but the electors of my province were wiser then than they were in 1930. Our friends opposite are bad losers, and having suffered a severe defeat in the provincial election, naturally they vent their disappointment upon our esteemed leader in Quebec, my hon. friend from Quebec East. At the next federal election I am convinced that the electors of Quebec will display the same sound judgment as they did at the recent provincial election, and that their example will be followed by the electors of the other provinces, and they will send back to their homes our friends opposite so that they may have an opportunity to meditate over their defeat.
We have been accused by some members on your right, Mr. Speaker, of unduly delaying the adoption of this resolution, and thereby becoming responsible for the suffering of the unemployed because this measure of relief is not enacted immediately. But the blame is not to be laid at our door; rather it is the fault of the government which waited for over a month after the opening of the session before introducing this resolution. On reference to the orders of the day it will be found that it was only after the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) had introduced his amendment on the motion to go into supply that the government decided to bring this resolution before the house. The debate has not been unduly long; to-day we are entering on the eighth day. I take issue with the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) who stated the other day that the debate had been in progress for over two weeks. Only thirty-seven members of the official opposition have spoken so far, and they have been joined in debate by fifteen of our hon. friends on the opposite side and by seven members representing various groups on this side of the house-fifty-nine all told.

Unemployment Continuance Act
In 1926 it will be- recalled that there were debates continuing for weeks and weeks, and in 1930 also, when this very question of unemployment was an issue the majority of hon. gentlemen who were then sitting on this side got up one after another and read to the house carefully prepared briefs that had been drafted for them by their party organization. Are there two kinds of justice, one for the Tories and one for the Liberals? If in the days of 1926 and- in 1930 it was right to appose the resolutions and motions proposed by the government of the day, Mr. Speaker, surely to-day we should be given the same freedom of speech and the same liberty of action enjoyed by the Tory party in those days: After all we are here to perform a duty. When we took our places in this house we took an oath of office, and we cannot let this resolution pass, after hearing speeches such as those delivered by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Railways and Canals, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, without entering our protest. I should like to refer especially to the speech delivered in this house the other day by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), in which he said:
It is true that at that time an appropriation might have been voted, and it was very largely the burden of the complaint of some hon. members that that was not done, but I invite hon. gentlemen to consider this, that when an appropriation is passed the purpose for which it is to be used must be specified, and the Auditor General and other officers of the crown in scrutinizing expenditures under such an appropriation, always keep the government very closely to the purpose specified in such a vote.
That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, why the government to-day ccmes before this house asking permission to evade that scrutiny of every appropriation voted by parliament which is required by the laws of our country. It is our prerogative to see where our money goes, the money which comes from the taxpayers of this country, and to see that the government does not commit any abuses in the use of that money. That is the reason why this debate is going on. Further, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
We have certain commitments which have been made under the act; that is, agreements have been entered into with each of the provinces and various works of a different character are being carried on by the provinces with the aid of the dominion, and we ask for an extension of the act for two months, because the difficulties which then confronted the country have not been surmounted. . . .
If it were only to carry out such commitments and finish such works as have been undertaken under this act, speaking for myself and I think for all hon. members on this side of the house, there would be no objection to letting the bill pass, because it would be simply completing those works which have been undertaken for the benefit of the people. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce also said that further relief was required, and that is the point upon which we take issue. While parliament is sitting, and while we are here to decide these issues as representatives of the people, we do not want these powers given to the government. We are here to vote upon any amount of money required by this government to carry on its relief woi'k in the cities and throughout the country.
Since the government has been in power I think it is safe to say that it has been given by the country at large and by the opposition in this house fair play, a free hand and ample opportunity to inaugurate any policies it desired to bring into force; it has not been hampered unduly by the opposition. But discussion is necessary on the part of any opposition, though that is net synonymous with inaction or acquiescence. We are not here simply to listen to the government and abide by its dictates; we are not supposed to say "ditto" to everything the government may propose. The country expects that at all times the opposition shall be vigilant in the preservation of established rights and the liberties of the people, and do all in its power to prevent the usurpation of any rights or powers which do not belong to those entrusted with the government of the country. It is the duty of the opposition to stand by its own principles and policies, especially when there exists throughout the country to an appreciable extent a critical attitude towards the government. It is the duty of the opposition to express that attitude in this house and to present our criticism with regard to the measures brought forward by the government. In the province from which I come I may say there is a good deal of criticism directed against the government as to the manner in which this unemployment relief money has been administered, and also as to the way the government has put in force the policies it promised to bring forward during the election of 1930. That is why this debate has gone on for some days and the reason why it may go on for some time longer.
I think we are all in agreement with the object of this resolution; that is, we all desire to seek ways and means of relieving the farmers and the unemployed throughout the country. But as to the methods adopted in the past and proposed to be continued in the future we disagree. This proposal is too far
Unemployment Continuance Act

unemployment and farm relief, has had to go to the very source to which, as we pointed out before, it was necessary to go in order to settle the problem. We stated that cooperation was necessary among the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government.
We have been told of the wonderful success that has been achieved in Saskatchewan through the relief commission appointed there under the bill; yet a general relief unemployment commission, such as has been advocated by my leader, has been refused by the government. Notwithstanding the efforts of the government, the situation has been going from bad to worse, and to-day we have only to refer to the speeches of certain western members in order to see that in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta conditions to-day are worse than they have ever been. We find the members from those provinces asking for feed for cattle and for seed for the spring. We have also heard of the complaints that were made in British Columbia regarding the administration of the act. Owing to the maladministration of the act, it has been necessary to appoint a commission to investigate matters. I have in my hand an editorial which appeared in Le Soleil of Quebec on August 27 last. This editorial discloses the fact that certain hon. members who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker, attempted to play politics in the last provincial elections in Quebec. They tried to make use of the efforts put forth by the government to grant unemployment relief in order to force the electors to vote in their favour. This editorial quotes a letter which had been written by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin) dated August 22, 1931, addressed to the electors of Bienville and Lauzon. The editorial is in French and is as follows:
(Translation):
Sell Yourself Or Starve!
Such seems to have been the motto of certain Houdist electioneers in the last campaign. Sell yourself or starve! These words are actually embodied in certain documents that we have in our possession and which bring shame on those who had them circulated. It is impossible to close our eyes, in connection with this literature, to the blackmail directed against the liberty of citizens.
The following circular letter which Dr. Emile Fortin, member for Levis, at Ottawa, addressed to the electorate of his county to bribe them by promising bread in return for their vote in favour of Mr. Noel Belleau, the Houdist candidate, is an instance of the corruption carried on in this election:
[Mr. Casgrain.l
Do You Want Work?
Levis, August 22, 1931.
Electors of Bienville,
Electors of Lauzon.
Famine Is At Your Door!
There are signs that winter will be severe! Unemployment increases: Workmen of Lauzon, whatever may be your party attachment or feelings, do you want work? Do you want bread? Help me! and put your trust in the only government which can relieve you.
Heretofore, I have not spared my time or energy to help you. Shall you, by an unfavourable and thoughtless vote undo my twelve months of work and anxiety?
You need the Dominion government. Vote for it by voting for Noel Belleau, thus you will be endorsing the following contracts:
Fire-engine boat, $350,000.
Repairs to the Prince Edward Island, $270,000.
Repairs to the dry docks, $36,000.
Repairs to the forts, $150,000.
Repairs to government boats, $100,000.
Repairs at the engineers' camp-target range,

Think how advantageous it would be for Levis if I had to help me: Noel Belleau, K.C., minister of the crown, at Quebec; Hon. Maurice Duprd, a son of Levis, minister at Ottawa; Mr. Onesime Gagnon, member for Dorchester and future minister in the Bennett administration.
What help can Mr. Belanger be to you in contrast with what we can do for you?
The provincial government can do nothing without the support of the government, at Ottawa.
Mr. Bennett can give you prosperity. Three Rivers endorsed his policy and received $700,000.
Let Lauzon and Bienville do their share, they will be given in return work and prosperity.
Workmen of Lauzon if you disown the Conservative party what can you expect from it next winter ?
(Sgd.) Dr. Emdle Fortin,
Member at Ottawa.
Never has the Conservative party admitted more impudently to what means they resort to bribe the people.
"Three Rivers endorsed his policy and received $700,000." What a confession! So, when the country is in the throes of a critical economic crisis, the Conservative party, at Ottawa, in an endeavour to destroy the Liberal party, grant almost three-quarters of a million to the ratepayers in Three Rivers to purchase their votes and ease their conscience! A party which resorts to such means deserves to Be wiped out. It is what the Liberals did, last Monday, to the Houdists, and it is what they will do in four years to Mr. Bennett.
I shall translate a part of this editorial as it may prove interesting to the people at large. The letter says that Bennett alone can give prosperity, that Three Rivers has approved of his policy and has received $700,000 in the form of relief, and the electors of Bienville and Lauzon are advised to do likewise and they will see a return to pros-

Unemployment Continuance Act
perity. They are told that if they renounce the Conservative party they cannot expect to receive anything during next winter.
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members who sit on your right have not used this act to play politics, I should like to know what they have done. They used it to appeal to the people in the province of Quebec during the last provincial election. Had there been appointed a relief commission, as advocated by my right hon. leader such things would not have occurred. I think I am safe in saying that this act has proved to be inadequate and futile, its administration has been wasteful and extravagant and the necessary relief has not reached the people. The hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) quoted last night an extract from the Financial Post which showed the cost of the administration of this act. The figures showed that the debt of the country has been increased because of the expenses of administration.
Has unemployment been relieved and work given to the people? I have before me figures which show that in September, 1931, one year after the government had taken office, 7,798 firms were employing 972,537 people. In January, 1932, the figures stood at 7,832 firms employing 835,960 people, a considerable decrease in the number employed. In February, 1932, the totals had declined further to 7,766 firms employing 819.175 people. These figures show that not very much work has been provided for the people of Canada. The index of employment in industry in Canada is at its lowest ebb since 1922. Who is responsible for this? The Prime Minister admitted that the government was responsible when he made the speeches to which I have alluded.
The hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) speaking in the house on February 23, 1932, said:
As time went on it was apparent that further measures would have to be adopted in order that those in want might be given such employment as would tide them over, and the result was the legislation of last session. Under that legislation 334,301 persons have been given employment up to January 31. 1932, the total number of man-days being 7,415,973. The total commitments necessary to carry on the work to February 22, 1932, amounted to $76,426,387. the federal government's share being $32,822,847. This work is still proceeding. The figures I have given will be subject to some slight variation when the report is tabled which I trust will be shortly.
The total cost was 876,426,387 to provide 7.415,973 man-days, or slightly more than $10 for every day's work provided. Where did the balance go? Is that the way to take care of unemployment? When the $20,000,000 was voted in 1930 we were given to understand
that many public works would be undertaken in order to provide unemployment relief. After the act had been passed the Minister of Labour wrote to various members of the government and of the opposition asking us to point out the various works which would be necessary in our constituency in order to assist the people. I replied to the hon. minister under date of August 15, 1931. He acknowledged receipt of my letter but he did not take cognizance of the requests which I had made and the suggestions which I had given.
I cannot see how we can abide by the dictates and requests of the government and pass this resolution without protest. We are being asked to extend for two months legislation which vests in the government all the powers which this house has over the control of public money. I have demonstrated the results which have been obtained from the administration of this act and I cannot conceive how we, representing our constituencies and having taken an oath to fulfil our mandates, can give to the government while parliament is sitting the rights granted under the constitution to this house. We are being asked to do away with the committees of supply and ways and means, the very bases of the parliamentary system.
Hon. members of the government have asked for cooperation but how can we cooperate when we do not know what amount will be expended and for what purpose? How can we cooperate with the leader of the government when he does as he pleases, even with his own supporters and refuses to accept counsel or advice from anyone? Most of the hon. members on this side who have spoken, and I think some on the other side, will agree that the gentleman who leads the government to-day wants to do it by himself alone. Hon. members have called him Nero and Mussolini, and the names of other absolute dictators in history. We have also called him Mussolini. For my part, last year I said what I thought of him and I do not want to say any more, because the people of the country know him well enough.
I protest against this resolution, and this is the reason I and other members have been carrying on this debate. We contend that if this resolution is passed, it means that we shall be giving up all the rights and privileges for which our forefathers fought in 1837 and for which a fight was carried on in England hundreds of years ago, in order that the representatives of the people might obtain control of the public money.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Translation):: Hear, hear.


Mr. BOULANGER (Translation):: The
Prime Minister should remember that this is no time for rash action, that this is no time for him to test the extent of his power, for "they who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind." Instead of encroaching upon our government system and of introducing reckless measures, the Prime Minister should endeavour, in these hard times, to proceed along regular lines and abstain from any novel departure likely to unduly magnify, in the public mind, the seriousness of the situation. Such was, during the war, the policy followed by statesmen who were well worth the present Prime Minister, and as was already pointed out, by this resolution, the Prime Minister is attempting to assume power a hundredfold larger than those enjoyed by Sir Robert Borden under the War Measures Act and the War Appropriation Act.
The Prime Minister should not, also, be unmindful of the lessons of history. One cannot, with impunity, offend public feeling, nor can one hurt with impunit>T that sense of justice and freedom so deeply rooted in the hearts of every Canadian. One cannot, with impunity, ignore the system of government we owe to the wisdom of our ancestors nor could one demolish such barriers as the people have seen fit to erect against the tendency to absolutism on the part of the executive. The Prime Minister should recollect that the movement which took place a hundred years ago in connection with the control of public expenditures by the peoples' representatives led to the rebellion of 1837-1838. And in support of this, I may cite the very words of Lord Gosford, governor general of Lower Canada in 1837, and therefore in a better position than anyone else to know the situation. In the debate that took place in the House of Lords on the union of the two Canadas, Lord Gosford stated that the chief responsibility for the rebellion was to be laid at the door of those who having, at the conquest,

Unemployment Continuance Act
monopolized all the money, all the power and all the important posts, persisted in governing the Canadians without their consent and participation. The following is an extract of the statement of Lord Gosford, as found in the history of Canada:
There are, specially in Montreal and in the vicinity, a number of English speaking citizens to whom every liberal-minded and independent man must be hostile, whose acts and behaviour have been characterized by a spirit of domination over the whole population of French origin; they have continuously aimed at acquiring power and exercising patronage in the country. They are the men who must be held chiefly responsible for the troubles that have recently occurred.
I earnestly urge upon the Prime Minister of Canada to ponder over the events that took place previous to the rebellion of 1837, and to seriously consider the statement of Lord Gosford, former governor general of Lower Canada.
We are told, Mr. Speaker, that this measure must be passed in the shortest possible time, it being a matter of life and death for the unemployed and the farmers, and that any opposition to it means a delay in granting relief. I take the strongest exception to a threat of that sort, to that intimidation and duplicity to which recourse has been had so frequently during the last two years in connection with unemployment. It has been said, on this side of the house, that the government had organized the unemployed into a regular profession; more than that, they have used unemployment as a pretext and a justification for all their misdeeds. Every time the government wishes to camouflage any of their arbitrary acts, every time they want to work in the dark and frame some plot against our parliamentary institutions, they plead the same old excuse, the same old motive, that is the necessity of giving relief to the unemployed, to the farmers, and of rendering assistance to the needy in this country. I protest against that procedure on the part of the government and against such an exploitation of public distress, which is simply used to play politics.
It is needless to repeat, in the course of this debate, the offer so many times made by us to the Prime Minister to the effect that we are willing to vote any amount of money. We have offered, and still offer to him to vote supplies, provided he can give sufficient cause therefor. We are entitled to know from him the reason for the expenditures to be incurred by the government. We would feel remiss to our duty and, for my part, I would feel unworthy of the mandate I hold from my electors, should I not raise my voice against 41761-79i
that mode of procedure on the part of the government and should I not, after the other hon. members who spoke before me, insist upon the government for a statement of their reasons and motives for the contemplated expenditures.
We have heard our hon. friends on the government side, the butter-makers of 1930, not to say the "buttery" promise makers of 1930, speak in laudatory, but senseless and ludicrous terms, of the Prime Minister and of "Bennettism." Instead of wasting such a torrent of praise, our friends, specially the government followers in the province of Quebec group, should have called upon the government to take action. I do not say that they should have appealed to the liberality of government, as they were in duty bound to do, but it would have been better for them to secure the aid of the government in behalf of the farming community of Eastern Canada, particularly of the province of Quebec represented by us in this house. I charge the government with having completely failed to do anything for the relief of agriculture in Quebec. The farmers in that province may not lament as loudly as those in some other parts of the country,-they are not in the habit of taking such political action,-but the fact remains that they keenly feel the hardships of the present depression, which has been made worse through the folly of high protection. If it be in order to give relief to other classes of the community, if it be fair to erect exceedingly high tariff walls for the protection of the manufacturing interests, for instance, it is equally fair and proper to afford the same measure of protection to agriculture.
The legislation we are now asked to revive is entitled: "The Unemployment and Farm Relief Act". I fear no contradiction when I say that the farmers in the province of Quebec have benefited in no way from the legislation we are asked to extend. Should it be revived, I am quite sure that it would not be more beneficial to the farming class in Quebec than afforded them the old act that expired on the first of March last.
Instead of entitling the act: "The Unemployment and Farm Relief Aot" the government should, abstaining themselves from any camouflage and deceit, call it: "An Act for the relief of financiers at bay." In the course of this debate, it has developed that the act; was used to come to the help of the bankers,, insurance companies, financiers and bondholders in certain western provinces, rather than to actually give relief to the unemployed and to the farmers.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Mr. POULIOT:: (Translation,) For the
relief of cement dealers.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: And for the relief of railway ties manufacturers.
If the government had been sincere in its effort to improve the conditions of the farming community, they would have done more than the small works undertaken, and they would have adopted means other than the makeshift measures carried out since the unemployment act is in existence. A few moments ago, I said that no benefits had accrued to the farmers of the province of Quebec from the enforcement of that legislation. I might perhaps qualify this statement to a certain extent, for some works have been attempted in winter time, such as, for instance, the hauling of gravel or other unimportant work in connection with road building. But such works, which are mere incidents, simple make shifts and palliatives, have not altered the conditions. At the most, a dozen of men in a parish, have been enabled to earn $10 or $12 working at these jobs in this time of depression. And yet that money was not earned by those who were in the greatest need, but by farmers in easy circumstances; and the reason why those who needed relief the most were unable to secure it was that, having no homes nor rigs of their own, they wene ineligible to employment in connection with the hauling of gravel or other road work, all of which was undertaken in midwinter for the *purpose of relieving unemployment.
I charge the government with having no comprehensive plan, no definite policy for the relief of unemployment, and particularly of agriculture. We have been criticized for our lack of suggestions to the government. If the government had listened to what has been said in this house last session, and during the special session of 1930, as well as to what has been proclaimed almost everywhere, on' the hustings and in the public press, they would have realized that constructive suggestions have been made to them. For my part,
I would humbly suggest to the. government, -and that, obviously, after many others for *the idea is not mine,-that the best way to bring relief to the farmers of Quebec would be to grant a bounty for the clearing and breaking of the soil, which premium would enable the farmers to live with the income from their holdings. In a section of my constituency, as is also the case in the southern part of Montmagny, Dorchester and LTslet, the farmers' lands are not in a sufficiently advanced state of cultivation to support their owners. Until recently, the farmers in that [Mr. Boulanger. I
district mostly earned their living in the bush; but for a year or two, the lumbering activities have ceased, on account of the depression, and the farmers, no longer able to work in the lumber camps and enjoying but a1 soant income from their farm, are now in' the direst need. Last year, I raised that' *question in the house and I also discussed it both in public and in the press. But up to this time the government have not trouhled themselves about that suggestion and did not draw any plan to carry it into effect. Instead of pledging the credit of this country for the security of the bondholders of the western .provinces, instead of spending enormous sums of money in railroad ties or to increase the strength of the police force, for instance, the government would be well advised to appropriate a certain amount in order to carry through the suggestion I have already made and which I am repeating now after many others. The government should cooperate with the provinces with a view to granting a clearing bonus to farmers whose lands are not sufficiently cleared to keep them alive. With such a bonus a farmer could clear let us say thirty or forty acres of his land, and when a farmer has enough land cleared, then all he has to do is to cultivate it, and he is assured of a livelihood1. That is one permanent means of relieving distress among farmers. It woulld be far better than the contrivances and palliatives hitherto used. That would be a good investment, the capital would not be wasted, it would be effective and' profitable, whereas, up to this time, we have simply thrown money away. The government thus could keep a great many farmers permanently on the land, who otherwise, unless we give them some assistance, will have to leave their farms and go to the cities where they will add to the number of unemployed and those who are a public charge. Some will say: "What is the use of having the farmers rooted in their lands? What is the use of promoting a back to the land movement? What is the use of encouraging former farmers who live in the cities to take to agriculture again, since the prices of farm products are so low and the products so hard to sell?" This is my answer: "Even though farm products are cheap, even though farming is not profitable, at least a man can earn his livelihood more easily on the land than in the cities and towns; a farmer is in a better position than the poor laborer who has no work or the mechanic who is unemployed. The latter have to pay for everything they need, even for the water that they drink. In the countryside, they get all that from the soil. The farmer can get enough to eat, he is

