Mr. J. L. BOWMAN (Dauphin):: I have
been asked by the chairman of the committee investigating the charges made by Hon. G. N.
Gordon to present the second report of the special committee appointed to inquire into certain charges and allegations made by Hon. G. N. Gordon, K.C., together with the exhibits filed, and a copy of the proceedings and evidence taken:
The special committee appointed to inquire into certain charges and allegations made by the Hon. George N. Gordon, K.C., beg leave to present the following as a second report:
After hearing the evidence, your committee is agreed that the charges and allegations contained in the extracts from The Globe newspaper, as set out in the order of reference, were, in fact, made upon public occasions in Hamilton, Ont., on January 6, 1932, and in Lindsay, Ont., on January 8, 1932, by the Hon. George N. Gordon, K.C., as reported in The Globe newspaper of Toronto, Ont., with the exception that the words "Mrs. Herridge" appear in The Globe of January 6, whereas the words "Mr. Herridge" were those used.
As to the statement that a new private car was constructed for the use of the Prime Minister at a cost to the people of Canada of $125,000, your committee feels that this charge is of a relatively minor character, it being a charge of extravagant expenditure, and not one of misappropriation. It finds, however, that the statements made in this respect gave an entirely erroneous impression of the transaction, and were not warranted by the facts as brought out in evidence. Your committee points out that there has been no increase in the number of government private cars since the present government assumed office.
As to the charges and allegations so made, other than that above dealt with, your committee is of the opinion that they were of a most serious nature, calculated to do injury to the reputation of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. Prime Minister of Canada, a member of the House of Commons; and your committee finds that the charges and allegations so made were untrue.
Your committee finds further that these charges and allegations were made with the intention of injuring the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. Prime Minister of Canada, a member of the House of Commons, in his office as Prime Minister, and were made recklessly and without any adequate attempt to ascertain, before making them, whether they were true or untrue.
In the opinion of your committee, the conduct of Mr. Gordon in making the statements he did was reprehensible and deserving of the censure of the House of Commons, the more so as Mr. Gordon is a member of the King's Privy Council for the Dominion of Canada.
A copy of the proceedings and evidence taken, together with the exhibits filed, is attached.
All of whioh is respectfully submitted.
G. R. Geary,
Chairman.


Mr. HOWARD:: Messrs. Howard and Duff dissenting.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. GOTT:: How many pounds of butter were imported from New Zealand into Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1931?


Mr. STEVENS:: Canada's imports of butter from New Zealand by months for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1931, were:-
Months-1930	Pounds
April	 2,455,061
May	 2,838,575
June	 2,852,529
July	 434,034
August	 1,805,233
September	 876,752
October	 2,167,254
November	 64
December	 84,242
January	 1,796
February	 132,338
March	 147,002
Total, fiscal year 1931.. 13,794,880


PROTECTION OF CANADIAN SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
Mr. FORTIN:: 1.	Since August 7, 1930, were requests made to the government and were measures taken to place a duty of 25 to 50 per cent in order to protect the Canadian maritime construction and repair of ships in Canada?
2.	If so, what measures were taken?


Mr. RHODES:: 1 and 2. Requests have been received on several occasions since August 7, 1930, looking toward increased protection for the shipbuilding industry. No tariff changes relative to this industry, in so far as Items 440 and 440 (a) are concerned, were effected since the date above named.


CANADIAN MISSION TO SOUTH AMERICA
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What was the total cost of the travelling expenditure of the Canadian mission headed by hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) to South America early last year?
2.	What was the total cost of communications exchanged between the Canadian delegate or delegates on such mission and any member or official of the government: (a) by cable; (b) by wireless; (c) by wireless telephone?
3.	What was the total amount of our imports from and our exports to South America: (a) last year (1931); (b) the year previous (1930)?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Expenses incurred by the Right Hon. Sir George Perley and secretai-y in connection with trade mission to South America-$5,569.67,

2.	Cost of communication forwarded to Sir George Perley:-
(a)	By cable }
(b)	By wireless j
(c)	Wireless telephone services were rendered without charge 'by the telephone companies in connection with the establishment of new long distance circuits during the British Empire trade exhibition at Buenos Aires.
Cost of messages sent by Sir George Perley to any member or official of the government included in total expenses indicated in No. 1 above and is not available separately.
3.	Canada's total imports from and domestic exports to South America for the calendar years 1931 and 1930, were:-
(a) Calendar Year 1931
	Imports	Domestic
Countries	from	Exports to
	$	$
Argentina		.. 3,205,430	4,575,497
Bolivia			81,271
Brazil	.. 1,038,860	1,139,118British Guiana..	.. 4,247,774	892,279Chile	.. 108,733	580.493Colombia	.. 5,051,350	648,911Dutch Guiana. .	71,052Ecuador	.. 399	32,236Falkland Islands.	.. 10	French Guiana.. ,	40,450Paraguay	.. 22,228	35.699Peru	
. .	.. 2,976,418	698.265Uruguay	.. 111,025	529,102Venezuela	.. 634,662	600,762Total 1931. .. .	,. 17,396,889	9,925,135(b) Calendar Year 1930	Imports	DomesticCountries	from	Exports to$	$Argentina	. 7,641,000	12,417,486Bolivia	40.265Brazil	. 1.391.111	3,311.070British Guiana.. .	. 4,419,969	1,325,954Chile	. 546,994	1.106,758Colombia	. 5,691,726	1,264,611Dutch Guiana.. .	82,130Ecuador	65,622Falkland Islands. .	French Guiana.. .	67,456Paraguay	. 12,424	52.160Peru	. 4,527,217	1,866,066Uruguay	. 187,039	908.998Venezuela	. 2,947,881	1,081,437Total 1930	. 27,365,361	23,590,013
Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, PICTOU COUNTY, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	What federal public works in Pictou county, Nova Scotia, have been constructed or undertaken by the government under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931?
_2. What amounts were authorized in respect of each work?
3.	What are the names of the foremen employed in respect of each work and on whose recommendation were they appointed?
4.	On whose recommendation was the selection made of men to be given employment in connection with each of these respective works?
5.	What was the expenditure actually incurred in respect of each of such works?
6.	Are any such works as yet unfinished, if so, which of such works?
7.	On whose recommendation did the government decide on the authorization of each of the works referred to?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 
CIRCULATION OF BANK NOTES
Mr. SPENCER:: What was the total of chartered bank notes, dominion notes and subsidiary coin in circulation on July 31, 1929, and January 31, 1932, respectively?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Total bank notes in circulation	
Total dominion notes issued and outstanding Canadian gold and subsidiary coin issued and
As at July 31, As at January 1929	31, 1932
$170,113,031	00	$133,673,369	00
196,441,166	54	170,382,805	69outstanding	.. 32,684,147	75	34,474,608	00


POST OFFICES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many post offices were there in the county of Temiscouata, in August, 1930?
2.	To how many postmasters did the Postmaster General send a circular letter requesting resignation for political partisanship?
3.	How many postmasters, in the county of Temiscouata, sent in their resignations since August, 1930?
4.	What are their names?
5.	By whom were they replaced?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	74.
2.	No postmasters were asked to send in their resignations but 14 were communicated with in connection with charges of political partisanship made against them.
3.	2.
4 and 5. Jos. Michaud, postmaster at Lamy, replaced by C. J. W. Levesque; Chas. Bosse, postmaster at St. Eusebe, replaced by Paul Langlois.


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many post offices were closed, in the county of Temiscouata, since August, 1930?
2.	What are the names of the postmasters who were in charge of each of these respective post offices?


Mr. SAUVE:: .
1.	3.
2.	Detour du Lac, Isaie Beaulieu; Dartigny, Emile Beaulieu; Isle Verte Sud, Jos. Dumont.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-RICHMOND-WOLFE COUNTY
Mr. LAFLECHE:: What is the total amount agreed upon between the provincial and federal governments, for the county of Richmond-Wolfe, in connection with the Unemployment Relief Act?


Mr. GORDON:: Under the Unemployment Relief Act, 1930, the Dominion government agreed to con-

Questions as Orders jor Returns
tribute $19,150 to public works and undertakings iD the county of Richmond, and $13,955 in the county of Wolfe.
Under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, the Dominion government agreed to contribute $25,600 to public works and undertakings in the county of Richmond, and $7,000 in the county of Wolfe.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	How many civil servants (inside service) who have reached the age of 70, are still employed in the various departments at Ottawa ?
2.	What positions .do they occupy; what salaries are they paid annually; what retirement allowance would they receive, annually, in each case, if retired?
3.	How many come under the Civil Service Superannuation Act?
4.	How many come under the Civil Service Retirement Act?
5.	What amount of retirement allowance (lump sum) would each one receive upon retirement?


Mr. CAHAN:: I am asking that this question stand as an order for return because I am having some difficulty in obtaining all the facts.



Mr. TETREAULT:: 1.	How many persons were in the government's service, at Ottawa, on July 1, 1929?
2.	How many were employed as temporaries?
3.	How many were permanently employed?
4.	What was the total amount paid yearly in salaries to these employees?
5.	How many were French Canadians?
6.	How many belonged to other nationalities?
7.	What was the total amount paid yearly in salaries to French Canadian employees on July 1, 1929?
8.	How many persons were in the service of the government, at Ottawa, on July 1, 1930?
9.	How many were employed as temporaries?
10.	How many were permanently employed?
_ 11. What was the total amount paid yearly in salaries to these employees?
12.	How many were French Canadians?
13.	How many belonged to other nationalities?
14.	What was the total amount paid yearly in salaries to French Canadian employees on July 1, 1930?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The same applies to this question. I am asking that it stand as an order for return. We are working on it, but it will be some time before we can supply all the data required.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION, MOODYVILLE PROPERTY
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	What were the estimated quantities and the prices for the different classifications on which the Vancouver harbour commissioners entered into a contract with ss. Magoffin Company, Limited, for excavation and fill in respect to the Moodyville property, and the reclamation area on the north shore of Burrard inlet?
2.	What was the date of the contract and the date of completion of the work?
3.	What are the names of the committee of engineers appointed to make classification of material as the work proceeded, how much was paid to each, and why was appointment of such a committee resorted to?
4.	What was the last estimate in quantities of different material submitted by this committee of engineers?
5.	Was the classification made by these engineers enforced?
6.	Under what authority was a single arbitrator appointed?
7.	What was the quantity classification and price award made by the arbitrator, with his name, occupation, time employed and amount paid for his services?
8.	How much was paid to Magoffin Company for extras, and what was the total amount paid for all work done?
9.	In what amounts have the commissioners distributed the total cost of this work between the Moodyville property and the reclaimed area?
10.	Who was the owner of the Moodyville property at the time this work was done?
11.	Is it a fact that the original draft of the cross sections disappeared permanently during the progress of the work?
12.	Who were chief engineer or acting engineer and consulting engineer to the commission during the job?
13.	Who comprised the commission when the job was completed and paid for?


Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	What is the amount paid by Vancouver harbour commission for purchase of Moodyville property, with name of vendor and date of
purchase ?
2.	Who comprised the commission when purchase was made?	_
3.	What is the name, address, occupation and amount paid respecting each person who made a valuation of this property for the commission ?
4.	Had any part of the area purchased been previously improved under the Magoffin contract. and if so, at what cost?
5.	What is the total area purchased and how much of it is above high water line, and how much below high water line?
6.	What is the distribution of the purchase price between the portions of the property above and below high water respectively?
7.	Was the right-of-way for the Vancouver harbour commission terminal railway through the Moodyville property, in the possession of the commission before this purchase was put through, if so, what was the cost of this right-of-way ?
8.	Has the property been put to any use since, if so, what use?

