[Stage Direction]
Second report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. Matthew's.

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

Mr. BEAUBIEN:: 1.	Has a contract been awarded to M. Werbenuk for carrying mail between Poplarfield post office, Manitoba, and railway station?
2.	If so, were public tenders called, if not, for what reason?
3.	What was the amount of contract?

Questions


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No. Cost under S200 per annum.
3.	$93.90 per annum.


ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTL4RY
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	How many persons are at present detained in the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary?
2.	Does the government intend to increase the staff of guards for the public safety during the summer months?
3.	Are the penitentiary employees under the
eight-day regime?	i
4.	If not, what are the reasons for not adopting the eight-hour day regime in such institutions?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	1.068 as on February 29, 1932.
2.	Staff is always increased as the needs of the institution require, and safety to the public demands. A seasonal increase is always necessary for work in summer. Total number of officers as on February 29, 1932:
Permanent	 119
Temporary	 55
3.	No.
4.	This has been discussed on many occasions and it has not been found possible to adopt. Winter hours are shorter than summer hours. Penitentiary Act, Sec. 62 (2) calls for at least ten hours hard labour. The eight-hour system would call for shifts and change of officers during working hours, thus dividing responsibility. Officers are allowed three weeks' holiday per annum, and one rest day in seven, besides sick leave on full pay.


CONVERSION AND NATIONAL SERVICE LOANS
Mr. SPENCER:: 1. What was the total amount of money borrowed under the conversion loan of May, 1931?
2.	What were the total expenses incurred in
securing the conversion loan:	(a) commissions
to chartered banks and brokers; (b) advertising, travelling and all other expenses?
3. What was the total amount of money borrowed under the national service loan of 1931?
4.	What was the total expense incurred in
securing national service loan of November, 1931:	(a) commissions to chartered banks or
brokers:	(b) advertising, travelling and all
other expenses?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	$643,109,300.
2.	(a) $2,960,358; (b) $599,425. Commissions and all other expenses represent 5%oo of 1 per cent on the principal amount.
3 $221 19S 200
4.	(a) S1,S19,106;	(b) S266,000 (estimated,
accounts not yet complete). Commissions and all other expenses represent 9iHoo of 1 per cent or. the amount raised.
Note: Under 2 (b) and 4 (b) are included cost of advertising, printing, engraving of bonds, clerical assistance and other expenses.


QUEENS COUNTY, N.S.-INDIANS
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What was the name of the medical officer in charge of the Indians of Queens county, Nova Scotia, previous to 1930?
2.	What salary did he receive per annum?
3.	What is the name of the medical officer now engaged by the government in looking after said Indians?
4.	How much does he receive per annum?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Dr. C. S. Hennigar, Liverpool, Nova Scotia.
2.	He was paid on the call or account system and earned $334.50 during the last 12 months of his employment, November 1929 to October 1930, inclusive.
3.	Dr. T. R. Ford, Liverpool, Nova Scotia.
4.	He is paid on the call or account system and earned $612.75 during the 12 months of the calendar year 1931.


* BICKERDIKE PIER
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Who are the lessees of the Bickerdike pier from the Montreal harbour commission?
2.	What has been paid by any department of the Dominion government to the Canadian Import Company for coal during the years: (a) 1925; (b) 1926; (c) 1927; (d) 1928; (e) 1929; (f) 1930; (g) 1931?
3.	Is the Hon. Lorne C. Webster, senator for the Stadacona district in the province of Quebec, president of the Canadian Import Company ?
4.	Has the Canadian Import Company a lease or concession from the Quebec harbour commissioners in connection with the supply of oil to steamers?
5.	If so: (a) how long is the lease for; (b) what rent is paid?


Mr. CAHAN:: This is a repetition of a question asked on the orders of the day some time ago, and it is answered in a return which 1 laid upon the table of the house this afternoon.


* GAZETTE PRINTING COMPANY
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	How much has The Gazette Printing Company, Limited, been paid by the Dominion government during the following years:	(a)
1925; (b) 1926; (c) 1927; (d) 1928; (e) 1929; m 1930; (g) 1931?
Bankruptcy Act

2.	Is the Hon. Smeaton White, senator from the Inkerman district of the province of Quebec, president of The Gazette Printing Company, Limited?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This is a repetition of a question asked some days ago, and it was answered in a return which I laid upon the table of the house yesterday, March 9.


BANKRUPTCY ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Bankruptcy Act, and to provide for the administration of the act by the Minister of Finance, and for the appointment of a superintendent of bankruptcy and the payment of his expenses from a percentage of the gross receipts out of the sale of any property of the debtor; and to provide for such assistants as may be required, and for the licensing of trustees and payment of fees therefor.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri):: I
should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. An investigation is being held by a committee of the Senate in connection with the Beauharnois matter. In the past we, as members of the House of Commons, always received copies of the proceedings in such investigations, but so far we have not been furnished with any of the reports concerning this inquiry. When we hold an investigation in this house, reports are sent to the members of the Senate, so I should like to know if we may not be furnished with copies of these reports.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: I will have inquiry made in order to ascertain why copies have not been supplied to members of the House of Commons.


TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister, or the Minister of
JMr. Maclanis.]
Railways, if there is a possibility of the report of the commission inquiring into railway matters being tabled before the Easter recess.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer to that question will be no. Lord Ashfield has been detained somewhat longer than he had expected because of urgent matters of public business in connection with the transport bill, and I am not in a position to state exactly when he may be expected to arrive in this country. Therefore I can only say with certainty that there is no likelihood of the report being tabled before the Easter recess, and I am sorry I cannot give the right hon. gentleman any indication as to when it may be delivered to the government.


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend if there is any possibility of the treaty between Canada and the United States with respect to the St. Lawrence waterway being signed before the Easter recess?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should think the probable answer would be no.


SALMON FISHING REGULATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester) * About a fortnight ago a delegation waited upon the Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau) with regard to the salmon regulations in the province of New Brunswick. I should like to ask the minister if he has been able to decide upon an answer to that delegation or, if not, when that answer may be expected.
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: We have made up
our minds on that question and have decided not to change the present regulations.


Mr. VENIOT:: That is, not to grant the
request of the delegation?


Alfred Duranleau: Exactly.


NEW ZEALAND TREATY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: May I ask the Minister of Trade
and Commerce whether the New Zealand treaty will be tabled and presented to parliament before the Easter recess?

Unemployment Continuance Act


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have nothing to add to
the answer I gave yesterday.


ALLEGED RUM RUNNING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay):: May I ask the Minister of National
Revenue whether his attention has been drawn to the following report which appeared in the Star a few days ago:
Produce and Stock Bartered for Rum
Quebec, March 2.-Produce and live stock are being used by people along the north shore to purchase liquor from rum runners, in cases where no money has been available, and unmolested activity on the part of the same rum runners are responsible to a great extent for the poverty which exists among fishermen and shore people, it is claimed by officials of the Fisheries department of the province, and in view of existing conditions it is probable that the attention of the federal authorities will be drawn to the matter, with a view to having patrols established all along the coast line, so as to halt this traffic.
I would ask the minister whether he has been made aware of the conditions that seem to exist, according to that report, and whether it is the intention of the government to see that some remedy is provided to put an end to such conditions.


Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue):: I had not heard of the
conditions mentioned by the hon. member, but now that he has brought the matter to my attention I shall inquire into it and give an answer later.


UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Yesterday the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) asked a question with reference to the personnel of the subcommittee that has been set up to deal with the administration of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931. I find on inquiry that the Minister of Fisheries is a member of that committee. When the Minister of Fisheries became Minister of Finance the Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau) took his place on the committee, the appointments being made by office and not by names. As Acting Minister of Fisheries the Hon. Mr. Duranleau is therefore a member of and sits upon that committee.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 9, 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.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Yesterday, at the close of an impassioned speech in which moderation was conspicuous by its absence, the hon. the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) exhibited a rather delightful piece of humour when he asked the cooperation of my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), myself and others on this side of the house. Cooperation in what? Cooperation with whom? We are ready to cooperate, but can we do so by supporting the measure which is now before the chair? It is a direct refusal of cooperation; it is a challenge to parliamentary institutions. Does not the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) realize that he is going altogether too far in the direction of personal power and autocracy? He is asking the elected representatives of the people of Canada to abdicate the control and sovereignty of parliament. He is asking full authority to legislate by order in council, to amend statutes, to decide anything while parliament is in session, to enter into any expenditure of public money without previous parliamentary authorization; and he kindly suggests and generously offers to communicate to us the decision after it will have been reached. Sir, is not that an utter disrespect for and contempt of parliament? Is it not adding insult to injury? How can we cooperate upon such a basis?
We have been elected to a legislative body, and the seriousness of the situation and the complexity of the problems which face this country at the present time make it all the more necessary that we should all endeavour to find the solution of these problems. We are willing to work; we are willing to sit on committees; we are willing to consider any proposal, any measure which this government has to offer; we are willing to adopt such measures if they are in the public interest. But we are not ready to vest in the Prime Minister a dictatorship, to transfer to him and his cabinet the rights and authorities of this parliament, and to delegate to him the
976	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
mandate which we have received from our constituencies. How can we cooperate when the decision has been reached before being submitted to parliament? How can we cooperate when the policies of the country are devised, decided and executed by order in council, and more particularly when important matters are decided one way and modified, altered, changed or cancelled before we have even had the chance of knowing it? How can we cooperate when this government one day preaches the expenditure of public money for the relief of distress in the country, and the next day preaches strict economy, curtails expenditures, retires civil servants, cuts salaries and so forth. Our rulers, like Penelope, the wife of the great Ulysses, are undoing during the night the work that they have done during the preceding day.
You must admit, Mr. Speaker, that it is rather difficult for reasonable men to cooperate with inconsistency, whim and whimsicality. No executive in the world has achieved the autocratic power of the present Canadian cabinet-I am speaking of countries with representative parliaments. I think the nearest parallel in history is to be found in the Committee of Public Safety during the terror of the French revolution. Like this government, that committee had an all powerful executive, controlling all things; like this government, that committee had the support of a majority in the convention. All the powers were held by that committee and it became such a despotism that it was the strongest and most ruthless which history has ever recorded. Of course, I do not suggest that this will happen in Canada; I do not believe the Prime Minister will go beyond certain limits. But has a free parliament the right to establish such a dictatorship? Has it the right to take a chance? Are we justified in abdicating all control and placing the rights and liberties of the Canadian people in the hands of one man, however distinguished he may be? The right hon. gentleman possesses great qualities but he will pardon me if I say that he possesses also some substantial imperfections. He has some characteristic features which are not unmixed qualities, and history proves that no man is great enough to endure well-nigh absolute power without a certain amount of moral weakening and that uncontrolled despotism always inflicts serious injury to the body politic.
May I quote the words of my right hon. friend uttered while he was in opposition. At that time he was complaining that the then Minister of Labour, Mr. Heenan, was endeavouring to enact legisluation which gave 
the power to make regulations in order to carry out the provisions of the act, and here is what he said:
I consider the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) a fair-minded minister but I do not think that it is in the interests of Canada that powers so great should be conferred upon any one individual under the modern democratic form of government where the temptations for abuse are as great as the powers here conferred.
The first departure by this government from sound constitutional practices occurred at the special session of 1930. At that time my right hon. friend asked this house to vote the sum of twenty million dollars to be used for such purposes and under such terms and conditions as the governor general in council would prescribe. That was a violation of the well known principle that the commons has full and unrestricted control over the destination of public money. Every sum taken from the consolidated revenue fund must be applied to a special purpose; it must be voted by parliament either under a statute, when the expense is a permanent one, or by an annual vote in the estimates, as is generally the case. That is the only possible way for parliament to retain its control over the expenditure of public money. In either case the destination must be described and at no time until this government took office had this principle been denied or violated. As my right hon. leader said, even during the war Sir Robert Borden not only specified the amount of money which he asked parliament to vote for the carrying on of the war but he gave the details as to the destination of that money. He said that so much was needed for expenditures connected with the Niobe or the Rainbow, so much for the purchase of a submarine or so much for the purchase of horses. Parliament always was given the fullest details. Had my right hon. friend then been on this side of the house and the government of the day had attempted to do that which is being attempted to-day we would have heard that which Dicey, Anson and Redlich say in the most eloquent terms.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does my hon. friend
realize that his government passed a statute by which the government was authorized to guarantee the bonds of the Montreal harbour bridge in an unnamed sum, and that it is costing this country nearly S700,000 per annum? The estimate of the cost was given at $6,000,000 while the guarantee has amounted to over $19,500,000.


Ernest Lapointe: I think the last part
of my right hon. friend's question answers the

Unemployment Continuance Act
first; he says there was an unnamed sum and then he says that the expenditure was much higher than the sum which had been named.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The sum is not named
in the bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Was that unconstitutional?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The sum of $6,000,000
was not named in the bill; a question was asked as to the amount.


Ernest Lapointe: It was certainly stated
to the house in my presence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister stated
$6,000,000, but that amount does not appear in the bill and the cost was $19,500,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A blank cheque.


Ernest Lapointe: That is the same thing
as Sir Robert Borden did during the war. The sum was not specified in the bills he introduced but he took good care to give all the details.
My right hon. friend threatened us with the calamity of his being unable to attend the Imperial conference, and as we could not afford to suffer his absence we allowed this measure to go through. Last year it became still worse. Chapter 58 of the statutes of 1931 was passed, and it is now proposed to resurrect this measure and extend its provisions for two months. I then stated that the bill gave a blank cheque to the government and the power to expend any amount of money for any purpose whatever. I stated, and my words can be found in Hansard, that the provisions of the act which permitted the taking of any steps to maintain peace, order and good government in Canada gave to the government the powers given to the parliament of Canada under section 91 of the British North America Act. I protested against that legislation but we were told that our misgivings were unfounded, that the things we feared would never happen. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) discarded all our statements and said that the words "peace, order and good government" were inserted in the statute to give authority to parliament to vote a blank cheque for the purpose of relieving distress and unemployment. My hon. friend said:
If the bill is not founded upon the theory that it is necessary to maintain peace, order and good government in Canada, then parliament would have no authority to pass it. Without these words the bill in the form in which it is enacted into law might be set aside when challenged in the courts.
And again:
We recognize this emergency by the adoption of these words from the British North America Act, and they were placed in the bill as the foundation of our authority to pass such an enactment. They have nothing to do with the question of enforcement; they are merely a declaration to give us the jurisdiction which we know we have under the circumstances but of which vve want to be sure. . . . We are guaranteeing relief in order to maintain peace, order and good government. That makes it constitutionally certain that the bill will not be set aside.
The Prime Minister, when he referred to that provision about law and order, spoke only of possible troubles in Canada and said that it was good policy, good statesmanship on the part of the government to provide for any such disturbances. He said:
It is not for a moment to be thought that an insignificant number of strongly vocal persons shall be able so to affect the populace of this country as to make it impossible for us, in cooperation together as Canadians, to work out our destiny. I say that class, happily, is few- in number. But in this present situation they now see an opportunity propitious to the prosecution of their pernicious political doctrines. This is a land of freedom.
And so on. He continues:
If the government is given reason to believe, as there may be some cause for its so believing, that there is a settled purpose in the minds of a considerable number of people-not large, numerically, but scattered over the various parts of Canada-to take action against the maintenance of law and order, or make attempts to impede the difficult task with which we are charged, then we will take such action as in the judgment of the executive of this country, the cabinet who are the board of directors for the time being administering the affairs of this country, as will free this country from those wrho have proved themselves unworthy of our Canadian citizenship.
At no place in their argument did either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice suggest or represent or intimate that this law would be made use of to amend the statutes of the country generally. What has occurred? The Prime Minister, in the course of his remarks when introducing this resolution. spoke about an order in council concerning the returns to be made by the insurance companies. When I asked him whether there were other orders in council under that clause relating to peace, order and good government, he said that he did not know of any, but the Minister of Justice whispered to him that there was one concerning the prohibition of the export of gold.
Yesterday some orders in council were laid on the table of the house and I have been able to find at least three of four or more of them passed under this provision of peace,

978	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
order and good government. The first I find is order in council P.C. 2238, guaranteeing repayment to the chartered banks mentioned in it, of the amounts of money advanced by them to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, in connection with the crop of the year 1930. I do not think my right hon. friend has treated parliament properly in that regard. During the session of last year the hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier) on three different occasions asked a question about this matter. The first two questions were answered by the Prime Minister that they were not strictly according to the rules and therefore could not be answered, but finally, on May 14, 1931, the hon. member for St. Henri, as reported on page 1575 of Hansard, asked the following question:
1.	Is the government aware that the Canadian banks have advanced, in loans or guarantees, the sum of $68,000,000 to the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited?
2.	Has the government, to date, guaranteed the banks interested in these loans in favour of wheat pools, for said amount of $68,000,000, totally or partially?
3.	If partially, up to what amount?
The answer was:
Mr. Bennett: As the question now reads, the answer to the first part would be no. The answer to the second part would depend upon what portion of the first part it has reference to. No guarantee has been given for $68,000,000. An arrangement was made. At the moment I think the responsibility would be $2,000 or $3,000, provided the security upon which the advances by the banks are made is liquidated at reasonable prices. At present market prices there will be practically no liability.
Parliament sat until well into the month of August, but no legislation was submitted to it, yet on the 12th September this order in council was passed, and mark the wording of it:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 11th September, 1931, from the Minister of Finance, recommending that, in pursuance of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, and of an undertaking on behalf of the government, made before the session of parliament at which the said act was passed, to implement by legislation the recommendation hereinafter set out, the governor in council guarantee repayment to the chartered banks hereinafter mentioned.
And so forth. I have no time to read it all, but I draw the attention of the house to the fact that the promise, the undertaking, had been given prior to the session of parliament-it is so stated in the order in council -that there would be legislation to implement the guarantee of the government. No legislation was introduced in parliament al-

though the matter was referred to on three different occasions. Then, after the session was over, an order in council is passed as a substitute for the legislation that should have been passed by parliament. There were no communistic activities in connection with this.
Then there are three orders in council, again guaranteeing advances by the banks to the marketing agencies mentioned in those orders. I have not time to refer to them.
The second order in council to which I wish to refer is the one dealing with the prohibition of the export of gold. This was passed on Monday, the nineteenth day of October, 1931. But before I refer to it, I would ask the government at least to submit to parliament legislation to ratify the order in council with regard to the guarantee of the advances by the banks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think there is no
liability at the moment.