Unemployment Continuance Act
sure to have some bread on the shelf and pork in the salting-tub. He is sure of getting vegetables and also wood to warm his house, and that requires but labour on his part. Thus it would intensify the clearing of land and the government would secure a permanent livelihood for a great many .people. By cooperating with the provinces for the granting of a clearing bonus to farmers, that would induce them to cultivate a greater acreage; they would become real farmers thinking only of improving their land and living on what it may yield, and that would keep them awey from the shanties; because, after all, a farmer has nothing to earn by going there. Cultivating the soil is the traditional .mission of our people in the province of Quebec. They are not shantymen, they are not manufacturers, nor mechanics; the only avocation in which they will succeed and for which .they are qualified and competent, is farming.
Mr. Speaker, not only could t'he government cooperate with the provinces for the granting of clearing bonuses in order to expand the land under cultivation, but they could also grant ploughing bonuses for the purpose of inducing the farmers to cultivate more and to improve their lands and thus add to the productive wealth of Canada.
I was speaking a moment ago about the back to the land movement. It is a good way of relieving decidedly and permanently the unemployment situation, and the government ought to foster that movement. The faon. Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) has already commented upon this policy for the return of former farmers to the land, and I congratulate him for it. It is a good move on the part of the government, we give them credit for it, and we appreciate what they have done along these lines. But it is not enough, and the government should intensify that movement and cooperate with the provinces, more especially with the province of Quebec which has done wonderful work in that direction. The province of Quebec has reinstated on the land about five or six thousand families of former farmers who were merely existing or starving in the towns; the government of the province of Quebec helped them to return to their farms where they have become an asset for their country, instead of remaining idle or being a public charge in the cities. Such is the bold suggestion that I am making to the government for the purpose of curing unemployment. I have another suggestion to offer.
I would like the government to try and stop the centralizing of money in the hands of a few individuals.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: That
practice has completely changed our rural life. Money has been drawn from the rural districts to the cities, where it has been centralized in the hands of a few. In the past, in every rural locality there were small local industries: one was building carriages, another was making furniture or spinning wheels; there were makers of agricultural implements and of many binds of household tools, and all these small rural industries were drawing their livelihood from the rural population. But the withdrawing and centralizing of money have completely ruined that rural industry. The centralizing of money in the hands of a few has enabled them to set up trusts and monopolies that are ruining the small rural industries. So much so that the people in the rural districts now buy their bread from the bread trust, and their meat from the grocery trusts in the cities; and the same may be said of shoes and clothes. The trusts and monopolies of the large centres, the establishment of which was promoted by the banks and the financial institutions, have ruined the small rural industry and rural trade as well. It is a bad thing for a country -to have all the money and all its inherent power thus centralized.
I was just saying that this centralization had fostered trusts and monopolies which have smothered rural trade and industry. For instance, everybody knows that most of our banks have trust companies as subsidiaries with the same directors or almost the same. The funds of these subsidiary companies belong to the banks or rather to the banks' depositors. When a man wants some money, or when a company wants to issue bonds, the bank refers them to this trust company which is in a position to impose its own terms, and often drastic terms. It is through these trust companies that the banks, by using the money of their depositors, establish the monopolies I was complaining about a moment ago.
I remember when the Prime Minister, last year, denounced speculation. He said that speculation was one of the principal causes of distress in the western provinces. He stated that the western farmers had speculated too much on their grain and they had bought too many implements, pianos, radios and other similar articles, on the instalment plan. That is the cause of the present distress in the western provinces. Speculation has been the misfortune of the rural population, according to the Prime Minister. When a poor farmer gambles on his crop or buys a radio on the instalment plan, they call it blamable speculation; but when it is suggested to inquire

Unemployment Continuance Act
as to the way the banks, the trust companies or the insurance companies use the people's money for the purpose of stock-jobbing and speculation, it is altogether different, and the Prime Minister then says that we are hurting the credit of the dominion, and that we should not talk about these things in this house.
Mr. Speaker, I took the opportunity, a moment ago, to congratulate the hon. Minister of Immigration; but I am afraid that I shall have to find fault with him now on another point. If it is necessary to give a blank cheque to the government, and, without any explanation, to let them free to spend all the money they want without accounting for it, for the purpose of assisting the unemployed and relieving a supposedly terrible and urgent situation, it seems to me that this is not the time to open our doors to the immigrants and further to increase the number of unemployed that we have to feed. That is why I am bound to blame, to a certain extent, my friend the hon. Minister of Immigration for the statement he made in this house some time ago, and also for another statement which he made earlier in the session.


Jean-François Pouliot: Do not hesitate to blame him.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: The hon. minister probably wanted to echo the words of Mr. J. H. Thomas, Secretary for the Dominions in the British government, when the latter asserted that if Canada wanted to sell its wheat to Great Britain, it would have to accept, in exchange for it, a large number of British unemployed whom Great Britain is obliged to feed. The hon. minister, returning the statement of Mr. Thomas, declared in this house, in the early days of this session, that he would never close the door to British immigration. I beg to differ completely with the hon. minister on that point. Undoubtedly I have nothing against British immigration and I am not adverse to people from overseas, but, in my opinion, if it is necessary to adopt extraordinary, bold and mischievous measures such as this one, this is not the time to have our doors wide open to the unemployed of Great Britain and to bring them out here only to increase the number of those whom we have to feed.
As the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) said the other day, 27,500 immigrants came to Canada during the last year, while we have already over 500,000 people out of work. It is 27,500 people too many. The government should have barred them out, more especially when you think that at the present time we have to send back every day

hundreds of emigrants	who	came here	andwere unable to live in	this	country.	I	personally can testify to it, as I have seen it when returning home	on	Fridays	on	theOcean Limited, the great Canadian National train going from Montreal to Halifax and Saint John. There are always one or two cars hooked to the rear of the train, full of emigrants that the Dominion government is obliged to send back at the expense of this country. However the statements of the hon. Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) are no surprise to us who have been in this house for a certain number of years. During the election of 1930, our friends tried, particularly in the province	of	Quebec,	to	take
advantage of the question of immigration, and endeavoured to show that the Liberal party was responsible for the great number of immigrants that came into this country under their administration. But we, who were in this house when hon. gentlemen opposite were sitting on this side, know that the Conservative party, in 1928, had a committee of inquiry appointed by this house with a view to finding means of accelerating the immigration to this country. We know that the Conservative party was censuring at that time Hon. Mr. Forke, because he was not bringing in as many immigrants as in 1912, for instance, when the Conservatives were in power. The year 1912 was always the record year, the standard year which our friends were describing as the ideal goal. They were always reproaching us with doing too little or not as much as the Conservatives did in 1912, and they insisted so much that they secured an inquiry before a committee of this house for the purpose of finding means to increase immigration to this country. They very severely censured Hon. Mr. Forke and I remember the very harsh and very offensive words which the present Prime Minister directed against Hon. Mr. Forke when he accused him of lacking competence because he did not equal the immigration record set by the Conservatives in 1912.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): It is true.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Regarding the immigration of these young boys which the hon. Minister of Immigration mentioned the other day, may I be allowed to read a letter of protest from the Anglican bishop of Montreal. This is what Bishop Farthing said:
When one has seen hundreds of these boys in the bread line in Montreal during the past year, when one knows that a good number of them have been sent back to England to their own families by the generosity of private

Unemployment Continuance Act
citizens, to say nothing of those who have been deported by the government; and when one sees now a large number of these boys are depending upon public charity, one feels indignant indeed that 500 more should be brought out to share the fate of those who have come in the last few years. No doubt some of the boys brought out have been comfortable on farms, but there is no doubt either that many of those who have been brought out have left the farms in the west and in Ontario, and even some in Quebec, and that they have been drifting from place to place, depending on the charity of the people. I cannot imagine a worse moral influence to which a boy could be subjected than to lead the life of a tramp, stealing rides on the railways from place to place, having no home, no one to be responsible for him, often times falling in the worst elements of our community.
One is thankful for the efforts which are made in many cities to try to help these boys. If there are situations for 500 boys from the old country, why not give these places to our own Canadian boys and those old country boys who are out of employment here now? Why bring 500 boys between 14 and 18 years of age to face the conditions of Canada as they exist to-day? Many of them will gravitate into our large cities and share the experiences of those drifters who have passed through the past two or three years.
It seems to me criminal to bring these boys out. I am told that it is necessary to bring them in order to avoid the danger of various immigration organizations becoming disbanded. These boys are then to be offered as sacrifices to keep together immigration organizations of various kinds. Surely it would be better to disband every organization rather than to keep [DOT] them together at the expense of 500 old country lads.
There will be no difficulty in reorganizing immigration societies when the country revives and the time comes to encourage immigration; I appeal to Canadians of all classes to unite and enter an emphatic protest against what seems to me to be a most unwise and unjust action, and one which under existing circumstances will do a great wrong to defenceless lads.
I add that to encourage the immigration of these young men would be unjust not only to the young men themselves, brought here when things are at a low ebb, but to our own young Canadians. If the government have money to help these young immigrants let them spend it first of a.1'1 to give employment to our own youth, to help them finish their studies in our colleges and universities and to aoquire a genuinely Canadian education.
Mr. Speaker, I have another suggestion to offer the government looking towards the betterment of farming conditions. We are to have an Imperial conference this coming summer. Trade between the different countries of the empire is an excellent thing, and I hope the Prime Minister gets what he wants; but, permit me, I have my doubts on that score. Are we to 'believe for instance that the
Irish farmer will readily give way before the Canadian producer on the British market? Can we expect the British -consumer to buy our Canadian products in preference to Denmark's butter and bacon, Holland's cheese, and the early vegetables and fruits from Britanny and Normandy? You cannot go on endlessly fighting against geographical -conditions and no matter what artificial arrangements may be made in the way of customs duties, Denmark, Holland, Britanny and Normandy will still be close to the British market and Canada will still be at a great distance. The suggestion I make to the government is this: While developing empire trade let them give a thought to Pan-American -commerce. Although we may make much of belonging to the British Empire it must still be borne in mind that we are on the American continent, the natural outlet for our -products, in preference to Europe and the other continents. I ask the government to bend their efforts first of all towards finding markets for our Canadian products on the American continent.
The other day I noticed in the leaflet that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) has handed to us each morning, and which I find very interesting, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce complains that the high United States tariff prevents Canadians from disposing of their products in the neighbouring country. Here is one way in which the government could improve Pan-American trade: Instead of raising the customs tariff against the United States why -not conclude with them a treaty based on reciprocity? We should strive to develop commerce with United States before reaching out for more distant markets.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has
spoken forty minutes.


Mr. W. C. S. McLURE (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak on this resolution, but according to Hansard the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) in the course of his speech last night said:
I see my friends from Prince Edward Island on the other side and I know they will agree with every word I say.
I think the hon. member was taking a lot for granted in making that statement. While I do not know how many members on this side of the house will agree with him-and I am not interested in how many on the other side may share his views-in his attempt to justify the blocking of this resolution and consequent interference with the government in its endeavour to relieve unemployment, I say emphatically that I do not agree with his

Unemployment Continuance Act
remarks with respect to several matters relating to Prince Edward Island. Later on I shall give my reasons for this disagreement.
The debate on this resolution has partaken of a character quite different from what I had anticipated. At first I thought the resolution would be discussed from the constitutional point of view, and that the great legal minds from both sides of the house would enlighten us on this issue; but the debate soon became divested of all its legal robes and in a short time became clothed in a distinctly political garb. This has resulted in the debate covering a wide field, and several hon. members, especially on the opposite side, have seized the opportunity to put political propaganda on Hansard for the benefit of their constituents. Whether I choose to follow the constitutional line or the political, or whether I discuss the resolution strictly on its merits, I expect that the latitude accorded to other members will be accorded to me also.
I have listened to this debate for hours and hours, yes, for days and days, and now almost for weeks, and the more speeches I listen to from the other side of the house the more I am impressed with the sincerity of our hon. friends opposite in their stubborn adherence to their traditional attitude towards relief of the unemployed and the unfortunate of this country. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) led off with a severe criticism of the manner in which the relief has been administered under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, and each of his supporters who followed him carried on the same line of attack. All seem to be imbued with the one idea-to stop the passing of any measure for further relief. Their whole object seems to be to obstruct the government in its endeavour to enact further legislation for the benefit of those of our fellow countrymen who are out of employment and in need as a result of this worldwide depression. Even admitting the sincerity of our hon. friends opposite-and they certainly demonstrated it as each one took up the cudgels for his party-I cannot understand their uncompromising opposition except on the ground that they are determined to adhere to their time-honoured policy of "not a nickel for the Canadian unemployed." That is their policy, apparently, and their stick-at-it-iveness dates back many years. I have been in this house only since 1930, but during that session the Liberal party argued strongly against any form of relief, they adopted the same course in the session of 1931, and now in this session they are still running true to form and proclaiming their favourite policy, 
namely, "not a nickel for the Canadian unemployed or those in distress."
Several hon. members have informed the house how the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act has worked out in their constituencies. Last night the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) touched on this subject very gingerly with reference to the province of Prince Edward Island. He made a few remarks about unemployment in that province and said some complaints had been made with reference to the work carried on, but he said he did not know whether or not the complaints were well founded. I believe the hon. member knew very well that the unemployment relief work in his constituency, and in the island in general, was carried out solely in the interests of the unemployed and the deserving, and that it was absolutely satisfactory. With reference to the constituency of Queens, which I have the honour to represent, the relief work and the resulting benefits to the unemployed were simply godsends dn a time of distress.
The proportion of federal funds allocated to Prince Edward Island was small in comparison with that allotted the other provinces, but possibly this was due to the fact that ours is an agricultural province and did not have so many unemployed as the industrial provinces had. But we did have unemployment; when we did get our allotment it was a great help to those people who were anxious to work, and we had very satisfactory results indeed. The people in my constituency and throughout the entire province as well were loud in their praises of the Department of Labour and the federal government with regard to the way in which the relief measures were carried out; every dollar of money coming from the federal government, the provincial government and the municipalities was spent entirely in the best interests of those who were unemployed, and there was no question of creed, class or politics when a man was looking for work. If he was out of work and in need the local government and the committee in charge asked no questions as to whether the man was a Grit or a Tory; they simply gave him what work was available, and everyone seemed quite satisfied with the way this work was carried out.
Some hon. member speaking in this house the other day made the statement that this money was wasted. I do not believe the hon. gentleman really meant that, because I claim that any money spent for the benefit of the poor and needy is not money wasted but is a gracious act on the part of whatever government granted that money. In 1931 we had a