Unemployment Continuance Act
9.	What are the annual carrying charges on account of this purchase?
10.	Is the government obtaining a return from this property?



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. OLOF HANSON (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the government based on a telegram which I received this morning from the city of Prince Rupert. It is as follows:
At a meeting of the council held on the fourteenth instant the following resolution was passed and I was instructed to telegraph the same to you:
"Whereas the city of Prince Rupert has carried the burden of feeding the destitute at a cost beyond the capacity of the city to carry, and whereas the number of these destitute will probably be doubled on account of the halibut fishing being already deemed a failure in this port, the halibut prices down to three and a half cents and two cents making it impossible for fishermen to carry on, and whereas the fishing industry is the only payroll at present possible in this city, and whereas the destitute are badly in need of clothing as well as of food, and whereas the mining and lumbering industries are completely paralyzed with all mills closed down, and whereas this city is unable to finance the unemployed any further, being also unable to meet their own obligations on account of the reluctance of the bank to help, be it resolved that a wire be sent to both the members of the Dominion and provincial parliaments asking that the Dominion government take over the full charge of the direct relief and that ample provision be made to relieve the acute situation at present existing."
Will the government give this matter serious consideration and speedy action?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I confess I have had a
good deal of difficulty hearing the remarks of the hon. member. I understand however from what he was reading that he is interrogating the government with respect to an important matter concerning the city of Prince Rupert in the province of British Columbia. If he will let his question stand as a notice I will look into the matter and at the earliest possible moment give him all the information we have.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 16, 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. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) :: Mr. Speaker, impressed as I am with the significance of this particular occasion and realizing this is the only opportunity I shall have during my forty minutes to say something with which every hon. member in this house will agree, may I as a Scottish born Canadian be permitted to say how much we appreciate the marvellous contribution that has been made to the development and upbuilding of our Canadian nation, both in settlement and in government, by those of Irish birth and lineage.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


An hon. MEMBER:: Say it over again.


An hon. MEMBER:: St. Patrick's Day in
the morning.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Fifteen
hundred years ago that marvellous patron saint of Old Erin landed upon the Irish shores. The spirit and genius of the Irish race, to my mind, has been exemplified in those wonderful lines of the Irish poet O'Shaughnessy:
We are the music makers,
And we are the dreamers of dreams Sitting by lone sea-breakers And sighing by desolate streams.
World losers and world forsakers,
And when the pale moon gleams We are the movers and shakers Of the world forever, it seems.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the house, you will not take this time off my forty minutes.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carry on like that,
and we will not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The real sentiment I desire to express in all sincerity is that we, representing the various portions of the Canadian nation in this house of parliament, express a sincere hope for the prosperity of Erin and that those people of Irish descent, may in years to come be privileged to make an ever increasing contribution to the literature, the music, the arts, the trade, the commerce and the general upbuilding of our Canadian nation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the buttons are off the foils. The resolution before the house has been debated for about ten days.
1196	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act


An hon. MEMBER:: Too long.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, too long, but due to a deliberate lack of preparation by the government which you support. The resolution to my mind invites consideration under three main heads. In the first place, it is the only announcement we have had during the present session of any government policy to deal with the grave question of unemployment; in the second place, it is indicative of the superlative ineptitude of the administration in its failure to produce at this session a real constructive and comprehensive policy in regard to unemployment; in the third place, it is a blunt and blatant evasion of the ordinary rules of parliamentary procedure, and a ruthless, arrogant and autocratic disregard of the functions and responsibilities of parliament and of the rights of the Canadian people. This resolution entails first, consideration of the record of the administration in dealing with unemployment. I am sorry the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is not in his seat, because he is the arch-author of our present miseries in regard to unemployment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is there any hon. gentleman opposite, Mr. Speaker, who will deny the scope, the extent and the character of the promises made by the Prime Minister during the election of 1930?


An hon. MEMBER:: The same old story.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The same old story 1 I suppose my hon. friend wants something new. Well, I am reminded of the song: "Every Little Girl Can Teach You Something New."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I trust, Mr. Speaker, that I have a meticulous timekeeper who will take off from my precious forty minutes all these senseless, useless interruptions. I know my hon. friends opposite are restless and apprehensive lest I place again on the pages of Hansard the character and extent of the reckless promises that were made by their leader in 1930.


An hon. MEMBER:: Turn on the gas.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Let me tell hon. gentlemen opposite, we shall place those reckless promises on Hansard as frequently as we wish, and we shall go on every platform throughout the dominion and place those extravagant promises before the

Canadian nation. I want hon. gentlemen opposite to explain what their leader meant when he promised the Canadian people: I will cure unemployment. "There is no excuse for unemployment if the government does its duty" in British Columbia; "there is no excuse for hard times if the federal government does its duty!" These promises were either true or *false. If they were true during the summer of 1930, when in the classic language of Sir Henry Drayton, "The sun is still shining and the rivers are still sparkling down to the sea," then they were equally true in 1932. If we are to accept as true the words of the Prime Minister, that there was no excuse for unemployment in Canada during 1930, then those words are a ringing challenge to him in regard to his confessed failure to cure unemployment in 1932. We say these promises were definite, we say they were sweeping, we say they regarded the unemployment problem as a national problem. Let me quote very briefly from the statement made by the right hon. gentleman at Montreal:
Unemployment has become a national problem in Canada. It is the direct result of nine years of unsound economic policies applied by the Liberals.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Surely,
Mr. Speaker, "The Lord hath delivered them into my hands." In 1930 unemployment in Canada, according to Tory speakers, was caused by what? They said it was caused by the policies of the administration of that day. In 1932 we have witnessed the sorry spectacle during this session of member after member of a servile and subservient majority rising in their places and saying: "Oh, world conditions alone are responsible for unemployment in the dominion." Well, Mr. Speaker, they cannot have it both ways. We say that world conditions were responsible for unemployment in 1930 and that world conditions are largely responsible for the deplorable situation in 1932. But we say further that the effect of world conditions upon unemployment in Canada in 1932 has been aggravated and accentuated by the hopeless and futile policies pursued by hon. gentlemen opposite. We say categorically that the promises made have not been kept, and that the Prime Minister has broken faith with the Canadian nation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I say he has most deliberately broken faith with the Canadian nation.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Did he, or did he not, tell the Canadian people, "I will end unemployment or perish in the
attempt?"


An hon. MEMBER:: Didn't he try?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that he has not ended unemployment.


An hon. MEMBER:: He has not perished yet.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is
perishing very, very rapidly, he is disintegrating most perceptibly. According to his own figures produced before this house, on September 19, 1930, there were unemployed in the dominion 117,000. According to the figures given last week by the president of the Trades and Labour Congress to-day there are 550,000 Canadian citizens out of work. So that the concrete result of the policies and the plans of this administration is that we have expended $150,000,000 in eighteen months and have multiplied our unemployed almost fivefold. That is, at the present rate the government are pursuing their policy in regard to unemployment they are expending $100,000,000 a year. With what result? Today we have hunger marchers parading through the streets of Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Montreal. What conditions have we to-day on the spacious plains of our great prairie provinces? What conditions have we on the farms in old Ontario? Yet do we not remember, Mr. Speaker, another voice calling in the far west: "When did free trade fight for you? I will make tariffs fight for you?" But what have their precious, priceless tariffs done for our primary producers and our manufacturers? They have ruined Canadian trade.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I maintain they have ruined Canadian trade. Our trade is down by nearly $1,000,000,000. The government have stifled Canadian trade with their pernicious prohibitions. They have shaken the foundations of imperial trade. What have hon. gentlemen opposite done in regard to agriculture? We have heard our friends from the west, men who have toiled upon the farms and know whereof they speak, state that never since confederation have the prices received by the primary producers been so low as they are to-day under this great fabric of tariffs. "I will make tariffs fight for you."


An hon. MEMBER:: Why don't you go outside?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Let my hon. friends opposite go out into the constituencies, let them face the people of Canada and ascertain what they think with regard to what the tariff policy of this administration has done for Canadian trade. What has it done? It ruined the New Zealand trade. We have not yet had the New Zealand treaty produced for the consideration of this house, but we have had the spectacle of my very good friend and esteemed opponent, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), sailing to the sunny strands of Waikiki and there endeavouring to repair the ravages that he and his party made in our trade with New Zealand. Then, Mr. Speaker, we had the special session of 1930.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You
should be patient and listen to the truth for once. We had the special session of 1930, ostensibly called to redeem the pledge to end unemployment, and what happened during that session? We had increases in two hundred items of the Canadian tariff, and towards the end of that two weeks' session we had thrown in our faces an unemployment policy giving $20,000,000 for purposes only specified in a general and not in a particular way. Any time we dared raise our wicked voices on this side of the house hon. gentlemen opposite said, "Hush, hush; be careful lest ye keep from the councils of the Imperial conference that great Canadian statesman, the Prime Minister."
Foolishly, sir, we permitted him to go to the conference, and what happened? May I draw a contrast for the benefit of the house, and particularly for my hon. friends from the old province of Quebec. You will remember that Sir Louis Davies moved the resolution in 1893 in this commons with regard to preferences; you will remember that after the election of 1896, when Laurier and Fielding were returned to power, a special session was called in April, 1897, on the eve of an imperial conference. They brought down preferences to Great Britain and, after a special session lasting two or three weeks, Laurier sailed for the old land. He laid upon the knees of Queen Victoria the Good, in the year of her diamond jubilee, a magnificent gesture by Canada looking to real imperial unity, not a unity achieved by blustering bargaining such as we see to-day. Laurier returned to Canada after receiving the acclaim of England and
1198	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
France, and for many months after his return Canada knew not the meaning of political parties.
What happened in 1930? The Prime Minister of Canada, after raising the tariffs against our kith and kin in the motherland, crossed the seas to that lovely old island and strutted most magnificently into the council room of empire, bearing pompously upon his shoulders the newly acquired mandate of public approval. He most imperiously issued to the almost affrighted delegates from the other portions of the empire his ultimatum in regard to a ten per cent increase in tariffs all round and returned to Canada without acclaim or approval. That is the contrast between 1930 and 1897.
Now let us come to the special session. At page 140 of Hansard for that session the Prime Minister said:
. . . we are asking this parliament by the measure now before it first of all to recognize the situation as one of a national character and secondly to agree to the appropriation of the sum of $20,000,000 . . .
Then he stated the various ways in which that money was to be applied. At that time the Prime Minister gave the number of unemployed as 117,000. May I recall the prophetic utterances of my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young) on that occasion, as found at page 115 of Hansard for that session:
This proposal to take $20,000,000 of the taxpayers' money and spend it on public works and other things to relieve unemployment is fundamentally unsound. It will not relieve unemployment. It will not relieve the smallest fraction of unemployment. After you have done all this work, you will find more unemployment in the country than you had in the beginning.
Surely that statement has been borne out by the facts. Now I would recall our attitude on that occasion, as indicated by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) at page 163 of Hansard for the second session of 1930:
... I think that would have been entirely the best plan for the government to have adopted-to have appointed a special body for the purpose of administering this fund, to have made that body responsible for every dollar of the expenditure, and to have had the accounts audited in detail by the Auditor General of this country. If that course is not to be followed-and I assume it is not-then I think it is doubly important that great care should be taken to see that the money goes to the destination for which it is intended.
Now I should like to quote, with particular emphasis, the words of the Prime Minister as they appear at page 175 of Hansard for that year:

... I have said further that this government accepts the responsibility that is involved in this expenditure.
What have we to-day in British Columbia? Sitting in the capital city of that province we have a committee investigating the maladministration of unemployment moneys throughout the province, though on the declaration of the Prime Minister himself, as found at page 175 of Hansard, this government has accepted full responsibility for the administration of every cent voted by this parliament in regard to relief in the province of British Columbia. Now may I recall with diffidence my own words on that occasion, as found at page 179 of Hansard. They were almost prophetic also in regard to what was to transpire:
. . . the people of British Columbia to-day do not want the hon. Minister of Finance of British Columbia to be responsible for any expenditure in that province of any part of the money which this parliament is about to vote. . . the people of British Columbia to-day would much prefer to have the expenditure of any portion of this $20,000,000 in the province under the direct supervision of this government . . .
I want to tell hon. gentlemen opposite that if that plan had been followed they would have avoided a great deal of grief in British Columbia. On that occasion we asked four things. We asked the government to bring in a supply bill; we asked that this House of Commons retain control over expenditure; we asked a thorough and complete audit by the Auditor General of this dominion-and this afternoon I am asking this government, through the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), to have a complete audit made of the funds in British Columbia under the auspices of the Auditor General of Canada-and we asked also for the appointment of a national un-emplojmient relief commission.
Now, sir, we come to the session of 1931, and what happened? We had this nefarious bill introduced. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) said the other day that the bill was absolutely in order because it was approved by the Canadian parliament. I want to inform my hon. friend that such approval was only obtained by coercion as far as thfe minority in this parliament was concerned; that bill never did and never will receive the approval of those who believe in the fundamental and essential principles of liberty and the freedom of parliament under the constitution. That bill was divided into three parts. In the first place it dealt with the relief of unemployment in a general way; in the second place it dealt [DOT]vith farm relief in the west, and in the third

Unemployment Continuance Act
place it contained this pernicious phraseology having to do with peace, order and good government in the Dominion of Canada. I should like to recall to hon. members two very short declarations made on that occasion, one by my right hon. leader and the other by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). The right hon. leader of the opposition, at page 4415 of Hansard for 1931, is reported as follows:
If this measure were dealt with as it deserves to be it would be the duty of the House of Commons to remain in session until the measure was withdrawn. That is the only way in which I believe a free parliament could in the circumstances be expected to maintain the rights of a free people.
The hon. member for Quebec East, at page 4418, said:
I say it is a piece of despotism which has not had any parallel in the history of Canada or so far as I am aware of any other democratic country enjoying responsible government. It is the establishment of a virtual dictatorship. There is no doubt about it.
Let us characterize under three headings what was done by the bill of last year. The first thing was this:	It was the last order of
the session, appearing on the order paper towards the end of July or in the first days of August, after about fifty invitations and requests had been addressed to the government by hon. members on this side of the house to have the unemployment policy brought down. In the second place it substituted the authority of the executive for the authority of parliament. It went further; it not only divested parliament of control with regard to questions of expenditure and taxation, but it gave to the executive council of the Dominion of Canada the unprecedented right to alter by order in council the laws on the statute books of this country. It deprived parliament of the control of public moneys that were to be spent between the termination of last session and the commencement of this session.
Now I should like to recall to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice the words of a gentleman whom I am sure he will acknowledge to be an expert upon constitutional law. I refer to the president of the Canadian Bar Association who, in October of 1931, in referring to the act passed last year, used these words:
A delegation by parliament of its powers in the widest possible terms to the executive authority for the period during which the act is to remain in force.
And again:
In these trying times great indeed, are the responsibilities of statesmanship but great also is, at all times, the responsibility of the legal
profession to guard with the utmost care, giving of course due and unprejudiced consideration to alll pertinent circumstances against any measure which might tend to unduly^ abridge the actual participation of the citizens at large in the making of the laws under which they shall live and their actual and timely control over the expenditures of their common funds.
This was a much more vicious, much more iniquitous and much more pernicious form of legislation than was ever contained in any war measure passed in (the Dominion of Canada. I could quote figures if I chose, Mr. Speaker, with regard to what have 'been the results of this unemployment policy even as it has affected their pet, protected manufacturing industries. What has happened? Between the day of the election in 1930 and the month of February 1932 we find a decrease of 203,000 in the number of employees in the manufacturing industries of Canada. That is the effect of the Canada First policy, the self-centred, selfish and outworn creed of economic nationalism. That is all it is. The}'' have reduced the number of employees by 203,000 in the manufacturing industries of this country. And what has happened so far as trade is concerned? In 1929 the figure was $2,600,000,000; in 1930, $2,300,000,000, and in
1931,	$1,710,000,000. That is what tariffs have done for Canadian trade: they have stifled, restricted and prohibited trade, and they have ruined agriculture from shore to shore.
The second branch with which I was going to deal is the ineptitude of the administration to produce a real, comprehensive policy. Let me read the language of the resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor.
We remember the comedy that was perpetrated on this house the other day. The act expired on the first day of March of this year,
1932,	and I understand that on the second day of March the government passed an order in council sending $500,000 to one of the provinces for unemployment relief, notwithstanding that the authority given under the act had lapsed, and that no moral or legal authority existed for the sending of that money.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When I have finished.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I want to ask the hon. gentleman whether that $500,000-
Some hon. MEMBERS- Sit down.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish to say, Mr. Speaker-
- An hon. MEMBER: Poor sport.	[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: You aren't an Irishman.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, you might remove that turbulent political accident from South Essex.


Eccles James Gott: You haven't said anything worth while yet.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has the floor regularly and he should not be interrupted in this manner. No member, when speaking, is obliged to permit another member to ask him questions; they may be asked only with his consent. The hon. member is quite in order in continuing his speech.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish to refer-


An hon. MEMBER:: Give him enough rope.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: -to a
request made in this house yesterday for information in regard to one of these orders in council passed under the legislation of 1931. We asked a question of my genial Irish friend, the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), in regard to ties of the Canadian National Railways. That request was refused by the minister. I have here copy of order in council No. 2719, which gives authority to the Canadian National Railways, on recommendation of the minister, to purchase 2,000,000 railway ties at a price not exceeding 65 cents per tie, such purchase to be completed on or before March 1, 1932. This is under the authority of the Unemployment Relief Act of 1931, and it involves an expenditure of the money of the Canadian people to the extent of $1,300,000. Yet my hon. friend said yesterday, "It is not the custom of the Canadian National Railways to divulge these precious secrets." That statement might be valid if tenders had been called for, if there were competitive bids; but here the amount is fixed by the minister himself. The price is fixed by the minister himself.


Mr. MANION:: Mr. Speaker-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is here in the terms of the order in council.


Robert James Manion: The price is not fixed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is fixed in the order in council.


Robert James Manion: A maximum price-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Robert James Manion: A maximum price was fixed-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Robert James Manion: No, I won't sit down. A maximum price is fixed. The hon. gentleman is making a statement which is not correct and I do not intend to permit him to do so; that is all. I wish, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order to correct the hon. gentleman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the Minister of Railways rising to a point of order?


Robert James Manion: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I say that the hon. gentleman is making a statement which is not correct. We did not fix the price at all. He says that we did, but we did not. I wish to raise this point of order anyway. The hon. member is discussing a matter which was disposed of yesterday by the parliament of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Minister of Railways may, in his own mind, have disposed of the incident but we on this side have not done so by any means, and we shall not have done so for many a long day.


Robert James Manion: I hope my hon. friend and his friends will come through with the goods.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This act, Mr. Speaker, was passed last year against our protest, and under its authority an order in council was passed on the recommendation of the Minister of Railways. Under that order in council there was an expenditure of $1,300,000 which was not authorized by parliament. We knew nothing about it; it was a leap in the dark; it was done without our knowledge and consent. And when an hon. member of this house asks for information in regard to these ties he is told that the matter is a secret, it is mysterious, it appertains to the Canadian National Railways! In my judgment, the refusal to give the members of this house complete and final information with respect to that order in council is the greatest insult ever offered the Canadian parliament. We have been accused, sir, on this side of the house of not putting forward any constructive suggestions with respect to unemployment relief.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I hear
some lion, gentlemen saying "hear, hear"; probably they have not said a single word, constructive or otherwise, since this debate began. Let me recall to hon. gentleman opposite some of the proposals that we have advanced. I cannot analyze them now for I have not the time, but I will mention them. In the first place, we advocated a national unemployment relief commission. Secondly, we advocated proper procedure by supply bill. Thirdly, we advocated a proper system of auditing. In the fourth place, we have advocated a comprehensive system of unemployment insurance, and, fifthly, we have asked that the coal industry of Nova Scotia oe dealt with by parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I see the hon. gentleman over there in his customary pain. We have asked for the construction of a Peace River outlet and we have asked also for a shortening of the hours of labour in Canada. Again, we have asked for the instituting of a national research council for social and economic purposes, and we have asked for a writing-down of interest on bonds. We have asked for an adjustment of the wages of money in keeping with commodity prices and the wages of work. We have asked for a comprehensive housing scheme and, finally, we have asked for a Canadian National MacMillan committee to investigate banking, currency and credit in this country. Yet, in the face of all this, hon. gentlemen opposite say that we have not advanced a single constructive suggestion from this side of the house.
Let me mention something else. This year the present administration has taken from the public service of Canada the sum of $8,300,000. I wish to inform the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) that there will mature in 1933, 1935 and 1937 a total of $497,000,000 of bonds which are tax-free in Canada to-day. At the ordinary rate of interest of five per cent you could secure therefrom a contribution to the Canadian treasury of $25,000,000 or, at five and a half per cent, $27,500,000. But, it is said, it is a question of contract. Well, when it comes to the civil service, no contracts stand in the way, and I suggest to the administration that they might well consider these people who have wealth and who aye not paying a cent of taxation thereon to the treasury by way of direct obligation. Confiscate it, if you like, but gather into the treasury this $27,500,000 and you will go far towards relieving the public service and meeting the present unemployment problem in Canada.
I have no time to deal with the orders in council in detail. I wish to read to the house a short quotation from that famous book Dictatorship on Trial:
Thus it is only the countries in which the parliamentary system has taken root for centuries and which are also the home of the middle classes that the freedom of the individual and of state life-the most precious treasure of any community-maintains its unbroken strength. Nevertheless even in these countries there reign distress and want which know no law and are at the same time the root of the harshest laws. And it is in the atmosphere of distress and want that the trial of dictatorship comes into being, runs its course and hastens on towards its fateful consummation.
I also wish to quote from the London Times of February 16, 1929, the following passage:
The true precedents-
It is speaking with reference to a clause enabling a minister by order to modify the provisions of a statute.
*-it has been pointed out, must be sought further back than 1888. They are the pretensions to the dispensing powers under the Stuarts and the statute which declared that anything enacted by King Henry VIII or by order in council should have the force of law.
And now a quotation from the Prime Minister's favourite book, the New Despotism:
The new despotism which is not yet defeated gives parliament an anaesthetic. It is to subordinate parliament, to evade the courts, and to render the will or the caprice of the executive unfettered and supreme.
I wish to remind this house, Mr. Speaker, of the accepted and revered political philosophy of Locke under four main headings.
First, "The source of all political power is the right of the people themselves."
The second is this-and it will stir the blood of any real reformer, of any Liberal.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh!