Ernest Lapointe: So much the better, but that does not alter the fact that the government has done by order in council what should have been done by legislation.
As regards the order in council dealing with the prohibition of the export of gold, that again is passed under the provision regarding peace, order and good government. A penalty is fixed of a fine of SI ,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both fine and imprisonment. It is stated in the order that these provisions shall come into force on the 19th day of October, 1931, and shall continue in full force and effect until the first day of March, 1932. If this order is renewed or extended, I hope it will be done by an act of parliament and not by a juggling of the calendar by substituting May for March as is proposed to be done by the resolution now before the house.
Then on the 27th October, 1931, order in council P.C. 2693 was passed, virtually amending the Bank Act, authorizing the banks to make to the government returns with regard to securities in another way than that fixed by the Bank Act. It also has force and effect until the first March, 1932. I ask the government, if this order in council is to be extended, that this should be done by act of parliament. The Bank Act is one of the most important acts. It is sacred legislation. It is different from the others in this, that we have a revision of the Bank Act every ten years, when a committee of this house studies any proposed changes most carefully. Surely the Bank Act should not be amended by order in council without authority of parliament.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Mr. SPENCER:: Would the hon. member explain further what changes were made?


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid I have not time to do it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No complaint about it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are complaining now.


Mr. MANION:: You are always complaining over there. We do not mind that.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: We are not complaining as much as you would if you were over here.


Ernest Lapointe: Then on December 16, 1931, P.C. 3087 was passed on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), increasing the strength of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by three hundred men, with an added expenditure of $274,135. I do not want to comment upon that, but perhaps it is the reason for the fine parades we are witnessing on different occasions around the parliament buildings.
Then there was the order in council virtually amending the Insurance Act. Section 34 of the Insurance Act provides that the stocks held by the insurance companies must be valued at their market value. That was amended by order in council. It is stated in that order in council that the privy council has virtually declared that the Insurance Act is ultra vires and that it is proposed at the next session of parliament to bring in a new law which the law officers of the crown believe will be intra vires. But before this new law is put into force we have this order in council. I have seen the bill which is presently before the Senate and I notice that section 54 of that bill is exactly the same as section 34 of the Insurance Act as it was. There is no change made there at all. Will that order in council be extended for another year? If so, I say again that this parliament has the right to discuss and pass upon such a matter. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is there one of those five or six orders in council which I have mentioned passed in the interests of the unemployed? This whole legislation was passed presumably for the relief of distress and unemployment and the clause about peace, order and good government was included only to give authority to the government for that purpose. But these orders in council which were passed concerning the insurance business and banking and the mounted police, were they orders in council passed in the interests of the unemployed? They took the place of acts of parliament, which is exactly what we am-621
foresaw would happen as the use to which the clause would be put when the legislation was before the house.
But bad as that legislation was, the present proposal is many times worse. This parliament is in session and the government is asking power to amend to-morrow a statute which we may pass to-day in this House of Commons. The suggestion that the rights of parliament will.be safeguarded merely by tabling at the next session of parliament any orders in council that may be passed is preposterous. It reduces parliament to a formless debating society, carrying on in a vacuum of futility.
Sir, the legislative function is to formulate what is to be and what should be the law of the country. The function of the executive is to carry out the law as formulated by this parliament. It is parliament that has the power to decide what the law is and what the law should be. It is parliament that has the control of the treasury, of the levying of taxes and of the manner of spending those taxes. It is the only effective agency in any British House of Commons for controlling the departments of government. The goal of democratic government is a satisfactory understanding between those two branches of government. Fundamental laws have defined what are the proper functions of each. The struggle of the House of Commons in England extending over many hundreds of years was carried on to ensure the control of parliament over the executive-not the control of the executive over parliament.
The Prime Minister pleaded that to proceed in this way would give greater convenience to the government in the serious conditions that now face the country. Doubtless absolute and autocratic power is more convenient than a free government. But does Canada want that? Our system is one of check and balance to make it sure that none of the divisions of the government shall become so powerful as to have the others at its mercy.
When in opposition my right hon. friend the Prime Minister referred frequently to that clever book of the present Lord Chief Justice of Great Britain, Lord Hewart, entitled The New Despotism. I might say that the Prime Minister's is a newer and stricter and narrower despotism. I have here a fine quotation of Lord Hewart which I should like to put on Hansard if I had time, but perhaps at some other stage of the bill I shall have the pleasure of doing so. But Lord Hewart was speaking only of regulations which permitted the departments virtually to make the laws of the land. He never even dreamt that
980	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
it would come to the mind of any ruler to assume the power of amending the statutes and the laws of the country. No wonder parliament is losing some of its former high position in popular esteem. My right hon. friend is responsible for it. This decline in the moral authority of parliament is due to the assumption by the Prime Minister of powers over the House of Commons which would have been undreamed of fifty years .ago, and he is reducing the members of parliament to a condition of almost servile impotence.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. Parliamentary government is the form of free government, and I cannot forgive my right hon. friend for undermining-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friends over there remind me of the words of an American reformer, Lincoln Steffens, who said that he could forgive Philadelphia for being corrupt but not for being contented. I could forgive my hon. friends opposite for being made impotent by the actions of the government they support, by losing their parliamentary rights, but I cannot forgive them for being contented and satisfied with that situation. The control by parliament over the executive is no longer even a theory; it has become a fiction. The process is reversed; it is the executive which controls parliament. It is a revolutionary process, but revolutionary in the sense of reaction and contrary to all national traditions.
Had I time I would quote the words of the president of the Canadian Bar Asosciation which held its annual meeting at Murray Bay last year, when he called attention to the danger of such legislation. I am opposed to this government-	.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, and I am glad
everybody knows it, and that everybody can see it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: I am opposed to this
government ridding itself of constitutional restraints. If a majority in parliament has its rights, I claim that the minority also has its rights. We have the right to consider all public business submitted which is going to be the law of the land. We have the right to require full publicity of public business. I
IMr. Lapointe. 1
have been sent here by my constituents to speak their voice in this parliament and to share in the work of legislation. They trust me; they may be wrong, but they have been trusting me for about thirty years.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member's time
has elapsed.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, Mr. Speaker, you
have no mercy.


Mr. I. D. MACDOUGALL (Inverness):: Mr. Speaker, at the very outset may I convey to my hon. friend who has just taken his seat, the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), my sincere congratulations upon the eloquence he displayed in his address, the choice of diction he used, the grace with which he presented his material, and especially, upon the high-powered sophistry of his argument. My hon. friend would have us believe that he, and he alone, is the protector of the people's rights in the parliament of Canada. Recently there was introduced in the Quebec legislature an iniquitous bill known as the Dillon Bill, which not only deprived the elected members and those who were not elected of the right to protest against corruption, but was made retroactive, and was supported by the newspaper controlled and partially owned by the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat.
It would appear that my hon. friends opposite are possessed of some peculiar mental condition which prompts them to conjure up in their imaginations constitutional questions. We all remember, sir, that in 1926 a constitutional question was conjured up in the mind of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). He went to the country at that time and was, I think, returned on that constitutional issue. What was the contention? It was that Canada was being sold out to Downing Street. However when the hon. gentleman who now, with such distinction, occupies the position of Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) called for a return of the correspondence passing between the right hon. gentleman and the then Governor General, Lord Byng, we found that it was the right hon. gentleman himself who wished Downing Street domination in Canada. That was the constitutional question of 1926. I venture this, Mr. Speaker, that had not Lord Byng been imbued with the splendid traditions which have always characterized governors general in Canada, had he been able to tell the Canadian people what actually happened on that occasion, my right hon. friend's constitutional issue would have fallen to the ground, and he would have returned to parliament repudiated hv the Canadian people.

Unemployment Continuance Act
I am at a loss to understand why, when the Conservative party of Canada introduces or attempts to introduce measures to assist men without work and women and children without food, all conceivable constitutional objections are taken by the opposition, and even appeals are taken against Your Honour's rulings. Had the appeal which was taken only a few nights ago been carried, what would have been the result?. There was at that time no amendment before the house, and had the appeal from Your Honour's ruling by the right hon. the leader of the opposition been sustained by that vote all unemployment relief would have been precluded.
The control of parliament over taxation is a fundamental principle of British government. So fundamental is it that we did not require the comments of such a great champion of constitutional government as my hon. friend who just preceded me to put us right in the matter. I say that the elected representatives of this or any other parliament have the right, if they desire to exercise it, to delegate to the government the power to control taxation and the expenditure of mone}'. There is not an authority on the constitution of this country or on constitutional practice prevailing in any British country saying that parliament's control over taxation and expenditure must have unanimity of opinion from all elected members. It is quite competent for the majority of elected members to delegate that power to the executive. If my right hon. friend thinks it is a constitutional question, let him ask members of this parliament and they will give him his answer, because the great majority in this house have faith in their right hon. leader and will be prepared to delegate power to the cabinet.
There is no more a constitutional question at the present time than there was in 1926. To state that there is a constitutional issue herein involved is merely subterfuge. It is sheer persiflage,-merely, an effort by the Liberal party to give effect to that policy on unemployment which in the last few years they have pursued with such unenviable distinction to themselves. What was their policy when in power? The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) had a policy then; he was prepared, with his charitable disposition and from the goodness of his heart, to give a five cent piece to the unemployed if they would vote Grit.
Just before I leave the constitutional question, what is the alternative suggestion of hon. gentlemen opposite? It is that a commission be appointed which would be responsible to no one at all in the spending of the
money of this country. Hon. gentlemen op* posite would take away from parliament control over taxation; they would take away from the cabinet the right to receive that control from parliament, and they would vest it in an irresponsible, roving commission. That was the alternative announced by the leader of the opposition, which received vociferous applause from the hon. gentleman who just made his constitutional speech. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk glibly of orders in council; after listening to them one would think there was something sinister or reprehensible about the passing of an order in council in order to do the greatest work this parliament and this government can do, that is, protect human life in this country. May I point out, sir, as my right hon. leader pointed out, that the previous government appropriated money for the Montreal harbour commission by order in council; they practically destroyed the dairying industry of this country by order in council, and during the time my right hon. friend and his distinguished deskmate, who just resumed his seat, were in power, their government passed 53,968 orders in council. So let us hear nothing more about the passing of an order in council being something sinister; it is merely a fantasy of the imagination of hon. gentlemen opposite.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, we have no other measure before parliament through which the unemployed may be assisted. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been able to make no suggestions, and now they ask us to cut off relief entirely from now until May 1. My conscience will not allow me to be sidetracked by constitutional arguments; I want to tell you that I think as much about the poor men and women who are unemployed as I think of the constitution of our country. Hon. gentlemen opposite suggest absolutely nothing; they want to cut off relief entirely, but we want to carry on this relief because, when men through no fault of their own are out of employment; when women and children are suffering, we believe public funds should be made available to protect the welfare and the lives of our citizens.
Mr. ANGUS MaeINNIS (Vancouver South):	Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few
words in connection with the very important question under discussion at the present time. But before dealing with the resolution I wish to refer briefly to the statement made in the house yesterday by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), who I am sorry is not in his seat.


Mr. SPOTTON:: He is not far away.
9S2

Unemployment Continuance Act


Mr. MacINNIS:: If my hon. friend from
North Huron (Mr. Spotton) will keep quiet now, we will give him an opportunity to speak when I am finished. That is the proper procedure in parliament; if he does not know it he should be told, because he is continually interrupting.
Replying to the speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), the Minister of Railways and Canals took rather a peculiar line, which showed that if he is not a good cabinet minister at least he is a good politician. Having nothing else with which to reply to the statements which had been made, the minister tried to make a noise about something entirely different; he brought up something not even mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the question of Russia. Instead of telling us something of the policy of the government in regard to unemployment he dealt in great detail with the murder of the czar and the royal family, Russia's repudiation of her debts, her irreligion and lack of respect for the female of the species. This may have been good politics, but it did not throw any light on the subject under discussion. However, since the minister did bring up the matter I think it only right that something should be said in reply.
My hon. friend was very much concerned about the attitude of the Soviet government toward the kulaks, the rich peasants of Russia. I should think he would be concerned rather with the condition of the unemployed in this country. He gave extensive quotations and blamed the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for praising everything Russian. Just a week ago yesterday, after the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had made another speech, the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol) took a good deal of the time of the house to point out the bad things the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had said about Russia, so between the two hon. members we may possibly reach the truth. At least one person has gone to Russia who is quite capable of telling about things as he saw them, without fear or favour.
The Minister of Railways and Canals quoted from an article by Henry Wales, correspondent of the Chicago Tribune. I have here another despatch from Mr. Wales which appeared in the New York Times of March 29, 1931, giving an account of an interview with Michael Tzetlin, vice-chairman of the Soviet executive committee at Archangel. This is what he says in connection with the kulaks:
The state is aiding them to build homes and create new villages, composed of kulaks exclu-
[Mr. Spotton.1
sively, where they can hunt, fish, farm, enter the timber industry or do whatever they please. The government is giving them all the land they want, providing lumber, building materials, food supplies and clothing, and establishing postal, telegraph and transportation services in the newly opened territory.
I wonder whether the government of Canada is doing that much for the unemployed in this country. Are we getting these facilities? Is anything being done to set up the unemployed so that they may become self-supporting? Absolutely nothing. Wre shall shortly come to what the government is actually doing. This writer goes on to say:
The kulaks are not guarded. Each village has its militiamen, the GPU (secret police), the same as all other communities. Each settlement chooses its own mayor-tzaritza, we call him-who is responsible to the authorities for law and order in his community.
Records show the death rate among kulaks transported here not above the normal rate among the local populaces.
One more quotation with reference to the kulaks:
The liquidation of the kulaks is a great reform measure-an emergency similar to mobilization in war time. It is hard on them. So was freeing the slaves hard on southern plantation owners in America. So was the prohibition law, which legislated out of business an entire industry in the United States.
When the Minister of Railways is discussing Russia he should not forget that Russia at the present time is at war; it is making war on poverty, on ignorance and on the superstition that has grown and fattened under the czarist rulers. Nor should he forget that when this country was at war it conscripted Canadians and sent them away, not to some place where they could earn a living but into the front line trenches, to fight the German army, an army with whom personally they had no quarrel. Let me read from a speech made not so very long ago by Sir Arthur Currie, to show that the place to which we sent the Canadians who were conscripted during the war was not at all as good a place as where the kulaks were sent by the Soviet government. And remember that the kulaks were the class in Russia who would not cooperate in the socialization of the machinery of production in the interests of the people as a whole. As an hon. member says, they were like Tories. Sir Arthur Currie, before the National Republican Club of New York, said:
Let me give you one picture of war, a memory I carry from the battle of Amiens. That battle was a great victory. It was perhaps the greatest triumph we had. Our troops went into it fit and healthy, high-spirited and well-trained. We had plenty of artillery, we had plenty of tanks. The Germans were completely surprised and thoroughly beaten. At

Unemployment Continuance Act
the end of the day I was asked to go back to a casualty clearing station. I was told that something was wrong. I went back. And there I saw the aftermath of victory. Something was indeed wrong. The extraordinary secrecy of the movement had somehow hampered the army medical services. I saw ambulance after ambulance full of wounded men, some shrieking, some groaning, some dying, some dead, some just suffering in patience, waiting to get to the hospital gate. Inside the doors of the building used as a hospital, its windows boarded up tight so that no light would reveal its position to enemy aircraft, the fumes of acetylene gas from the lamps, the terrible smell of gas gangrene from some of the wounds, the sickening odour of ether, the white faces of the worn-out nurses, the blood-stained hands of the doctors, who had to work as fast as butchers-only to save and not to kill-made a scene of horror that I can never forget.
As I said a moment ago, the Soviet government are at this moment at war; they are making war on poverty and on all the other conditions that were left them as a heritage by the rulers who preceded them. More than a decade ago we were at war with a different enemy, and the people of this country thought that was a good and sufficient reason for taking the able-bodied men of Canada, whether they wished to go or not, and placing them in the midst of such conditions as Sir Arthur has outlined in this address to the National Republican Club. Surely if it is right and proper in the one case it is right and proper in the other. I will leave the Minister of Railways there; it is not necessary to say anything further in that connection. The statements he made in regard to Russia were exploded long ago, and apropos of this I would paraphrase slightly a few words of Lord Macaulay's in reference to something similar. These stories are now altogether exploded. They have been abandoned by statesmen to aldermen, by aldermen to clergymen, by clergymen to old women and by old women to the Minister of Railways and Canals.
We are discussing now the act which was passed last year, empowering the governor in council to do certain things during the parliamentary recess. It will be remembered that when that act was introduced the date of its expiry was fixed at March 31, and it was pointed out to the Prime Minister that the house would likely be in session prior to that date and, in order that the act might not be in force during the session of parliament, the date was changed from March 31 to March 1, as parliament, being then in session, could deal with any questions that might arise. Now, with the house in session, hon. gentlemen opposite are asking us to extend the act for another two months, and this without
giving us any indication of what they are going to do at the end of that time. I opposed the bill when it came up last year. I told the government, when opposing it, that I should be quite willing to meet any member of the government before any Labour audience in the country and justify my position.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member
couldn't stand up.
Mr. MaclNNIS:	Hon. gentlemen opposite
could not stand up; that was why they did not accept the challenge. I am still opposed to the bill, but I am prepared to go to this extent, that if the government, in asking for this extension of the act, will undertake before May 1 to place before the house proposals dealing definitely and permanently with unemployment, I shall be willing to grant the extension, much as I object to it. But so far we have had nothing to indicate that they are willing to do anything of the kind. Most likely when May 1 comes the house will prorogue and then they will go on under the same system they had before.