IS, 1932

[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Continuance Act
Conservative government in Prince Edward Island and certainly they fully cooperated with the federal government, but in 1930 there was a Liberal government in power in that province. I want to be just as fair to the Liberals as I am to the Conservatives; I believe that in the expenditure of unemployment relief moneys in 1930-and I will speak for my own county in particular-the Liberal government did the very best they could and were absolutely fair in the distribution of work. I think it ill behooves anyone from Prince Edward Island to say that a man had to be of the proper political complexion in order to get work, because the facts show that any man seeking labour found it if work was available at all, irrespective of politics.
Last night the hon. member for Prince also placed on Hansard some remarks with reference to local conditions in Prince Edward Island. There was one statement I have heard him make time and time again; it is with reference to the generosity of the late Liberal government so far as the province of Prince Edward Island was concerned. I think the hon. member brought out that old chestnut last year, and in case he repeats it so often that he begins to believe it himself I should like to make a little comparison in this connection. I am sure when we compare the grants made to Prince Edward Island by different governments we will see that the generosity of the Liberal government was not so great as the hon. member for Prince would endeavour to have us believe. I should like briefly to compare the federal grants to my province in the year 1922-23 and the year 1929-30. The statutory subsidy was $381,931.8S in both years; it is fixed by the British North America Act and will remain the same until that act is changed. In 1922-23 the highway grant amounted to $106,277.01, but in 1929-30 this grant was discontinued by the Liberal government. In 1922-23 the grant for agricultural instruction and technical education amounted to $37,607.68, while in 1929-30 that grant was cut to $22,117.30. So we see that in 1922-23, as a result of legislation passed by a Conservative government, Prince Edward Island received a total grant of $525,-S16.57, while in 1929-30 the total grant was $404,049.1S. Even if we include the interim payment of $125,000, granted in lieu of the fulfilment of the recommendations of the Duncan report, we find that under a Liberal government in Ottawa the province was very little better off than it was in 1922-23.
During the course of his remarks the hon. member stated that the Duncan report had
not been implemented by the Prince Edward Island government, and he intimated that the Conservative government of that province should have come to Ottawa in order to see that the recommendations of the report were carried out. During the election campaign of 1930, the candidates of the Liberal party in our province went from one end of the country to the other, declaring that the Duncan report had been implemented one hundred per cent. Now the hon. member for Prince goes back on that statement, for he is urging upon the government of Prince Edward Island that they come to Ottawa and have the report implemented. That was their campaign policy in 1930, and I repeat emphatically that nothing has ever been done for Prince Edward Island from a political point of view', nor have any grants ever been made to that province, except through legislation put upon the statute books of the country by the Conservative party in power in Ottawa. I W'ill admit that the Liberal government gave us an interim grant of $125,000 in lieu of the Duncan commission's report, but that was made to our province as a political gesture prior to the election. We were told during the election campaign that the liberal government at Ottawa had a large audit committee figuring out the great grant that was to be given to Prince Edward Island. We heard this all through the campaign of 1930, and one would have thought listening to the Liberal candidates on that occasion, that half of the civil servants of Ottawa were employed on this audit committee. One night I challenged one of the candidates on the platform; I told him the facts regarding the matter and I said to him on that occasion that it was only Liberal political bunk they were handing out for election purposes. I was told then that it would be my fault if no further grant came from Ottawa, because I had described this audit committee as bunk. However, we do not expect at the present time any further implementing of the report under the conditions that exist, but as soon as any signs of improvement are noticeable we shall expect, and we know that we shall receive the fullest implementing of the Duncan report not only with respect to the maritimes generally but so far as our own province in particular is concerned.
The unemployment problem is one of the most serious that the world has ever known. In this house we have heard many speeches on the unemployment situation, but we should all take into consideration one thing, and apart from politics it should be the endeavour
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Continuance Act
of every hon. member to work out some solution whereby the problem may be met in this fair Canada of ours. The other day, speaking in this house, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) said a great many things with reference to unemployment and labour, condemning the Conservative party and the policy of the present government with regard to this question. As reported at page 435 of Hansard, he said:
I know that my hon. friends on the other side are all recently converted to the idea of doing something for the working man.
We will take that for what it is worth, but I regret to say that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and his followers have a long way yet to go on the road to Damascus before the scales will fall from their eyes and their conversion will take place in connection with the unemployment situation in Canada. It is all very well to criticize the government and their policy on unemployment, but it would be worth while, if we had time, to study the attitude of the present opposition towards this problem. It is not necessary, however, to go over all this ancient history; suffice it to say that, through the press and Hansard, future generations will know just what attitude the Liberal government took towards the unemployment situation and those who were in distress in this country. Their policy with regard to the unemployed was simply this-not a nickel of aid to those in distress.
Canada has always had a certain amount of seasonal unemployment, but from 1924 down to the year 1930 the unemployment problem had been going from bad to worse throughout the length and breadth of this country. We recall the climax that was reached in February, 1930, when the mayors of the leading towns, from Sydney on the Atlantic to Vancouver on the Pacific, and especially in midwestern Canada, came to Ottawa. These chief magistrates were supported by labour organizations, churches and various societies engaged in relief work. They could not cope with the situation and therefore came to Ottawa and pleaded the cause of the unemployed. They tried to get some relief from the then government. What happened? The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, who was then Minister of Labour, and the government of which he was a member, turned a deaf ear to the pleadings on behalf of the unemployed and the needy. The government of that day preferred to go on with their bungling trade policies and so did not lend any aid to the unemployed in 1930. I mention this climax to show that unemployment

has been a growing problem in Canada over a number of years; it is a problem which was bequeathed to this government by the late administration after the election of 1930. Besides world conditions which have been a cause of unemployment, the factors next in importance, contributing to the present situation, have been, so far as Canada is concerned, the trade policies of the late government.
Let us consider the immigration policy of the late administration, especially as it affected unemployment. During the nine years they were in power they brought into this country over 1,250,000 people to replace the labour of almost the same number of our own people. While we have no objection to immigrants entering our country, we do object to their coming in when there is not sufficient work for our own people. Why bring in other people at such tremendous cost to the country? During those years about 826,000,000 was spent on immigration. What effect did it have? It had the effect of driving out of Canada over one million people; these men and women left Canada to seek employment in other countries. When conditions got bad in the United States and the other countries to which these people had gone, many of them were forced to return to Canada and they are being included in our unemployment lists.
The trade policy of the former administration proved to have a very bad effect upon the employment situation. Their policy was one of flirting with free trade, and they paid no attention to what effect it might have on home conditions. Because of this policy hundreds of factories have been closed during the past ten years, and thousands of workmen thrown out of employment.
We are proud to say that the immigration and trade policies of the present administration have proven to be most statisfactory. The hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) has made the statement that the influx into this country practically had ceased and it would not be allowed to commence until such times as Canada could take care of her own unemployed. Hon. members of the opposition should give credit to this government for the inauguration of new policies with reference to immigration and trade. Under these policies industry is again starting to develop and we are looking to the time in the very near future when it will be able to take care of all who are unemployed at present.
Canada has had to face problems before but she has always endeavoured to work them out to the best possible advantage. One must have faith in a country with great natural

resources, and I have faith in Canada. I have the greatest faith in the government of the day because this country is fortunate in having an administration which can take care of the problems facing the country and solve them to the advantage of the unemployed. I was interested in an editorial which appeared the other evening in the Ottawa Citizen, and from which I shall quote in part. This paper, apparently having sensed public opinion with regard to this debate which has been continuing for so long, says:
It is safe to say that the majority of Canadian people are more concerned with Mr. Bennett's efforts to find the way out for Canada than with the Liberal party's protests about the rights of parliament as the controlling authority of government.
And again:
Without worrying too much about the opposition's constitutional criticism, they may well look to Premier Bennett to go on trying to carry out the mandate given to him to abolish the evil condition of unemployment in Canada.
The opposition to this legislation is causing the greatest distress to the unemployed and needy throughout the country. As far as I am concerned, this opposition can continue for weeks, but it would be better for those who oppose and for the country generally if they would say what their stand is with reference to unemployment. From the speeches which have been made from the other side, we know that they are opposed to the granting of any relief at the present time.
Jean-François Pouliot: 


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: county only.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, not at all.
We have heard from one
I am speaking for all.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: They should cooperate to
see that employment and relief are given, and they might well join with those on this side and be a party to the granting of relief to the unemployed.


Mr. JULES DESROCHERS (Portneuf) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, when I rise to speak on this resolution I feel that I am, as has been intimated by the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat, one of those who are obstructing the adoption of this measure and do not wish to cooperate with the government. To my leader, to my friends and colleagues on this side of the house I offer my sincere congratulations and my thanks for the able manner in which they have participated in this debate and also for the life and spirit which characterized their speeches.
Unemployment Continuance Act
The people at large, and the backbiters at any rate, will stop saying that we have shown too much speed, if not too much weakness, in the debate of this blank cheque given last year to those who were asking for it in our national interest, when it was urgent and when parliament was not in session. It was the universal remedy that was supposed to cure everything, unemployment and every difficulty; it was still intended to maintain peace and good order and to bring to our door all the fruits of the garden of Eden.
To-day we know by experience the utter nonsense of those contentions and, notwithstanding the statements of our friends opposite, it seems well proven that they completely failed, if not already after having spent so many millions of dollars, surely in the near future and throughout the width and breadth of our Dominion.
We are not surprised to see that they enjoy this system of blank cheques and orders in council; it had to come; the machine runs so smoothly when there is only one conductor. But everything must necessarily end and here we are with this bill No. 58 which has expired. The remedy is simple though: a brief motion of four lines and the phoenix will rise from its ashes, and parliament will have to bow down.
But, my friends, you have shouted: Stop! And I feel that in our country, from one end to the other, a unanimous voice approves you, your speeches so full of national pride, delivered in the two official languages and stating the will of all the nationalities that are to be found in our Dominion. I feel sure that already, from one ocean to the other, your ideas have been received and accepted.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: We even
listened to some speeches delivered in the Iroquois language.


Jules Desrochers: The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency is just venting his Iroquois disposition.
All those who cannot hear and who cannot see-and I wonder why they are not dumb also; perhaps it would have been much better-are there on the other side; they form a small group taking an impassive attitude and trying to be whimsical just to put on a countenance.
But here is the point: with figures and data all those who spoke before me have proven the futility of the measures heretofore adopted to relieve the unemployment situation; they have fought against the danger of having this country administered by a small group seeking to substitute themselves for the house in

Unemployment Continuance Act
session-for two months only; but would that be a cure for all our ills?
As for me, Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour and do my best to show that we are unjustly charged with what is called obstruction. I shall try also to show if it is at all possible to work hand in hand with people so minded. But, Mr. Speaker, to obstruct signifies putting something in the way and, when the point at stake is the retaining even of a small particle of our constitutional rights and our parliamentary privileges, is there a reason to deny us the duty of so doing? What was the impression made not very long ago by those allied nations who sacrificed so many of their sons to safeguard the invaded countries? They were defending with all their might civilization injured through the infringement of treaties. They had recourse to obstructive methods but, thank God, if some Germans are to be found here it is not on this side of the house. As in the days gone by we are proud to stand up and be an impediment and we shall fight to the end, even for a whole month if necessary, before we adopt a measure which implies inefficiency and the uselessness of this house in session. So easy would it be to adopt the usual practice followed in this house; but it is said-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Beauharnois.


Jules Desrochers: It seems to me that the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) should show a little more respect for those who speak in this chamber. He must not forget that, politically speaking, he is still a suckling.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: And you,
you are still lingering in prehistoric ages.


Jules Desrochers: Dixit Deus! The obstacle must fall before a servile and subdued majority. It will be at least gratifying to know that we have done our duty and Hansard will bear witness to it. Honour is safe!
So, Mr. Speaker, it is in that spirit of domination beyond measure that they are asking for our cooperation? Or else, would the members of the government have in mind some other kind of cooperation that is still unknown to us, poor human beings? Until now, cooperation meant work in common, and, so far as we are concerned, there is only one sort of cooperation, that which is based on good will and good faith. Then, how can you work hand in hand with any one who seeks isolation by requesting the maintenance of this do-as-I-please government? Cooperation is so contrary to the mind of hon. members 
opposite-Tories or Conservatives-that even their principles lead us to the antipodes of cooperation.
Gentlemen, if you care to do it, cross over to this side of the house with whatever good will and good faith are left in you, and kindly accept the assistance of these long established Liberal tenets:	Respect for the law, respect
for the constitution, respect for the house in session; and the obstacle will immediately fade away. Give us some expression of your good faith and good will and we will cooperate with you. Leave the abode of the false deities, come down into the realm of man and human misery, and you will find us ready to help you.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, after the protests voiced by my friends and my party against this measure that is submitted to us, allow me, on behalf of my constituents of Portneuf, to lay a particular complaint before the government:	The workingmen of La
Tuque have been sending you petitions and telegrams for the last several weeks, which have remained unanswered so far. Well, if the delay is due to our so-called obstruction, I may tell you that these good workingmen are too sensible to reproach us for having fought as we are fighting now, and they are too noble-hearted to allow their distress to be used as a lever for the destruction of our constitutional rights. They knew, when they granted me their votes, that they would never, under any circumstances, have the occasion to call me Judas.
Had I not already spoken so long, Mr. Speaker, I would ask hon. members opposite- lord and people, ministers and subjects- whether it would not be a good thing for them to go and draw a little light and philosophy from the teachings of Universal History. The present era resembles somewhat many others; a great number of potentates have fallen; many civilizations once perverted had to return to a sense of realities. Et nunc erudimini, you, who are emulating their example.


Mr. T. ADELARD FONTAINE (St. Hya-cinthe-Rouville) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker,
I do not think I shall require the whole forty minutes allotted by the rules of the house to express my humble opinion on the merits of the measure that has been submitted to us and which we are now asked to consider and discuss. I need not make a very long speech to enumerate the reasons why we are opposing a measure of this kind, which may lead to the most serious consequences. There is above any other consideration a fundamental principle which we must bear in mind,

Unemployment Continuance Act
that of the legitimate control by the representatives of the people of the revenue derived from taxes imposed upon and paid by the people. In other words, parliament-not the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) or the executive-has the right to appropriate and control all the revenues of the country. That is the fundamental principle which the Prime Minister wishes to forget and to put aside, losing sight of the very important fact that the parliamentary system is in force in this country and that, according to our constitution, the right to appropriate public funds belongs exclusively to parliament. The transfer of powers involved in this resolution simply means a breach and defiance of a fundamental disposition of our constitution.
The government may notice that this resolution has caused a wholesale uprising of fighting energies against this arbitrary measure which is being perpetrated right under a system of constitutional freedom. This is the most arbitrary measure that a government could take in our country. It certainly is a challenge to the liberty which is guaranteed to us by the constitution of this country. Do we not remember the dissensions, the disputes and even the hatreds which the famous question of supply gave rise to. Supply .must be granted freely by the house and to transfer that privilege to the prime minister alone would be equivalent to say that parliament has no reason to exist. To adopt a measure of this kind would simply mean that we are reverting to the unfortunate days of the Family Compact. One recalls how this aristocracy responsible only to the Colonial office in London administered the country's affairs. Land sales, mining operations, customs duties, taxes, in a word, all the country's resources were entrusted to the members of the "Family Compact." Moneys voted for the improvement of roads and highways were expended in other directions. In fact, one could not find out exactly how the money was spent. All these intrigues, all these injustices helped to bring upon us the dark, unhappy days of the rebellion. And it was to prevent for all time a recurrence of such calamities and similar persecutions in the parliamentary arena that our ancestors did not hesitate to fight, shed their blood on the battle-fields or forfeit their lives on the gallows. We can never forget the chapter they wrote.
Now, here is the wording of the resolution the honourable prime minister submits to this house:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of
Canada. 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor.
As everybody knows, parliament adopted in the closing days of the 1931 session, at the express request and upon the special representations of the Prime Minister, an extraordinary law the object of which, as represented at the time and as the wording of the law itself made clear, was to confer upon the government special powers relating to unemployment and farm relief as well as the maintenance of peace, order and good government. This is what the draft resolution submitted to parliament stated:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to confer certain powers upon the governor in council in respect to unemployment and farm relief; and for the maintenance of peace, order and good government in all parts of Canada; and to authorize the governor in council to expend for the said purposes out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums as may from time to time be necessary.
The law adopted at that time in accordance with this resolution was to lapse on March 1, 1932. That is what section 8 of the said law enacted and it is this provision the honourable prime minister is now asking this house to amend by extending to May 1st next the time limit of this measure.
The simple recital of these provisions clearly shows this eighteenth day of March, 1932, that this law whose expiry was set for March 1, 1932, has lapsed, is dead and inoperative since several days. As a matter of fact, if in law, certain agreements, for example leases, can in certain cases, imply a continued tenancy' without renewal of lease, the same procedure cannot be applied to a law such as this. Moreover, they are not asking this house to revive the law. Instead, they are asking parliament to modify, alter and amend a law that no longer exists, that lapsed on March 1.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Théophile-Adélard Fontaine: Here is
a primary motive which from the standpoint of parliamentary procedure prevents us from considering and much less adopting a measure of this kind that is absolutely ill-grounded. One can invoke many other reasons against its adoption. May I be allowed to point them out as concisely and rapidly as possible, because .many of the speakers who preceded me and whom, by the way, I congratulate upon their excellent speeches, have in the main covered the ground in a very able manner. If I may be allowed, I would like to mention especially the speeches delivered by the right honourable leader of the op-
Unemployment Continuance Act