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It only stirs my hon. friend to ignorant and raucous laughter. The second is this, "The only divine right in government is the right of the people."
Third, "All governments derive their power from the people."
And fourth, and this is the most comprehensive and most significant of all, "Parliament is the people."
May I quote especially for the benefit of my hon. friend from Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley), who made a brilliant speech in this debate the other day, the words of Joseph Howe, which have a ringing message for us today:
This house of parliament has a due reverence for British institutions and a desire to preserve to themselves and their children the advan-



Unemployment Continuance Act
tages of the constitution under which their brethren on the other side of the Atlantic have enjoyed so much prosperity and happiness. But to-day they cannot but feel that those they represent participate but slightly in these blessings. They know the spirit of that constitution, the genius of these institutions, is complete responsibility to the people by whose resources and for whose benefit they are maintained.
And now the words of Sir James Mackintosh:
It is a fatal error in the rulers of a country to despise the people: its safety, honour and strength are best preserved by consulting their wishes and feelings.
Peering down the corridors of history I see the meeting in 1100, where the Charter of Liberties, a forerunner of Magna Charta, was wrested from the ruler. It was a promise to put an end to abuses of the preceding reign, and to restore the rights of the people. In the second place, I see that historic meeting at Runnymede, that island in the Thames, on the 15th day of June, 1215, where respect for the rights of the people and for the parliament of the people may be said to have been bom, and where the barons wrung from a tyrannic ruler pledges for the people. There the rights of the people were once again asserted. In the third place, 1 see the assembling of the model parliament in 1295, where for the first time all three estates, clergy, nobles and commons, gathered together and formulated many constitutional privileges. They limited the power of the king. They extended the power of the people by laws which gave them control of taxation and expenditure in a specific way.
Then we come to the first of the Tudors, in the closing years of the fifteenth century, when the affairs of the nation were becoming monopolized by the king's own council. We had the star chamber instituted, and it is rather sinister and significant to explain and underline the principles involved in that star chamber. Listen to these words. The star chamber was formed "as a swift effective means of quelling expected disorder." How significant! How sinister! Peace, order and good government! Peace when there is no peace, order when disorder is prevalent, and good government when we have the worst government in our history.
Still peering down the corridors of history, I see the civil war in the early seventeenth century. Then an attempt was made by the king to rule without parliament. Parliament was not allowed to assemble for seven- years, and later -for eleven years. This resulted in a civil war. I see the struggle around the Petition of Right. I see the emergence of

men like Pym, Hampden and Cromwell- Cromwell, not a dictator, but the great Protector. The trouble with the Prime Minister of this country is that he has all the rapacity of Oliver and only the capacity of Richard.
At the end of the seventeenth century I listen to Lord Sunderland, who established the principle which is supposed to be followed to-day in all free countries, that the ministers of the cabinet are responsible, not to the ruler, but to parliament, and also the principle that national funds can be spent by parliament only for specific designated purposes.
I see the elder Pitt in the eighteenth century being dismissed by his king in 1757, and recalled by popular demand. I see a picture of John Wilkes expelled from the House of Commons because he had the temerity, for the first time in history, to criticize the speech from the throne. He was restored by popular demand after the house had expelled him. No wonder Burke called this:
A comedy at the expense of the constitution. It was the alarm bell of liberty.
In the nineteenth century unemployment caused Sir Robert Peel to surround the House of Commons with special constables called ''bobbies," and, Mr. Speaker, the Catiline guards who surrounded these buildings only a few days ago when the unemployed paraded to parliament hill will be known in history as "Dickies."
And now my tale is told. I will summarize it all in the ringing words of that great Briton, Rudyard Kipling, who said:
All we have of freedom,
All we use or know,
This our fathers bought for us,
Long and long ago.
-I turn to my friends on this side of the house who are imbued with ideas of freedom and give them three quotations from that great English poet, Shakespeare:
Beware of entrance to a quarrel, but being in,
Bea-rn't that the opposed may beware of thee.
And in words that will stir the blood of all lovers of freedom I present this quotation to the Canadian House of Commons:
To thine own self be true
And it must follow as the night the day,
Thou cans't not then be false to any man.
Even the ranks of Toryism, Mr. Speaker, can scarce forbear to cheer. And finally I sum it all up in the words from that great play Macbeth, in urging my friends on these benches to resist with might and main this encroachment by the government on those

Unemployment Continuance Act
imperishable principles of liberty and freedom for which our forefathers fought. My final counsel is this:
Lay on, Macduff
And damn'd be him that first cries 'Hold enough! '


Mr. FINLAY MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: Before beginning what I have to say, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is well that on behalf of many hon. members on this side of the house I should offer my thanks to the last speaker (Mr Mackenzie) for the very many kind references he has made to the Irish race.
I think that a stranger entering this chamber for the first time and hearing the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, must have come to two conclusions: First, that Canada was the only country in the world that was suffering from the depression; and secondly, that this government was responsible for it. I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that in the whole annals of our political history there has never been heard in this chamber more extravagant statements than were made by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken in this debate (Mr. Mackenzie). Not only were his statements extravagant, but every statement that he made might be characterized as falling in one of two classes: Either the statement had no reference at all to the question under discussion, or if it was a legitimate criticism it was directed to the wrong quarter.
In the first place the hon. gentleman referred to the visit of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1893 to England, when he extended to Great Britain this much boasted British preference. Surely there is not very much to be said in favour of that. Anyone who wants the inside story of the matter has simply to read the speech which the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) delivered this session, and he will find how much credit is due to Sir Wilfrid Laurier or the Liberal party for that English preference.
In the next place the hon. member compared that visit with that of our leader (Mr. Bennett) about two years ago. Not very long since we had a visit from a very distinguished English statesman, the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, and we all had the pleasure of listening to his admirable address to members of the house. Those who heard him must have taken away one very significant fact, that is, his reference, first, to the Imperial conference to be held here in July, and, second, to the great change that has taken place in public opinion in England during the last two years. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what man in all the empire is more responsible for 41761-761
that than the present leader of the Conservative party in Canada?
Before I proceed to a general discussion of the subject before the house, there are just one or two more references in the hon. member's speech to which I want to direct attention. The first is his reference to unemployment insurance. Surely it is flying in the face of common sense when any member of the Liberal party dares to challenge this government for its attitude in regard to that. Why was unemployment insurance not enacted by the late government? Why was the exMinister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) repudiated in the house by his leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) on that very question? Such extravagant statements as have been made on the subject carry their own refutation.
The hon. member referred also to the question of coal, and to what the Liberal party had done for the coal industry, particularly that of Nova Scotia. The coal duties were originally sixty cents a ton. They were reduced by a Liberal government to fifty cents a ton, and during all the years that the Liberals were in power, although delegations repeatedly appeared before them, there was never an increase in the duty on bituminous coal, until this government came in and the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) as Minister of Finance introduced in his tariff resolutions an increased duty of seventy-five cents a ton. No later than last Saturday, a delegation from the coal miners of Nova Scotia met the government and carried back with them the most cheering news that has ever come to the miners of that province. It is simply playing with common sense, with historic facts, for an hon. member to make the statements he did in the house and expect to get away with them. The hon. gentleman's speech was very interesting in many respects, particularly in regard to the quotations from other speakers which he gave. I can only express my regret that he did not confine his attention more to quotations and less to imagination.
Let me make one final reference to a statement made by the hon. member-and it is one which has been made by most of the speakers on the Liberal side-in regard to the attitude of our leader as a dictator. I do not think the Canadian people are suffering from any dictatorship on the part of our present leader. With all deference and in all kindness I would suggest to the leaders of the Liberal party that they are taking the wrong course in this matter, and that the way out of the valley does not lie along that path. The people of Canada, with their usual good sense, are

Unemployment Continuance Act
perfectly satisfied with the -present attitude of the government. That is oftentimes reflected in editorial utterances of many liberal newspapers. In the Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, March 16, there is a column and a half directed to this matter, and as it reflects pretty accurately the intelligence and well informed opinion of the country, unprejudiced by bias, I am going to read just one or two paragraphs. The editorial states:
Before subscribing to the opposition's criticism of Mr. Bennett as dictator, even though it is based on traditional parliamentary Liberalism, there is another side to be considered. Canada has been plunged into a grave condition of economic stress. It is due to artificial causes, but it is accepted by both sides in parliament as though it were unavoidable, like an earthquake or some other calamity of nature.
Mr. Bennett has shouldered the responsibility of leading the Canadian people through this period of financial collapse. He is more intent upon salvaging the ship of state than upon observing the fine points of parliamentary method. It is safe to say that the majority of Canadian people are more concerned with Mr. Bennett's efforts to find a way out for Canada, than with the Liberal party's protests about the rights of parliament as the controlling authority of government.
The majority of people may be woefully lacking in appreciation of parliament upon which political democracy is founded. A decline in popular respect may tend to continue, however, unless one side or the other in the House of Commons can demonstrate that the existing machinery of political democracy is capable of meeting the present economic situation, where industrious people are forced to suffer privation in this land of plenty.
One more quotation from it and I have done:
In 1930 the Canadian people gave Mr. Bennett the mandate to try to lift the load of depression from this country. It has been disclosed that the tariff alone is insufficient. It will doubtless be made equally clear that drastic economy is no remedy for lack of purchasing power in a land of unlimited capacity to produce.
There is still sufficient confidence, however, in the prime minister to back him in further steps, even though he may appear to be in conflict with parliamentary tradition. Unemployed breadwinners, harassed business men, observers of the general relationship of parliament to international money power, are looking for leadership. Without worrying too much about the opposition's constitutional criticism, they may well look to Premier Bennett to go on trying to carry out the mandate given to him to abolish the evil condition of unemployment in Canada.
So much for the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has preceded me. Up until now I had no intention of taking part in the debate. I looked upon it as a sort of academic discussion, with no practical value, and an effort on the part of the opposition to delay the

proceedings of this house. Hon. members opposite may think that is an unjust statement, but I do not think it is. I am at a loss to understand their attitude or purpose in prolonging this debate over a period of ten days. Until yesterday I looked upon their action as more or less harmless, but I received two telegrams which showed the situation in a very different light. As these telegrams are my only excuse for taking part in the debate at all I intend to read them.
The first is from the treasurer of the city of Sydney, and is addressed to me. It is as follows:
Interview Auditor General and ascertain when he intends releasing our direct relief; overdue payment eight thousand dollars and working relief also overdue aggregating nineteen thousand dollars. Moneys advanced for these accounts are now required for other purposes and immediate action is necessary.
D. J. O'Connell,
City Treasurer.
On receipt of that telegram I made inquiries to find out why this money had not been released and was informed by the Department of Finance that the money was there, but could not be released until the bill was passed. What is the position? The city of Sydney is in the same position as many other municipalities, towns and cities throughout Canada, and particularly in the province of Nova Scotia. They have borrowed moneys from the banks to carry on their public works and relief contributions. The time has come when money is needed for other purposes, and those municipalities approach the government for help. The government however is opposed by this Liberal opposition which is holding up payment of the money, and causing the suffering of our people.
I received another telegram from the chairman of the Relief Association in Sydney, which is as follows:
Your message O'Connell moneys due from federal government are for relief disbursements December and January, and mayor states unless forwarded at once cannot carry on further. Provincial authorities have paid their proportion.
That brings the matter to a definite issue, and shows exactly the meaning of the opposition to this measure. It means that all these protestations of sympathy for the poor and unemployed are simply so much wasted breath. By their action they are delaying the expenditure of money that should be going to those unemployed. That is the exact result of their opposition to this legislation.
The issue before us is very simple. It is this:	Shall we for a period of two months
extend the powers given to the government

Unemployment Continuance Act
last year? Why should we not do that? Have the government misused those powers? Has any money been expended by them for purposes other than those contemplated when they were given the power? I have heard no charge of that kind.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: What about the railway ties?