Mr. ARTHURS:: They would have to pass another bill.
Mr. MaclNNIS:	Probably a last-minute
extension before the house adjourns. Now, during the discussions in the house we have heard a good deal about promises and particularly preelection promises. Personally, during the election of 1930 I made one promise only-possibly two. I said I was quite willing to support any legislation that might be brought down in this house in the interests of the working class whom I represent and that on the other hand I would oppose any legislation that was not in the interests of that class or which would extend special privileges. We have been accused on many occasions of being always in opposition and never having a good word to say for the government. May I say that the first words I uttered after I came down here to the special session in 1931 were in favour of the government for having made provisions to deal with unemployment. The government was being criticized at that time by the opposition for not furnishing more details of the proposed expenditures in connection with the twenty million dollars. Possibly if I had been in the house a little longer and had not been feeling so timid my remarks might have been more extensive, but on September 12, as appears on page 184 of Hansard, I said:
I find myself very much in agreement with the position taken by the hon. the Prime Minister. Under the circumstances, considering

Unemployment Continuance Act
the short time between the election and the date of calling parliament, I do not think that he could have done more than he has done. Considering the wide field he has to cover and the details the unemployment problem involves it would have been impossible to make detailed estimates of what he intended to do with the appropriation for which he is asking.
I think that showed some appreciation of what the government was doing at that time, and I think it was a reasonable position to take.


James Arthurs: It would be to-day, too.


Angus MacInnis: No, not to-day. The government has had eighteen months in which to investigate the situation and to make definite plans to meet it; it has had an opportunity to know its extent, its scope and its causes. This government could have done this had it been anxious to do so, but that I doubt. Anyone taking the trouble to look at page 166 of the same Hansard will discover that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), who spoke yesterday, spoke along the same lines as myself at that time.
When we came down here last year the situation was much worse than it had been in September, 1930. As soon as possible after the house got down to business we took up the question of unemployment, and on various occasions we asked the government what it intended to do. I would like to refer to some of the occasions during the session of 1931 when we raised this question of unemployment. I will refer to the endeavours made not only by the Labour members and the members of the farmer group but also by the independent members. On March 20 the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) asked the ministry if special measures were being taken to deal with unemployment. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) declined to answer. On March 31 the hon. member for North Winnipeg moved the adjournment of the house to discuss the question of unemployment. The Speaker ruled him out of order, but later he discussed the question under another order of procedure. On April 24 the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) asked whether or not the government intended to call a dominion conference on unemployment. On May 25 the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) drew the attention of the then acting Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) to conditions existing in Nanaimo due to unemployment and urged the government to deal immediately with the situation. The minister replied that the matter was purely a provincial one. On May 
26 the hon. member for Comox-Alberni discussed upon the motion to go into supply the urgent necessity of holding an unemployment conference with the provinces. I might just mention that upon that occasion the hon. member for W innipeg North Centre and myself, as the Labour members in this house, took part in the debate. No member of the government took part, not even the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton).


Miss MACPHAIL:: He does not take part in any debate.


George Spotton: He does not get a chance.


Angus MacInnis: He has not the intelligence to take part.
On June 8 the hon. member for Comox-Alberni again brought up this question and called upon the ministry to declare its immediate intention, but the Deputy Speaker ruled him out of order. On July 9, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked when unemployment legislation would be introduced and the Prime Minister replied that it would be introduced when the business of the house had been practically disposed of.
During the session of 1931 the government should have been investigating the unemployment situation, but regardless of our efforts in the house the government did nothing. Oil June 4, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), speaking during the budget debate, said that that was not time to be making proposals in connection with unemployment which might be anticipated next autumn. I believe it was on June 15, that the then Minister of Labour, Senator Robertson, started on a trip to British Columbia. On his way west there happened to have been a few showers and the prairie provinces looked fresh and green, but when he returned to Winnipeg there had been some hot weather which had burned up what little verdure had come up with the showers and the conditions were so appalling that he wept. Yet a few days before that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had told us that that was no time to be making provisions for unemployment which might be anticipated next autumn.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would my hon. friend
indicate where he got that statement? I am quite certain he has misunderstood the purport of my remarks.


Angus MacInnis: I did not take the trouble to make a note of the page in Hansard, but if the minister will look up the speech he made on that date and can point out to me that I am wrong, I will withdraw my remarks.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the hon. member
refer to May 4?


Angus MacInnis: No, June 4.
We have been accused by hon. gentlemen opposite of not offering any constructive suggestions with regard to unemployment. I think it is rather difficult to offer to the mid-Victorian minds of the hon. gentlemen opposite any suggestions which would meet their wishes in this matter. The suggestions they want are ones that will deal with the unemployment situation and leave the social relations between the various classes in the country as they were before. We maintain that would be a waste of time, and while there is a great deal of time wasted in the house, I do not propose to waste my time by making any such suggestions.


Mr. SHAVER:: Does the hon. gentleman
mean by his previous statement that the only suggestion he has to make is a social revolution?


Angus MacInnis: My hon. friend can have
either a social revolution or a social evolution, whichever he prefers. If he wants a social evolution, he will have to plan it; if he has not a plan, he will have a social revolution.
Let me, however, draw the attention of the house to some suggestions that we made last session. When the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne was taking place, we moved the following subamendment :
This house fully realizes that there exists in Canada an economic situation which constitutes a national emergency, which can only be met by extraordinary measures;
This house is of opinion that the present situation calls for the greatest possible degree of cooperation on the part of all its members, and to that end, and that this cooperation may be given in the most practical and efficient manner, Your Excellency's advisers should give consideration to the appointment of a special committee of parliament, to which committee would be assigned the duty of examining into the causes and extent of the present depression, with the view of suggesting such appropriate action as might best correct the present situation and relieve present suffering, and as might also render less probable the recurrence of such disasters in the future;
This house urges that the need is great and immediate, and that this committee should be appointed without delay, that it be given all necessary powers and authority, and that it be instructed to proceed with all expedition and to report to this house during the present session of parliament.
I well remember when this subamendment was considered by our group. I believe it was the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man) who was given the task of drafting it.
I remember very well with what sincerity he went about the task in order to frame an amendment that would meet the wishes of the government, in order that we might offer our cooperation in a situation that we felt was so difficult. I felt very doubtful that we would accomplish anything. As a matter of fact I felt I could say and possibly did say, that the subamendment would not be accepted. Indeed, I felt Sony for the hon. member for Red Deer who was so sincere in the matter.
I knew what would happen to the subamendment when it came into the house. What happened to it reminded me of my Sunday school days, of a scriptural quotation which refers to pearls and certain animals, a quotation which it might be unparliamentary to use in the house. That is exactly what happened to our subamendment when it appeared before the house, and as an hon. member near me now suggests, they got away with it.
On May 1 or May 6 last, I am not quite sure which, the hon. member for Red Deer moved a resolution for the appointment of a council of social and economic research. That was refused by the government last year. This year it came up again and was accepted in a modified form by the government. If the government had accepted it last year, they would have been at least one year ahead in the matter. When the budget was brought down, we moved an amendment along similar lines to the one moved to the address. That again was turned down.
Then we took up the question of unemployment insurance, and impressed upon the government the necessity of instituting legislation that would in some measure meet the difficult situation. We were, of course, promised that the matter would be dealt with before the government's term came to a close. This would seem to indicate that they were not fully convinced of the efficacy of unemployment insurance in meeting the situation nor of the need for it at this time.
May I say a few words in connection with the situation as it exists in British Columbia? As a matter of fact, this question has been discussed in the house on at least one occasion since the opening of the session. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) took up the case in reference to the municipality of Burnaby. On looking over the Vancouver papers of a few days ago, I find that the Burnaby situation is at least as bad as if not much worse than as stated by the hon. member. In the Vancouver Province of March 1, I find that the Burnaby storekeepers told the municipal council that the
986	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
limit of credit on relief orders had been reached. In the past wholesale houses have been accepting relief coupons from retailers in payment of their bills, but they have notified the retailers that those relief coupons will not be accepted in future. The treasurer of the municipality stated that no payments on direct relief had been made since December 19, 1931; that bankers enabled the municipality to carry on to December 31, and that since that time they have found great difficulty in meeting the situation. He states that the two governments, the provincial and the federal, owe the municipality at the present time $187,000 on account of relief wcrk and direct relief.
In British Columbia the provincial parliament is at present sitting, and I understand that a committee of the house is investigating the administration of unemployment relief there. There seems to be considerable difference of opinion between the federal and provincial governments as to what has been done in regard to financing unemployment relief. Mr. Bruhn, Minister of Public Works for the province, states:
Thousands of men have for four months been out of work in British Columbia relief camps because money promised by the federal government never came to Victoria.
He was examined at the time by General J. A. Clark, counsel for the committee. Mr. Pooley, Attorney General in the provincial parliament, stated that the provincial administration had received certain moneys from the federal government, but it was money that was loaned to the province and municipalities and was part of the relief which was to be borne eventually by the province and municipalities; but of the government's own share they had not received one cent. He said that it was only within the last few days that an arrangement had been reached whereby the men were given board and $7.50 per month in the camps.
On February 20 there were 70,616 registered unemployed persons in the province of British Columbia. That is a most serious situation, Mr. Speaker. I read in the Vancouver Province of March 1, 1932, that the city which I have the honour to represent in part, the city of Vancouver, made a demand upon the provincial secretary, Hon. S. L. Howe, for the sum of $760,028 as the share which the two governments were contributing for unemployment and direct relief as from October, 1931, and it is stated that of the city's share of the $950,000 relief program-incidentally this work is expected to be completed by the end

of this month-the provincial government has paid only $198,960 on relief work and $12,000 on direct relief.
Surely there must be something wrong with the administration of relief in the province of British Columbia, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that as the federal government is to some extent financing the province and municipalities in connection with unemployment, as the relief of unemployment is accepted as a joint responsibility of the federal, provincial and municipal authorities, it is high time that this government appointed somebody to look into the situation with a view to clearing it up and giving to the unemployed in the province of British Columbia a fairer deal than they have been getting in the past.


Mr. TURNBULL:: May I ask the hon.
gentleman a question?


Angus MacInnis: Yes.


Franklin White Turnbull: Does he realize that
for the last forty minutes he has delayed parliament in making the necessary arrangements to take care of the situation?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Make your own speech.


Angus MacInnis: If the hon. gentleman has a question to ask I shall try to answer it.
Before I sit down I should like to quote an editorial in this connection from the Vancouver Province. It reads as follows:
When Alice, in her travels through Wonderland, stumbled upon the Mad Hatter's tea party and took her seat at the table, she was met with cries of "No room! No room!" There was plenty of room, for the table was long and there was no one present save the Mad Hatter and his friends, the March Hare and the Dormouse. But the cry went up all the same.
There is a Mad Hatter's tea party in progress in British Columbia. Six thousand men, who have been idle in the well-equipped road camps of the province since last fall, are trying to sit down at the table where jobs are dispensed, and the cry goes up from the Mad Hatters and the March Hares and the Dormice of our governments:	"No work! No work!" There is
plenty of work. There are some thousands of miles of highway in the province, and great stretches must be put into repair if they are to be useful for resident and tourist traffic next summer. The men to do the work are eager and waiting. The equipment is ready. The work, if undertaken, could be done at a ridiculously low cost. But it isn't being done. How could it be done at a Mad Hatter's tea party ?


Mr. C. N. DORION (Quebec-Montmor-ency) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I do not
intend in the course of my remarks to broach the subject of the Russian Republic or the Soviet government. However, so much praise has been lavished on that country by members of the Labour party, that I feel some-
9S7

Unemployment Continuance Act
what amazed that they have not yet emigrated to parts which appear so congenial to them. I do not intend to put Russia on trial, only we all know that, over there, the state is everything: the state not only embraces the army, the navy, the police, labour, industry, agriculture and trade; it not only owns the lands and the industries but it also owns the family. I would therefore advise those who admire so much that country and wish to bring up a family to emigrate to Russia and offer that Republic their first born child.
I listened a short while ago to the hoii. member for Quebec East making an appeal to those who hold in high esteem the Canadian constitution. This reminds me of the 1926 election campaign when, in Quebec, the same appeal was made to our people; it was pointed out that members of the government then, had crossed over to London to obtain advice concerning the management of Canadian political affairs. We are, in Quebec, used to appeals of that kind. However, the hon. member for Quebec East forgot to 'mention one thing: when he censures the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) because the latter introduces measures for the relief of unemployment, when he censures him because he has orders in council passed to rescue and help those in need, the hon. member for Quebec East, I say, forgets one thing, it is that, under the Liberal regime, the government transferred by order in council, to a private company, one of the finest Canadian assets, namely the Beauharnois canal.


Mr. DENIS (Translation):: That was not contrary to the constitution.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: By order in council, that water-power was handed over to a company of capitalists with the evident design-that has since been proved-of obtaining subscriptions to the electoral fund, so as to maintain the Liberal party in power. Now, the opposition feels somewhat shocked because the Prime Minister takes the necessary steps to help the unemployed and relieve their distress. But they were in no way shocked then, when one of Canada's most valuable assets was transferred, by order in council, to a private company.


Sir EUGENE FISET (Translation):: That
is why you approved of it.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: As the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) stated a short while ago: the members of this house are quite entitled to transfer their powers to the executive, they are perfectly
entitled, as representatives of the people, to give to the Prime Minister and his colleagues a power of attorney to pass orders in council when the latter think they are necessary for the best interests of the people.
What would have happened if this power of attorney had not been given to the government? Last year, some time previous to the provincial election, the Quebec Prime Minister (Mr. Taschereau) at the outset of his electoral campaign, in the county of Portneuf, speaking at St. Raymond, stated that he had no need of federal assistance to solve the unemployment question, in Quebec. On June 14, 1931, the date of that meeting, he added:
If. next autumn, unemployment still persists in its acute stage, we shall not have to call upon municipalities. We shall ourselves carry out the necessary work to relieve our people.
By means of improvements which we intend to carry out, we hope to reduce unemployment, next autumn, to its lowest point and the departments which employ labour will receive from the treasury all the necessary funds.
Mr. Taschereau, I repeat, stated in Quebec, at the outset of the provincial election that he had no need of federal assistance, that he was able by himself to solve the unemployment problem in Quebec. We were in session here last year, when Mr. Taschereau made that statement; if we had then said to ourselves: Mr. Tascherau is perhaps right, he has no need of federal assistance to solve the unemployment problem in Quebec; we shall vote a certain amount, but we shall not include Quebec in the estimate, because Mr. Taschereau declines to accept assistance, what would have happened? What would have been the results, if the measure we enacted last year had not been adopted? What would have happened, if the act we propose amending to-day had not existed?
Mr. Taschereau received as his share nearly
S5,000,000 to help him in carrying out certain public works; Mr. Taschereau was only too glad to accept dominion aid. If we had followed the advice the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) gave us this afternoon, if we had voted only a specific amount, the province of Quebec would not have received a cent in the course of the last twelve months.
The constitution is made a subject of debate; well, we also have a high esteem for our constitution, we admire it as much as do our hon. friends on your left, sir, we stand by it, and shall champion its rights if need be. We are as good Canadians as are anywhere to be found; however, there is no transgression of constitutional rights when we give our government a power of attorney to
ass	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
enact measures and pass orders in council, under special circumstances, when the country has to face one of the most critical periods of our history.
I can well understand the attitude taken by hon. friends on your left, sir; it is the history of the Liberal party in the past which repeats itself; each time that these gentlemen, deliver a speech either in the house or elsewhere, it is always with an eye on the forthcoming elections. They are ever ready to resort to all means, such as to move resolutions, introduce motions with the aim of preparing public opinion, in Quebec, for the next general election. This will not work any more and our hon friends know it. There are in the house members who are quite aware of what is happening, who see through the plans of their opponents. Thank heaven, we are no longer deceived by the Liberal party, we can see through their strategy, and at the next general election, we shall be in a position to uphold with success the policy of our Prime Minister.
I heard, the other day, the hon. member for Quebec East call the Prime Minister: "Mussolini." Well, I prefer a Mussolini to those who are quoted as an example by our Liberal friends or the Labour group: the Lenines, Trotskys, Stalines and others of the same stamp. I prefer to all those men, one like Mussolini who, through his energy has saved his country from destruction, and from being the prey of bolshevism as it exists in Russia. I wish that all countries had at the head of their government a Mussolini, especially in the hard times we are passing through. If all countries had as leaders, men as firm, energetic and as patriotic as the one who is at the helm of our government the world would soon become normal again. Mussolini 1 that does not constitute an insult for the leader of the Conservative party, we accept the title as a compliment paid to our Prime Minister.