position (Mr. Mackenzie King), the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for Labeile (Mr. Bourassa).
It is exceedingly regrettable, indeed, that the right honourable Prime Minister whose talents and industriousness we acknowledge should be intent on wanting to control and administer everything by himself. In so far as this authority relates only to matters of ordinary administration, it is true that we may possibly not have anything to do with such questions, but when things reach a pass where he undertakes, by measures such as those adopted last year and that submitted to us at the present time, to arrogate to himself the absolute and arbitrary control of the expenditure of public moneys, then it is an altogether different matter and constitutes an illegality parliament should not countenance. Such autocracy and such dictatorship have been denounced at sufficient length in the course of the present debate, and one need not dwell further on the subject. However, there is one aspect of this case which reminds me of a gallant English elector who was elected member under very exceptional circumstances. Historians chronicled this very peculiar election case in the following manner. (See Mignault, Parliamentary Law, page 95.)
It is said that an election being held, only one voter, except the sheriff and the returning officer, was present at the nomination meeting. The lone voter took the chair, opened the meeting, called the voters' roll, answered to his own name, and chose himself as member for the constituency. Being the only voter, he was elected by acclamation and the so-called representative of Bute county courageously sat at Westminster.
When we see the right honourable prime minister trying to assume absolute and dictatorial powers such as are conferred by this resolution, we would think that he is ready to revert a few 'Centuries in the past, to go back to that period where such things, as the one I have just mentioned, could occur,
It has been said, and I repeat it, if through such wide powers as are conferred in respect to unemployment and farm relief, and the maintenance of peace, order and good government, the prime minister intends to follow his .past attitude and avails himself of this procuration, this mandate or this authorization to do as he pleases without consulting parliament even when it is in session, our presence here is not needed and it is useless to waste money which could be put to a better use while the country is suffering from hard times, depression and unemployment.
It is to be regretted that the Prime Minister should want to discard the farmali-
TMr. Fontaine.]
ties and procedure which have always been followed by this house so far as voting and spending public funds are concerned. He has taken this irregular course, from the moment of his accession to power, that is during the special session of September, 1930. We all well remember what happened then. The government submitted legislation stipulating that a sum not exceeding twenty million dollars could be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada to relieve unemployment in constructing, extending or improving public works and undertakings, railways, highways, etc., which would assist in providing useful and suitable work for the unemployed. This first step was contrary to the parliamentary procedure always followed in such cases. To obtain this money the gov-vernment should have presented a supply bill first; then they should have painted out clearly what they intended to do with the money; and finally it should have been stipulated that this amount was only available till the end of the fiscal year. The opposition wanted to consider the measure and to raise some objections, even if they concurred in the principle of the bill or in the amount specified, but the right honourable prime minister having stated that if we delayed the adoption of the bill he would be unable to take part in the London conference, this unemployment legislation was immediately passed.
The second false step was taken by this administration towards the end of last session, when the right hon. Prime Minister, for the same reason, that is in respect to unemployment and farm relief, etc., asked parliament to confer on him the wide powers which would enable him to remedy all evils before the next session. It was rather strange that unemployment should still exist at that time, because the right hon. Prime Minister had promised during the election campaign of 1930, that he would put an end to it. We can even say that his party was elected on that definite and formal promise.
The statements made then by the present Prime Minister shall not be soon forgotten. On one occasion after having stressed the fact that there should be no unemployment in a rich country like ours if the government discharged its duties as it should, he added:
The leader of the Liberal party promises consideration of the problem of unemployment, to call a conference to this end, etc., but I promise you to put an end to unemployment or to perish in the attempt.
Later he found out that the crisis could be due to other causes than negligence on the part of the government, and last session in

Unemployment Continuance Act
one of his speeches (Hansard, page 780), he said that speculation brought disaster in its wake, and he added:
It is known that over $400,000,000 of Canadian money was lost last year by speculation in Wall street.
This was almost two years ago. What have been the results? What has happened? Alas, the very opposite of what was expected happened. Not only is the unemployment problem unsolved, but it is getting worse; unemployment is increasing at an alarming rate. And as to fanning; it has never been so completely and entirely stagnant as it is to-day.
And this is the moment chosen by the government to advance another step along the road of irregularity, as I was saying a few moments ago. But if they had some slight excuses to follow that course, in the two first instances, they had no reason whatever to keep on ignoring the constitution and the parliamentary usages and, at the same time, to trifle with the privileges and prerogatives of members of parliament.
Taking this stand and behaving towards parliament as he does, the right hon. Prime Minister surely cannot feel hurt at being designated by such terms as dictator, autocrat, sultan, etc.; or at being compared to Mussolini, Lenin, and to other potentates. Having presented legislation so arbitrary, unfair and radical in character, he should not be surprised if he is given such names. Some of his supporters are shocked on that account, but let them not forget that Liberals will never blame him half as much as did some eminent Conservatives in years gone by. The late Sir Sam Hughes, for example, who was Minister of Defence in a Conservative government, did not hesitate, in 1917, to speak of the present Prime Minister from the floor of this house, in the following terms:
He has brought bad luck to all enterprises, companies and capitalists with whom he has been associated. He is the most striking example of failure in public life which has ever taken place in the Dominion of Canada.
The members of the opposition have said nothing during this debate which at all compares with the preceding paragraph..
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) pointed out the other day, while speaking on this resolution, that it was very strange to note how lightly the Prime Minister considers our parliamentary traditions to-day, whilst he availed himself of every opportunity, when he was leader of the opposition, to show off as a staunch champion of the British parliamentary traditions, to invoke this or
that precedent to induce members to respect the fundamental basis of our parliamentary institutions. How could such a change come about in this man? We may very well say in this case, "Quantum mutatus ab illo"? But this is not the only instance where he has changed his views or his ideas.
Let us take immigration, for example. On this question as well as on many others, the right honourable Prime Minister is entirely at variance with himself. Last session he stated that the admission of over 100,000 immigrants in this country, in 1929, and during the first seven months of 1930, and the lack of foresight on the part of the last administration, were two of the principal causes of the present depression. On the 21st of April, 1931, at pages 783 and 784 of Hansard, he is reported as follows:
Let us go a step further and examine one of
the great causes of conditions in this country. How many people do hon. members think were brought into Canada from continental Europe, in the year 1929 and seven months of 1930, preceding the time we assumed power? Let me place before the house one statement shown by figures I have in my possession. Do hon. members realize that during that period of time 104,556 people came into this country from central Europe? They came here, and they are now largely being kept by Canadians.
Some hon. Members (Translation):	Hear,
hear.
Mr. Bennett (Translation):	Most of them
are being kept-not all of them-by Canadians, with our taxes. The howl that is heard in some quarters about direct relief arises from the fact that the government of 1929 and the early part of 1930 could not foresee what *was coming. They brought them here in increasing numbers for us to feed.
Moreover the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) stated very recently in this house that this immigration, which took place a little before 1930, was mainly responsible for the unemployment problem. On February 23, at page 440 of Hansard, the hon. minister is quoted as follows:
What was the situation during the months just prior to this government coming into office? I think I am stating what was in the mind of every man who travelled within Canada when I say that the late government, not recognizing the condition that was becoming all too apparent, did not take any steps to curb the undisciplined flow of immigrants into Canada, which had been carried on for three or four years prior to 1930. I want hon. members of the house -to remember this: During the sixteen months ended July 31, 1930, 221,561 people were brought into Canada, 99,367 of whom were adult males. This factor contributed largely to the unemployment problem.
Considering all these statements, it would be of interest to note what were the views at that time of our present Prime Minister, who
1264	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
was then leader of the opposition, on this question of immigration. Allow me to quote on this subject an extract taken from a speech delivered in this house on February the 11th, 1929:
We have here one of the largest undeveloped areas in the world; we have a very pressing necessity for more people. There need be no misapprehension about that, notwithstanding what has been said from time to time to the contrary. It will be found that the increase of population in this country, brought about through bringing additional people in, will not only lessen unemployment for those who are now in, but will increase all employment.
It seems very strange that when commenting on the speech from the throne, the Prime Minister, then in the opposition, criticized the government for not setting aside sufficient funds to encourage immigration.
There is no need of commenting at length over his words to prove that, at the time, the leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister, worked strenuously to encourage immigration and to show that by such a policy we would decrease unemployment and create new openings for unskilled labour. He was not the only one among the members opposite to propound such a policy. On this same immigration question, the following views were expressed in 1929, by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), at page 2798 of Hansard:
I am not complaining so much of the small number of British immigrants, as of the small number of immigrants, in general. . . . We can receive many times the number of immigrants of all trades that we are to-day receiving.
If our hon. friends opposite have found it possible, within a few years, to change their views and their policy on such an important question, I have no doubt that some day they will realize-when it will 'be perhaps too late -that the measure they have just introduced' is greatly vexatious, arbitrary, unjust, ultra vires and outrages our most cherished parliamentary rights.
The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals in his speech on March 9, made an ardent appeal to all the members on your left, sir, requesting their support on the present measure. To answer this invitation, I think it is first necessary to again point out that we are most willing, under the circumstances, to give the government our entire support in helping it to extricate itself from the difficult situation in which it finds itself. The opposition, therefore, has clearly shown and openly stated'-this will be found in all speeches delivered-that we are ready to vote all the money that government may require to meet the situation. All we ask is that the

customary procedure be followed by respecting the privileges and prerogatives of parliament. Otherwise, our presence here is not needed and the holding of this session is unnecessary. To despoil ourselves of these privileges and prerogatives in favour of the Prime Minister and his government would simply mean to be false to 'the mandate we received from those who have asked us to represent them in this house. This we cannot do.
I cannot understand the attitude of hon. members opposite. They know perfectly well, as we do, that one of the fundamental principles of self-government and which has been the cause of so many struggles in this country, so many sacrifices and so many heroic deeds on the part of our forebears^-is that parliament alone possesses, by virtue of the constitution which governs us, the privilege, control and responsibility of the expenditure of public funds. And what is required from us today-by way of cooperation-is to concur, in the midst of a session, without any plausible reason, in a flagrant violation of the constitution. Again I repeat, this we cannot do.
But there is much more. Mention is made of precedents. It is again a minister of the crown, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) who, in his speech the other day, contended that a precedent had been created by the act passed at the end of last session. I cannot understand how the hon. minister can forget that the main reason given by the Prime Minister to obtain such a blank signature, was precisely that we were on the eve of prorogation and that he absolutely needed such extensive powers to maintain peace, order and good government after parliament had prorogued. I do not see the necessity of further insisting to show clearly that conditions have changed and that such a precedent cannot be invoked, if one wishes to be honest.
However, the argument put forth by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, throws light on the real intentions of the government to resort to so-called precedents which are unfounded, and we have far more cause to very strongly oppose this measure. Since the government intends to authorize itself by such unfounded precedents, it is a further reason to be more watchful and wise and bring to *bear more opposition to such measures and breaches that nothing can justify.
We are not to be deceived nor must we ignore that what is expected from us is nothing else but a blank signature so as to allow the Prime Minister or the cabinet-which after ail is the same thing-to expend the public

Unemployment Continuance Act
funds as they please, no stipulated amount being mentioned. And, they seem astonished even shocked that such an unheard of measure finds opposition and is greatly criticized. But, sir, this year, we have other serious objections to such legislation. One of them, is the use made of this blank signature by the Prime Minister. To facilitate the adoption of this bill, last year, it was stated and guaranteed that its aim was to relieve the unemployed and farmers. How can they explain that, notwithstanding these extraordinary powers and a policy of high protection, unemployment has spread in an alarming way and farmers are in great distress?
It seems that the government made use of this exceptional act, to carry out, by orders in council, special measures in connection with banks, insurances, the mounted police, etc., matters which had nothing to do with the relief of unemployment and agriculture. To sum up, we can state without doubt that the government put up no valid reason to induce the house to adopt such an arbitrary measure, on the contrary, we have excellent reasons and good ground both as to the drafting and provisions of the bill, to oppose what I might call an arbitrary, vexatious, unjust and anticonstitutional measure.
I ask hon. members opposite not to forget, when voting time comes, the common hopes and trials of our forebears in the development of our country, the maintenance of self government, our political conquests, the struggles to uphold our rights which are now guaranteed by the constitution.
I trust that, in dosing my remarks, I shall be allowed to quote the following beautiful
words by Rameau:
The living image of one's country which one bears in his heart is as indestructible as the human soul itself, like the latter it revives, expands and participating to its sublime nature escapes immortal from the clasp of tyranny and subterfuges of politics.
I trust that our friends opposite are numerous who, when voting times comes, will realize as good patriots that to support such a measure is equivalent to destroying what we hold most sacred in parliament, namely the constitution, the rights and privileges which are assured and guaranteed to the representatives of the people. As in the sad days of 1926, the people, when the reckoning day comes, will certainly remember this new assault against the constitution and contempt of the liberties, attributes, privileges, rights and prerogatives of this parliament and, that day, as in 1926, the great wave of the masses will sweep everything in its path. Then shall we register again with joy, a great Liberal victory.


Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: As it is almost six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to be good enough to call it six o'clock.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. MacNicol):: There are about twelve minutes yet.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Then I am very sorry that I shall have to be discourteous to the Speaker by not attending his tea. I think one of the duties of a member of parliament is to do everything in his power to uphold the dignity of the Speaker.
In making a few remarks on the resolution before the house I intend to follow my usual practice and be as brief as I possibly can. This government is plainly in trouble to-day, and you do not have to go very far, Mr. Speaker, to learn that they are in trouble, for you can read it in the expression on their faces. When did that trouble start?


Mr. TURNBULL:: You are wearing blue glasses.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: When my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Turnbull) goes back to his constituency he will need a magnifying glass to find any elector who will vote for him unless the government soon changes its policy.


Franklin White Turnbull: You are a better politician than a prophet.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: We have one member of the house that mumbles all the time; I hope that we shall not have another one. The troubles of this government started during the election campaign, and those troubles were all brought on by the government themselves, and the biggest offender in that respect was the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) himself. In 1930 he spoke at Calgary. I shall not read all that he said on that occasion because it would take up too much time, and anyway most of what he said is not worth repeating because it has not been carried out. But he did promise in that address that he would find work for every man in Canada who was willing to work. Has he done it? He knows that he has not, and his followers surrounding him know that he has not done it.
I felt truly sorry for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) when he spoke in this chamber the other day. He made the most feeble attempt I have ever known a minister of the crown to make in this house in undertaking to defend a piece of legislation. We on this side for several years listened attentively to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce when he spoke from this side.

1266	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
Then he used to make beautiful speeches, full of vim and fighting spirit, but his effort the other day was really the greatest sham I have ever witnessed.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the troubles of this government began in the election campaign of 1930. Then, what happened in the short session of 1930 when this parliament was called together to cure unemployment? The Prime Minister asked parliament to vote him the sum of $20,000,000. That was done. What did that $20,000,000 do? It did one thing and one thing only. It did not relieve unemployment. The only thing it did do was to induce the municipalities in every part of this dominion and the provincial governments to enter upon expenditures which they otherwise would not have undertaken, so that eventually the sum of $70,000,000 was spent by the municipalities, the provincial governments, the railways and the federal government combined. But even that expenditure did nothing to relieve unemployment. Most of that money went into the pockets of contractors and of those people who control the supply of materials.
What happened next? The Prime Minister amended the tariff in order to cure unemployment, a thing which never had 'been done before in the history of this country. He put the tariff up so high that nobody could jump over it. I believe that the Prime Minister in increasing the tariff has some idea in his mind, because I observe that an order in council was passed on February 23, 1932, and reading the list of articles to which this order in council applies I am firmly convinced that he is trying to cure unemployment by preventing families from being raised. For instance, this order in council passes regulations concerning the following articles:
Baby pants: 30 cents per pound plus 40 cents per dozen.
Crib sheets: 30 cents per pound plus 35 cents per dozen.
Deflated play or water balls: 60 cents per pound.
Bathing caps: 30 cents per pound plus 30 cents per dozen.
It seems to me the Prime Minister is trying to cure unemployment by making it harder for our people to raise families. I come from a race which is well-known for its large families, and I think my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is not just to our energetic French-Canadians. Of course, a bachelor cannot appreciate the difficulties that we married men labour under. That is about all that happened, and the only thing that I can see will relieve unemployment is what I have

just stated. The Prime Minister during the campaign said he was going to "blast" his way into the markets of the world. "Listen to me, you farmers. I will make the tariffs fight for you." Well, as a commentary on that promise I have a statement here from a friend of mine. He had great hopes in this wonderful Prime Minister of ours-in fact I think a lot of people had faith in him, but they are being disillusioned. Is it not too bad the electors were fooled? In 1930, this man bought a young heifer for $20, a promising looking animal, and he took her into his herd. He is a dairyman. Last fall he thought he would get rid of her as she was not a good milker.


Mr. STEVENS:: Was that the Prime Minister's fault too?