Finlay MacDonald: I have heard no suggestion that there were wrongful disbursements with regard to railway ties.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I make it now. Surely my hon. friend must have heard what was said with respect to that expenditure. Parliament never intended, when it passed the Unemployment Relief Act, to give the government the right to buy ties for the Canadian National Railways without calling for tenders. Why was the vote taken?-in an effort to get the information.


Finlay MacDonald: My
right hon. friend must realize he is directing his criticism in the wrong direction altogether.


Mr. QUINN:: Let him make a charge.


Finlay MacDonald: Surely this government was not supposed to oversee the expenditure of every dollar by the Canadian National Railways. All those expenditures are attended to by the management of the railways, and we have been told time and time again that they will not put up with interference from politicians in this house. If there has been any misappropriation of funds in regard to railway ties, surely the proper time for such a discussion is when a regular charge has been made by some hon. member in this house, and an investigation called. My right hon. friend could get the information he desired by an examination of railway accounts, because every dollar spent by this government for the operation of the Canadian National railways will have due consideration by hon. members. The railways will have to justify their expenditures.
I should like to make a few remarks concerning expenditures for civic works in municipalities and towns. In that connection the towns subscribed 50 per cent, this government subscribed 25 per cent and the local government another 25 per cent. Before any work was undertaken the town outlined a program which was first submitted to the local government, and then to this government for approval. From the very first the intention was that the city or town should have the work done, pay for it and submit vouchers duly certified and audited by the provincial government. In turn the provincial government certified the audit and forwarded it to this government for investigation. The federal government could not possibly oversee all the expenditures made throughout the country; there was no intention and no promise to do so. It did say to the various towns and municipalities, "We will pay 25 per cent of the cost of any civic public works you may undertake, on condition that the provincial government will pay a like amount, and that your program may be found satisfactory to us."
From a fairly extensive knowledge of the operation of that arrangement, may I say that it was followed religiously. The city of Sydney, to which I referred a few moments ago, borrowed the money and spent it on public works. Those works have been passed upon and approved by the local legislature and this government. To-day however that city cannot carry on its work because this government is not in a position to pay its share of 25 per cent, and cannot because this bill is opposed by the Liberal party.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend refers to opposition to this "bill." May I remind him that no bill has been introduced; we are discussing a resolution.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, this is a resolution to amend something which at the present time does not exist. No bill has been or is now before the house.


Finlay MacDonald: That objection, Mr. Speaker, is hardly worthy of the right hon. leader of the opposition. Everybody knows exactly what this discussion is about; it is a resolution preceding the introduction of a bill-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no bill.


Finlay MacDonald: -and we are discussing it just as if we were discussing the second reading of a bill.


An hon. MEMBER:: Just a quibble.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman, if conditions in Sydney are so serious, why could not the government in half an hour pass a supply bill to alleviate those conditions.


Finlay MacDonald: The
government simply prefer to take this course, and having taken it they are going to see it through. There is no difference in effect between this resolution and a supply bill.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Yes; but the government brought down supplementary estimates two or three days ago. Why could not they have included the necessary appropriation for that purpose?


Finlay MacDonald: Those supplementary estimates have nothing to do with this resolution. The government is simply asking parliament for an extension of two months in order to carry out the commitments they have already made.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The government know the extent of those commitments now, don't they?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Finlay MacDonald: They
may or may not. But what difference does it make? That is the point that all the opposition speakers make, as if there was a great difference between-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me put this question to my hon. friend: Does he say that the bill to be introduced goes only to the length of asking that the government shall have authority to complete the commitments already made?


Finlay MacDonald: Not
necessarily.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is just what the hon. gentleman has said.


Finlay MacDonald: That is the intention and justification for this resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon.
gentleman will find that under the act passed last session the government have power to make and carry out commitments made during the period for which it was in force. This measure is to give the government authority to do something entirely new; it is not confined to the purpose my hon. friend speaks of.


Finlay MacDonald: With
great deference to my right hon. friend, as I viewr the resolution it is nothing more nor less than for the purpose of enabling the government to exercise for another two months the power given them one year ago, which power expired on the first day of this month.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is another thing.


Finlay MacDonald: Under that power commitments were made, and the government cannot meet those commitments
fMr. F. MacDonald.]
simply because the opposition led by the right hon. gentleman is opposing the passing of this resolution. There is no avoiding that conclusion. Hon. gentlemen opposite may squirm under the imputation-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say
this to my hon. friend: If the Prime Minister will agree-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. The hon. gentleman w'ho has the floor may permit a question and indicate his permission by taking his seat, but he has not indicated any such permission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Quite right, Mr. Speaker. But I understood my hon. friend had a certain conception of the measure to be introduced and I should not like to disagree with him unless I thought he was under a misapprehension. May I tell him that if the Prime Minister is prepared to introduce a bill based on the hon. member's interpretation given a moment ago, that is, a bill containing power only to meet the commitments that have already been made, we on this side will stop our opposition at once.


Finlay MacDonald: I am
afraid, Mr. Speaker, that we do not see eye to eye.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid not.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Let us be frank about it then.


Finlay MacDonald: I have a very great admiration for my right hon. friend's talents, and particularly for his ability to get around a question such as this. This resolution may go a little further than the exact commitments now made by the government, because there may be a dozen different claims before the provincial governments and before this government that in good faith should be met, but which cannot properly be called commitments. I come back again to the point I want to make, and it is my only excuse for taking up the time of the house. I submit that the responsibility is on the Liberal party in this house if the relief committee of the city of Sydney are deprived of any opportunity to carry on relief services in this sense. WTe all listen with a great deal of pleasure to the high-sounding phrases used by hon. gentlemen of the Liberal party when they tell us how sympathetic they are towards the workers, but when it comes to the practical question of providing unemployment relief, and they think there is any political advantage to be gained by factious opposition,

Unemployment Continuance Act
then their sympathy for the workers is subordinated to their desire to make political capital out of the present depression.
With great deference to, and with the highest regard for, hon. gentlemen opposite, I would in all sincerity point out to them that in my opinion, at least, they are pursuing not only a wrong course but a very dangerous course in opposing this resolution. Does anybody in the exercise of his common sense fear that the constitution is being subverted or that the liberties of the people will be taken away simply because the government is to be given two months extra time to carry out the provisions of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act? Nobody really entertains such fears. Every person of common intelligence in this house and out of it knows that the government has to come back and justify to parliament everything it may do under this legislation. May I assure my hon. friends opposite that the electorate can be trusted properly to weigh the actions both of the government and of the opposition. Surely the great Liberal party is not so politically bankrupt that it bases its hopes for success at the next election on the depression that the country is now going through? Hon. members opposite know exactly what has been done and what methods have been followed by the government in dealing with unemployment relief, but so far not one member of His Majesty's loyal opposition or of the two groups in the far corner has come forward with a concrete suggestion to remedy the present situation.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What about the suggestions made by the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie)?


Finlay MacDonald: We
have received from the other side only vague theories, not one concrete suggestion. Yet in the face of this poverty of constructive ideas we are told that the present government have no policy! Surely the government's course so far with respect to the relief of unemployment may properly be called a policy. What is offered as an alternative? So far we have had only one suggestion from the right hon. leader of the opposition and some of his followers-the appointment of- a commission. Any person who has any practical knowledge of the administration of unemployment relief knows that it would be absolutely impossible for such a commission properly to carry out the purposes of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, for its proper administration necessitates the cooperation of three independent bodies-this government, the provincial
governments and the municipalities. Could any commission appointed by this government function for all three authorities? True, wc have heard about the reckless expenditures of relief money in British Columbia, and there may be something wrong there, but I do not know anything about it I do know this, that there have been no wrongful expenditures of money in Nova Scotia, and I know further that this money has not been administered in a partisan way in that province. Instructions were given the foreman that only one test was to be applied with regard to applicants for work; that tes; was the need of the applicant. He was not to be asked what was his religion or his politics; the only question was his need for relief, and when that was established he received that relief. Throughout that province I have not heard one word of criticism as to the administration being unfair or partisan, and any criticism that may come will have to be directed against those immediately concerned with the payment of the money.
I have just a .further word to say in conclusion. The only ground for attack, so far as I can see, is the possible ground that we are departing from strict parliamentary custom. Let us admit that for a moment. We all admit that parliament has full control over the expenditures of money and that the government may not expend any money other than that voted by parliament, but even thal has its limitations. The government can and does spend thousands and millions of dollars without the authority of parliament when the necessities of the case call for it, and we musi remember this: The constitution is made for the people, and not the people for constitution. Occasions may arise when, in the interests of the people and in the interests of peace, order and good government it is absolutely necessary to set aside some provisions of the constitution. That may have been done in this instance, but every act committed will be amply justified when the proper time comes.
Mr. E. C. ST-PERE (Hochelaga) (Translation) : Mr. Speaker, in a period of crisis the government gathers all the resources and active forces which the nation has at its disposal. Realizing that its part is not purely one of dissenting, the opposition unites with the government in its endeavours to relieve the social and economic depression, and all admit that the Liberal party did not shrink in fulfilling this duty.
This administration comes back with the request that we should renew the blank signature which a majority of the house granted
120S