Mr. POULIOT (Translation):: Then, do not complain.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: Nobody
complains.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: I had not
intended, sir, to take part in this debate, but after listening to the hon. member for Quebec East lecturing us on the constitution and dwelling so much on a subject which we are in the habit of hearing in Quebec, I was wondering if we were going to witness a constitutional battle? There is very little need of making a fuss over the present resolution, there is no constitutional question involved, since, I state again, it is the privilege 
of hon. members of this house to transfer their powers to the government.
Now, sir, I would request the hon. member for Quebec East to forward a copy of his speech to the Prime Minister of Quebec, the Hon. Mr. Taschereau, because if anyone actually needs a lecture on autocrats, on the one man government, it is certainly the Prime Minister of Quebec. If one wishes to learn what autocracy means, one has but to travel in Quebec, under the present regime. It exists in our province for all those who differ with the Prime Minister and his hon. friend the member for Quebec East.
The hon. member for Inverness mentioned a short while ago the famous Dillon bill enacted in Quebec by the provincial liberal party and we are fully aware that the hon. member for Quebec East is one of the leading spirits of that party. If the hon. member for Quebec East wishes to discuss autocracy or tyranny, let him tell us about the Dillon bill which the Hon. Mr. Taschereau forced through the legislature in order to legalize in Quebec the elections which were stolen last summer!


Joseph-Arthur Denis: A poor plea.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: I trust, sir,,
that when the hon. member for Quebec East has an opportunity of advising the Quebec-Prime Minister-seeing that he is reported to be an adviser of Mr. Taschereau-he will hand out the very same kind of advice as he gave to the house this afternoon.
I shall close my remarks by stating once more that, as members of this house, we have the right and authority, constitutionally, to transfer to the government, exceptional powers in order that they may govern in the best interests of Canada, especially when the country is passing through one of the greatest crises known in our history.


Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I followed very closely
the speech of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion). I would have been pleased had he given me an opportunity to answer his comments, but he restricted his remarks to the field of provincial politics. He made an attempt to refute the speech so well delivered and so concise of the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), but he completely failed in his task. I trust that some day he will deliver a speech which will afford me an opportunity of answering.
Mr. Speaker, continuing in English, may I say I am proud to associate myself with the remarks of the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) wherein he so ably and so well expressed democratic and Liberal principles.

Unemployment Continuance Act
I am quite sure the brief exposition by the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Maiodougaffl) will not in any way detract from the words of the hon. member for Quebec East. I am sorry I cannot follow the hon. member for Inverness in the multiplicity of subjects he has so ably and briefly touched upon; however after reading his remarks in Hansard, I trust that at another point in this debate I will have the opportunity of saying something in reply.
It is rather singular that when a question of this kind, namely unemployment relief, is [DOT]discussed in the house hon. members on the government side should make a hasty exit. My complaint is not personal, but I notice that he who of alii others ought to be here, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), abstains from presence in the house, and until this moment we have not been favoured with an explanation of the government's policy in the matter of unemployment relief. I think it is unfortunate that they have not paid more attention to representations made to them. We have listened to complaints on many occasions throughout the session but, outside of the report the Prime Minister gave to the house a few days ago, and outside of the most feeble attempts on the part of the Minister of Labour to explain the policy of the government, we have had no pronouncement from the government. It is rather painful to have to speak on a matter of this kind when one represents, as I do, over 6,000 registered unemployed in this city of Ottawa, a number which is increasing daily owing to the continued dismissals from the public service. I say that we ought to have the attendance in the chamber of at least the Minister of Labour.
Even at the risk of repetition, Mr. Speaker, I think in order fully to present the situation I should place on Hansard a few figures to show that the condition with which we are now confronted is due to the fiscal policies of the present administration, and that the doctrines they enunciated-not the policies they put into practice, because they have not followed any particular policies-have led us deeper into the quagmire, thereby increasing unemployment.
I do not want to quote theise figures at great length, but I think it well that they should sink into the minds of the people of Canada. When the Liberal government came into power the national debt had reached a tremendous figure, but each successive year
from 1924 the debt was decreased. These decreases were as follows:
1924		 $35,993,594
1925		 345,589
1926		 27,706,587
1927		 41,896,729
1928		 50,984,137
1929		 71.345.528
1930		 47,741,705
In 1931, instead of a decrease there was an increase of about S83,000,000. That was not our fault; that was brought about because of the change in policy. Now let me give the figures of our exports and imports:
Imports	Exports
1922		 $ 747.804,332 $ 753,927,009
1923	
802.579.244	945,295,8371924	
893,366,867	1,058,763,2971925	
796,932,537	1,081,361,6431926	
927.328,732	1.328,700,1371927	
1,030,892,505	1,267,573,1421928	
1.108,956,466	1,250.598,0341929	
1.265,679,091	1,388,896,0751930	
1,248,273,582	1.144,938,0701931	
906,612,681	816,938,048
These figures are significant; something follows from them. When the Conservative party came into power they proceeded to disturb the whole economic structure of this country by the adoption of a new policy; they raised high tariff walls until we would have thought the amount of duty collected would be far in excess of that collected under the Liberal administration. In 1928 the amount of duty collected was $189,956,582 and in 1929, not under Conservative high protection but under the policy of medium protection and world trade, the duty collected was about $208,000,000, showing the enormous amount of trade that was being carried on. In 1930 the amount dwindled to $164,374,195, but after these high tariff walls were erected in 1931 the amount of duty collected was only $122,542,785.
There was a reason for that change. By putting on these excessive tariffs both imports and exports fell off, because when we would not deal with other countries they would not deal with us, and as a result unemployment increased. Back in 1930 the Liberal administration knew conditions were not what they should be throughout the world; we knew the crisis was spreading over the world and that some day it would strike Canada, so we shaped our course accordingly. The Dunning budget was brought down; our policies were so shaped as to prepare this country for the Imperial conference, so that something might be done to the mutual benefit of all concerned, but when the elections came on someone came along and made lavish promises which at the time he knew never could be fulfilled. The



Unemployment Continuance Act
has exercised within this province, when occasion has required it, all the powers, privileges and immunities claimed and possessed by the Commons house of parliament, in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Resolution SO reads:
Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that it is one of the undoubted privileges of this house, to send for all persons, papers and records, and to command the attendance of all persons, civil or military, resident within the province, as witnesses, in all investigations which this house may deem it expedient to institute; and to require such witnesses to produce all papers and records in their keeping, whenever it shall deem it conducive to the public good to do so.
Other resolutions are very interesting and important. May I read to the house resolution 64. It states:
Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that the claims which have for many years been set up by the executive government, to that control over, and power of appropriating, a great portion of the revenues levied in this province, which belong of right to this house, are contrary to its rights and to the constitution of the country; and that with regard to the said claims, this house persists in the declarations it has heretofore made.
Resolution 65 reads:
Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that the said claims have been vague and varied; that the documents relative to the said claims, and the accounts and estimates of expenses laid before this house have likewise been varying and irregular, and insufficient to enable this house to proceed with a full understanding of the subject on the matters to which they related; that important heads of the public revenue of the province, collected under the provisions of the law, or under arbitrary regulations made by the executive, have been omitted in the said accounts; that numerous items have been paid out of the public revenue, without the authority of this house.
Mark that, Mr. Speaker, "without the authority of this house." It goes on:
[DOT]-or any acknowledgment of its control over them, as salaries for sinecure offices which are not recognized by this house, and even for other objects for which, after mature deliberation, it had not been deemed expedient to appropriate any portion of the public revenue; and that no accounts of the sums so expended have been laid before this house.
Resolution 68 reads:
Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that the result of the secret and unlawful distribution of a large portion of the public revenue of the province has been that the executive government has always, except with regard to appropriations for objects of a local nature, considered itself bound to account for the public money to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury in England, and not to this house, nor according to its votes, or even in conformity to the laws passed by the provincial legislature; and that the accounts and
[Mr. Pouliot.)
statements laid before this house from time to time, have never assumed the shape of a regular system of balanced accounts, but have been drawn up one after the other, with such alterations and irregularities as it pleased the administration of the day to introduce into them, from the accounts kept with the Lords of the Treasury, in which the public money received was included, as well as all the items of expenditure, whether authorized or unauthorized by the provincial legislature.
Resolution 69:
Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that the pretensions and abuses aforesaid have taken away from this house even the shadow of control over the public revenue of the province, and have rendered it impossible for it to ascertain at any time the amount of the revenue collected, the disposable amount of the same, and the sums required for the public service.
Resolution 71:
Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that this house will hold responsible for all moneys which have been or may hereafter be paid otherwise than under the authority of an act of the legislature, or upon an address of this house, out of the public revenue of the province, all those who may have authorized such payments or participated therein, until the said sums shall have been reimbursed or a bill or bills of indemnity freely passed by this house, shall become law.
That is what our forefathers voted for nearly one hundred years ago because they were imbued with the British principles of government and because they knew what fair play was. They knew that ever since Magna Charta the House of Commons in England has had control over expenditures. Now what control have we over public expenditures when everything is done by order in council? As my great leader the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) stated, the duty of this House of Commons is to control the expenditure of public money. But now everything is done by order in council. Everything is done in secret. We have a star chamber in the East block. How long will it last? We in this parliament know nothing of what is done there, whereas every matter of public expenditure should be decided by this House of Commons and by parliament. Under our constitution not even the Senate can introduce a money bill. It must be introduced in the House of Commons. If money measures cannot be introduced even in the Senate, how is it that this government can decide everything by order in council in the East block, with the members of the House of Commons knowing nothing of what is being done there?
I have quoted excerpts from the ninety-two resolutions, Mr. Speaker, and may I say that

Unemployment Continuance Act
I speak in accordance with the traditions of my own family because among those who voted for the ninety-two resolutions in the Quebec assembly on February 21, 1834, there was a humble country merchant, my great grandfather, who had as much respect for British institutions as I have. Although he was only a country merchant he knew that the very foundation of British parliamentary institutions was fair play and respect for the precedents established in centuries of struggle in England. But now we have a man who is arrogant enough to say: Here I am; I am the great ego; as the leader of my party rightly said last year, everything is torn down and the constitution of this country is made a scrap of paper. That is all that we have now, and where are they going? The other day I read in the newspapers that in the United States they are going to forbid trips on ships going nowhere. That is where this ship of state is going under the leadership of the right hon. the Prime Minister. It is going nowhere. I shall not say with my hon. friend from Winnipeg that the Prime Minister is mad. I shall not say that of him or of any of his crew, but I will say that they are all seasick and that the people of this country, the passengers on board the ship, have nothing to eat. The conditions, Mr. Speaker, are very sad. Then we have the ignorance, the gross ignorance, of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) who is not willing to educate himself, to inform himself about the troubles of the people of this country. He is so ignorant, Mr. Speaker, that he gave this answer to a question of mine.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will prove it. He is so ignorant that the other day, March 3, he answered in this way to a question of mine. I asked:
Since August 1, 1930, did the Minister of Labour make or give to the press statements about unemployment in this country?
The minister's answer was:
Prior to February 3, 1932. No information. Since February 3, 1932. No interviews.
He was Acting Minister of Labour, and he did not know what his minister, whom he was representing in this house, was doing. Then I asked this question:
If so: (a) at what dates; (b) what was the number of the unemployed in this country each time?
41761-63J
The minister's answer was:
Answered by No. 1.
That was no answer. It is sad, Mr. Speaker, very sad. The trouble about unemployment in this country is this, that there is no contact between the millionaires who sit on the treasury benches and the common people. They do not know the sufferings of the common people in this country. They are well fed, satisfied and happy, and they cannot imagine that in the cities and in the rural districts there are people who are suffering poverty and hunger, people who have not their advantages, if they are advantages, but, Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech is more real wealth than all the millions of all the men who sit on the treasury benches. The whole trouble over unemployment is that the members of the government, although they might be well-intentioned, do not actually know anything about the troubles of the people. Unemployment has grown worse ever since this government came into power.
Last year when the Prime Minister was presenting his resolution he said that the people in the west had money, that they had cars, and did not suffer from anything. If I remember correctly as my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) said they had no money, he asked why. We may illustrate it this way: After luncheon any one may say, "I have had a good meal." Then the housekeeper may come and ask, "What would you like to have for supper"? "Anything, anything- I am not hungry; I will take anything for supper." Hon. gentlemen opposite are well fed; they are satisfied, and they do not understand the troubles of the people. I pity many of my hon. friends opposite who have not the courage to say to their leader, "Direct your energies towards the miseries of the common people; look into the homes where there is sadness, and where they are worrying about the future. Then you will realize that something has to be done right away."
Some time ago my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) said he wanted the advice of all people concerning unemployment. We on this side of the house are ready to give it to the house. My leader advised the appointment of a commission, a recommendation with which my hon. friend opposite was in accord when he sat on the opposition benches. Now, however, they are making their own decisions, and their eyes are blindfolded. They are deciding, "Well, this will do, just for the time being."

Unemployment Continuance Act
Mr. Speaker, I have a suggestion to make- but at this point would you call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend the Minister of Railways, as quoted in the Montreal Gazette of October 16 of last year, said at Windsor:
Civilization was being challenged: it was on trial, and "it is the duty of all good Canadians to give serious thought to the whole matter to avoid our civilization going the way of civilizations of the past."
I have already quoted the answer given to my questions by the Minister of Labour, who I regret is not in the house at present.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes, he is.


Jean-François Pouliot: I said the Minister of
Labour, not the Minister of Railways; I am sorry the Minister of Railways is not the Minister of Labour, because I think he would do very well. I have quoted the answers given by the Minister of Labour, and they are no answers at all. I may say-and I will prove it-that the Conservative party has clayed politics in connection with unemployment. To start with the highest, I would quote what was said by the Prim* Minister at Moncton, according to the Montreal Gazette of July 11, 1930:
"I promise you action," the opposition chieftain declared at one stage. "He promises you consideration of the problem of unemployment. I promise to end unemployment. Which plan do you like?"
Undoubtedly the only reason why the present leader of the government made such & declaration was that at that time it was highly improbable that he would ever lead the government of Canada; that was why he was talking through his hat. On August 22, nearly a month after the election, the then Minister of Labour said:
I do not for a moment suggest that the present unemployment is due to any governmental activity or lack of governmental activity. Unemployment is not purely a Canadian problem. It is world-wide.
He was inferring there that the Liberals were not responsible for unemployment conditions. I asked for public statements made by the Minister of Labour, but I was given no answer, so I had to find them myself. Some

of them I will quote to the house. On February 17, 1931, he said that the end of the depression was approaching, that we were to see results soon. The article in the Montreal Gazette of that date begins as follows:
Like his scriptural namesake, a modern Gideon arose yesterday, sounded a trumpet note and scattered the forces of darkness when Senator Robertson, Minister of Labour, smote economic depression as if it had been the host of Midian, showed what powerful action the federal government had brought into the field to relieve suffering, and announced means by which it hoped to guard against any recurrence of conditions which Canada has endured in the past fifteen months. He foresaw, though disclaiming the gift of prophecy, that, by May or June, the results would be felt more than at present, and asked his audience to picture for themselves what the plight of unemployed Canadians would have been like had the present government not taken action in the special session of parliament which Premier Bennett called last autumn.
On May 30 of that year he thought his optimistic views were justified. There is an article in the Montreal Gazette of that date containing a statement by the Minister of Labour, which ends in this way:
The statement of former Prime Minister Mackenzie King, issued last night, when he said employment conditions in Canada were now much w'orse than when the special parliamentary session was called last November, was referred to by the senator.
Senator Robertson contrasted this statement with one made a year ago, while Mr. King was Prime Minister, in which, the senator continued, Mr. King had stated there was no unemployment in the Dominion. "His present statement is probably as accurate as his former one," Senator Robertson remarked.	_
Senator Robertson concluded it was his earnest belief, based on constant study of the situation, that Canada had a better chance for rapid recovery and development than any other country.
Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, former Conservative Prime Minister, tendered the thanks of the club to Senator Robertson, adding that he himself nowadays had a sense of quiet and serene retirement and could enjoy sitting back.
The present Minister of Labour has ignored my inquiry for these statements, so it will be good for him to read them in Hansard tomorrow. On August 18 last, a year after the statement by the minister that unemployment conditions were international, the Prime Minister put the blame on the Liberal opposition for the delay in helping the unemployed. He declared that the Liberals had caused obstruction during the previous session, and that during the last session the opposition asked for more than six hundred returns, all for money that they had themselves voted. He said, that number is without parallel in modern parliament. Is it because I requested fifty or