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I am going to come to
that in a minute. My hon. friend will see by the time I am through that I am not labouring as hard as he was the other day.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I enjoyed myself.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: My friend sent the
heifer to Winnipeg and it realized $4.05. He paid $3 transportation and $1 commission: his credit balance on the transaction was five cents! There is the statement, Mr. Speaker. My friend is French-Canadian, and he said to me, "Take this statement et presente le a ton moses de Bennett." Those are the exact words he used. That is how the Prime Minister has "blasted" a way into the markets of the world for the products of the farming community. This government, with its tariffs, is on the back of the agricultural industry. This government is on the back of the newborn babe-as soon as he is bom his back begins to bend with the weight of the taxation imposed by this order in council on everything he wears. That is where this government is in trouble, and it will never get out of trouble because it cannot see the light. But, thank heavens, the electorate will have a chance sooner or later to pass judgment.
Now, we are charged by our hon. friends opposite wdth delaying the supply of seed grain and other farm relief. Well, they themselves have made a fair contribution to the so-called delay. But have we really delayed this much needed relief? I find this in the regulations issued by the director of unemployment and farm relief:
All public moneys and undertakings to which contribution may be made under the provisions of clauses 6, 8, 9 and 10 of this agreement are to be carried on from the date of their commencement to the date of their completion, which latter date shall not be later than May 1, 1932.

Unemployment Continuance Act
Then if you look at another page you will find a table giving the number of provincial, municipal and federal undertakings, together with the moneys paid and the moneys still owing. But the work is going on. My hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald) in the course of his speech yesterday said:
From a fairly extensive knowledge of the operation of that arrangement, may I say that it was followed religiously.
They are very religious in the maritime provinces.
The city of Sydney, to which I referred a few moments ago, borrowed the money and spent it on public works. Those works have been passed upon and approved by the local legislature and this government. To-day however that city cannot carry on its work because this government is not in a position to pay its share.
I submit that the government is in a position to pay its share, because the report of the director of unemployment and farm relief so states. The government is still committed to the undertakings which it entered into, and the accusation that we are delaying these works is absolutely false and without any foundation whatever.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. G. BELL (St. Antoine) moved the second reading of Bill No. 33, respecting the Montreal Terminal Company.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: This bill has
been before the house for some time, Mr. Speaker. There are no new provisions respecting this matter, and of course the full particulars will be given in committee.


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


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma) moved the second reading of Bill No. 29, to amend the Railway Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.
41761-80S


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I cannot add very
much to what I said in moving the first reading of this bill, which is being introduced at the instance of the running trades brotherhood of railway employees. Section 179 of the act establishes the principle that when by the closing out of a terminal or the diversion of a railway line it is made necessary, the railway board may order such compensation to employees who are forced to abandon their homes as in their judgment they deem wise. The present amendment merely extends the same principle in the event of traffic being diverted from one line to another. The added words are:
. . . nor make any change in the routing of traffic, nor run crews through divisional points where their homes are established, nor make any other change.
It also provides that thirty days' notice of the authorized change shall be given those affected. Then the amendment to section 250 merely provides that the railway commission shall have no authority to change the provision by which the standard of clearance is maintained between the top of the highest freight car and the abutments of any superstructure over the railway, until notice of the hearing has been given all parties interested. In other words, at present the board under special circumstances may deviate from the common practice and grant permission to have the clearance less than the act provides.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments contained in this bill be given second reading and referred to the railway committee, where all parties can be heard.


Mr. J. K. BLAIR (North Wellington):: I
strongly recommend the adoption of this bill. It may be a great loss to railway employees to have their place of residence changed without proper notice being given and without the matter receiving due consideration by the railway board. I strongly approve of the amendments suggested.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of the Prime Minister that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of
[Stage Direction]
Onemployment Continuance Act
Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor.
Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Mr. Speaker, in the
twelve minutes at my disposal before six o'clock I showed that this government had been in difficulties since the election, and since the Prime Minister and his supporters broadcast their promises throughout Canada. I also showed that by the vote of $20,000,000 at the special session a combined expenditure of $70,000,000 'by the municipalities, the provinces and the railways had resulted, which otherwise would not have been made. I also proved, at least to my own satisfaction, by reading an order in council passed on the recommendation of the Minister of National Revenue, that by taxing everything required in the home the government had taken about the only method possible to relieve unemployment, and that was by preventing people from raising families because of the taxes involved.
I made reference to the fact that we have been accused of delaying the relief which might be afforded. There is a statement appearing in the Winnipeg Tribune-which is not a Liberal paper-from the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Manitoba, in answer to a question asked by a member of the legislature of that province, to the effect that seed is being provided the farmers of Manitoba, and that no delay has been occasioned. I also showed that all commitments contained in the blue book laid on the table of the house a day or two ago were being proceeded with, so there has been no delay in that regard.
After the special session of 1930, when the $20,000,000 was voted, we had the regular session of 1931, when the Prime Minister asked for a blank cheque. By virtue of his election promises, and by virtue of that blank cheque, the impression was created among the unemployed that the government had unlimited money to spend in order to provide work. I might tell the house of an experience I had personally. I live just a few minutes' walk from the village, and every time I went to that village the unemployed said to me, "Here are the promises of the Prime Minister; he has been given a blank cheque, so why do we not get work?" The worst feature of this depression is the feeling held by the unemployed throughout Canada to-day, that the government should do everything for them, because of the fact that last year the Prime Minister asked for a blank cheque.
What is the meaning of this blank cheque legislation? It is that the government can amend by order in council any legislation

passed by the house. I have under my hand an order in council dated December 16, 1931. It is P.C. 3087 and reads:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report dated 12th December, 1931, from the Minister of Justice, submitting that to maintain peace, order and good government throughout Canada it was expedient to increase the strength of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by approximately 300 men.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), speaking in this house on Tuesday, March 15, laboured to defend this legislation.
He said:
What are the facts? Two hundred men were added to the force.
According to this order in council it was 300.
Under legislation previously passed by this parliament and by two of the provinces, the federal government was asked to take over the policing of those provinces, Alberta and Manitoba.
I venture to say that there was no arrangement between Manitoba and the Dominion government on December 16 when this order in council was passed, although I do not say that an arrangement was not contemplated. In my opinion this order in council should have read: The committee of the privy council have had before them a report dated 12th December, 1931, from the Minister of Justice, submitting that to maintain discontent, disorder and bad government throughout Canada it was expedient to increase the strength of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by approximately 300 men. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because nothing will tend more to create disorder and dissatisfaction among the people of this country than to have the government increasing the police force and buying bombs, as stated in this order in council. Nothing will contribute more to a spirit of dissatisfaction, as well as to disorder in the country, than that, and I defy any man to contradict me in this regard.
With regard to this resolution, may I say that in my opinion I have a mandate from my electors to contribute my share to the discussion of any legislation in this house. Is it wise and proper that I should disregard that mandate, that I should surrender my rights to one man or half a dozen or a dozen men in the executive? It is asking too much. The oath of allegiance which every member takes in the clerk's office when he enters this house, the allegiance to the crown, is best maintained, in my opinion, by preserving the rights of the people, and parliamentary control, rather than control by the executive. This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker. Every day at three o'clock you, sir, recite a

Unemployment Continuance Act
prayer, and I hope that hon. members take it seriously. We stand here humbly, with bowed heads, asking Almightly God to do certain things for us. I do not intend to read the whole of that prayer, but we do solemnly commit ourselves to certain things when we say:
Most gracious God, we humbly beseech thee, especially for Canada, and herein more particularly for the Governor General, the Senate and the House of Commons in their legislative capacity at this time assembled, that thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper all their consultation, and ordain by their endeavours, upon the best and surest foundation, that peace, happiness, truth and justice may be established amongst us for all generations.
"The House of Commons in its legislative capacity at this time assembled." Am I going to stand here with bowed head every day and recite that prayer with you, Mr. Speaker one day in French and another in English and then, having done so, having asked the Almighty, the King of Kings, to endow me with the necessary ability to pass on legislation to the advantage of future generations, to commit the sacrilege of uttering such words and then transferring all my rights as an elected representative of the people, and all the powers that belong to parliament, into the hands of one minister, or a few members of the cabinet? I repeat, sir, that is asking too much. In my opinion, everything depends upon the sincerity of one's prayers, and I am sincere when I utter those words with you.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who told you it was a sacrilege?


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: It is a sacrilege for us to pray for certain things and then to do quite the contrary.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: It has been said that the prayer of the wicked availeth nothing.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Evidently my hon. friend takes it as a joke.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do, exactly.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: If you do you should not come here at three o'clock and pray. I have not very much more to say, Mr. Speaker. I do want to emphasize the fact, however, that I am not prepared to stand in this house or to sit here and be made a rubber stamp by the government, especially by a government who have not kept their pledges, a government who have been spending the people's money in the way hon. gentlemen opposite have done, thus creating in the municipalities and provinces throughout Canada a situation which will land us no one knows where. If the government were relieving unemployment, if they were doing anything to solve the problem, there would be some excuse. But what have they done to solve the problem? Nothing. We have more unemployment in the country to-day than ever before, and the farmers are worse off than at any time in my recollection. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite sit there demanding that we hand over to them all the rights and powers of parliament while they wait for Almighty God to help them.


Franklin White Turnbull: The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) will pardon me if I do not follow him throughout his speech. Indeed, I do not intend to traverse the field that has been covered except to point out what in my view is the real issue between the parties at the present moment. If I rightly gather the contention of the opposition in this matter, they are of the opinion that the motion before the house constitutes an invasion of the rights of parliament because in the first place-a somewhat technical point-it is an attempt, as they say, to resurrect a bill now dead, and because in the second place the resolution asks that the powers of parliament be placed in the hands of the governor in council, depriving parliament of the right to legislate in respect to the expenditures of money. That is as far as I care to go with reference to the particular controversy before us.
I rose partly to correct a statement made, inadvertently, I am sure, by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), on Wednesday. At page 1186 of Hansard he is reported as having said:
Hon. members on the government side of the house have complained bitterly about the time taken by hon. members on this side. I might point out however that until this afternoon two out of three speakers have been on the government side.
I took the trouble to check that statement because I thought there must have been some mistake. As a result of my check I found that up until the afternoon the hon. member for North Winnipeg spoke, there had been twelve speakers on the government side who had taken up 92 columns of Hansard; twenty-six speakers on the Liberal side had used 225 columns of Hansard, and six other hon. members had used 58 columns. Instead of two out of three of those who had spoken being on the government side of the house, the fact is that twelve speakers were on the government side and thirty-two on the other. Up until the evening of March 17, fifteen speakers on

Unemployment Continuance Act
the government side had used 120 columns of Hansard; thirty-seven Liberal speakers had used 320 columns and seven others, 68 columns. There had been fifteen government speakers as against forty-four others, using 120 columns of Hansard as against 388. Not only were there a smaller number of speakers on the government side, but they had used less space and taken on an average less time than the speakers on the opposite side of the house.
I mention this fact in order to direct the attention of the house to what is happening in the province from which I come. I have no idea of what is happening with respect to the distribution of seed grain in the province of Manitoba, but I fancy the situation is not serious. If I remember correctly the figures given the other day, only a small amount of money will be required by that province for seed grain distribution. It may be possible that the province itself will be able to finance this distribution, but I am told that some $6,500,000 will be required by Saskatchewan for seed grain. A municipality in that province covers 324 square miles, and 76 municipalities have not had a crop for three years. An immense amount of grain will have to be distributed, and this distribution will require a large sum. I think it is beyond the powers of the province at the present moment to finance this undertaking unless they receive assistance from the federal government. Should this assistance not be forthcoming immediately the farmers of Saskatchewan will be without seed for their crops.


An hon. MEMBER:: Bring in a supply bill.


Franklin White Turnbull: I thought some bright
hon. member would raise that question. I am not trying to deal with this question in any controversial sense, and I do not intend to discuss whether action should be taken by means of a supply bill or otherwise. I am not going to say that the government is or is not to blame for the course it has pursued, and I am not going to argue that the opposition is right or wrong in the stand it has taken. I do not intend to be brought into any partisan discussion as to whether or not this matter should be handled by means of a supply bill. I say merely that at the present moment the snow is disappearing in southern Saskatchewan, the frost will soon be out of the ground, and hon. gentlemen who come from that province know what it is to haul wheat from the elevators over the roads when frost is coming out of the ground. They know that the wheat has to be hauled home and cleaned before it can be sowed, and the distri-I Mr. Turnbull.]
bution of that immense quantity of wheat cannot take place in a week or two. The wheat cannot be moved out of the elevators until the money is found to pay for it. What has been going on in this house for the last eleven or twelve days will be of serious consequence as far as my province is concerned.
According to press reports the following question was asked in the provincial legislature on March 14:
Is it true that the lack of legislative authority-on the part of the federal government is hampering seed and feed distribution in Saskatchewan and the failure to pass the farm relief bill now before the Dominion house is actually aggravating the situation?
The answer of the Premier was to the effect that, a few hours previously, arrangements had been completed for a temporary financing of the distribution, but unless the bill passed the federal house promptly great inconvenience would result and many farmers would suffer from lack of feed and seed. He urged that the leader of the opposition, knowing the situation in the province, should use his influence with Liberal federal members at Ottawa in an effort to speed the passing of the farm relief act. I refer to this for the purpose of calling the attention of hon. gentleman to the condition which existed last Monday in the province of Saskatchewan. To-day is Friday, and I have reason to believe that the financial arrangements which have been made, and which are the last arrangements which can be made, will expire to-day. This will mean that the remaining wheat will stay in the elevators until authority is granted to this government to advance the money to pay for it.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to make some reference to the leader of the opposition using his influence with his party to help expedite relief?


Franklin White Turnbull: I was referring to the
leader of the opposition in the provincial legislature of Saskatchewan.


Mr. MANION:: The hon. member should
have referred to the leader of the opposition here.


Franklin White Turnbull: That is the condition
which prevails in my province. Regardless of the merits of the motion before the house,
I submit that the opposition could very well rest on their oars. Their position was stated very clearly many days ago by their leader and-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why should
not the government rest on its oars, or rather, get busy?

Unemployment Continuance Act


Robert James Manion: The government cannot
make any move until this blockade by the opposition is over.


Franklin White Turnbull: I do not intend to enter into any controversy as to the merits of the question. The opposition have stated their case; almost forty speakers have addressed the house on this question and on everything else, including the last and the next elections. The position of the opposition has been stated over and over again, so what is to be gained by continuing this debate compared with what is to be lost in my province unless immediate relief is given? While we are debating whether or not the rights of parliament are being infringed upon, we are gambling with next year's crop, because if these men cannot get their seed in in time, they will be faced with a fourth crop failure. Should that happen, some hon. member will blame it on the government.


Mr. YOUNG:: Do you think you are
justified in gambling with the crop?


Franklin White Turnbull: We are not.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is just what
the hon. member is doing.


Franklin White Turnbull: Look at the futility of
this whole proceeding. While the farmers in western Canada have been waiting for their seed for twelve days, we have been discussing everything but the subject at issue.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I know the hon. member wants to be fair; we all do. Does he not know that the manager of the relief commission, Mr. Daniel, announced on the twelfth of this month that on and after the 15th of March any farmer in the southwestern portion of Saskatchewan presenting himself at the elevators would receive seed grain provided he was duly qualified to receive it?


Franklin White Turnbull: My hon. friend knows
quite well what the qualification was and further he knows quite well that the announcement was made anticipating that the financial arrangements would be made in due course. He is aware that the qualification is a certificate from the relief officer that the man is entitled to a certain amount of seed grain, and that certificate of the relief officer will not be given until the seed grain is available. So that every man who presents a certificate will receive seed grain, but he cannot get it until the financial arrangements are made. As I say, while those men in Saskatchewan are waiting for the seed grain, we have been discussing onions in South Essex, Nero fiddling in Rome, something away back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the unfortunate fate of Charles I whose head toppled into the basket some hundreds of years ago, the days of the family compact, and other matters.
These men in western Canada have met with unprecedented disaster through no fault of theirs or of any government, but through the mere fact that climatic conditions for three years have not been favourable. They have met those conditions with a fortitude and courage unsurpassed in the history of any nation of the world. They have received a large measure of assistance from the Dominion of Canada; they have been grateful for that aid, and as a sign of their gratitude they have distributed relief from time to time throughout that large area to upwards of 300,000 people in a manner that has evoked the approval of people all over this North American continent. Except perhaps in a few isolated cases, there has been no attempt in Saskatchewan to take advantage of the relief commission or of the circumstances. In fact, there are to-day in western Canada men and women who have already started to pay back their indebtedness to the government. It is on behalf of a people of that type that I appeal to both sides of the house. The issues between us have been stated, and they cannot be further clarified by additional discussion. The opposition, so far as I can see, have already placed their case before the people. When the time comes to vote, the result will be just the same a week from now as if we were to vote to-night, and my hon. friends opposite can go no further in defending the liberties of parliament than they have done up to the present moment. They can add nothing to what they have said, and from now on. in my opinion, they have absolutely nothing to gain from the course they are now pursuing go far as defending the liberties of parliament before the people of Canada is concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend a question? He has made an appeal to both sides of the house. Is it not true that the opposition has no power to introduce a money bill, and also is it not the case that the government has power to introduce a money bill at any moment?


Robert James Manion: Which the government has done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not what it has done.


Robert James Manion: Because we are being held up by my hon. friends opposite.
J272	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has not introduced a money bill. The moment the government will introduce a money bill in the regular way, hon. gentlemen on this side will support it and allow it to be proceeded with immediately.


Franklin White Turnbull: With my right hon. friend's statement concerning a money bill, I have no quarrel. As I said in the beginning. 1 am not now condemning him for taking the attitude he has taken that the government has no right to introduce a bill in this way. I refuse to express any opinion upon that controversy. I merely say that, having taken this stand, having expressed it clearly twelve days ago and having had it discussed ever since, he cannot better his position or clarify his statement by further obstruction.
The time has now come, when, in the interests of my people in Saskatchewan, this controversy in this house of parliament should stop. The opposition should now let us decide the issue between us, so far as our votes can do so. But my hon. friends are willing to play ducks and drakes with the welfare of the people of Saskatchewan. When I appeal to them in the name of those people who are suffering and who are liable to suffer more, this is what is going on in parliament to-day. The only answer the leader of the opposition can give me is to say: Well, do it our way and we will support you. I ask the house whether that is the sort of conduct we have a right to expect from a leader of the opposition who has the interests of the people of Canada at heart.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the way in which it has always been done.