Unemployment Continuance Act
to them at the last session. The phraseology of the resolution is very obscure, we however, realize that its adoption would be unsafe to our parliamentary system. To approve of it under the plea of an emergency would be to establish a dangerous precedent, for our constituents would have cause to consider us unworthy of their confidence. It goes without saying that this resolution, for the least, makes free with our constitutional rights. Some of the speakers who preceded me in this debate have shown this very clearly and have pointed out all the dangers with which it is fraught.
Canadians take a pride in their history and have a high respect for the constitution which governs them. Its political evolution was slow but those who sacrificed all their talents and even their life to conquer our constitutional liberties, have inculcated in all an unshakable love for these rights so eagerly claimed and honourably obtained from England.
In the Quebec Act, in 1774, it was deemed useless to establish an assembly notwithstanding the earnest pleadings which Fox made in England in favour of a representative assembly.
The Constitutional Act of 1791 divided the country in Upper and Lower Canada. Pitt, the eminent British statesman, though he had reestablished peace, and John Graves Simcoe contended that he had given this country a constitution similar to that of England. Then came the period under which Canada really attained its aim, that is, the union of the two Canadas. Previous to this period, the worthy members who were the true representatives of the Canadian nation, such as William Lyon Mackenzie, Robert Fleming Gourley, Doctor Rolph, Peter Perry, Ketchum, Bidwell, Robert Baldwin and others, in Ontario, as well as Papineau, Nelson, Cuthbert, Lafontaine, Morin, Aylwin and Yiger in Quebec, had struggled hard and united their efforts to attain this end. The situation which existed previous to this period, recurs to-day, and if the Liberal party, faced with the resolution which it is asked to adopt, takes an attitude which displeases our friends opposite, it is that the Liberal party to-day, in keeping faith with the high ideals of the Liberal party of those days, wishes to assert that it will always remain the ardent champion of the people's constitutional liberties.
To ignore the past under the plea of an extraordinary emergency would be to take a step backwards and proclaim ourselves partisans of an anti-national modernism. I consider that unemployment could be somewhat

relieved without exacting that parliament should sacrifice its rights, the surrender of which would be judged by the people severely when the great day of atonement came.
Let us not forget, sir, that we have to face a world-wide crisis and let us endeavour to establish some reforms. The hon. member who preceded me stated that he had not yet heard on the Liberal side any criticism which might bear results; I wish to make one suggestion of a constructive order, by pointing out what the state and industries, at large, might do to improve this chronic unemployment problem from which we suffer.
Anxious to find an antidote against unemployment, the governments were finally affected themselves by this hysterical fit of unemployment relief. We must acknowledge it was to obey a generous impulse that direct assistance, etc., to the unemployed was given, however, by that means only temporary relief was afforded and to a very small number of them. Let us admit, moreover, that these repeated assaults on the treasury would result in further disturbing the equilibrium which should exist between production and distribution, and would in the near future contribute to increase the cost of production and the prices which the public have to pay. Hoarding up, failures, unemployment or deficits are not, properly speaking, the causes of the present crisis, but rather the symptoms of an economic disease resulting from a wrong policy followed by all governments and especially by Conservatives. To solely treat the symptoms would be like effecting a transfusion of blood in a seat of chronic infection. The way to attain a state of relative prosperity is to restore the purchasing power of the people destroyed by unsound methods applied to public administration.
The famous standard of living of the people is not the primary cause of this depression; it is rather to the wrong standard of living of those who have to do with high finance, and also t-o the enforcement of a poor financial policy that must be attributed, for the greater part, the present crisis. Justice demands that the people be protected against these parasites of the state, who have .placed fictitious values on their stocks, dividends or new issue of preferred shares. The tools of the state, such as the large corporations possessing no other rights but those granted by the authorities. Their powers should be restricted from the very start, their activities should be watched and constantly controlled. The fact is admitted that they are, to-day, all powerful, and should their influence somewhat increase the

Unemployment Continuance Act
governments which brought them into existence would be at their mercy.
I believe in the stabilization of our currency as the foundation of our economic security Let us admit that no measure of this kind has ever been resorted to for our workers who contribute, no less than money does to the moral and material welfare of society.
Mr. Gladstone, the great Liberal leader of England, once told the workmen of a certain locality in the county of Chester, that the labour problem could not be solved like a mathematical problem, but that we must appeal to Christian feelings. Our workmen, let us thank Providence, share the views of the great English statesman and it is always to the great social law of love for one's neighbour that they first appeal in their just claims.
There are, moreover, human economic means; if not of solving at least of improving the situation. Millions of unemployed workers are dependent not on theories or unworkable measures, but practical solutions. They have listened too long to these tiresome repetitions of theories, to these doleful distributors and will only be satisfied with regular work and equitable remuneration. All those who had work or are working to-day claim, rightly and justly, that they should be given continuous employment through a steadier functioning of industry. Large industrial and financial interests, during prosperous times, see that prices are maintained and that sufficient reserves are set aside to meet dividends and salaries in connection with the administration during periods of crises; but where is to be found in their reports, one item providing for the wages or part' of the wages of the workman who necessarily must join the ranks of the unemployed?
All this points to a real paradox: preventive measures are adopted against diseases, fire, hail, etc., but nothing of the kind exists againsts the ills of which millions of people suffer, as at present, owing to unemployment. When the crisis becomes critical all endeavour to follow the line of least resistance by resorting to unemployment relief. If this system be established-I appeal to the members of this house, the great majority of whom are endowed with practical sense-as a permanent institution, the poor of to-day, will, tomorrow, know the horrors of pauperism. The workmen, although forced to allow themselves to be doped by government assistance, protest and appeal to the authorities to apply the only solution possible: The necessary means to destroy unemployment at its outset.
We may provide for millions of days of work, but we shall not have found the antidote which is regularity of work in industries. This system, we must acknowledge, would perhaps not be, for the present, a complete cure, but it would provide a remedy which would relieve a great number of unemployed. But the idealists, together with certain people whose confidence reposes simply on these alibis, will perhaps reply by pointing out, as an excuse, the cycle of affairs, the feelings of the masses aroused, the lack of economy on the part of workers, etc., all such blinkers destined to cut off the light which would procure more genuine happiness in numerous homes which are today in want. It is regretful to note that this government has not, since the famous session of 1930, taken any steps to encourage industries to adopt such an attitude towards the unemployed.
The regularity of work, resulting from diversified and well managed production has already given convincing results to directors of companies who have taken the interest of their employees by putting into practice this motto, so truly human, of a manufacturer in France: work to earn and earn to give. Let me but mention in the United States the names of the following companies who have succeeded in giving 35 to 42 weeks of regular salary to their employees: the Packard Motor Co., the Proctor and Gamble Co., the Dennison Manufacturing Go., the Beech Nut Packing Co., the General Electric Co., and Hills Brothers and Co. These are companies whose directors are far from being classified among idealists, and whose aim is not only to accumulate dividends but to be socially and economically useful to their country.
The bare fact, is that there are many unemployed, and industry, as a whole, has not taken the necessary measures to prevent this crisis. Must we, therefore, conclude that the government should take no part in assisting the unemployed in the future. Certainly not. It is their duty to devise the best means possible to help those that are in distress. However a distinction must be made as to the procedure to follow to obtain the sanction of parliament. Let the government, as it was so lucidly stated by my hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), introduce a bill that the house may discuss before enacting, and the opposition will again resume to its constructive efforts in the house.
Reasons of state are put forward-Oh! those famous reasons of state to which the somewhat autocratic king of France had re-

Unemployment Continuance Act
course. These reasons invoked to enact legislation, which introduces at the same time selfishness and autocracy, cannot possibly find supporters among us who respect the rights and powers granted by the mother of parliaments.
There is something which I wish to point out to the house: the ever ready plea of governments, too little regardful of the humble people and that of the large selfish industrial interests always ready to apologize to workmen by saying: if you suffer, to-day from depression, you are alone to blame for this economic evil, you were too lavish in prosperous times.
I represent, sir, a large labour section which, previous to this crisis, included a great number of workers drawing salaries, I shall not say always fair, however, sufficient to permit them to earn a living and allow them a margin to give thmselves some little comfort. Would one dare, to-day, tell these workmen: if you suffer, you are alone to blame. Oh! if you had not bought radios, electric washing machines and electric wringing and drying machines, your budget would not, to-day, be so lo\V. To those who make such reproaches to workmen, I shall say that the latter are not responsible for the situation they are in, that certain deceitful economists-these economists who have never known one word of this science and still less of the psychology, of the people, are to be found everywhere-who advocated mass production, under the plea that this production and extensive distribution would contribute to the increase of salaries. Industrial interests sought the press, at large, and through repeated advertisements, and active canvassing from door to door the workmen, to whom continuous prosperity was promised, surrendered and thought it quite proper to purchase the articles that modern progress offered them.
The workmen are the cause of the present situation? The cause of all the taxes by which they are, to-day, burdened? No! Have our workmen any influence whatsoever in the directorship of our banks, industries and largje corporations? Have our workmen a voice when matters of high diplomatic order or of international finances are involved? I say no. Since the right hon. Prime Minister stated the other day that one must always bear in mind the human factor, I say that on the occasions referred to the workers surrendered to pressure, believed in the economic untruths spread everywhere, and it is while reposing their trust in these economic statements that they may have made a supposed slip for which the gov-

ernment blames them, to-day, to cover up its unsound policy and bad administration.
There are still other economists, those attached to large industries, who have convinced the workmen that the machinery which displaces them would never reduce them to the rank of the unemployed. "This machinery they stated, which to-day deprives you of work, will help you to-morrow to find occupation in other industries." I am not against progress, I know that machinery will continue to improve; however, it behooves the government to relieve the situation. It is the manufacturers who, at present, contend that the government, in cooperation with them should find the means of creating new business to give work to those whom the machinery has temporarily displaced.
There is one thing which I want to point out: our governments cannot take to themselves the whole merit of having helped the unemployed since the crisis started. In the large city of which I am one of the representatives, to what would have amounted the help given without the numerous contributions of private charity? What would have become of these numerous unemployed in Montreal East, with which I am better acquainted than the other parts, if the property owners of that section-many of the latter being workmen themselves, who, thanks to their savings, wrere able to possess themselves with a modest estate-what would have become of these numerous unemployed, notwithstanding this supposed help of governments, if these property owners, simple workmen like the [DOT]unemployed, and who themselves are without work, had not gratuitously given and were not still giving to-day to the unemployed who live as their tenants, the privilege of staying in these tenements until prosperous times returned? It is well to point out the part contributed by each in the relief given up to date.
I have listened to speeches delivered by members on the government side; I have read some of them and I note that, almost all, confined themselves to criticizing the leader of the opposition for not clearly understanding the situation, throwing bouquets to the leader of the government and conferring on him all the attributes of omniscience and prescience that one can imagine. They referred to Stalin and the Soviets, they made us travel thousands of miles and landed us in Russia to inform us that the government over there would not suit us.
All these things are known, and, in my opinion, we are magnifying the situation in

Unemployment Continuance Act
leading the country to believe that communism exists within the four corners of Canada. I am especially referring to Quebec; there communism has no hold and our people do not even think of asking us the definition of this new social order which Slavonic Russia at present delights in. What the workmen to-day request of the government, and what they together with the unemployed ask us} we of the opposition, is a system for a practical solution of the problem; what the out of work at present want are not unworkable measures, as those which have been enforced up to date, but it is the cooperation of industry and government to solve the problem with which we are faced.
Sir, the situation is critical. The world is wondering, like, in the past, Lord Shaftesbury, in England, whether there exists a scarcity of statesmen able to meet the situation. Work, that is what they crave for.
Will the Conservative patricians opposite, the followers of the government manage to understand that the people are tired of the miserable official pittance and the repetition of oratorical display to which they were invited at the election of 1930, by promising that three days after the advent to power of the Conservative party there would be no more unemployed in Canada?
I was listening, quite recently, to a radio broadcast of a sermon delivered in the great St. James Anglican Cathedral, in Montreal, by Dean Carlyle. Commenting on a passage of Genesis, he stated: '"Pharaoh asked Joseph, one day, where he could find a wise man, imbued with the spirit of God, capable of restoring prosperity over the land of Egypt." I ask both on behalf of the unemployed and myself, that a man or men be found in the Canadian parliament capable of helping to restore prosperity over the land of Canada. "Canada First" must not be simply a motto for a political rally but a policy which the government must follow in seeking a possible solution to the present problem of unemployment. We must not display too much optimism; I do not ask the government to restore full prosperity all over Canada, but to alleviate somewhat the burden which, at present, weighs on the shoulders of our people. Work, always work!