Unemployment Continuance Act
sixty returns with regard to the Riviere du Loup station that there are five hundred thousand unemployed in this country? Then on December 21, 1931, the then Minister of Labour sent an S. O. S. appeal to the Red Cross, and on January 27 of this year the Prime Minister heard the policy of labour. The Montreal Gazette reports the interview as follows.
World-wide influences, not internal considerations, will determine the end of the depression in Canada, Prime Minister R. B. Bennett told a deputation from the Trades and Labour Congress to-day. And, he added. "Ten million people have a very slight influence in world matters."
If the Conservative party have not played politics in connection with unemployment, then I sa3r they know nothing about present conditions. The suggestion I have already made, and which I will repeat for the benefit of the government, is this:	Since this government has been in power nothing has been done to ascertain the causes of unemployment. The blame has been placed here and there, but no member of the government has gone to the root of the evil in an endeavour to discover the causes or to remedy them. During the war people were wounded; one man lost a leg; another was wounded in the eye; another was wounded in the lung, but the same remedy was not applied to each. Doctors looked after each case, each of which was treated in a different way. Cases of unemployment are not the same; for instance you cannot successfully put white collar unemployed to work on the trans-Canada highway. A special remedy has to be found to cure the evil in each separate case. This is what we expected from the leader of the government when he came into power and it is pure horse sense, common sense. If you do not know why anything is wrong, how are you going to set it right? It is impossible; no one can do it. First of all you have to go to the source of evil if you want to remedy it. That is elementary. Now I take the liberty, in all sincerity, and as earnestly as I can, to suggest to the members of the government that they urge upon their leader how essential it is to the unemployed in every constituency in the country that an inventory be made of all those who are out of work. I suggest that a complete inventory be made showing how long each individual has been in the country; what was his occupation; for what firm he had been working; for what reason he left that employment, and so forth. Then we should see what can be done for these *
men. After that inventory had been made- and it might be made by the social organizations such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the Salvation Army, the Red Cross Society, all admirable institutions that have done so much to relieve distress among the unemployed at various times-the government would then be in a position to inform the greedy manufacturers who have enjoyed high tariffs that, inasmuch as it was understood at the special session that they should not under any consideration lay men off seeing that they had received increased tariffs, they should make provision whereby such men might be employed. If something of this kind is not done the number of unemployed will increase considerably, and the evil will grow worse until saner methods of relieving it are adopted.
I have here the report of the Dominion Director of Unemployment Relief for 1931, and for the previous year, 1930. On October 2, 1930, a statement was made by the Minister of Labour that the sum of 190,000,000 was to be spent for unemployment, and on November 2, Mr. Tom Moore, President of the Trades and Labour Congress, stated that this government had not spent any more on public works than the other governments. In fact, they had spent less. My hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) showed that last year there was a substantial cul in the estimates, a reduction greater than the moneys spent by the government to relieve unemployment. I submit that the money which was voted by the Liberal government should have been spent in accordance with the estimates that were passed by this house. Had that been done, unemployment would have been relieved to a greater extent than it was by means of the moneys voted specially for the purpose.
We were told that high tariffs would have the effect of relieving the unemployment situation. On the other hand, the Hon. Mr. Dunning, when Minister of Finance in the King government, said that he saw no remedy in higher duties. He knew that the tariff had been used as an argument for lowering wages, according to a statement that had appeared in the papers. The Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was reported as stating that shorter working hours were inevitable, and Lord Inchcape, a distinguished English gentleman, made a speech to the same effect. But let me quote the following opinion:
Unemployment Continuance Act

Failure to recognize trade as interchange; obstacles placed in the way of reciprocal trade are, perhaps, the main causes of the world's present troubles.
Who said that? That statement was made by the Prince of Wales at Buenos Aires on March 14, 1931; and the Prince of Wales is above political parties. He made that statement with a view, no doubt, to bringing the leaders of all governments to their senses.
The real cause of unemployment in this country is that trade is much smaller than it was before. And why? Because of high tariffs. The United States began by erecting tariff walls against all other countries and their example has been followed by various other governments. What has been the result? It has been that trade has been more and more localized, and the fact that our trade is less and less international, accounts to a large extent, for unemployment in Canada. A great regret of mine is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) was ill in the fall of 1930. At that time our treaties with Australia and New Zealand were allowed to lapse without being renewed, and we lost our trade with those countries. So great a blunder was this that, upon his recovery, the minister made new treaties with Australia and New Zealand. I am anxious to see the treaty with New Zealand submitted to this house. Those treaties, I say, should have been renewed as early as possible; at any rate arrangements should have been made to preserve to us our customers in that part of the world. That trade was essential to the welfare of Canada.
On October 30, 1930, Mr. Tom King a distinguished journalist now in the United States, made the statement that President Hoover had been slow in realizing the situation in that country. He saw the unemployment crisis only when visiting Cleveland, and the conditions that then existed were expected to result in a Democratic victory in the elections. President Hoover started the move to revive industry in the United States by providing a fund of S500,000,000 to release frozen assets. I cannot quote all the newspapers in this regard but I might refer to an editorial that appeared in the Gazette of October 8, 1931. With reference to the Hoover plan, this paper said editorially:
But they do not and cannot reach to the root of the depression since they do not affect, in any degree, the position of the republic in its economic relations to other countries.
Let me now quote President Beatty, and in this regard may I say that if I were the Prime Minister of Canada I would not go to
Montreal to meet the president of the Cana-

dian Pacific Railway; I would summon him to my office in Ottawa, as I would summon the president of any railway, or bank, or big corporation. Mr. Beatty is reported to have said on March 16, 1931:
"I believe that one of the most deterring influences of the resumption of normal trade is the presence of huge war obligations; repayment of which and the interest upon them are reducing the buying power of debtor countries to such an extent as to make normal trade conditions impossible," said E. W. Beatty, K.C., president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, in addressing the combined Board of Trade and Empire Clubs here to-night.
Our debt to-day has increased by more than two billion dollars. According to the year book of 1931, in 1911 the total debt of Canada amounted to $474,941,487; the net debt amounted to $340,042,052, a per capita indebtedness of $47.18. By 1921 the total debt had increased to $2,902,482,117; the net debt to $2,340,878,984, and the per capita debt to $266.36. The net debt in 1921 was nearly eight times the net debt in 1911, while the per capita debt was nearly six times as much. Why? This money had to be spent for the war. It has been said by economists that out of the money voted for war purposes, one-third was well spent, one-third was wasted and one one third was stolen. With the increase in debt amounting to $2,000,000,000, it will be seen that $666,000,000 was well spent, $666,000,000 was wasted and $666,000,000 was stolen by the profiteers.


Mr. HACKETT:: What proportion of that $2,000,000,000 was spent on railways?


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall not try to educate my hon. friend. He is generally mixed up with the figures he gives to the house so I am not surprised that he does not understand mine. The latter part of the money was spent for McAdam shovels, old horses, Valoartier butter, drugs-I will not mention names-and bully beef.


An hon. MEMBER:: And bacon.


Jean-François Pouliot: 
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to take part in this debate because of the remarks of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), who asked for some constructive proposal from this house to assist in dealing with the question of unemployment in Canada. Before proceeding to offer any constructive proposals, I should like to make it clear that I do not agree with the statement of policy of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in regard to the responsibility of this parliament so far as unemployment is concerned. The Prime Minister said that the duty of caring for the unemployed rested primarily upon the municipalities; if the municipality was unable to deal with the situation, it should appeal to the province for assistance, and if the province was unable to deal with the problem it should apply to the Dominion government. I would point out that this parliament has control of the vital economic policies which determine whether or not the people of Canada are going to have employment. We have control of immigration; we have control of tariffs; we have control of banking, currency and credit. Whether or not the people are to have employment depends upon the policies laid down under these three heads. The municipalities and the provinces are helpless in the matter; they cannot protect themselves against unemployment if certain policies are carried out by this parliament. The government has said that this is a national emergency, and I am sure that the municipalities and provinces are not responsible.
Let us deal first with immigration. I would refer hon. members to the statement made about a week ago by the Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Gordon). He pointed out that in the sixteen months ended July 31, 1930, about 221,000 people were brought into Canada, of whom 99,367
were adult males. He then went on to say that many of these people are to be found to-day among the unemployed in our large cities. These people have contributed largely to the unemployment problem which is facing the country to-day. Why should this government say that the responsibility of taking care of the unemployed rests primarily upon the municipalities? It does not rest there at all, it rests upon, this parliament. It was the federal government that carried out the policy of immigration under which these people, who are now unemployed came to Canada and who, under our policy, are a charge upon the municipalities.
In that speech the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) referred to the unemployment relief measure which was brought down by the government in 1930 and under which the house voted $20,000,000, the bulk of it to be used for unemployment relief work. The minister says, as reported1 on page 441 of Hansard of this year, that the measure resulted in a total expenditure of $70,472.832, the federal	government's share
being $17,372,848. In my opinion this policy was absolutely unfair to the provinces and to the municipalities.	Of the $70,000,000
which was spent, only $17,000,000 was supplied by the federal government, a government that came into office as the result of a campaign in which they promised, if returned to power, to cure unemployment. AH they did in that year was to pay one-fourth of the amount that was spent on unemployment relief. On behalf of the municipalities and the provinces I want to protest against the policy which has been carried out in that respect. Of course the provinces and the municipalities were helpless in the matter; they had to accept the policy of the federal government.
As regards tariffs, both major parties in the house agree that the tariff policy of this country affects employment. That being so, why do we not frankly admit that unemployment is a federal matter? The unemployment which exists in Canada is primarily due to policies which are enforced by the federal government. The best minds in the world to-day admit that the money policies which have been in force in various countries during the last few years are primarily the cause of unemployment, and certainly the municipalities and the provinces have no way of protecting themselves against money policies which may be adopted by this parliament.
I want to point out further that the Prime Minister, when he was touring Canada during the election campaign of 1930, did not promise
Unemployment Continuance Act

that if he became Prime Minister he would assist the provinces and municipalities in caring for the unemployment which they were unable to take care of themselves; he said that he would cure unemployment. But when he comes into office, the first year he is in power he assumes a liability for only one-quarter of the total amount which is spent in that regard. Last year when the municipalities and provinces became so hard up, he had to assume a larger share.
The Dominion government could create employment in this country. They have an act giving them the very widest powers imaginable. If they have not cured unemployment, the inference is plain that they either will not or cannot suggest the policies that will cure it. I should like to point out that the policy which has been in force for dealing with unemployment relief, that is, direct relief, has not been fair. As I understand the matter, the municipalities must pay at least one-third of the amount which is expended upon direct relief. In order to protect itself from a large influx of the unemployed, one city must be careful not to give any more relief than that given by another. The result has been that at least in some cities, an unemployed man cannot get any relief unless he has been a resident there for three months. Cases have come to my attention where men who came to Calgary from other municipalities could not secure any relief except by begging from door to door. That is not the proper policy for dealing with unemployment or for affording direct relief. The federal government, should, I think, have assumed the major share of the expenditure for the direct relief which was given.
In regard to the unemployment relief work which was undertaken, there was far too much delay in securing approval of the different works, because they had to be passed upon by three different authorities. The federal government would have been well advised to send one man or, if necessary, two or three of them, to western Canada with ample power to agree on the spot as to what work was to be done, thus permitting the federal, provincial and municipal authorities to agree upon a particular work and put it into operation immediately, instead of having various suggestions passing back and forth among these different authorities. Much of the work that was undertaken was held up until very late in the fall; in fact, some of it was undertaken after winter had set in, and I do not think we got as good value for the money 
expended as we should have secured had the work been arranged directly and expeditiously.
I should like to suggest that the unemployed people in Canada be registered. We should know' what kind of work they are fitted for, and each man who records himself as in need of employment or assistance should be given some kind of registration card or certificate. Two or three full meals a day should be provided for every unemployed man until work is offered to him. I would suggest, I suppose I had better say a non-partisan commission, representing all industries in Canada, including agriculture, to study the country's needs and the possibilities of creating employment, and to see that employment is provided in the way of constructive work so that we may get value for the money expended.
I want to make a definite, and, I think, a constructive proposal to the government. The particular work which I believe might be undertaken, without waiting for a great deal of survey, would be the construction of homes in Canada, decent homes for our people to live in. If we wish to get people interested in this country, people to have faith in Canada, as the advertisements say, there is no better way of doing so than by getting them into homes of their own. There must be at least 2,000.000 families in Canada, and I think it is safe to assume that one-tenth of them have no decent homes in which to live. That gives us a field for a great deal of employment. I am not going to suggest that the government should start to build this year 200,000 houses, but we might very well make a start with at least 50.000. I do not think there is anything impossible about that. I believe the construction of 50,000 homes at this time would afford employment to the bulk of the men who are now unemployed. Those houses can be built out of Canadian lumber, Canadian cement; in fact, I think we have in this country industries which will supply all the materials for those houses, for example, saw mills, cement mills, brickyards, and most of them idle.


Mr. MORAND:: Where is there a shortage of houses in this country?


George Gibson Coote: I shall point that out in
just a minute. We have, as I say, all these building materials available, and we certainly have plenty of workmen wanting jobs. Why not bring the rvorkmen and the materials together and build the homes where they are needed? They are needed both in the country districts and in the cities. In the country districts there are odd cases where families

Unemployment Continuance Act
are still living in dugouts; on the prairies there are thousands of families living in shacks, and those people would be glad to have real houses to live in. I can show my hon. friend who has questioned me, families who are living in shacks built of one-ply of boards and one-ply of building paper, and who this winter have endured once or twice a temperature of twenty-five degrees below zero. The coal they are burning has been furnished in some cases by the municipality. There is no doubt about a great number of houses being required in certain cities in Canada. I find in the Halifax Citizen a report which says that a housing commission in Halifax has just made an investigation and a report which reveals conditions in Halifax that rival the slums of China. Perhaps that will convince my hon. friend that some new houses are needed. I shall quote very briefly from that report itself:
The problem of housing in Halifax has of late challenged the attention, of the lovers of our city and of those interested in the health and welfare of our people, and well it may, for Halifax is infested with a high percentage, per house population, of tumbledown shacks where whole families eat, sleep, bathe and live in a single room, where cellars reek with filth and vermin, where sewerage runs riot-hovels unfit for human habitation and typical of the worst slum conditions to be heard of anywhere.
The report continues:
There are many cases of excessive rentals and some flagrant instances of overcrowding and overcharging. A few illustrations may be given from the survey files:
One room in cellar occupied by five persons, per month, ten dollars.
One room in cellar occupied by seven persons, per month, six dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to the members for order while I read these few figures. I would like to read the last two again so that some hon. gentlemen may become aware of the housing conditions existing in the city of Halifax, as reported by this housing commission:
One room in cellar occupied by five persons, per month, ten dollars.
One room in cellar occupied by seven persons, per month, six dollars.
Living quarters in loft of barn, six persons, per month, twelve dollars.
Four rooms occupied by nine persons, per month, twenty-five dollars.
Seven rooms occupied by twenty-eight persons, per month, one hundred and fifty dollars.
Two cellar rooms occupied by eight persons, per month, ten dollars.
One dark room, door only, occupied by three persons, per month, ten dollars.
The report goes on to say:
It is conditions such as these which may yet bring to Nova Scotia a maximum rent as well as a minimum wage.
I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that those conditions can be duplicated in some other cities in Canada. I remember quite well that a few years ago a witness from the city of Montreal appeared before the committee on agriculture and colonization when we were inquiring into the question of immigration, and told us of conditions in the city of Montreal which were practically on the same lines as set forth in this report of the Halifax housing commission.
Have I said enough to convince hon. members of this house that there are houses needed in Canada for our population? How can we expect to raise in Canada a decent, God-fearing, healthy population such as we should have if they are to be housed under conditions such as obtain in that old and fair city of Halifax, conditions which I am sure are duplicated in many other Canadian cities? In what better way could the government provide employment than by building houses for our people? That is certainly one thing that is needed. We do not need more food in Canada, though we do need some way of getting the food from the farms to the people in the cities who are hungry. I believe that there is plenty of clothing and plenty of shoes in Canada, but there are not enough houses to accommodate our population. The government from now on I think need not say that there has not been a constructive proposal put before them in connection with unemployment.
I had expected that before this some hon. member would have asked me: Where will you get the money? I am quite surprised that that question has not been asked. In reply I think I had better quote the words which are attributed to the Prime Minister, who, speaking at Montreal in the last campaign in reply to a lady in the audience who asked where he was going to get all the money required to fulfil his promises, said, "From taxation, where we always get it." That would have been my answer if somebody had asked me that question. But if I had my way, that is not where I would get it, because we are already taxing industry out of existence, and I do not think we should add to its burdens to get money even to build houses. I am going to suggest a way of getting the money which I think is orthodox or very nearly so. It has at least an air of respectability.
I would create a corporation and officer it with a few public spirited citizens, practical men who I believe could be secured and who would give their services for a few thousand dollars per year. I would charge them with
1002	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
this work. When they begin to build the houses they could issue bonds, which would be secured by a mortgage on these houses. Those bonds could be taken to our treasury board just as the banks bring bonds to the treasury board, and the treasury board could advance dominion notes against the bonds in the same way as dominion notes are advanced to the banks. This building corporation could then pay for materials and the wages of its workmen with these dominion notes. The houses would be sold on easy terms, extending perhaps over ten or fifteen years, with a rate of interest not exceeding, I would hope, about two per cent; and as the payments came in, the money could be used to retire the dominon notes issued to construct the houses. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a reasonable proposal. I am not going to be too specific in suggesting detailed plans for carrying out the proposal. I should only get into difficulty if I did so. I am quite willing to leave the details to the government to be worked out, but I am quite sure that if they picked out the right men, and they are available in Canada, there would be nothing impossible in working out such a scheme. If necessarj' the cooperation of the municipalities could be invited. Montreal, Toronto, Halifax, and many other cities in Canada would, I think, be glad to cooperate with the Dominion government in working out such a plan. The municipalities themselves have not got the money to spend. Some of them I know are practically bankrupt to-day, and they are only spending what the bankers will allow them to spend, but they might assume some responsibility in connection with this housing scheme.
I could go on and suggest one or two other proposals to the government. I should be glad to do it, as I am sure many other hon. members of this house would be, if the government really wants constructive proposals, I am sure that we can find plenty of employment for every man and woman in this country. If the farms in western Canada could this summer employ ad the men they really need, they would take fifty thousand men, probably more, off the labour market. Several thousand men could be put to work ridding the road allowances and vacant lands in western Canada of weeds. That would be very constructive work; it would add to the national wealth, and I believe we are justified in spending money that will result in increasing the national wealth. The money which would be put into circulation by a housing scheme such as I have suggested would increase trade, and as the dominion taxes are largely levied on 
trade, it would increase the revenues of the country. Moreover, it would assist the government in balancing its budget and would relieve it of a large expenditure for direct unemployment relief. I would suggest also-and I suppose there is not much likelihood of my suggestion being accepted-that if any such proposal be undertaken a certain percentage of the wages of the workmen engaged be reserved and set to their credit in what might be termed an unemployment insurance fund to take care of them next winter when they are out of work. I would suggest that in future we should not endeavour to do road work or work of that nature in the dead of winter. It is largely a waste of effort and money. Let us put those men to work in the spring and summer months, and save from their wages enough money to take care of them in the winter time.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member who has just spoken will pardon me if I do not follow his very interesting argument. At this juncture I just wish to consider the constitutional issue arising out of the proposal of the government.
Ever since gentlemen opposite came into power I have endeavoured to reduce to a minimum my criticisms of their executive policies, especially in regard to unemployment. But when the measure for which an extension is now proposed was brought forward last year I made the observation, and I repeat it to-night, that in times of great crises, in times of war, famine or economic depression, there are two dangers to avoid. One danger is to stick too narrowly to the strict letter of the law and thereby impede the action of the powers that be, whether they be federal, provincial or municipal governments, because, after all, the salvation of the people is the supreme law. The other danger is, that, confronted with an emergency, with new problems cropping up suddenly or taking abnormal proportions, parliaments and peoples are tempted by a clean sweep to do away with the most precious safeguards that experience and the wisdom of centuries had brought them to adopt for their own safety. When during the emergency session 'the government asked for S20,000,000, I entered a mild protest; but at that time I did not push my views very far because, after all, the amount-of money was limited and it was simply and solely to be applied-or perhaps misapplied, which expression might (be used concerning every amount of money we vote-for a specific object.