Franklin White Turnbull: If my right hon. friend thinks for one moment his course is going to gain support for him in Saskatchewan or in any other part of Canada, he is badly mistaken. I refuse to be drawn into the controversy as to whether he is right or we are.
I merely say: Let us end this present farce; let us vote on this measure, win or lose, and let our people in Saskatchewan know whether we are going to give them farm or other relief m time to save the situation.


Mr. P. A. SEGUIN (L'Assomption-Mont-calm) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I do not
intend to speak at length to-day, but I feel it is my duty to protest with all my energy, in the name of the worthy constituents which I have the honour to represent in this house, against this new attempted encroachment formulated by the right honourable prime minister (Mr. Bennett) in the resolution now before us. .
[Mr. Manion.J
This resolution reads:
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the following proposed resolution: That it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor.
Mr. Speaker, I may be mistaken, but I am really, surprised to see the prime minister attempt to submit to the parliament a bill intended to substitute the word "May" for the word "March" in another law that has ceased to exist since the first instant. While not claiming to be a legal light, I think I have a certain experience of these things, I think I understand laws and I cannot help entertain the greatest doubt on the possible effect of the new law proposed by the right hon. Prime Minister. Either the law of 1931 is still effective or not; if it is, then why do they ask us to substitute in this law the word "May" for the word "March"? And I am inclined to believe that it has ceased to exist when I read paragraph 8:
This act shall expire on the first day of March, 1932.
Therefore, this act has expired; it seems to me quite evident that it has ceased to exist, if so, is it inconceivable that an act which exists no more can be amended.
The Prime Minister's tactics under these circumstances can but inspire us with the greatest distrust. How is it that previous to the expiration of the stipulated time of the 1931 act, the Prime Minister did not think of requesting parliament for an extension of the provisions of the act, which he desires to-day? What has happened to induce the Prime Minister to have recourse to this strange manoeuvre which obliges us to greatly doubt of his good intentions?
At the last session, in spite of strong protests from this side of the house, the hon. members opposite under the rod of their master forced this parliament to enact this extravagant measure, known as the "blank cheque" act.
This act is embodied in chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931 and is intituled:
An act to confer certain powers upon the Governor General in Council in respect to unemployment and farm relief, and the maintenance of peace, order and good government in Canada.
By this act the government conceded to themselves the power to take out of the consolidated revenue of Canada, the necessary funds and expend them as they pleased.
It goes without saying, that never, since confederation, has a government attempted to usurp such authority. If members of par-

Unemployment Continuance Act
liament have an important duty to fulfil, it is certainly, I think, that of controlling the expenditure; and the imperative duty of the government in having subsidies granted or expending the people's money, is certainly to justify, previously, where these outlays are to be made and what amounts will be required.
The 1931 act, sir, had the effect of removing this obligation and to justify himself, the Prime Minister stated then that he was unable to state the amount required to relieve unemployment and help the farmers, etc. This reason cannot be invoked to-day, and the mention of March 1, in the expired act was simply to make provision while the house would not be sitting. To-day, when parliament is assembled and the government with its past experience, is able to inform us what amounts will be required, there is not the least justification to ask for an extension of time up to May 1 for this arbitrary act of 1931. This cannot be justified by any precedent; it can only inspire the greatest distrust under the circumstances.
If the government could clearly prove to us that as a result of the act embodied in the statutes last year, it had succeeded to relieve the unemployed and farmers, we might trust them, and, in spite of the encroachment on the powers of parliament, we might perhaps make certain concessions and vote a stipulated amount to carry out such relief. But, sir, is it not a fact that far from having relieved the situation, unemployment has spread to an alarming extent and, that the relief given is not in proportion to the wide breach caused in our finances.
About July or August, 1931, the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Robertson) forwarded, to members and Conservative candidates defeated in the last election, a circular letter inviting us to suggest work of a federal nature that could be done in our respective counties in order to give work to the unemployed. On receipt of this letter, I immediately complied with the wishes of the hon. Minister of Labour and sent him a list of the public works that I thought were needed in the county of L'Assomption-Montcalm and, that I also considered of a nature to relieve the unemployed in the various localities. First, I mentioned what repairs were urgently required for the post office in the town of L'Assomption.
What was done to meet my suggestions? The inspector of public buildings paid a visit to L'Assomption and sent in a report that considerable repairs were needed on the post office, that the walls of the building itself were on the eve of crumbling. What was done to relieve unemployment? A carpenter
and two men were employed, for hardly five or six days, to put supports so as to prevent the walls from falling. The government should be ashamed of having the public see such a building in ruins supported by beams, when it would have been an easy task for them to rebuild the defective walls and employ during a few months the fifty or so good people who are without work and reside in the town of L'Assomption, they ask for nothing better than to work in order to support their families.
I had also pointed out to the Labour department that a public building would not be out of place at L'Epiphanie, one of the most important localities in my county where the government collects each year excise duties and postal revenue to an amount of over $50,000. I had also mentioned the necessity of building a post office in the town of St. Lin-des-Laurentides, and which had been requested for a long time past; I had also pointed out the importance of having a post office built at Ste-Julienne, the chief town of the county of Montcalm. Notwithstanding all my suggestions, the Labour department paid no attention to these public necessities which, however, were very much needed and would have given work to a large number of workmen who at present find it extremely hard to support their families.
As to agriculture, sir, I defy any member from Quebec who supports the government, and especially the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) whom I see in his seat, to mention any help whatsoever given by this government to the farmers of Quebec. Yet, all are aware of how the price of farm products have decreased in the most alarming way, notwithstanding the fine pledges of the right hon. Prime Minister during the 1930 election. Butter which then sold at 32 to 34 cents per pound sells to-day for 20 and 22 cents. The same may be said of eggs and all other farm products. Yet our opponents had publicly promised that with the advent to power of their renowned leader the greatest prosperity would reign in this country. It is thanks to these false pledges that a number of the government supporters, hailing from Quebec, were elected.
Not only did the government neglect the farming class and did not relieve the distress of these people, who are certainly the most deserving class in this country, but it did worse. By upsetting the tariff the government forced the farmer to pay much dearer for the needs of his family and to cultivate the farm, while on the other hand he is unable to sell or has to sacrifice at ridiculous prices the products of his toil.
Unemployment Continuance Act

I have no hesitation in stating here that these fine pledges were but a bait, and, under such circumstances, nothing would justify parliament to revive the act of 1931, and extend to May 1 the provisions of an unjust law by which last year parliament despoiled itself of its rights and authority to place them in the hands of the Prime Minister and his cabinet.
Again, sir, I wish to strongly protest against this new attempt of dictatorship on the part of the leader of the government, and acting thus, I feel certain of expressing the wishes of my most faithful constituents who for nearly twenty-five years have honoured me with their trust.


Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):: From the opening of this debate on the eighth day of this month it was made clear by speakers on this side of the house from day to day that they were prepared to cooperate with the government in voting a sufficient sum of money to take care of unemployment and farm relief. The responsibility, then, does not rest with this side of the house if relief is not being administered and if the fanning areas of the west are going without seed. The responsibility is upon the government alone for their neglect in not bringing this matter to the attention of the house in time to get the legislation through.
I was much interested in the remarks which were made in this debate by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) when he spoke on the ninth of March. He referred to the fact that the members from the west had not complimented the government on the work they had done and upon the manner in which they had administered relief throughout Canada. He seemed to feel that it was the duty of the Liberals from the west, and I presume of everyone from the west, to utter expressions of thanks and appreciation and to compliment the government. A page 970 of Hansard he finds fault because hon. members had not praised the government. He said:
Why, when the wheat bonus was given tip the western farmers, not one of my hon. friends opposite praised us. They have been finding fault with us ever since for giving the five cent bonus on wheat.
I have followed the debates in this house rather closely, Mr. Speaker, and I am satisfied that there has been no statement made by a member on this side of the house finding fault with the government for giving the five cent bonus on wheat. We did not believe that the five cent bonus on wheat would solve the ills of the people of western Canada. We

thought that it was a very weak palliative, and we did ask for other methods of assistance. But the people of the west were appreciative of the five cent bonus and were willing to accept it, because they realize that this government is bonusing many other industries and there is no reason why the agricultural industry should not be bonused to the extent of five cents a bushel. The minister further said:
They have been talking again and again not only about our failing to relieve unemployment, but our failing to do anything that my right hon. leader promised when he went throughout the country.
Then he says:
The leader of the present government, as nobody will question, promised many things when he went through the country, but he has carried out a greater proportion of those promises in the time that he has been in power than any other Prime Minister has done in a similar period. Let me name a few of them.
Then he refers to the promises:	He says:
He callied a special session, which he had promised.
Yes, a special session was called, and as we understood it, it was called for the purpose of voting money to relieve unemployment. When the special session met, a bill was introduced to appropriate $20,000,000 for that purpose, and a tariff bill was also introduced amending the tariff on about two hundred different items. The minister says:
He put through a $20,000,000 vote for unemployment, which he had promised.
It is true that that vote was put through, and that it did relieve the distress to some extent, but one of the reasons why the people of Canada are not prepared to give the government a free hand in this matter is because of the manner in which some of the expenditures under that fund were made. I intend to give the house an instance of an expenditure in the province of Saskatchewan out of that $20,000,000 appropriation.
There was spent out of that appropriation, as shown in the report on the administration of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, or at least there was a contribution made by the dominion government for the purpose of building highways, roads and sidewalks other than the trans-Canada highway, amounting to 81,114,160. In the province of Saskatchewan, on No. 9 highway running north from Northgate, the government put in a relief camp, and they graded 2-28 miles of road. I have here the figures given in answer to a question on the floor of the legislature in Saskatchewan as to what that road cost, and they show that the gross expenditure for

Unemployment Continuance Act
grading that 2-28 miles of road was $26,643.26, less credits and refunds, $2,140.26, or a net expenditure of $24,503. The net amount paid to labourers' and teamsters on the job was $16,566.82; then there were foremen, timekeepers, straw bosses, stable bosses, cooks and cookees-they got $1,801; rental of equipment cost $109.55; there were other expenditures amounting to $744.57; making the total cost of the road per mile of grade $10,746.93. That seems to me to be a lot of money for grading. A citizen of Saskatchewan went down to inspect the work. He saw the kind of construction work. Then he crossed the American boundary and found that the road was continued into the state of North Dakota at the same width, running through similar territory and with the same kind of grading. After inspecting the road he wrote to the highways department of North Dakota to ascertain the cost of the work. This is the reply he received:
We wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 10th relative to the cost of the above mentioned project, and to advise that this project is 7-332 miles in length and was constructed with a cost of $23,821.34. For your further information the costs would be segregated as follows, grading $18,664.52.
That is the portion in which I am interested. There were also metal pipe and concrete pipe culverts and concrete structures, that do not enter into, the comparison. This represents for the construction of that graded road in North Dakota a cost of $2,545.62 per mile. If the road on the Saskatchewan side of the border had been built on the same cost basis it would have involved an expenditure of $5,804.01, instead of $24,503-representing a saving of $18,698.99. I ask the house to listen to this further statement contained in the answer given on the floor of the Saskatchewan legislature. The amount paid to labourers and teamsters was $16,566.82. Had we constructed our road in the same manner as North Dakota constructed its road, we would have saved $18,698.99. In other words, we could have paid every teamster and labourer that worked on the job the actual wages he received and left them at home to attend to their farm work and still have made a saving on the road of $2,132.17. Some hon. members may say: But what about the straw bosses, the stable bosses and others; they would not get anything? If we include them in the computation as well as the labourers and teamsters we could have built the road at a saving of $330.82. This expenditure is part of the $20,000,000, appropriation. That is one of the promises that the Minister of Railways says the Prime Minister carried out.
Then he says the Prime Minister attended the economic conference, and that is another of the promises he carried out. Well, the economic conference has been discussed so frequently that I do not think I will refer to it any further except to read this portion of an editorial:
A Liberal bates to go around town these days hurting the feelings of Conservatives by asking them what they think about Ottawa's courses of action. Any Liberal who has a bit of politeness in him shuns politics when talking with his Conservative neighbours and his neighbours must be grateful for it. It is the decent thing to do.
The next promise he started to carry out was the building of the trans-Canada highway. Yes, the trans-Canada highway has been started. The Minister of Railways seemed to take great credit to the government because of the fact that they had relieved some 300,000 persons in the drought district in Saskatchewan. According to the report of the dominion director of unemployment relief, at page VI, dealing with the province of Saskatchewan we find:
Advances for relief purposes pending completion of agreement, $500,000.
Advances for credit of Saskatchewan Relief Commission for relieving distress and providing employment, $4,750,000.
That $5,250,000 apparently was paid to the relief commission in Saskatchewan in order to relieve what was really a famine condition. The work on the trans-Canada highway was given out in order to provide employment to people in different parts of Canada. Quite a number of people in the drought area in Saskatchewan would have been glad of an opportunity to work on the trans-Canada highway; but they do not seem to have been given any such opportunity. For the trans-Canada highway the Dominion government appropriated moneys for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia, but nothing was provided for Saskatchewan, Quebec or Prince Edward Island. The total amount of the dominion share of that highway is apparently $4,106,136.35. The total appropriation for relief to a famine stricken district of Saskatchewan was $5,250,000. I presume Saskatchewan eventually will have to pay its share of the construction work on the trans-Canada highway in the other provinces.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Saskatchewan will also
have to pay back apparently the $5,250,000 appropriated by this government for relief
1276	COMMONS
Unemployment Continwnce Act
in that province. Saskatchewan is the only province, so far as I know, where notes have had to be signed for unemployment relief.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Did I understand my hon. friend to say that Saskatchewan would have to pay back the $5,000,000 advanced for relief?


Charles Edward Bothwell: That is as we understand it; the question has been asked several times in this house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon, friend is wrong; no such statement ever was made by the government. This money was advanced by the federal government, and the government of Saskatchewan has not been asked to contribute a cent to this relief.


Charles Edward Bothwell: In any event I think
it is up to the government to make a pronouncement with regard to the matter, because the people in these drought areas have been asked to sign notes. I will give an example. In that stricken area a certain young man was farming his mother's land, which he rented. He applied to one of these wonderful officials for relief and eventually was told that he would get the relief if his mother would endorse his note. He was a young married man, and his mother made it her business to find out whether he would be denied relief if she did not sign the note, and as a matter of fact he did not get the relief until an appeal was made to the relief commission in Regina. That is how I know these people in the drought areas do not get relief until they sign these notes, but if they do not have to pay the notes we would like an announcement to that effect by the government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Any one who needs relief is treated very generously.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: Is it not a
fact that No. 1 highway through Saskatchewan, which is known as the transcontinental highway, was built as such, and is it not the best highway in Saskatchewan?


Charles Edward Bothwell: If No. 1 highway is the transcontinental highway it was built by the Saskatchewan government without the assistance of this government.
Then, in carrying out his next promise, the Prime Minister imposed the tariffs which apparently he had promised in order to help the industries of Canada. Those tariffs were imposed during the special session of 1630, and some of them were made even higher during the session of 1931. I should like to touch briefly on some of the things that have

arisen in connection with the tariff changes made by the right hon. gentleman.
Apparently the idea the government had in making the tariff changes was to solve the unemployment problem in Canada. We all know that during the election campaign the Prime Minister went across the country making promises in connection with the relief of unemployment, and he spoke at various places from coast to coast. In order to keep the record straight I should like to refer to some of the promises he made. At Winnipeg Mr. Bennett said:
The King government is blameworthy for failing to provide employment that would keep people in the country.
At Regina he said:
Unemployment would not exist had the King government done its duty.
At Calgary he said:
We pledge ourselves to find a solution to the unemployment problem.
At Calgary and Victoria he said:
We in Canada cannot tolerate a dole.
At Moose Jaw he said:
I will as soon as possible call the house together, not for the issuance of doles but for the inauguration of a scheme whereby national institutions will be set up which will provide jobs for the unemployed men of the Dominion of Canada.
Again at Calgary he said:
This is a new country, and there is no excuse for unemployment in Canada if a government does its duty.
Then at Victoria he said:
Is there.any excuse for Canada to have hard times if the government is discharging its duties as it should?
At Woodstock he said:
We must pass laws at the special session that will anticipate work for our people on national highways, on great canals, that we must make for our waterways to the sea. . . .
At Moncton he said:
I promise to end unemployment.
At Sarnia he said:
Someone is responsible for unemployment, not individuals but governments. Governments by their majorities in parliament are responsible for enacting all legislation.
I presume that the tariff changes made during the special session were for the purpose of ending unemployment, but during the course of this debate figures have been put on Hansard showing the result of these changes. During the special session of 1930 we were furnished by the government with details of unemployment throughout Canada.