Mr. J. ACHILLE VERYILLE (Lotbiniere) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, alow me to reply to certain assertions to be found in what an hon. member of this house called, yesterday afternoon, the churning of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil). The hon. member contended, among other things, that by our attitude in the house, we took upon our shoulders a great responsibility towards the public. First, this assertion coming from this hon. member is not of a nature to frighten us, and, moreover, we fully realize that we are championing here the rights of the people against the autocracy of the government and, owing to that fact, our responsibility is light and easily borne.
Following in the footsteps of some of our hon. friends opposite, the hon. member directed an attack against the Quebec legislature and alluded to, as some of his hon. friends did, an act adopted at the last session of the Quebec legislature: the Dillon Act. If these gentlemen are sincere in their indignation, they	have the means at	their disposal to provetheir	sincerity: if	this	act	is so unjust, nowthat	their friends	are	in	power at Ottawa,why	do they not	ask	for	its repeal? This
would, undoubtedly, allow them to discover that they committed a great injustice, here in the house, in disparaging the people of Quebec, and would afford them, once more, an opportunity to learn that the electorate of Quebec, at the last provincial election, were not bribed.


Mr. GOBEIL (Translation):: Not all 200,000 of them.


Joseph-Achille Verville: We, on
this side of the house, prove our sincerity. You heard 1he other day, sir, the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) state that we were ready to vote the necessary grants which the government requires, but that we did not wish to adopt blindfolded, an act necessitating a large outlay of public money. It is perhaps, you may retort, a lack of confidence in the present government. So far as I am concerned, I have no fear in stating that I have no confidence in the present administration.


Samuel Gobeil: I knew it.


Joseph-Achille Verville: I was
pleased to listen to the speech, last Tuesday, of my friend, the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon), and I wish to congratulate him on the fervour he displayed in defending his friends the members of the government. We often heard it said, that he is in line for a portfolio. I readily admit it, he has the necessary stuff in him to well cover this portfolio. One of bis remarks is as follows: After reading the resolution which is before the bouse he teilils us that the substitution of the word "May" for the word "March" is the only change to be made. We also did read the language of that resolution and it is precisely because it is too short that we are

Unemployment Continuance Act
opposed to it for fear of its results. As to his conclusion about the favourable outcome of the Three Rivers-St. Maurice by-election to the credit of the government, because it reflects the feeling of the electors of that constituency towards his party, I do not share the same opinion. As he did not exhibit any power of attorney from the different constituents of the province of Quebec authorizing him to act as their spokesman in this house, I think it is much better to wait and let them speak for themselves. That is why I cannot accept his conclusions.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear.


Joseph-Achille Verville: Last
Thursday, I heard the hon. member for Que-bec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) endeavouring to justify his friends for having proposed that measure to parliament. What I might term his plea was rather in the nature of an onslaught on the legislative assembly of Quebec which is in no way concerned in this debate. Nevertheless he found something very unusual; he contends that we, on this side of the house, spend our time asking for information from the ministers and heads of the various departments just to be ready for the next election. Even if it were true, I should be inclined to think that it is not a bad thing. But I might add for my hon. friend's information that we want to get at something else and it is to show plainly all the inconsistencies of the present government.
Take, for example, the answers and documents tabled by the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) showing innumerable cases of postmasters who have been discharged, honest and upright men thrown on the street without any reason whatsoever and against the wish of hundreds of citizens who signed petitions in their favour. When we think of the way they have been treated just to please some political friends of the government who have been in politics longer than those whom they replace, we cannot but feel to What extent such a measure falls short of the pledges made by the minister himself. No doubt this might be said with equal force for every other department. Then, Mr. Speaker, I think it is our duty to get all the information so as to be able to put them before the people at large. We do not wish the citizens of this country to be fooled once more by our friends opposite, but we want to be ready to redress all the wrongs that have been done, when better days come, and that will not be long particularly with a new government.
Such strong reasons have been set forth in support of the resolution before the house
	j | g|fj
and in such numbers, that the government should have listened to them and, admitting their error, should have accepted their logical conclusions. But no; be it for good or for worse the government has decided that the measure should carry; that might be the reason why our friends opposite do not even open their mouths and attempt to utter one single justifying word. Accordingly, I do not feel that I can change their mind, because it is beyond my power and, secondly, because their leader does not permit that. That is what we have learned and observed since they sit on the other side, that is since 1930.
When I rise to-day, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I perform my duty. We are here the people's representatives; we are responsible to the people and it is our duty to find out and know the way this government is going to spend our common funds. I am sure this country would be better off if the government were willing to state to the house the expenditures they intend to make in order to be able to solve once more the problem that their leader had pledged himself to settle within a few days following his advent to power.
The constitutional aspect of this question has been discussed very ably by several of our friends. They have proven that, even if the government feel that they can take and enjoy every power, they cannot bring back to life those who are dead. Well, it is exactly what they are labouring at in this case. Moreover, they want to deprive the members of this house from one of the finest prerogatives, which they hold as a constitutional right, that is the voting of all the expenditures of public moneys needed by the government to administer the business of this country and particularly to relieve the unemployment situation. One would think, Mr. Speaker, that the constitution was, in days bygone, something to be reckoned with. But now, our friends opposite seem ready to stand up and say: "The constitution, to the dogs! We are in power; this country is ours and we shall administer it as we please, even in defiance of all the statutes heretofore well observed."
I give credit, Mr. Speaker, to the right hon. the leader of the government for many fine qualities and I sympathize heartily with him in his efforts to cope with the embarrassments which are of his own making. But there is one thing I will never admit and it is that he cannot enact laws when and how he wishes to, in defiance of existing statutes and of the parliament now in session.
I quite appreciate that our hon. friends from the other side, following the example of their leader, are ill at ease when they think of the promises they made in the past, and

Unemployment Continuance Act
that, at the present time, they deem it wiser to refrain from making further promises. But, to-day, we do not ask for new promises; we simply ask, as we are entitled- to, to be informed as to the character of the legislation before the house; we want to know just what further amount of money the government intend to spend during the next two months in order to settle, once for all, the unemployment problem, and how the money is to' be spent. After all, this money belongs to the people, and as such, the latter are entitled to know from the members of the government what use they intend to make of it. This legislation is either sound or -unsound; if it be justifiable, then why should one be afraid to give the members of this house detailed1 information in reference t-o it.
Why then this legislation by way of an order in council, outside of parliament? Why extend for another two months an act that is' dead? Why this hide-and-seek game? Are we to infer that the legislation is not sound' and lends itself to warranted criticism? I fear, Mr. Speaker, that we may be led to think so, the position of the government being such as to justify that impression.
The principle of the act itself is not involved in this debate. As far as I know, no one in this house has stated that he was against' granting any relief to the unemployed. To the contrary, we are all of one opinion on this point; we have needy people in our midst' and it is our duty to give them a reasonable sum of relief, to the extent our resources and means enable us to do so.
This government has created a new profession:	that of the unemployed; it has
organized that profession, and we are now called upon to feed and support its members. However, Mr. Speaker, may I state that, in my opinion, the government can hardly feel proud of their invention when, in order to feed the members of that new profession, they have decided to spend millions upon millions, at the risk of leading the country in to bankruptcy, of impairing the financial situation of our provincial governments, as well as at the risk of courting insolvency in the case of our municipalities.


Joseph-François Laflèche: What
about that overdraft of $16,000,000 in Quebec?


Mr. HACKETT (Translation):: You may
find out from the Bank of Montreal.


Mr. VERYILLE (Translation):: That is a provincial matter. Everybody knows that this reckless spending of public funds has caused distress everywhere and has reduced all our governing bodies to financial disaster.
After all, these millions must come from the pockets of the taxpayers. And where will such doings lead us to? We are called upon by the government not to look into their expenditures, to contribute a share of our sessional indemnity, to economize in their stead, but what shall they do when the two months are gone? We are entitled to know? A time shall come when Jack Canuck will no longer be in a position to pay and that day is very near at hand.
We help the brokers, the unemployed in the cities, the farmers in the west; all that is very fine, but, may I ask, what benefit has so far accrued to the farmers in the east from the enforcement of the Unemployment Relief Act? They, too, freely and liberally contribute to the relief fund and yet their needs are equally urgent. They also endure their share of distress and if they complain less than the others, it is probably owing to the fact that they are less reckless and more provident; At any rate, they should no longer be called upon to contribute and submit to such exactions.
Be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, there is a fact no one can deny: at all times we have had needy people in this country just as in the case in others lands. And, while admitting that hard times have added to their number, we would have a great many more had our friends from the government side not organized those we have into a profession, along with a promise to support them.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: The Holy
Scriptures say: "For the poor always ye shall have with you".


Joseph-Achille Verville: That is evidenced by the fact that we are spending millions of dollars for their relief, as they increase in number. Should .that be the best solution that offers for the settlement of the problem, then I am afraid the process of settlement will be everlasting, because the more the government does to settle it, the farther it gets from being settled.
We have always had poor with us but they Ivere allowed to come to us and humbly beg for charity; they very seldom went empty-handed. In their wisdom the government deemed such a system out of date; apparently they found that Christian charity is not sufficiently in keeping with protection, and so, have determined to disregard it entirely. What are the results? This is what happens: It is no longer necessary for those in need to ask for charity; with the system newly -created by lour friends from the other side, and under our statutes, they -are authorized to ask for

Unemployment Continuance Act
money, and in many cases, entitled to support. On the other hand, those who are in better circumstances are being denied the merit of dispensing charity of their own free will, the government of the country having compelled them to help the poor, and that to a specified extent as to the contribution.
For the above reasons, as well as for others indicated by the hon. members to my left, I am opposed to the extension of the act as asked for by the government, before we are told on what grounds such demand is being made.
As a last word, Mr. Speaker, I urge the government, notwithstanding their poor disposition and their great love of extravagance, to tell us where they are leading us to. I say that, in attempting to remedy the situation, they should set the example, and refrain from endeavouring to sever the bonds uniting the various classes of the Canadian community, leading one group to believe that it enjoys protection through their extravagance, while they "pilfer" the pockets of the taxpayers belonging to the other classes, without saying openly that suich methods are intended to conceal the government's squandering of funds and to meet with the exigencies of political patronage.