Unemployment Continuance Act
Last year, however, I .protested strongly against the unlimited powers asked by the government,-powers which, in effect, would permit the ministry to make, amend, or repeal laws during the recess. The Prime Minister gave some reasons for asking passage of the bill; and those reasons he reiterated this year. Of course, admittedly, it is much simpler for a government not to be handicapped by the shackles of parliamentary institutions; no doubt about that. An economist with very broad views, Mr. Einzig, points out that, thanks to the absolute power put into his hands, Signor Mussolini was capable of dealing effectively with certain problems in Italy which probably could not have been solved by a regularly constituted government. No doubt about that; no doubt at all. Likewise, at the other end of the European situation, both geographically and constitutionally, no doubt Lenin and, now, Mr. Stalin, have been capable of accomplishing things, good or bad, which not even our Prime Minister could accomplish.
I hope hon. members will not think I am comparing either the men or their talents. I am simply comparing institutions and functions. I do not quite partake of the surprise or indignation of my Liberal friends at the attitude of the Prime Minister. It was to be expected, sir. No doubt the Conservatives knew, when they chose their leader, what kind of man they were choosing.


Alfred Duranleau: A very good man.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: A very powerful man,
I admit; I have said that very often. Even before the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) was one of the obedient followers of the Prime Minister I made that statement. I have known the Prime Minister for a much longer time than has the Minister of Marine, and I have much personal admiration and friendship for him. Perhaps he would not want me to state my friendship in public, because he might be compromised with some of his friends. Intimately, however, I think, he accepts those terms of friendship. When he was chosen leader of his party I predicted that if he ever came to power we would have the most authentic autocrat Canada has ever known. He has the will, the talent and the power. To a certain extent the people of Canada have got what they deserved. I warned my friends in my little constituency that if the Conservatives came to power unemployment would not be ended. I advised those people to discard ninety-five per cent of the promises made by the Conservatives
to that effect, and told them to await results. The year has passed, and results show they were justified in waiting. But as to the kind of government the people of Canada have, they have what they voted for.
Let us come back to the measure now before us. May I say it is a logical sequel to the political temperament of the leader of the government? He was absolutely himself when the other day he said, "I cannot conceive any other means by which I can rule this country." Of course he cannot; of course not. A man is never as powerful as when he rules according to his own temperament. The weak leader is the one who rules according to the dictates of his friends, although he does not believe in them. A certain ruler in France said, "Oh well, I must follow them; I am their leader." The Prime Minister of Canada has reversed that. He has said, "You boys follow me, and obey; I am your leader,"-and he is, no doubt.
So we are faced with dictation and autocracy. I am told that this afternoon some hon. members opposite expressed their pride and contentment upon being reduced to the state which, by historical comparison, I shall endeavour directly to describe. Given those circumstances, if the government intends to play its game fully and openly I can see no reason why, after this law is passed, parliament should not be dissolved immediately. Why keep us here? We want to economize; why spend the money of the country, and ours? Why deprive the poor people of so much public money and keep us here sitting, talking, listening, drinking and eating, if the government of the country is to be reduced to the dictation of one man, with, of course, such number and quality of executioners as may be needed?
Powerful governments were carried on in that manner; great empires were built up for a time. The power of the sultans of Constantinople once threatened to cover practically the whole of the basin of the Mediterranean, north Africa, Spain, the south of France, the whole of Asia Minor, Egypt, Greece^ and all those countries that have since become what are called the Balkan nations. No doubt that great empire could not have been built up with a parliament. No doubt the manner in which the sultans made and imposed their laws made them much more effective than any law that can be passed or framed under the guidance of a parliament. There is not the slightest doubt that if George III and Lord North had persisted in their endeavours to rule their newly acquired empire in the manner which brought about the rev-

Unemployment Continuance Act
olution of the United States, and had succeeded in bringing the minds, the souls and the bodies of all the liberty loving British peoples to the state of subserviency in which hundreds of millions of people submitted to the dictates of the sultans, the British empire would have been more united than it is. I mean it would have been more united by a rule of iron, but less united by the love of liberty and the adherence to a standard of government which has never had a superior in the history of the world.
What was the government of the sultans? Of course the sultans by themselves could not do everything, and that will be the experience of the Prime Minister before very long, with all his great ability. He is now ruling his majority; there is no difficulty in that. He is ruling his cabinet, also without much difficulty; but before very long he will find out that after all a man, even a superman, has only twenty-four hours a day in which to eat, sleep and work. He will find out that even from his point of view he will be obliged to get someone to carry on some part of his work. I believe I begin to perceive in what manner he will execute his one-manmade laws; it will be in a manner similar to that of the old sultans. They had two bodies of men to aid them in ruling their empire; they maintained physical peace with the aid of the janizaries. We are beginning to have them around this house. I met one of them at one of the posterns of this parliament; he nearly took my cap off my head and asked me what business I had coming here. This was no longer ago than last week. Then the sultans carried on their inside government with a very peculiar kind of executive body, the eunuchs. They were very effective and devoted servants; not much more so than those who surround the Prime Minister, but on the whole they were very obedient. Of course once in a while the janizaries poiniarded the sultan or the eunuchs hanged him and threw his body in the Bosphorus, but the system worked for some time.
Evidently the Prime Minister is preparing this parliament to fill the functions of those civil servants of the sultans. I am given to understand that some of the young members of this house this afternoon expressed their pride at being reduced to that state; but even at my age I do object. The old sultans at least had one excuse; they kept around them harems of wives and concubines; and no doubt so far as that portion of their administrative work was concerned it was a proper thing to secure civil servants carefully prepared for the work of looking after that portion of their

government. But I do not believe that to maintain peace, order and good government in Canada, to give food to the poor or work to the unemployed, it is absolutely necessary to reduce parliament to that state. Perhaps in the senate we could do so-as a matter of fact I think the passing of time has attended to that-and intellectually at least it would seem that a number of hon. members of this house are also prepared to fulfil that role. But, sir, I claim that in the year of grace, 1932, in a country built up by the representatives of two of the most civilized European countries, with the addition in the last twentydive years of newcomers from other free, Christian countries, Canada is not yet prepared for that kind of government.
There are two considerations urged by the government in asking for these extraordinary powers. The one is the consideration of money, and the other is what I might call the legal or administrative consideration. Let us consider the question of money first. Let us suppose that last year, before realizing exactly what was the position in Canada, before being able to measure the needs of all the provinces, the municipalities and the different classes in Canada, the government conscientiously felt that they could not exactly state the amount of money they required. At least they could have asked for a certain sum, and they could do that this year. If that amount did not prove sufficient they could have done what all governments have done under regularly constituted authority; they could have issued governor general's warrants to carry on their work of helping those who required help, and later asked parliament to ratify the expenditure of the amount over and above the sum of money voted at the previous session. What reasonable man would have refused that ratification-of course, without divesting himself of I will not say the privilege but the essential duty of members of parliament, which is to look into the manner in which that money was spent? That must be apparent to anyone who has taken the trouble to read British history, whether he be English, Scotch or French by origin; to whatever race he may belong; who feels some degree of pride, call it racial pride, intellectual pride or, as in my case, political pride, in the traditions of British government.
I repeat what I said last year: The essential function of the House of Commons and the representatives of the people is to control the exchequer. For centuries and centuries the British House of Commons did not pass laws; the legislative power was vested practically in the hands of the king and the lords. Later

Unemployment Continuance Act
ordinary powers, then why do these gentlemen
on, with the evolution of time, the House of Commons, forced, so to speak, by the people whose cry increased, and who were acquiring a new sense of their rights and of their liberties, the commons asserted their duty, as the elected representatives of the masses who pay taxation, to control legislation as well as the spending of money; because after all, especially in modern times when economics play such a role in the life of a nation, you cannot separate the power of legislation from the power of taxation. They go hand in hand.
Now, with regard to this new measure, parliament is in session. The government, or rather the Prime Minister, who is the whole government, can come every day and make suggestions, or even charge one of his followers, whether a minister or not, to make suggestions. He can always come to parliament from day to day; and by looking at the order paper you can see that at least the government does preserve some show of consideration for the legislative power of the house. The ministry ask us to pass this bill and that, to amend this or the other law. Why come with a piece of blank legislation and ask us, while we are here in session to discuss every measure proposed, to abdicate our functions and give the government a free hand? They pay no more regard to us than, not to any man on the street, but to any dog or cat. They say to us virtually, "Pass such laws as we want to have passed".
It may be said that the government will not abuse its powers. Sir, many times men who have encroached upon the liberties of the people -have made use of that argument. Many times servile followers of would-be dictators have also made that appeal to the people: "Place your confidence in this or that man because you know he will not abuse it". Well, if intelligent and reasonable men have learned one thing from the history of government it is -that the danger is precisely to invest men who inspire confidence in the people with unlimited powers. Once the precedent is made, once the power is granted and put into the hands of one man, it may be misused to-morrow either by that man or by someone else unworthy of the confidence of the people. Time and again I have heard the right hon. gentleman, when sitting on this side of the house, quoting from his marvelous memory and knowledge of British history this, that and the other precedent of British parliamentary government, urging that we respect those sacred bases of parliamentary institutions. Now, sir, if precedents are good when you are in opposition, to prevent a government from abusing
ask us now to -pass legislation which all precedents condemn from top to bottom?
There is just one evidence I wish to cite with regard to the abuse 'that can be made of these powers. Reading Hansard, I notice a slight altercation which took place yesterday between my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), with reference to the order in council, or rather the law passed in the form of an order in council, amending the Finance and Bank Acts and putting into the hands of the government the arbitrary power of saying whether or not people who had entered into engagements in New York to pay their bonds or notes in gold should do so. The Minister of Railways has insinuated that that power has been exercised only for the prevention of speculation. The Minister of Railways is very patriotic. He trembled at the idea that some unworthy Canadians would take Canadian gold and ship it to New York to make twenty per cent profit out of it. Is he sure that of the five million dollars which his leader has permitted the banks to export to New York, not one dollar has been used in speculation? What guarantee has the government that the clients of the banks did not play the New York market with the gold shipped under special authorization given them by the government? But I will cite a counter instance. An acquaintance of mine in Montreal carries on a large boot and shoe industry-not one of these new mushroom concerns in which there is no responsibility, but a factory established nearly fifty years ago. This concern was managed by the father of the man to whom I refer, and has been in this man's charge ever since. He is practically the owner of it. The factory employs hundreds of men and operates, I believe, in the constituency of Maisonneuve, in the eastern section of Montreal. Last fall he had to ask himself the question whether he should carry on his operations, for he was losing money every day, every week, every month. He gathered his men together and said to them:	You worked for my father,
some of you; some of you have worked in this factory all your lives, and others from ten to twenty

 years. If I consulted only my ledgers and my personal interests I would close the gates to-morrow; or I could spare about one-fifth of you and continue employing the rest half days. But I can do something else which I am putting up to you: I -am prepared to keep all of you at salaries reduced -by ten -per cent, and in doing so I shall still lose money. Well, they accepted
Unemployment Continuance Act

that offer and he carried on. This man is making fine footwear. He has to import a certain proportion of his materials from foreign countries, Europe and South America, through New York; and, of course, all his accounts are payable on bills of exchange in New York. He vsent to the Receiver General at Montreal to get gold and could not get it. He went to the bank, and took some bills issued by this government in the name of the crown and stamped payable in gold-one hundred dollar bills, five hundred dollar bills and one thousand dollar bills. He then said to the Receiver General, "Here is the promise of the crown of England and the government of Canada to pay in gold; will you give me gold for it?" What was the answer? "No, sir; we have orders from Ottawa not to give any gold." And so he had to pay an increased rate in New York of twenty per cent in order to keep his men alive. Is that speculation? I do not blame the government particularly for this; but under provisions of this sort, by the exercise of purely arbitrary power on the part of a couple of men in Ottawa, the reason invoked being the public good and public necessity, the door is opened to that sort of abuse which the Minister of Railways has denounced, as well as that other sort of abuse which I am pointing out to the government this evening. This is the only instance I shall mention.
Now to come back to the terms of the act which we are asked to prolong. The last clause provides that within fifteen days after the expiration of the act all orders in council, with a statement of all money expended, shall be laid before parliament. If we pass what is asked of us, what does it mean? From the time that bill is passed until May 15, the government will have no account to render to parliament. The government, through the Prime Minister, has promised to table all orders in council after they have been passed; in other words, he will apprise his eunuchs of what he has decided before to do. But with regard to the amount of money? Nothing at all; that will go until next year. Because when May 15 comes we shall be in a hurry. The economic conference of the empire will be near at hand. At that conference the sultan of Canada is going to settle everything for all the empire. In spite of his admirable talents, in spite of his superhuman genius, it will take him a few days to cogitate over the needs not only of Canada but of Great Britain, of Ireland, south and north, of South Africa, of Australia and New Zealand, not to speak of that little portion of the empire called British India. I admit that the

Prime Minister is a powerful man; but if he is going to save and rule the empire, if he is going to put everything right in every portion of the empire, if he is going to work out an imperial tariff which will contain all that the Canadians want and all the advantages that the British ask for, if he is going to adjust everything, if he is going to make four or five hundred million people in the British Empire believe that what is black and red is blue, that one law can operate one way, another law another way and the two laws operate the same way at the same time, it will take him some time, first, to prepare his data and, second, to understand something of the mentality of people in other .parts of the empire, especially in India. There are there 80,000,000 Mussulmen who are not at present in favour of government being carried on by eunuchs. Then there is that little man with the homespun shroud, now in gaol, who exercises more power than even our own sultan here in Canada. It may be only moral power, and I admit that in North America, in Canada as well as in the United States, moral power counts for very little alongside of money power. However, even in countries where the golden calf is the idol of all races and creeds, as it is in Canada and the country to the south, there are still some people who believe in moral force, in certain principles of government, in certain guarantees of liberty, and who are not prepared to barter those advantages acquired by centuries of struggle, by the shedding of blood and by the sacrifice of everything which is true to man and woman. There are all over the world, and even in Canada, those people who undoubtedly want food, who undoubtedly want work, but who want something else beyond.
In this little bit of paper before us, so insignificant to the man whose mind is entirely connected with politics or money, lies a threat to all those sacred principles which, for my part, I am not prepared to let pass without entering my protest and without entering the protest of the humble men and women who sent me here. Those settlers in the mountains, those lumberjacks working in the camps, do not forget the days when their forefathers were struggling to acquire our political liberty; and while I will not say they are prepared to fight, they are prepared to live in dire physical circumstances if necessary to preserve that liberty. They are not prepared to sell their birthright for a mess of pottage. I represent those people, and in their name and in the name of hundreds of thousands of other Canadians, to whatever race they belong, I say that there is something over and beyond

Unemployment Continuance Act
party strife, there is something over and beyond devotion to one government or to one man; it is devotion to principle and faithfulness to those foundations of popular and parliamentary government for which we have struggled so long. It takes a much shorter time to destroy than to construct. If this insidious thing is allowed to creep into the foundations of our system of government, while perhaps only one stone will crack this year, perhaps only one part of the wall will fall, the danger will be there.
Judging by the attitude taken by the majority in this house it would appear that the people of Canada have come to the point of being prepared to renounce the basic principles of government. For what? To save them, or the country? No, simply to make matters easier for the government. Let us grant that the right hon. gentleman had full grounds for asking for this legislation last year. He has made use of it and I do not say now that he has abused it. I do not think that he has abused it any more than any other government would have. But surely he has acquired some experience of the needs of the country. At the opening of this session he and his colleagues told us that the worst days were over, that conditions were improving and that they had the situation well in hand. If that is so, what need is there of asking for an extension of legislation which they do not need to control matters which are improving and to cure evils which they claim have diminished? The government has around it the elected representatives of the people of Canada who can tell them from day to day what the need is in their constituencies, in their districts, in their provinces and in their parts of the country.
By adopting this procedure the government perhaps is making it easier for itself at the present time; but the Prime Minister and his colleagues will find out that the more they continue on this course the more difficult it will be to satisfy the people. Why? If they acted with the advice and cooperation of parliament they could divide with all of us the responsibility of the measures they pass. Every hon. member of this house, whether Conservative or Liberal, to a certain degree could be held responsible for a share of the measures adopted and of the money spent; but by doing what they are doing now, the government, or rather the Prime Minister, is adopting this attitude: I have no confidence in your representatives, not even in mine; I have no confidence in the men whom you have sent here; I have no confidence in their integrity or in their technical knowledge; I
have no confidence in their simple knowledge of facts; and I take it upon myself to know everything, to cure everything and to make a choice of all the remedies which I have to offer, but I keep a certain number of gentlemen here at your expense to talk. To talk about what? If this is to be the procedure, why keep this order paper? All the legislation which now appears on the order paper could be carried out by order in council. Why have a subsidy bill? Why announce a budget? All that could be done in the Canada Gazette, or the Prime Minister could make a speech and say: Here is what I have decided to do to cure all evils; I have done away with this useless parliament, I have sent the members back home and spared to you the expense of their upkeep. The houses of parliament at Ottawa could be turned into a large technical school, a hospital or a house of refuge for the people who have no place to sleep. He could treble the number of janizaries that would be provided, and train the kind of civil servants I have referred to. Everything required could be provided by order in council.
I appeal now to my hon. friends on the other side and ask them if they told their electors that they had such confidence in their leader- their confidence is justified fully in the ordinary sense-or did they-


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Yes.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The hon. gentleman is so sure that he replies "yes" before he even hears the question. If he composes the dialogues for his plays in the same manner, they must sound queer to the ear and must appear as though he is writing upside down in the Chinese fashion.