Unemployment Continuance Act
I still have that file, and it shows a total of 117,000 unemployed throughout this country. According to figures placed on Hansard during this debate we now have 550,000 unemployed, and the number of unemployed in the manufacturing industries, which were supposed to be helped by these tariff changes, has increased by some 203,000, so the tariff did not relieve unemployment.
What was done by those tariff changes? Business was unsettled to such an extent that people were afraid and are still afraid to do business because they do not know what changes will take place next. The government took power to fix valuations for duty purposes by order in council, on practically all goods coming into the country. Most of our manufacturers must import some portion of their finished product, and they do not know where they stand. Rather an entertaining editorial was written in this connection, and I should like to read from it just one paragraph. I do not pretend to enumerate all the changes that took place after the budget of last year was brought down, but I should like to read this portion of an editorial written on June 9, last:
In view of these on-again-off-again-gone-again-Finnegan performances, it is interesting to recall Mr. Bennett's protestations while in opposition that a tariff made by him would be a stable tariff; something that industry could depend upon; a tariff that would "stay put." Instead of that, we have tariffs and excise duties that go up and down as erratically as the cars on a roller coaster. Instead of having something to depend on, industry does not know from one day to the next what changes will be made over night.
You cannot expect people to do business when they are kept in that state of mind. I should now like to give some results of this tariff. On the train I met the western manager of one of our road machinery companies, who also acted as agent for a lateral ditcher made in Boise, Idaho. You would rather imagine that any government would allow machinery not made in Canada to come in without a very heavy duty, but that was not the case in connection with two lateral ditchers required for irrigation purposes in Alberta. The two ditchers cost S168.75 at Boise, Idaho. There was added 15} per cent as dumping duty, amounting to $25.73. Duty was assessed at 35 per cent, amounting to $67.90. The four per cent sales tax amounted to $10.48. The one per cent excise tax amounted to $2.62, and the freight, including a ten per cent surcharge, totalled $47.85. The profit to the dealer was 25 per cent, or S42.20, so that the total cost of these ditchers, which was $168.75 in Boise, Idaho, was $365.53 to the purchaser in this country.
Here is another example taken from the Winnipeg Free Press:
The Free Press has been shown an invoice of woollen goods from England with the accompanying notation which would make an interesting exhibit if an investigation were being held as to the causes for the startling diminution in trade with Great Britain which is now taking place.
The goods involved were serges and worsted; actual value as paid by the importer, $408. The duty proper based upon the mixture of ad valorem and specie rates which is the feature of the textile schedule in the Bennett tariff was $221.61; to this was added the special penalty because the pound was some 43 cents under the allowed rating. This brought the total customs taxation to $265.44-the equivalent of an ad valorem tax of 65 per cent. This total does not include excise or sales tax which amounted to another thirty-eight dollars. The customs levy upon these goods was about half as high again as under the former tariff.
A rate of 65 per cent is of course intended to be prohibitive and is so except in the limited number of cases where quality rather than price is the deciding factor. The imperial conference is to meet shortly for the purpose of encouraging trade between this country and the_ other British nations, especially Great Britain; in preparation for it the Canadian people might give some thought to this matter of prohibitive duties on British goods for which there is, under fair conditions, a market in Canada. Is a duty of 65 per cent against British goods permissible under any conceivable set of circumstances?
No wonder trade is stagnant in Canada; no wonder trade has fallen off to such an extent, as indicated by various speakers in this debate; no wonder unemployment is increasing in different directions. We must realize that in this country we produce very much more than we can consume and must therefore find markets outside, and you cannot find markets unless you are prepared to buy something in exchange. Even members of the government are beginning to realize 'that. I notice that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland), the other day came to a realization of this truth, and I hope that the idea he has will be shared by other members of the government. In The Citizen of March 5 he is reported:
Must Be Ready To Buy As Well As Sell Wares
Imperial Conference Results Seem Sure to Be of Tremendous Importance Says Col. Sutherland
Sarnia, Ont., March 4.-"We can't expect to get a lot of things unless we are satisfied to give something in return," declared Col. D. M. Sutherland. Minister of National Defence tonight, outlining plans for the Imperial conference to be held at Ottawa in July.
The next promise is with respect to the St. Lawrence waterway. In this regard	the
Minister of Railways said:
His promise in regard to the St. Lawrence waterway he has carried out in conversation with the United States government.

Unemployment Continuance Act
We do not know what those conversations were but we shall probably hear more about the matter before the end of the session. So far as we on this side are concerned, we do not know anything about it. The next promise which we are told was carried out was in regard to unemployment relief:
In regard to unemployment relief he has helped 350,000 of the Canadian people to get work which they could not have got under any policy which anyone in the house has heard enunciated by any one of my hon. friends opposite in the last three years.
I read to the house the promises made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign, and suggestions have been made on this side of the house as to what might have been done. But these suggestions have not been heeded. At all events, unemployment has mot decreased, business is more at a standstill than it ever was, and we hardly know where we are drifting. 1 am glad to note, however, that the Minister of Railways disagrees with his leader in one respect. At page 971 he says:
In this country we have a condition which is due to a world situation and not to anything we have done, and, I say frankly, not due to anything the leader of the opposition has done; one which is due


Walter Davy Cowan: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert James Manion: The government did not
take that attitude.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Hardship is being placed upon the people of Saskatchewan.


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


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) I was much impressed by the moving appeal made by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull), ostensibly to hon. members on this side of the house, but I think in reality to his own leader. The hon. member for Regina is a lawyer and I gathered from his remarks that he understood perfectly the situation. In answer to a question asked by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) he agreed that it was within the power of the government and of the government alone to initiate and to introduce into this house a money bill. In order to relieve distress in Saskatchewan, in order to carry on the work of unemployment relief throughout the Dominion of Canada, money must be found. We, through the leader of the opposition and twenty-five hon. members who have spoken on this side, have expressed not only our willingness but our eagerness to vote any sum which the government may require to carry on this work. May I call the attention of the government to the words of its leader, as quoted a moment ago by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) to the effect that governments are responsible for the enacting of legislation. I say to the government, as other hon. members on this side have said: Enact legislation with respect to relief and unemployment and we will vote it at once, but we refuse most emphatically and energetically to be coerced into abandoning the privileges and rights which belong to our constituents in order to satisfy the waywardness and stubbornness of the leader of the government. Money the government may have, and welcome in so far as we are concerned; but if we respect ourselves, and we think we do; if we have any respect for the people who sent us here, we must enter a protest against their being deprived of the rights and privileges to which they as British subjects are entitled and which is their birthright and their inheritance.
Let me examine for a moment the scope of' this legislation. I do not propose to deal with the financial features other than to repeat what I have said already, that we are prepared to vote the money. By the legislation passed at the last session, this parliament, a representative body sent here to voice the opinions, sentiments and feelings of the people, is deprived absolutely of the rights which from time immemorial free parliaments in free British countries have exercised. I do not desire, nor have I the time, to cast my eye back over the pages of history and to repeat, as has been already repeated, that rebellions, revolutions and changes of government have taken place on less excuse than that given by my right hot), friend opposite.
I desire to deal with a phase of this legislation which has not met with the attention which it perhaps deserves from hon. members on the other side. Section 4 of the act which it is proposed to revive or resurrect reads:
The governor in council shall have full power to make all such orders and regulations as may be deemed necessary or desirable for relieving distress, providing employment and, within the competence of parliament, maintaining peace, order and good government throughout Canada.
May I interrupt the trend of my discourse to say that if the government had had ordinary common sense and foresight it would have provided the seed grain necessarv and would

Unemployment Continuance Act
have made arrangements for the carrying on of relief before March 1. Under this section of the bill the governor in council-during the course of my observations I hope to show that that means only the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Bennett)-takes full power unto itself to make any law it desires. The words " peace, order and good government throughout Canada" contain the residuary powers left in the British North America Act to cover all the authority of the federal government of Canada. Under this act the government may make laws on any and all subjects. It may make laws to change the representation; it may make laws to change redistribution; may make laws to change the franchise; may make laws in regard to every conceivable subject within the competence of parliament. Further, as has already been said in the house, it may, whilst parliament is sitting, go down to the east block and repeal an enactment which was passed by this parliament the previous day or even that very afternoon. Against the granting of such powers as these we must, if we have any respect for our traditions, make the most emphatic protest.
The difference between hon. members opposite and ourselves is not merely one of procedure, as would seem to have been indicated by a number of my hon. friends on that side. It is a fundamental difference, of opinion, of state of mind, of sentiment. It is a difference between those who believe in responsible government and those who believe in autocracy, between those who believe in the rule of the people and those who believe in a kind of bourgeois dynasty. It is a difference in theory. Our theory-and we stand on the broadest grounds of constitutional procedure, practice and tradition-is that parliamentary institutions, as we know them in every country under the British flag, have not as yet outlived their usefulness. The theory of hon. gentlemen opposite would appear to be that which has its best expression in countries which are not British, which now finds its truest manifestation in the South American republics, in Italy and in bolshevik Russia which would seem to be the examples which hon. gentlemen opposite are willing to follow.
In defence of the position taken by the government and its leader we find two arguments: first, the one raised yesterday by the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald) and some days ago by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), namely, that the government had undertaken certain commitments and therefore it is necessary that the powers conferred upon it by the statute of last year should be extended.

I repeat the language of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) that if there are any commitments, they must surely be known to hon. gentlemen opposite. My hon. friends must know by now that to which they are obligated. They must know almost to a cent the amount for which they have assumed responsibility. If they will tell the house what that obligation, that commitment is, not only shall we vote that, but we shall add fifty, one hundred per cent more, and vote that too.
There is one other argument urged on behalf of the stand taken by the government, one that I heard from the lips of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) himself, and if my recollection serves me well, also from those of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is that it is more convenient, more expedient, to carry on business in that way. We all know that this argument of expediency is one which has served to justify every private crime and every piece of political oppression and tyranny since the beginning of the world. Ever since the commencement of time expediency has been the justification of crimes, of oppression. It was expediency which brought about the tearing up of the treaty of Limerick by William of Orange, thereby antagonizing thousands of Irishmen against the British Empire for many years to come. It was expediency that animated the Chancellor of the German Empire in 1914 when he said: "We must cross Belgium; therefore our treaties are a scrap of paper." While I am mentioning this matter of 1914, it strikes me that it is the irony of fate that a nation which sacrificed over 50,000 of its sons in a fight to make the world safe for democracy, fifteen years afterwards is in this house destroying the last vestige of it. If expediency is to be our only guide, may I tell the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues that the lynch law, which is a most expeditious way of dealing with criminals, is a classic example of how expediency and convenience can be made to suit the purpose of an oppressive majority.
One other argument which was heard from the lips of the Prime Minister and, I think, also from those of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, was that no other means were at the government's disposal to deal with this matter of unemployment and farm relief. May I call the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to the fact that during the election of 1930 the one, the important, the special means which the Prime Minister had to settle the unemployment question, was to call parliament, and to-day, forsooth,

Unemployment Continuance Act
he asks us, in order to settle the same question, to do away with parliament. I say to the right hon. gentleman-who, I am sorry, is not in his place, because I would much rather talk to him than at him-that those words of his are a confession of incapacity. If he cannot, through parliament, through the institutions established from time immemorial, settle the most important question now confronting the Canadian people, then he has no business in a free British country. The place for him is in some South American republic where he can be dictator at his will, or, better still, in Italy or Russia.
It has been suggested by hon. members opposite-and there may be some merit in the suggestion-that they are justified in delegating their authority to the Prime Minister. Without wishing to be offensive, I would say: Were I in their place, instead of sitting here day after day, silent, watching the Prime Minister's every move and1 gesture, wondering when they will gain a smile from him, I would rather delegate the power to him and go home.


Leslie Gordon Bell: The hon. member cannot look at me and say that.


Charles Gavan Power: No, I was perhaps addressing my remarks to my hon. friend because I recognize in him one who has a sense of humour and who can understand, as I do, the humour of the situation where people of his intelligence are placed in the situation in which he finds himself. Whatever may be the attitude taken by my hon. friends opposite iu regard to this matter of delegation of power, surely we, who are elected to represent constituents who do not share the views of hon. gentlemen opposite, cannot be expected to agree with their idea that the greatest man since confederation sits on the treasury bench opposite. Our people do not share that view. Mine have a wholly, a radically different view from that of hon. gentlemen opposite. I believe I have in the house a mandate to represent the electors of the constituency of Quebec South, and also in a constitutional way to represent the electors of every constituency in Canada. But dealing for a moment only with those of Quebec South, I am under the impression that I have some sort of contractual obligation towards them to join in the discussions in this house, to debate matters which are within the competence of parliament, and to express their views. Were I to accept the salary, even a reduced one, and not perform the obligations which I undertook when I stood for parliament, I would feel, and I commend this to hon. gentlemen if perhaps they have the same kind of con-41761-81
science as that which troubles me, that I had been false to my trust, that I had neglected my mandate, and that I was accepting the salarly under false pretences.
Having dealt with the powers which this act confers upon the executive, and having expressed my own view at least as strongly as I can, namely, that I do not believe that we should delegate such power to any executive or to any person, may I now deal for a moment, and I do it with some reluctance, with the next point which I wish to discuss, namely:	Is the person to whom it is proposed to entrust these powers one to whom we can in conscience entrust all authority in the state?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.	.


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. gentleman answers yes, and his opinion is a respectable one, but I regret that during the course of the observations that I wish to make I shall have to differ from him. This is a matter which I find it somewhat distasteful to discuss, since it has been my practice ever since I entered politics not to indulge in or discuss personalities. But on account of the peculiar circumstances of the case, in that it is proposed, as I hope presently to be able to show, to entrust to one man supreme power in this country, and in that this one man has, partly of his own volition and partly on account of the extravagant and exaggerated adulation of his followers, thrown his personality into politics so that it has become almost a political issue, we who take a definite stand on this matter must discuss that personality as any other live political issue. In doing so I wish to speak with candour and frankness and not to be unmindful of the somewhat inexplicable fact that personally I hold the Prime Minister in high esteem. If he were here I would spare his blushes by not enumerating at too great a length the high qualities which he possesses. Suffice it to say that he has talents of no mean order. He is able and energetic. On the other hand, I submit that perhaps on account of those very talents, and perhaps on account of .the realization he has that he does possess them, he is unfitted to exercise supreme power and control in a country such as this. His very talents may be those which if checked, controlled, and braked would make him an admirable constitutional Prime Minister, but his very defects are those which I fear would lead this country into calamity and disaster if he were allowed to continue as the dictator thereof. He is, as I think his friends will agree with me, very able, but he is as unstable as the shifting sands.

12S2

Unemployment Continuance Act


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles Gavan Power: He is inconstant. I am
glad to see the Prime Minister coming in. I should like to return, Mr. Speaker, to the category of the qualities which I ascribed to the Prime Minister, as well as the defects which I -think more than negative those qualities when he asks us to entrust him with supreme power in the state. I was about to say-and I am very glad that he is here now, so that I can say it to him in the manner of a kind, frank and candid friend-that I believe he is as inconstant as it is possible to be, that he is variable, that he is unstable, and that he lacks in character that ponderation, that prudence and that wisdom which mark the truly great statesman.


Mr. BENNETT:: Could you not find another adjective?


Charles Gavan Power: In order to describe the Prime Minister with praise or blame, one is apt to fall into exaggeration. The exaggeration of praise I may leave to hon. gentlemen opposite. Surely we on this side can tell the truth in the way of blame. However estimable the Prime Minister may be in his private character and in his private relations, I much regret to say that in his public relations here in this house he often exhibits the manners of l Chicago policeman and the temperament of a Hollywood actor.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Shame.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I should think this highly characteristic of the hon. gentleman but hardly in order, and certainly out of taste.


Charles Gavan Power: I regret that my right hon. friend is mumbling again. If he desires to call me to order, I shall be only too glad to sit down while he states his point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should think the observations were not in order, Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly content that the hon. gentleman should exhaust himself, as his colleagues have, in adjectives. I have no complaint to make, but I have been reminded so frequently that I have some responsibility with respect to this house that I would ask the hon. gentleman if he thinks that as a matter of decent conduct in debate he is doing credit to the House of Commons.


Charles Gavan Power: That is not a point of order, but merely a protest from the right hon. gentleman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a protest.


Charles Gavan Power: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: That comes from the
province.


Charles Gavan Power: Whether it comes from the province or from the federal government, the responsibility taken by my right hon. friend was to relieve unemployment, was to give those people work-at least when he gives them charity let him not ask them for a note in return.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not; that was the Manitoba government.


Charles Gavan Power: Take it in whatever way the right hon. gentleman wishes, one-third of the relief, if I understand it correctly, is payable by the federal government, one-third by the province of Manitoba, and one-third by the municipal authorities. Well, in Winnipeg, as I read the statement made by the member for Winnipeg North Centre, there is no question of giving a note for one-third of the relief to the municipality; a note is given for the whole amount of the relief. If that is the situation in Winnipeg, I ask my right hon. friend how it is that the citizens of Manitoba are being penalized when the citizens of other sections of the country are not. In my city you are not asking for notes-nobody is asking for notes in return for relief. If notes were asked in return for relief, I can assure the right hon. gentleman that that is not the kind of relief that we expected from him.
So that we have five different policies in respect of unemployment alone. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite-I know it is useless; I ask hon. gentlemen on this side of the house: Can they conscientiously give full power and authority to someone who on the face of it, and on the face of his past performances in this very matter, does not know which way he is going, how he is going, or how far he is going?
In regard to the whole question of unemployment relief, I am firmly convinced that if it were possible for the Prime Minister to admit for one moment even the suspicion that he had made a mistake-which I doubt-he would have to say that an his own heart and soul he has been bitterly disappointed in the success or lack of success of this relief measure, and that he knows this policy has been an

Unemployment Continuance Act
litter dismal failure. I have heTe extracts which I do not propose to read, but from which I gather that the very men who supported the Prime Minister, who were his most enthusiastic backers, who saw in him a great business man who had the training arid ability to bring Canada out of this crisis, now are *convinced that the very best thing he can do in regard to this matter of unemployment relief is to welsh on the promises he made during the election. I do not know that it is necessary for me to translate for the benefit of my right hon. friend the meaning of a word borrowed from the gambling houses and the race tracks, but a welsher is a man who does not pay his debts of honour or who does not redeem his promises. I believe that the great body of the supporters of the Prime Minister would like him now to abandon his useless attempt to gamble with the future of this country, and to come before this house and the country and say, "I recognize that this depression, which I believed would last six months or a year, is of much longer duration, and I realize that no new Moses can bring us out of our difficulty but that it is a matter which must be dealt with by the common and concerted effort of all the people."
I believe that if instead of saying to members of this house, "I do not want your advice; I will not listen to you; I, and I alone, am sufficient to deal with this matter and settle the affairs of the Canadian people," the Prime Minister would take another attitude and really seek the cooperation of those who are just as sincere and just as patriotic as he, and of those who believe in the future of this country just as much as he believes in it, more good would be done. There are no whispers of death from this side of the house; there is not one of us who does not believe that this country will come through with flying colours, but if wre wish to retain our self-respect we cannot concur for one moment in the proposal that only by giving one man supreme and unlimited power, by giving him supreme control over the finances, the lives, the properties and the laws of the people of this country, can we get out of the present depression. To that proposition we answer no.