Leslie Gordon Bell: There is no
buffoonery in my plays.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Then the hon. gentleman is not writing true to himself. What I was going to say was this: Why did my hon. friends, when they appealed to the electorate, not say to them: It is useless for us to go to Ottawa; we have a leader in whom we have full confidence; all we ask you to do is to vote a plebiscite on our heads or our backs and write "Bennett"-"vote for Bennett."


Leslie Gordon Bell: We did.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Then tell them: we will stay at home.


The Acting SPEAKER (Mr. Casseilman):: The hon. member's time has expired.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That closes the matter.

Unemployment Continuance Act
Mr. SAMUEL FACTOR (Toronto West
Centre): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to follow an old parliamentarian like the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bouirassa), a man whose ancestors have fought for responsible government and constitutional administration, particularly on the issue which is presented by the resolution under discussion. I am somewhat surprised to find to-night most of the opposition to this resolution coming from members on this side of the house. I had hoped that hon. members opposite would rise and express definitely their opinions on it. Shades of Macdonald and Cartier! Are these men, now sitting mute, folowers in such a matter of their old chieftains? I would in all kindness suggest to them that their vision has been obscured by political considerations; they are iblinded by partisan zeal in following their leader. I suggest to them, also in the same kind spirit, that if they were as conscious as we are on this side, of the duties and responsibilities that devolve uipon the elected representatives of the people, they would rise in protest and indignation against this resolution. Further, I would suggest to hon. members opposite, and particularly would I make this bold suggestion to the leader of the government (Mr. Bennett): Let him advise His Excellency to dissolve parliament and let us appeal to the people on this broad issue of responsible government. Do the people want an autocratic form of government, with unlimited and unrestricted powers? The right hon. gentleman and his Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) are laughing. They consider this *question of responsible government and constitutional administration a huge joke.


Robert James Manion: No, we were laughing at the hon. member.


Mr. FACTOR:: I am glad to hear that. I am glad to hear they are laughing at an exponent, although a young one, of responsible government. I should like -to tell the hon. gentleman that there are Canadians who, while they perhaps lack food and shelter, are not lacking in a knowledge and understanding of our traditions and institutions such as should be exhibited here. There are Canadians who, while they perhaps lack employment, are not lacking in appreciation of the courage and heroism of those who, in the early dawn of our history, passed through the hell-fire of discord and rebellion in the effort to create responsible government and constitutional administration in this country.
I should like in the first place to protest against the method in which this resolution has been submitted to the house, as well as to

the time of its presentation. May I first, however, make this general observation: I think even hon. gentlemen opposite will agree with me that unemployment is the dominant problem facing this country to-day. I am sure they will not contradict me when I say that unemployment is more severe now, greater in degree and extent, than it was in 1930. Yet in spite of this fact, in the speech from the throne there is not a word about unemployment or its relief, and during the days and weeks since parliament met on the 4th of February, there has not been a word about the matter. Whether this is a coincidence, I do not know, but I would refer to a curious thing which has ocourred: in the Votes and Proceedings of February 23, 1932, on a motion * for supply the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) moved an amendment criticizing the policy of the government, suggesting :
That the failure of the government to implement its pledges and promises has caused privation, want and suffering amongst thousands of Canadian citizens; that in the opinion of this house the provision of employment for our people is the most pressing problem before the government, and immediate measures effectively to relieve the serious unemployment situation should be presented to parliament by the government without further delay.
Curiously enough-or is it a mere coincidence?-on the following day, in the Votes and Proceedings of February 24th we find the Prime Minister giving notice of the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor.
I heard of some order in council that the government passed changing potatoes into radishes, but I have never before heard of a resolution the purpose of which is to juggle with our calendar and change the month of March into May.
I object to the method in which this resolution is presented. I should like to draw the attention of the house to the original resolution upon which the act is based, and the time at which it was presented. I want to refer to Hansard of 1931, at page 4282 and to read this remark which was made by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King):
Hon. members have before them a copy of the orders of the day on which appears the resolution which you, Mr. Speaker, have just read to the house. They will observe that if no reference is made to either the committee of supply or the committee of ways and means,

Unemployment Continuance Act
this resolution constitutes the only order upon the order paper. It is not only the last government order to appear, but it is the only order which remains to be disposed of on the order paper to-day.
When the Prime Minister introduced the resolution on which the legislation of last year was based he used the following words, which will be found at page 4275 of Hansard of July 29, 1931:
The adoption of this resolution lays the foundation for the introduction of a bill for the purpose of vesting in the governor general in council during the recess of parliament and until the end of the fiscal year-
Mark those words, "during the recess of parliament and until the end of the fiscal year." To continue:
-full power to redress so far as it is possible the conditions of unemployment and distress now prevalent in certain sections of the dominion.
The Prime Minister himself when the legislation was introduced last year did not intend that it should extend beyond the recess of parliament or beyond the expiry of the fiscal year. Now, sir, he comes along and introduces this resolution. I say in all truth and sincerity it is an assault upon the rights of the elected representatives of the people.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Samuel Factor: Some hon. gentlemen say, "Oh, oh." Very well, I shall go further than that and say that there is danger in this legislation, danger not only to the rights of the people who send their representatives to parliament but danger to the freedom of the people themselves. There is always danger, sir, when a government obtains autocratic and unlimited powers and is backed by a docile majority.
That was what the right hon. gentleman said in submitting on July 29, 1931, the resolution upon which he based the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act. And now he throws into 'this house a resolution which goes a step further. The act has expired. True, the government order was on the order paper a few days before the act had expired, but the right hon. gentleman had since the 4th of February to consider unemployment relief measures and to present them to the house.
The world has passed and is passing through a great upheaval.' Values have disappeared. The flood of unemployment has spread itself throughout every country in the world, and Canada in common with every other country is suffering as a consequence of the world depression. I must frankly and freely say to this house that no government could end 41761-64
unemployment in Canada. This government cannot end unemployment, and I firmly believe the Liberal government could not end it. Further, I do not think a Labour government could have ended it. But we did not promise to end unemployment, whereas the right hon. gentleman did. He promised it for a purpose, and that purpose he has accomplished. While he promised to end unemployment, we on the other hand said to the people at large that unemployment was becoming a world problem, and because it was becoming a world problem we advocated the calling of a conference, the bringing together of leaders in commerce, finance, industry and labour with a view to considering on a nation-wide scale the problem of unemployment in the light of world conditions, and perhaps finding some solution. The right hon. gentleman opposite made his promises to end unemployment and was elected to office. Now is not the occasion, nor have I the time, to discuss the causes that are responsible for the world depression, but I venture to suggest that when the historian records these trying days he will note as one of the main causes responsible for this depression the fact that every nation had walled itself in behind high tariffs. Every nation has stopped buying from other nations, and all are trying to sell to other nations. I venture to suggest that the right hon. gentleman and his government, elected on the promises they made, are not responsible for world conditions, but I do say that they are responsible for aggravating unemployment in this country because of their policies respecting trade.
I will go a step further-I hesitate to say this, but I say it simply because it is the truth-and assert that this government is responsible for something that is far more serious even than tariff tinkering. This government is responsible for the loss of courage and confidence which is noticeable in our people at the present time. Business is drifting aimlessly; money is being hoarded; capital is not being invested. Can you blame people for losing confidence when we have a government that swings from one extreme to the other in every sphere of governmental activity? In unemployment, first of all, the government advocated a policy of reckless expenditure of borrowed money. Now they are contracting that into a policy of strict economy. They swing from one extreme to another in their tariff and trade policies. Somebody has called the government's tariff regulations the pyjama tariff regulations because they are put on at night and taken off in the morning. Nothing has done more

Unemployment Continuance Act

to disturb business and business stability in this country than the tinkering with the tariff by orders in council which has taken place under this government. How can the people *be inspired with confidence and courage in such trying times when we have a government which swings from one extreme to another as this one does?
Undoubtedly we are faced by a grave national crisis. We are living in times of national peril, and always in 'times like these there are two schools of thought. The one school advocates this policy: These are trying days; there is a national emergency; democratic institutions are too fickle to carry on with. Let us have an autocratic form of government; let us have a leader, call him what you will-dictator, autocrat, or prime minister.
' Mr. LAPOINTE:	Sultan.


Samuel Factor: Or sultan, but let us have a man who is strong enough to hold the reins of government irrespective of all democratic institutions and irrespective of responsible government and constitutional administration. That hon. gentlemen opposite advocate this policy is evidenced by the fact that they have not stood up in opposition to the resolution we are now considering.
On the other hand, there is the school of thought which says: Trust the people. Have confidence in them. Administer with knowledge and with tolerance. Let the people rule. Let the people's representatives have their say.
I want to suggest to the Prime Minister that I think it is time for him and his government and his followers to get into closer touch with the great masses of the people. I say to him, not in any way offensively, that he is quite intimately acquainted with the wealthy people throughout this country, but he is not so intimately acquainted with the great suffering masses of the people. Here is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to go on the public platform and suggest to these men and women with whom he is so intimately acquainted, the people of wealth and means and resources, that this country is suffering intensely, that we have a huge national debt, that we are overburdened with taxation, that this country has been very kind to those who are now possessed of so much wealth; and is it not about time they came to the rescue of their country with their worldly possessions? Is it not about time they contributed, for the assistance of our country in these trying days, some of the money they drew out of 
our natural resources? I believe that all of us on this side of the house would be prepared to follow the Prime Minister in that course. Why not create a large emergency fund of millions of dollars subscribed by the wealthy to help a country overburdened with taxation?
I had not intended to quote any authorities concerning the control of taxation by parliament. This government however seems to ignore fundamental principles, and I feel it would be well to quote from Durell on parliamentary grants. I dare say the principle of the control of taxation is common knowledge to every hon. member, and undoubtedly the Prime Minister is thoroughly acquainted with it. It may be worth while, however, to place the following quotation on hansard:
The bedrock on which the English system is built is the principle of the maintenance by parliament of control over the grant which it makes. It is one of the old standing principles of our constitution that the House of Commons should control the finances of the country; that is the right, privilege and duty of the house. It has been achieved by means of struggles lasting through centuries. The cardinal principle on which the whole of our financial system is based is that of parliamentary control.
Upon the fundamental principle laid down at the very outset of English parliamentary history and secured by three hundred years of mingled conflict under the crown, and peaceful growth, is grounded the whole law of finance and consequently the whole British constitution.
I was very much interested to hear the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) not only criticizing Russia-which he had a right to do, and perhaps to a certain extent was justified in doing-but attacking this side of the house for the carping criticism which he said was being levelled at the government, and suggesting that more cooperation be given. May I suggest to the minister that cooperation involves the action of two parties? Cooperation does not mean that the government proposes and that the opposition functions merely as a rubber stamp to any proposals submitted. Cooperation, sir, means that we on this side of the house who have our duty to perform as elected representatives of the people, submit certain suggestions to the Prime Minister and his followers. If they really want our cooperation why do they not adopt our suggestions? The Prime Minister laughs. What did we suggest to the right hon. gentleman? We suggested that he pursue the constitutional method of obtaining money to relieve unemployment, that he bring in a supply bill and that he fix the amount he needed. We hope the Prime Minister does not think that he, his followers and his press can misrepresent the opposition in this matter.

Unemployment Continuance Act
The so-called carping criticism, which the minister has said was lodged by the opposition, is more than criticism; it goes to the very root and foundation of our political institutions. When we suggested that the Prime Minister bring in a supply bill, he said, no, he would not do it. Being a new member, sir, I am not quite initiated into the mysteries of this institution called parliament. I should like to ask the Prime Minister why he extends the statute only to the month of May. Why not June? Why not July? What will happen in May? Does the right hon gentleman say unemployment will cease in the month of May? Does he say that when this act expires prosperity will be with us? Or is the extension of the act merely an excuse to hide the definite and constructive policies of the government with regard to unemployment, if they have any? Is the proposed amendment merely a subterfuge to have this act extended until the month of May and then, perhaps by order in council, extended further?
I was surprised that the right hon. gentleman came to parliament to have this act extended. As I read some of the sections I concluded he could have passed an order in council extending the life of the statute, and under those curcumstances there would have been no need to come before parliament. He had authority vested in him under that act to change any legislation; why not this very act? Orders in council have been passed amending the Bank Act, the Insurance Act and other legislation; why does he come to parliament and ask us to extend this particular Act? What will happen in May? Will this parliament be in session? If so, what will the right hon. gentleman do? Will he come again and ask parliament to extend the life of this statute, or has he any other proposals concerning unemployment? Because sir, we frankly submit to the house and to the people of Canada that the relief granted under the present act has been entirely and wholly inadequate.
At this time may I quote a few figures?
I am told that during the last eighteen months $150,000,000 were spent in unemployment relief and the relief of distress in agricultural districts. I was amused to hear the Minister of Railways and Canals criticize hon. members on this side of the house for not extending praise to the government because it had fed
300,000	starving Canadians in Saskatchewan. Just imagine sir; the right hon. gentleman, vested with unlimited powers under this act, backed by all the resources of Canada, by all the resources of the provinces and the municipalities, succeeding in feeding 300,000
41761-64J
starving Canadians! Truly, truly we on this side of the house should present him with a bouquet, an embossed address, and a hearty vote of thanks for feeding those starving Canadians, considering the resources he had at his disposal.
What did the expenditure of $150,000,000 provide? Roughly speaking, there were provided about 14,000.000 man-days' work at a cost of $150,000,000, or more than $10 for every day's work given. That was the cost. Where is the balance? Where did the balance go? This huge sum expended for unemployment would provide work for only about
30,000	people, if we allow each person eight hours per day. Therefore 30,000 people were supplied work during a period of eighteen months at a cost of $150,000,000. That, sir, was the accomplishment of the right hon. gentleman and his government, vested with all the authority they possess under this act.
I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, with an appeal to the Prime Minister. I ask him to stop this discussion, this waste of time in opposition to this measure. He cannot blame us for opposing it; we on this side of the house are still Liberal, not only in name but in principle as well. If the Prime Minister had adopted the suggestion of my right hon. leader and brought in a supply bill a few days ago, by now the bill would have been law and he would have had millions of dollars to spend in the relief of distress in the west and of unemployment throughout Canada. I ask the Prime Minister again to stop this useless discussion; let him introduce a supply bill asking for any amount he thinks necessary to meet the situation. We on this side of the house will expedite its passage in the shortest possible time, and to that end will cooperate in every way we can.


Mr. HERMAS DESLAURIERS (St. Mary) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the bill under
discussion is certainly different from the one which was adopted last year. In my opinion, it greatly differs not only as to the date but especially as to the principle. This measure which is introduced under the plea of emergency, at a time of crisis, will be enforced during the sitting of the house while last year's act was to only become law after the prorogation of parliament.
The purport of this measure is first to relieve the unemployed, and, secondly, to maintain social order throughout the country. The government had recourse to this radical procedure because it suited them, seeing that we are experiencing hard times-a

Unemployment Continuance Act
crisis-and that it is impossible for them to specify the necessary amount to cope with all cases which may arise.
It is difficult not to protest against a measure which the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) himself qualifies as radical. I can understand that he might have insisted on having such an act adopted in an emergency, but at present, when parliament is in session, nothing of the kind exists. If something unforeseen happened, while parliament was in session,
I feel certain that nobody in the house would dare refuse a reasonable proposal from the Prime Minister to meet such a situation. We are aware that it would be impossible for him to determine precisely the amount that he might need under such circumstances; thus in September, 1930, at the special session, if I recollect well, nobody criticized or found too large the amount of $20,000,000 which we were asked to approve. Parliament seemed to have had, at that period, confidence in the integrity and financial ability of the Prime Minister. Even to-day we feel that if he would only specify an amount, parliament would again trust him, and might I further add that, as it was done in the case of the $20,000,000, he would only expend the strict amount necessary to relieve the situation and meet the conditions which might arise. In the usual course of things, under every government, how often have considerable amounts been voted at one session, revoted the following year and once more the third year, without finally being expended? It is a usual practice. Very often the government has had to grapple with gigantic enterprises, for instance, under the government of Sir John A. Macdonald, the building of the Canadian Pacific; the state ownership of railways under the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen's regime and the requirements of the great war, under Sir Robert Borden's government. Always, under these circumstances requests were first made for an initial amount and later parliament was asked for additional sums. Did we not, when it was a question of voting the necessary money to build the transcontinental, the Welland canal, the Parliament Buildings, follow the same procedure, even when the first estimates hardly amounted to half the final cost? Whenever the country is going through a period of stress, when the health of the people is threatened, when its morale may be affected, political parties should help one another and cease to search in every part of the country for exaggerated cases of distress to exploit them at public meetings or in the house; they should on the contrary display in such periods of hard-
(Mr. Deslauriers.]
ship a great coolness of mind and endeavour to raise the people's hope for better days in the near future.
In 1914, when the war was at its worst, and the Germans swept everything on their march, when success after success attended their arms, when Paris was threatened and the destiny even of our country might depend on the result of the war, the cooperation of parties was certainly then more urgent than at present. Yet, Sir Robert Borden never thought of abolishing the rights of parliament, he never asked the representatives of the people to give way and to invest him with all powers to administer the affairs of the country; on the contrary, he earnestly sought the cooperation of the right hon. leader of the opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and that of his supporters. I still recall the memorable meeting of Sohmer Park, in my constituency, where the great leader of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, spoke. Later on, at the "Monument National," the hon. Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, then Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec, and the hon. senators Beaubien and Dandurand, took part at a great rally in order to cooperate and help to solve the problems of the war.
Never before has an attempt been made to destroy the fundamental principle of selfgovernment, as it is done in this bill. The government must not think for a moment that our opposition to this measure is prompted by a lack of sympathy on our part for those who are in distress; the human feelings of the representatives of the people cannot be questioned, whether they belong to one party or another, they will, I think, acknowledge that when hard times are here, we must provide bread, first, for the Canadian born, and after, for the poor immigrants brought to our shores by eveiy government, too often under false representations.
We have heard much criticism in connection with the distribution of the funds voted for unemployment. We all agree, I think, that the Prime Minister's good intentions are above suspicion, if there happened to be cases of dishonesty and patronage, it is due rather to the defects in the system of distribution, and, under the circumstances, I think, this is an excellent opportunity for him to repeat the prayer of the German: "Lord, relieve me of my friends; as to my enemies I shall take care of them."
The direct assistance, the dole system, is I think a dangerous one. It tends to foster idleness among the people, and may give rise to .most- undesirable problems. The appointment of commissions, to which I have

Unemployment Continuance Act
often been opposed, is also often the cause of complications in the administration of public moneys. It is better to entrust this distribution to those who are 'better suited to do so, in this instance, to the provincial and municipal authorities, both in their respective spheres; it is better to entrust them with the care of solving their own problems, and if need be help them by grants, in the same manner as the federal government does in the distribution of subsidies to the provinces. Should an exceptional situation develop in one province, as at present, in the Western provinces, and more particularly in Saskatchewan then they can consider the best means to take under such circumstances, with Parliament's approval.
A suggestion was made in the House to carry out an inquiry on the economic and social conditions of the country. I fail to see the practical side of this suggestion. During a period of disturbance, conditions may vary from day to day, week to week, and the findings of this inquiry, misapprehended under the circumstances, would be, to say the least, worthless. The provincial and municipal authorities have at their disposal the necessary organization to carry on that work from day to day, while the Dominion government, to deal with the unemployment problem, only needs a staff to verify the reports forwarded by the provincial authorities.
There can be no question, with reference to this bill, of asking the representatives of the people to make suggestions to the government in connection with the administration of the unemployment fund. In parliamentary procedure these necessary and useful suggestions to the government should be made when the budget is brought down. It is more difficult to-day to make suggestions because one is at a loss to know what will happen to-morrow.
This bill aims at undermining the fundamental principle of self-government, and conferring upon one man, the Prime Minister, the power of disposing of large amounts from the Treasury, without the authority of Parliament. This is one provision of the bill under which the Prime Minister, in my opinion, takes useless risks. Indeed to me it does not seem wise on his part, in his personal and own party interest to take upon his shoulders such a great responsibility and expose himself to much criticism, be it justified or not, when he could so easily share that responsibility with Parliament, and thus face all criticism from whatever quarter it might come, while proceeding in a constitutional way.
Nobody in the House doubts the integrity of the Prime Minister or his financial ability.
What Parliament claims, is the right of expressing its views in financial matters, in the interest of the country, and, to share in the administration of public funds, either through suggestions or sound criticism.
After listening to the reading of the many telegrams, quotations and newspaper cuttings with reference to the distress which fills the country, when I see the Prime Minister introducing such a radical measure after the lamentations which have been heard in this house, I contend that he suggests that the government is in despair and that it offers a splendid opportunity to agitators prepared to spread among the people revolutionary social doctrines and contaminate the minds of the people.
I fail to see that, on behalf of Canada, an emergency exists for such measures, exists just now, and let me assure the Prime Minister that so far as Quebec is concerned, if nobody suffered from cold or hunger, it is not due to his administration-though I willingly acknowledge his sincerity in this connection- but it is due, among the farming classes, especially to Providence, and in our towns, to cur lay and religious organizations both Catholic and Protestant. Without these two factors, we would have had to register in Quebec the saddest disaster in our history.
I understand this measure to be a temporary one, and I trust that it will be the last of its kind introduced by the Prime Minister, if he wishes us to be more agreeable in our comments in the future. I wish to protest both on behalf of my constituency and myself against this radical way of administering the country, for I was unable to discover in the arguments of the leader of the government any urgent motive which could authorize him to make use of such radical methods, as those we are asked to approve to-day.
Mr. ELIE-O. BERTRAND (Prescott) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I deem it my duty to protest against the resolution submitted to the house. There is certainly no doubt that the government is at present very much embarrassed to find means to relieve the unemployed and at the same time assist the farmers. But it is also true that there are other means to relieve them than by laying hands on the legislative powers of Parliament and creating a dictatorship when this house is in session.
At the risk of repeating what was stated by other speakers who preceded me in this debate, I shall narrate the political history of the Conservative party from the day they assumed power. First, without going back

Unemployment Continuance Act
too far in the past, I nevertheless wish to briefly state again the pledges given in the course of the last election, and remind the house that, at the 1930 election, the leader of the Conservative party travelled from one end of the country to the other, stating that the depression which was everywhere was due to the nine years of bad administration under the Liberal regime; he added that when given power he would find means to relieve the situation and bring back the country to its normal state. Addressing himself to the unemployed he pledged himself to find work for all those who wished to work and that their labours would be well remunerated; turning to the farmers, he told them that he would see to it that their products would bring in far better returns than during the last years of the Liberal regime.
The people believed to a certain extent these fine pledges because, already, the country was feeling the first pangs of the worldwide depression. The Liberal leader had made preparations to ward off this depression when it would reach our country, and through the medium of Hon. Mr. Dunning's budget had found it possible to reach the various markets of the Empire, establish better trade relations so as to later spread our trade to all markets of the world. In order to attain this end the Liberal government thought it good policy to make concessions so as to receive some from other countries.
The Conservative party, having assumed power, considered that this policy was absolutely wrong and wishing to follow up their cry of "Canada First," made a complete change. It also had made very fabulous pledges in connection with the tariff and had assured the people that with a high tariff, industries would flourish, and, the latter being prosperous the working classes would have work and would be in a position to purchase farm products, the result would be that all classes of the community would enjoy a prosperity unknown until then. These pledges were so alluring that people believed in them.
The unemployment situation having become worse, notwithstanding all the pledges given to the unemployed throughout Canada, the leader of the Conservative party called a special session for September, 1930. This short session was intended to relieve the depression as promised. The people were under the impression that pursuant to the pledges made, day labour would be given to all those who wanted to work and thus increasing the purchasing power, the farmer would easily sell his products. However, the remedy was not as effective as one could have expected. The

special session having been called, parliament met and the Conservative party introduced a measure in which they requested $20,000,000 for unemployment relief. Although this session was called specifically to discuss unemployment, a bill dealing with extraordinary changes in the tariff was also introduced; almost every item of the tariff schedule was altered; the greatest protection was given to people in industries and manufacturers. The time had arrived when these people expected to see manna fall from heaven. Often in the past they had asked for higher tariff, but never had they obtained it and never had they expected to obtain as much as they were given at that special session.
Did this protection give the good results which were anticipated? For a while it may have stimulated business, but in the wake of the world-wide depression they soon realized that it became more and more difficult to sell their products abroad. I shall not insist on the meagre results obtained at the Imperial Economic Conference, in London, by the Prime Minister and his lieutenants. This failure was not of a nature to increase our trade with the other countries of the empire. Our purchasing power having decreased, the business people and manufacturers found themselves also in a critical position and were unable to find a market for their products.
Let us examine how these measures were adopted. They were enacted within a few days after the Conservative leader, who had begun to reveal himself under his true light, as we know him to-day, had stated: You must necessarily adopt these measures; they must be enacted within a few days, because otherwise I shall not attend the Imperial Economic Conference. The following suggestion was made by the leader of the opposition: Allow some of your leading lieutenants to remain in Canada, we shall carry on with the session and you will be free to attend the Imperial conference. I wish to be present here myself, retorted the Prime Minister, and these measures must appear in the Statutes of the Dominion of Canada previous to my departure. Already the leader of the Conservative party was showing signs of his predilection for a dictatorship. He was not yet known under his true light, however, signs were not wanting that, little by little, he would lay hands on all the privileges and prerogatives of the Canadian parliament.
In order to convince the house and Canada that this government had not made a deep study of the needs of the country, it is only necessary to recall that, after having

Unemployment Continuance Act
had $20,000,000 voted to relieve the unemployed, by the end of the -fiscal year only $4,400,000 had been expended, namely, from September to the end of March. There still remained more than $15,000,000 which has not been utilized. This proves that the government was not in touch with the situation and was ignorant of the needs of the unemployed. The fiscal year having expired, instead of having other amounts voted, as it was done later on they continued to spend what remained of the $20,000,000, and according to the statement made by the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), a sum of over $15,000,000 was thus distributed.
I again state that from then on we could foresee what the Conservative leader's attitude would be; at the time, the Prime Minister not wishing that his own followers should discover that their leader was really a dictator making them yield little by little to his will and gradually inuring them to his methods, began by having them adopt the $20,000,000 measure so as to, later, obtain their assent in having the house enact all the bills that he might wish to introduce.
At the 1931 session, after sitting in camera over public affairs, he came before parliament and instead of conforming himself to custom and usage by asking that a fixed amount be voted either in the budget or through special legislation, for a specific end, as he had done, in 1930, with the idea of having people believe that he intended to carry out his electoral pledges and thus amazed them by amounts as fabulous as his pledges, he refuses to specify an amount. We shall he says, take all the necessary money to solve the problems with which we shall have to deal, not only do we ask for all the funds necessary, but we still want more. We want to have this money voted by a special act which will authorize us to deal, by order in council, with all the business we see fit, and which will empower us to amend the acts adopted by parliament and that are the exclusive prerogative of the latter. We wish to have the full control over public affairs for peace, order and good government throughout the dominion.
The people therefore thought that, that Conservative party had not only $20,000,000 at its disposal but an unlimited amount which would help in bringing back prosperity. First, $20,000,000 were asked at the special session of 1930, and later a blank cheque was requested at the 1931 session; yet after all this, they inform us that no remedy can be found to relieve the depression. People are wondering what they will request at the next session. This is the natural consequence of the dictatorship inflicted on the house.
We protest, sir, against this resolution which reads as follows:
That the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into rommittee of the whole on the following resolution:
Certain newspapers of this country contend that, this resolution is absolutely harmless and that it should not lend itself to any criticism on the part of the opposition. However, when one scrutinizes it more closely, when one is made aware of what happened under the dictatorship which began at the 1931 session, and which has become more exacting this session, we are entitled to wonder what will be the result.
According to the statement made the other day by the hen. Minister of Labour, in the house, the government authorized, by order in council, in the course of the year 1931, the expenditure of an amount totalling $32,800,000 so as to meet the obligations contracted to relieve the unemployed, and out of this amount of $32,800,000, 7,415,973 days of work were provided for 334,301 persons, or 22f days to each person. Is it possible to imagine such a wretched result under such a dictatorship: only 22 days of work for each person employed by virtue of the unemployment relief act, adopted in 1931.	$32,800,000 seems a very
large amount to a labourer whose wages are $2 or $3 per day; he has no idea what it represents. The labourer is told that the government spent $32,800,000 which furnished 7,415,973 days of work to Canadians from March, 1931, to February, 1932; this seems a great achievement, however if the hon. Minister of Labour had been in earnest, he would have added that this amount only represented 22f days of work for each person, he would have further stated that the Dominion government in making the outlay of $32,800,000 had obliged the provinces to subscribe an equal amount, if not a larger one, and that the municipalities had been forced to contribute an amount equal to that of both governments, provincial and federal. Notwithstanding all these outlays the depression has further spread since; according to statistics compiled by the "Child and Family Welfare Journal," the number of unemployed in Canada actually varies between
400,000	and 450,000.
Weighing these facts and noting how agriculture is languishing everywhere, one easily realizes that agriculture did not receive the necessary aid. It has been asserted that in the province of Saskatchewan there has been no crop, this explains why the farmers of that province are in great difficulty. Such a situation however should not exist where crops

Unemployment Continuance Act
have not failed, yet the facts are there to prove, that even the farmers of Ontario are almost bankrupt. I shall have an opportunity of referring again to Ontario when the agriculture estimates are before the house or when the budget is brought down. I shall simply state to-day that the farmers are unable to meet their obligations because they cannot even sell their products at cost price. Owing to this fact, their purchasing power has greatly dwindled and they find themselves in a difficult situation. Their condition is so critical that the Ontario government has recently adopted a measure to prevent the sale, by creditors, of farmers' lands which are mortgaged. They can be forced to pay the interest and taxes, but not the capital. Otherwise the situation would become intolerable, and farmers in most cases would be despoiled of their possessions. Considering the difficult situation in which our people find themselves at present notwithstanding the $20,000,000 voted last session, and the unlimited amount requested at the 1931 session, or the pledges made by the leader of the Conservative party to relieve unemployment and assist agriculture as he stated at Moncton, New Brunswick on July 10, 1930:
The Conservative party is going to find work for all who are willing to work or perish in the attempt.
Could we not request the Prime Minister to implement his pledge. Instead of introducing an arbitrary measure, he should admit that he failed in his task and that he is ready to appeal to the people to find out whether they endorse his conduct when he requests this Parliament to despoil itself of all its prerogatives, so as to allow him to adopt or amend any act according to his whims, or again, to vote him unlimited amounts without previously submitting estimates or stating how they will be spent. I think it would be most interesting to make an appeal to the people in this connection.
The leader of the Conservative party also stated at Moncton:
Mr. King promises to study the unemployment problem; I pledge myself to put an end to unemployment. Which plan do you like best.
I put it to the house and the country whether it would not have been wiser to first study the unemployment problem, follow the suggestions made by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and then deal with this problem in the right way rather than use half measures.
It would be quite to the purpose to apply to-day, to the right hon. Prime Minister the

words he used when speaking at Vancouver, on June 18, 1930, as published in the Montreal Gazette, the following day:
However blind he may be to your future, and deaf to your present needs, surely he cannot stop his ears with smug compliance and self-esteem to the cry that carries across the nation-the cry of destitute and hungry, the cry of mothers and fathers and little children who call to us as Christians and as Canadians to heal their pain.
That is the kind of appeal which the Prime Minister made at the last election, what has he to say, to-day? That this crisis is worldwide and difficult to deal with. What does he want to-day? He wishes to extend the life of this Act by which he arrogates to himself all authority and, together with the cabinet in council, he wishes to have a free hand, even when Parliament is sitting. We must, sir, as representatives of the people strongly protest against the principle of his Act. We however, find no fault with the following words included in the resolution:
That the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the following resolution:
But we are opposed to the following principle laid down by this 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.
This may seem of no consequence to those who are not acquainted with the provisions of chapter 58 of the Statutes of Canada, 1931. They are unaware that this means the placing at the disposal of the government of unlimited amounts; they are ignorant of the fact that this Act empowers them to pass whatever orders in council they please, either to amend our laws or favour any industry without the consent of Parliament or without the representatives of the people having anything to say in the matter. It simply amounts to a dictatorship, especially when Parliament is in session. When Parliament is not sitting, perhaps there can be some excuse for assuming such powers, as unforeseen cases may arise necessitating special measures, however, when Parliament is in session, it is perfectly ridiculous to request such powers. These methods remind us of the time when we were governed by the Family Compact, and when the Canadian people had not the right to elect their representatives who were appointed by the State. To-day, the representatives of the

Beauhamois Power Project
people are not chosen by the State, but measures are enacted by the government without the consent of Parliament.
What is the difference between the policy of this government, led by the present Prime Minister, and that of the Family Compact which ruled when our forebears demanded liberty, claimed their rights and wished to establish in this country the justice and fair play which characterizes British legislation or when they insisted to be given in this country a constitution which would enable the people to have a voice in all matters through their representatives?
I do not wish to stir up any feelings over this question, on the contrary, I simply wish to point out our views on the principle involved. We wish, without playing politics, to strongly protest in the House and throughout the country against the principle set forth by the Family Compact, and thus follow in the footsteps of the champions of the early days of the colony. W'e are fortunate to have had as an example, Papineau in Quebec and Mackenzie in Ontario, to champion the rights of our people.
The government, sir, wishes to have our cooperation to enact this measure. We are willing to cooperate in every way possible. However, as stated this afternoon by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), what kind of a cooperation does the government expect? They ask us to entrust everything to them, to vote an unlimited amount; and later on they will inform us, through the Prime Minister, what was decided by order in council. What further cooperation do they ask? To afford them the means, still through orders in council, to upset our statutes as they please, whether it is a question of insurance, gold export, the Bank Act or other important laws upon which depend the whole economic situation and the welfare of our people. Like our forebears we must strongly oppose this dictatorship and protect our people in order that they may enjoy their liberty and that our Parliament may preserve intact its prerogatives.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members on the other side have been asking for constructive suggestions, I have one or two to offer, but I was wondering if it wouid be agreeable to youir honour to call it eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 11, 1932