Mr. CHARLES EDOUARD FERLAND (Joliette) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I feel in duty bound to raise my humble voice in a protest against this pernicious legislation which the government, thanks to a servile and submissive majority at his command, is attempting to pass.
This debate deals with the resolution of the right hon. the Prime Minister who moves

that the house resolve itself into committee and decide " that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor." In other words, he is asking for the extension of two months, of the legislation which is the subject matter of this discussion.
In the days of my youth, I often heard children singing this proverbial truism: "Mr. de la Palisse is dead; he lost his life; a quarter of an hour 'before his demise, he was still living." Our friends on the government side have gone to a great deal of trouble in their attempt to show that this legislation, null and void since the first of March, is still extant and should survive another two months.
During this debate, it has been shown to the satisfaction of those willing to examine facts dispassionately and without any evidence of unfairness, that this legislation has not given the results which the government expected from it. Everybody knows that, under the measure which was intended to remedy unemployment and give relief to the farming community, nothing whatsoever was done for the farmers in the province of Quebec; it is also a well known fact the number of the unemployed has been steadily increasing throughout the country; and lastly, out of the millions spent for the relief of the unemployed, only $3 went to the men employed for each Labour day that cost the sum of 810 to the government. At least, it is realized that the suggestion made by the Tight hon. the Prime Minister calls for no constructive action as far as the future is concerned and that we are merely asked to extend, for two months, or for a month and a half from this day, the dictatorial powers which will enable the government to go on spending the public funds *without the advice of parliament and under which the government shall be authorized to amend or disregard existing laws without consulting parliament and in contradiction with parliamentary traditions.
During this debate, a good deal has been said about the right hon. the Prime Minister. On the one hand, hon. members from both sides of the house were pleased to admit that he was a man of brilliant achievements, a lawyer of great standing and a business man of vast experience. Some went so far as to endow him with extraordinary powers, at times comparing him to an emperor, then calling him a dictator; others went farther and said of him that he was the Mussolini of Canada. Reference was also made to the

Unemployment Continuance Act
exaggeration of his qualities, obviously in connection with his administration of public affairs. This afternoon, the hon. member for Proveneher (Mr. Beaubien) even suggested that, had the Prime Minister been a married man, he would have proved a better administrator.


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: That will come.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: As the saying goes, talent is acquired in the solitude of study while a person's character develops itself in society. It seems to me that, if the Prime Minister, who is a man of rare talent, had married, the companionship of a comely Canadian woman, would have somewhat tempered his rather autocratic disposition. It might be argued that my leader is in the same situation; but it must be remembered that the latter has been in power for nine years and that during this period, he has devoted himself to his country; he contracted a solemn and lawful marriage with the population of Canada which became his sole concern; and we all know how imposing and numerous a family will be his at the next election.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Where is the lady?


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Mr. Speaker, the 30th of June, 1930, was a fateful day for Canada. Shortly after the Conservative party was elected, a special session of parliament was called. At that time was inaugurated by the government a sinister era of extravagance; and from that day they have met with the approval of all the political clowns in the Conservative party who do not mind witnessing this disregard of the constitution, ignoring perhaps a century of struggle for responsible government, and at least nearly a hundred years of constitutional liberty won at the greatest cost.
When members on your right, sir, endeavoured to uphold the act under discussion, all, without exception, avoided, by all means, to discuss the constitutional aspect of the question. They contented themselves with stating that they had confidence in their leader: and each time we pointed out to them that our constitution, our traditions, our parliamentary usages and customs were being outraged by this resolution, their only answer was:	"Magister dixit," the master has
spoken, "ipse dixit," we are fully satisfied.
This act which one endeavours to revive, at present, has been disapproved and condemned by an important section of the press of this country, by numerous institutions, by ail
members of the opposition and even by the Canadian Bar Association of which the right hon. Prime Minister was president in 1929 and of which he is still a member, so that I can state, with some truth, that this resolution has been disapproved and condemned by the Prime Minister himself. Let me simply point out, in this respect, that at the last meeting of the Canadian Bar Association, in October, 1931, the president, a legal light in Quebec, Mr. St. Laurent, spoke as follows in his presidential address, as reported by the Canadian Bar Review of October, 1931, at page 525 and the following. I shall quote his words in English, as I have not the French version:
A delegation by parliament of its powers in the widest possible terms the executive authority for the period during which the act is to remain in force.
And, on page 528, he continues:
... in these trying times great indeed are the responsibilities of statesmanship, but great also is, at all times, the responsibility of the legal profession to guard with the utmost care, giving of course due and unprejudiced consideration to all pertinent circumstances, against any measure which might tend to unduly abridge the actual participation of the citizens at large in the making of the laws under which they shall live and their actual and timely control over the expenditures of their common funds.
Parliament has now been in session for almost a month and a half; we are aware that unemployment is wide spread throughout the country and distress exists in all towns large or small. May I state that in the town of Joliette alone, which comprises hardly 11,000 people, there is almost 700 unemployed who to support their families, can only obtain a few days of work per week from the municipality. It is amazing to note that the government, notwithstanding its pledge to relieve the situation and to improve the lot of the workmen, has not yet thought fit to take efficient means to put an end to the widespread distress in this country. One would have thought that the government would seek, for instance, to find a solution to the desperate situation in which are our railways. Every day we are informed that their returns are gradually decreasing; every day we are told that the management is forced to dismiss its employees. In the town of Joliette alone, which I have the honour to represent in the house, constantly employees are dismissed who, for the last fifteen or twenty years, earned honourably a livelihood in the employ of the railways, to-day they are without work and unable to find any occupation as they know no other trade which might facilitate their earning a livelihood.
1286	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act


Joseph Arthur Barrette: That is
due to Mr. Thornton.
Mr. (FERLAND (Translation,):	It is a
pity that the government does not exert itself more in seeking to adopt measures better designed for the welfare of this country, when we witness industries dismissing a number of their employees and cutting the salaries of others, when foreign trade decreases from day to day owing to the Chinese wall which the government has erected by its tariff policy and which precludes the advantages of foreign trade; when farmers are starving and a great number of them have been bankrupt, their products selling at wretched prices and they are forced to purchase at exorbitant prices the articles they cannot produce themselves.
Our hon. friends opposite have often stated that we should suggest to the government the measures to be taken to relieve unemployment. It was shown by Liberal speakers that a great number of practical suggestions were made, but that the government completely ignored them.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: What
does the hon. member suggest?


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: That you
should hold your tongue.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: If one takes into account the disastrous effects of the Conservative policy, the most pressing matter would be an appeal to the people, the calling of an election that would bring about a change of government.
An English humorist once stated that the parliament of Great Britain could do anything except change a man into a woman. The right hon. Prime Minister with this resolution-


Joseph Arthur Barrette: He never attempted that.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: -with this audacious resolution enabling him to take away parliament's powers and entrust them to the executive, conveys the impression that he also believes himself capable of doing anything. I would not be surprised if he tried in South-east Grey at the next elections to change into a man the only woman member we have the honour of sitting with in this house.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: I object.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note the results of the Conservative policy as distinguished from the results secured under a Liberal regime. If

we look backwards a little, we observe that each time the Liberal party assumed the reins of office it restored prosperity to the country. On the other hand, the Conservative party always was a bad administrator and an impediment to the country's progress. That party's administration always ended with deficits and a general business stagnation throughout the country. In 1896, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was returned to power, our friends from the province of Quebec who were elected on the butter issue, the butter-makers as the hon. member for Belleohasse (Mr. Boulanger) called them this afternoon, will recall that eggs were selling at that time for eight or nine cents a dozen, and butter brought a ridiculously low price, varying from ten to fifteen cents a pound, according to the season. In 1930, when the Conservatives promised during the election campaign to secure forty cents a pound for butter-


Joseph Arthur Barrette: That will come.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: -they
succeeded in seizing power, yet, what happened? Butter was sold at a ridiculous figure that ranged during the summer-


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Twenty-nine cents.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: -from fifteen to twenty cents a pound in the various Canadian markets, this depending on the districts where the commodity was offered. Eggs are also being sold at an exceedingly low price.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Thirty-seven cents.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: There is very little demand for all the other products. The farmer can find practically no market for his commodities. In a word, everything seems on the verge of a collapse throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, this measure which the government seeks to adopt transcends mere material things. There is a principle at stake. It seems to me the country must be rather puzzled that the Conservative members, particularly those from the province of Quebec, many of whom were educated in classical colleges, took university courses and entered the professions, and who, for that matter, acquired a thorough knowledge of our country's political history, know what our forefathers sacrificed to secure responsible government and are not unmindful of their struggles to win our constitutional liberties; it seems to me,

Unemployment Continuance Act
Canadians must find it strange to see these hon. members ready to surrender the rights of parliament and place the country in that particular situation that obtained more than a hundred years ago when it groaned under the rule of the " Family Compact." The country must consider it an extraordinary spectacle, the readiness on the part of these gentlemen to repudiate many centuries of stern struggles and show contempt for the finest pages written into our political history. I tell these hon. members they will have to give an accounting to the people who trusted them, and justify their betrayal. I may state-they will be as helpless to justify their change of front as they proved to be when trying to motivate in this chamber the measure they seek to adopt. This is a radical enactment and we are duty-bound to oppose it. It runs counter to our most cherished traditions, to the time-honoured interpretation of our laws and to the constitution the people gave themselves. I say the Liberal members have nobly done their duty in opposing energetically, with all their might, this dangerous law which creates a precedent other governments or other parties could invoke at some later date.
In closing, I also wish to register my protest against this measure which marks a tendency in a certain direction and is also altogether too radical. I want my electors to know that we remember the past, respect our traditions and meet the people's wishes. Finally, I want the whole country to know that the descendents of the Sons of Liberty do not quail before the successors of the notorious Family Compact.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Mr. Speaker, allow me to offer my congratulations to the hon. members for Joliette (Mr. Ferland), Quebec South (Mr. Power) and to the other speakers who proceeded me upon their splendid treatment of the various aspects of the resolution before the house.
At the risk of displeasing the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) who seems to have taken upon himself to count the number of columns each member fills in the pages of Hansard, you will allow me to address the house for a few minutes. I hope the hon. member for Regina will for once be liberal enough to forgive me. I will try and avoid offending the chaste ear of the hon. member for Bertbier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette).
The resolution we are debating is so important that I would feel remiss in my duty to the electors of L'lslet county if I did not rise to voice my protest against the autocracy
of a government which wants to take from us the rights bequeathed by the Fathers of Confederation, and also against the shameless expenditures effected under cover of the bill we are now asked to revive.
Before proceeding any further, Mr. Speaker, allow me to advert for a moment to the speech delivered in this house during the week by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon). The member for Dorchester tried to graft his political career upon that of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe)-


Joseph Arthur Barrette: He was not wrong.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Certainly not. However, he did forget one thing. In order that grafting may be successful, it must be practised upon a tree of the same family and size, that is if my memory of the lessons I learnt in botany serves me well. I think I can claim to be a true prophet when I state the grafting tried by the hon. member for Dorchester will not succeed and the new shoots will never bear fruit. For instance, there is one thing certain, though. The tree representing the riding of Quebec East will continue to thrive in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada. Its powerful branches will continue to canopy the Canadian soil it loves so deeply, and it will continue to bear those fruits which rightthinking Canadians could not fail to relish.
The member for Dorchester is one of my personal friends. He is a talented young man who completed a brilliant course at Oxford University. He is an able lawyer and possesses the gift of self-expression. In 1930, he abused the good faith of the electors of Dorchester county to whom he promised butter bringing sixty cents a pound and a general increase in the prices of all farm products if his party achieved power. Unfortunately for him, the Conservative party did come to power and the hon. member for Dorchester realizes that his promises have not been fulfilled. Thus, somewhat put out and finding perhaps his popularity waning in his riding, he thought it would be an excellent thing for him if he tried to reestablish himself before public opinion. I am not sure whether I am mistaken, but in his speech he seem to be trying to undermine the popularity of the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) and that of his colleagues, for he kept repeating that he received requests from Levis and the ridings in the vicinity of Quebec. He wanted to show thereby, perhaps, that his popularity was much greater than that of the Solicitor General. However, I am under the impression -I may be in error-the great ambition of the hon. member for Dorchester is to secure
1288	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
appointment as Postmaster General and if his recommendation alone were lacking to ensure the elevation of the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) to the Senate, I would not be surprised if he gave it very heartily.
If I had a word of advice to offer to the hon. member for Dorchester who is somewhat my junior in politics, I would tell him it sometimes bodes ill to try to build a political career upon the wreckage of another man's career. I regret that this talented young man tried to discredit the province of Quebec during the few minutes he spoke. He stated in the course of his speech that the electors of the province of Quebec had sold themselves last fall. I am more experienced than the member for Dorchester. I have taken part in several election campaigns, both provincial and federal, in the county of L'Islet, and I defy him to buy the vote of a single elector in my riding. I think I could make the same assertion with respect to the electors of Dorchester County. One proof that the electors did not sell themselves during the last provincial election is to be found in the fact they did not vote for the opposition party which promised them money at a rate of two per cent.
In the course of the last election campaign, the hon. Solicitor General covered the whole district of Quebec with a well-appointed organization for this pilgrimage. He was surrounded by brilliant speakers. He even had a loud speaker which he could make use of, when oratory failed, to broadcast selections played on a Victrola. Mr. Speaker, do you know what happened in all the Quebec ridings where he spoke? The Liberal candidates were elected. There was but one place where the hon. Solicitor General did not speak, his own riding. A Conservative was elected there.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: He had
no Victrola.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I stated a
moment ago this resolution was unconstitutional. We are contending to-day for rights given us at confederation; those rights for which our forefathers fought so many years. It is no longer a question of Conservatives or Liberals, of "reds" or "blues" in this chamber. We are concerned with the preservation of rights handed down to us. All of us were elected, you who sit to the right of Mr. Speaker, we who sit on his left, to pass laws that inure to the advantage of the country, and vote what money is required for the good government of Canada. Are we to now destroy the laws we enacted? Have we the right to do so, especially after the abuses committed under cover of the bill that expired March
[Mr. Fafard.l
1? I say no. You command a majority.
By resorting to force, you may possibly succeed in carrying this resolution, but should you follow that course, I have no hesitation in saying you will sully the mandate your electors committed to your care.
Did the Prime Minister himself (Mr. Bennett) not state in his speech some ten days ago that it was repugnant to him to introduce such a measure? The right hon. Prime Minister knows full well he should not administer the country by orders in council, and that it is the function of parliament to legislate. I hold in my hand a copy of a very ably edited Conservative newspaper, L'Evenement. When a delegation came here some days ago to meet the premier and request grants for the city of Quebec, what was his answer? "This is a question which parliament must decide at the proper time."
Mr. Speaker, I ask myself why the members to the right do not approach their leader at the next party caucus, in order to submit to him-that which he admits himself when receiving delegations-that parliament must settle these questions? Why does he not adopt the same attitude in this house?
During nine years, from 1921 to 1930, our opponents preached on all sides the gospel of a very high customs tariff. We heard then: proclaim repeatedly in various ways but always with great eloquence the advantages to be derived from such a fiscal policy. I well recall them telling us during that period: Gentlemen of the Liberal party, if we had a high tariff, you would see industries developing throughout the country and there would be no unemployment. Everybody being employed, there would be a steady market for farm products. At the 1930 session, the present government unfortunately put this policy of high protection into effect, and one has but to look around to-day to note the consequences. Our opponents tell us the tariff has resulted in the establishment of about one hundred new industries, but they refrain from adding the same tariff caused some three or four hundred industries to close their doors. At all events, nobody can confute this simple argument: If industries prospered as they did under the Liberal administration, we would not have the number of unemployed we have to-day.
Mr. Speaker, this much is obvious: the Conservative policy has operated disastrously. The Prime Minister himself admitted as much last summer. I remember him stating at that time in a moment of despair: "Only Providence can save us." I am convinced if Providence had told him: "Mr. Premier, I am

Privilege-Mr. Veniot
willing to bring back prosperity if you will only withdraw your blank cheque," he would have replied: "My answer is no."
Mr. Speaker, the time has arrived when one must face squarely the grave conditions prevailing throughout the country. This is not the time to tell those who appeal to parliament for work or bread: "Get the Olympic spirit." This is not the time to tell the farmers who cannot find markets for their prpducts: "Get the Olympic spirit." When the hour strikes for the people to pass judgment on the government's policy, and our friends face the electorate we will tell them: "Get the Olympic spirit."


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, March 21, 1932