Mr. MARTIAL RHEAUME (St. John's-Ifoervi'lle) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate in order to state1 to the house the reasons why I cannot support the resolution. I shall not discuss the constitutional aspect of the issue since it has been dealt with in a masterly way by my hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), by the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), by the members for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier), for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley), and for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), as well as 'by a galaxy of speakers on this side of the house.
In my opinion, the manner in which this legislation has been carried out is in fact an abuse of authority. The act was used for the purpose of amending, by way of orders in council, the Bank Act, the Insurance Act, in order to please friends, and that constantly under the cover of good government, of unemployment and farm relief and for the maintenance of peace and order in Canada.
We are taken to task, Mr. Speaker, for not having offered any constructive suggestions. Many suggestions have been made, but they are worthless in the opinion of the members of the government because they originate from this side of the house. In the first place, I wish to mention one, that of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie

King), which may be found at page 69o of Hansard and reads as follows:
Before parliament dissolved, before we went to the country, we had placed in the supplementary estimates a vote for $10,000 to provide for the holding a conference which would bring together representatives of different interests in this country to consider wbait steps should be taken to deal with the problem. I explained in this house before, and I will explain again what we had in view in that connection.
It was intended to bring together, as had been brought together on a previous occasion, representatives of employers' associations such as the manufacturers' association and other employers' associations; of the labour organizations, such as the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress and of other labour organizations; representatives of the municipalities, such as the Union of Canadian Municipalities, representatives of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which could speak for the great trading interests of the country; representatives of the provinces; representatives of the Red Cross, of the great transportation companies and other organizations who would be in position to consider methods of cooperation in furthering emyployment and make helpful suggestions as to what might be advisable in the way of further steps to deal with this question.
Another is to be found at page 914 of the Hansard and reads:
If my right hon. friend will drop the resolution which is now before us and ask his Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) to come to the house this evening with a supply bill indicating the amount of money which the administration feels it will be necessary to have in order to meet the situation between now and the first of May, or the period during which parliament may be in session, if he will take that course, and move that the rules be suspended so that such a supply bill can be speedily passed through the house and sent over to the Senate, we of the opposition will cordially join with the government in agreeing to the suspension of -the rules, and will seek to expedite the passage of such a measure through the house to-day. I make an urgent appeal to my right hon. friend-who as Prime Minister surely has an appreciation of the responsibility involved in the setting of a precedent, who surely venerates British parliamentary institutions and would like to have them upheld-
Mr. Speaker, the position taken by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) before the election in 1930, as well as the offer made by him the other day to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) were worthy of consideration. We are asked to cooperate with the government, we are invited to offer suggestions, and these two suggestions are being ignored.
We are quite willing and ready to cooperate with the government. In a speech delivered on the 9th of March, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) solicited the opposition's cooperation, invited them to join and help the government to remedy the

Unemployment Continuance Act
depression now facing the country. We are ready to do so, but the government refuse to accept any suggestion from members of this side of the house. If, after having thus tried to enlist the cooperation of the opposition, the government were sincere, they would have accepted some of the suggestions made by members of the liberal party, and this would have induced us to offer further suggestions.
When a person is asked to cooperate, one must be fair towards him and follow sometimes his advice. In my eighteen years of experience with the municipal council of my town, I have learned what cooperation means. However, there cannot be cooperation if one refuses to follow any of the suggestions made. The idea of which our hon. friends opposite have of such cooperation, is to do what they have decided without consulting us on the matter; should we refuse, we are looked upon as unworthy Canadians and charged with impeding the government in their efforts to relieve unemployment and agriculture.
We are willing to vote 20, 30, 40, 50, 100 or 200 million dollars to relieve unemployment, but we are not ready to give a free hand to the government to administer the affairs of this country. We are here as representatives of the people and have a right to be heard and defend the constitution.
The hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Mac-Dougall) in his speech on March 10, at page 981 of Hansard, stated:
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 money. 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-
We do not dispute this statement, however, we contend that we have a right, as members, to express our views and it is what we are doing. Further on he states:
AVhat was their policy when in power? The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Maskenzie K-ing) had a policy then; he was prepared, with his charitable disposition and from the goodness of his heart, . . .
When the leader of the opposition was at the helm of the affairs of this country, he certainly showed himself better disposed than the autocrat leader of the government. The
leader of the Liberal party had foreseen, in the 1930 budget, what would happen. The leader of the government was then leader of the opposition and knew that these amounts had been voted.
The minority in the house, sir, is entitled to be heard and has the undeniable right to oppose, if it so desires, measures so autocratic, notwithstanding the contentions of the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Duguay) who states that he is in receipt of a telegram from the town council of St. Joseph-d'Alma, which reads as follows:
That this council deem it their duty to earnestly request, on behalf of the public interest, that a new agreement or arrangement be made between the government at Ottawa and the Quebec government in order that an additional sum be allotted to continue the work begun and carried on this winter on the Quebec-Lake-St.-John road, in the Laurentian Park, from now on to July 1, 1932, with a gang of 500 men.
I have received no telegram from the town of St. John's, yet I am willing, together with the opposition, to vote the amount which the government requires. Further on the hon. member states:
Yet, the opposition, to-day, impugn the constitution and smile benevolently to all that flavours of communism in our province and throughout Canada.
I dispute, sir, the right of the hon. member for Lake St. John to state that the Liberal party makes common cause with the communists. The Liberal party boasts of a splendid past and gave during numerous years an honest administration to the country. I think that the hon. member for Lake St. John has no right to state that the Liberal party has made common cause with the communists, because that party is composed of upright and honourable citizens.
Further on in his speech he asserts that the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) endeavours to represent himself as the champion of his country's cause. I charge, sir, the hon. member for Lake St. John with endeavouring to discredit the former Minister of Justice, who has acquired, in Quebec, the reputation of being a statesman and a faithful servant of his country. No sincere Canadian will deny, him this title. When the Liberal party was in power and Messrs. Lapointe, Cardin, Rinfret and Cannon sat in the council of the nation, I think the province of Quebec was highly represented. Thank Heaven!
I shall take this opportunity, sir, to congratulate the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Baribeau) on his maiden speech in


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Liberals as well as Conservatives are entitled to justice, whether they be farmers, labourers or unemployed. I say that in time of distress we should not be concerned with political parties, or creeds, or races, but we ought to give justice to all the citizens of this country.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members have spoken of orders in council that were passed by the Liberals. They have mentioned one concerning the Beauharnois; but I would like to have copies of those which were passed by thi3 government, since it is in power. I know that hon. gentlemen opposite are possessed of a great power; they endeavoured by orders in council to convert potatoes into radishes, but they failed. They have shown their skill in converting surpluses into deficits and the future will show that one of the peculiarities of Tory governments is to drive the country to bankruptcy. In 1896, the great leader of the Liberal party at that time, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, saved the country from bankruptcy and turned deficits into surpluses. In 1911, the Tory party came back to power and the following year deficits had replaced the surpluses of the Liberal administration. The present hon. leader of the opposition assumed power in 1921, and two years later he had changed the deficit into a surplus; in 1930, the party of autocracy came back, and six months after, the surpluses had given place to deficits.
Hon. members on this side of the house who spoke on this resolution are not all Liberals, but they are all anxious to safeguard our constitutional rights. Every political party, with the exception of the Tory party, have opposed this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I considered it was my duty to voice my opinion in this debate. I represent one of the most beautiful, if not the finest constituency of this Dominion, which has always been true to the Liberal party since confederation. It has placed its confidence in a party which always did credit to Canada and it was always opposed to conservative governments that never brought anything but deficits.


Mr. MAURICE BRASSET (Gaspe) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, before the house decides as to the opportunity of extending the Relief Act for two months, such as requested by the government, I think it is our duty first 41761-77
to study whether the blank cheque given to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and his colleagues, during the last session, has brought about the results which the people expected from it. The Prime Minister submitted that emergency measure, not at the opening of parliament, but later on in the session when the representatives of the people tired and harassed by their long labour are getting ready to go back home. It is then that the government, probably to avoid a long discussion and to reach more easily their goal, proposed that famous measure, which after all meant the handing over of dictatorial powers to the Prime Minister and his government, namely the power of spending the people's money as he saw fit and as much of it as he wanted, without the people's representatives being consulted.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) stated, a few days ago, that it was necessary sometimes for the Prime Minister to ask for the powers of a dictator. I would point out to the hon. minister that our country is ruled by a constitution, that the Prime Minister and his government have only the power of carrying out the legislation enacted by this house, and there is no urgent need to-day of granting a blank cheque to the executive, when the people's representatives assembled are ready to place into the hands of the government all the funds which they may require to face the situation. Consequently the powers of a dictator that the Prime Minister wishes to assume, according to the words used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, are not justified.
The Prime Minister stated recently that the wheat of the west was sold, but not paid for; then he must know how much money he requires. Let him ask for the amount through a supply bill, and the opposition declares itself ready to vote the necessary funds.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce also stated that the extension of the powers granted under Bill 58 was requested because credits had been granted to some provinces and municipalities which had not had time to make the expenditure. Once more, the government knows the amount they require; let them ask the house for it, and the house is ready immediately to vote the necessary funds. The government cannot say that we systematically oppose this resolution. We are willing, and I say again that we have always been willing to grant the government the necessary funds, provided that the government specify the amounts and tell us for what purpose they want. them. The government have no reason to take such a stand, save their obstinacy and
REVISED edition

Unemployment Continuance Act
their desire to pass over the constitutional rights of the house. The prime minister wants to govern the country all by himself, without anyone's advice. Up to now that policy has utterly failed, and I for one do not see why we should willingly let the prime minister continue such a policy at the expense of the whole country.
In the course of his speech, the other day, the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) stated that Hon. Mr. Taschereau, the prime minister of the province of Quebec, had said that there were no unemployed in that province. My hon. friend will surely allow me to correct that statement. Hon. Mr. Taschereau said that there were people without work, and a large number too, in the province of Quebec, but the province was able to care for them; however, if the federal parliament adopted any measures to relieve unemployment, the province of Quebec would want its share, just like the other provinces. That was the statement made by Premier Taschereau. By the way, I must say that this government have not dealt fairly with the province of Quebec. As its share of relief funds the province of Quebec received $4,000,000, while the province of Ontario got $7,000,000, and British Columbia over $6,000,000 for a population of 700,000. Why such a discrimination? The province of Quebec is just as much affected as the other provinces and it should have got its proper share of unemployment relief funds. I noticed that nearly all conservative members from the province of Quebec who took part in this debate assailed that province and its prime minister, Mr. Taschereau. Why? Is it because they cannot find anything to say in behalf of the conservative administration here at Ottawa that they try to create a diversion by attacking the Taschereau government? I wish to point out to hon. gentlemen that we are not here to discuss the acts of the Taschereau administration, but that we are members of the federal parliament. Moreover the great majority of the people of the province of Quebec shorved not very long ago that they were satisfied with the present provincial administration. I shall quote the statement made recently by the Lieutenant-Governor of the province of Alberta with regard to the province of Quebec. This is what he said:
I think it is fair to say that the province of Quebec commends itself to the attention of the other provinces, on account of its sound legislation and almost complete lack of social disturbances that are so often witnessed in other parts of the Dominion. Therefore I have no hesitation to declare that that province, by the worth of its leaders, sets in many regards a splendid example for us to follow.

These words do not sound like those of hon. members opposite. They were uttered by a man thoroughly unprejudiced and that is why I have more faith in them than in those of hon. members opposite who assail the government of Mr. Taschereau.
Coming back to this resolution, I must say that notwithstanding the unconstitutionality of the measure presented by the government and the fact that the executive, through this legislation, is assuming powers that belong to the people's representatives, so far as I am concerned, I would not hesitate to vote for the extension requested by the Prime Minister, if that same legislation had previously served the purposes for which it was adopted. But I claim that in many cases the money has been wrongfully spent and wasted, and consequently the bill which it is proposed to revive has not served its purpose.
Upon coming into power in August, 1930, this government endeavoured to redeem one of the promises they had made during the campaign, namely; to put an end to unemployment. For that purpose a sum of $20,000,000 was voted during the special session of 1930, extraordinary powers were given to the government during the session of 1931, so much so that at the present time the expenditures not only of the Dominion government, but also of the provincial legislatures and municipalities, have reached an approximate total of $150,000,000. This is an enormous amount of money, and if it had been properly spent it would not have cured unemployment but it certainly would have largely helped in restoring prosperity in this country. Instead of that, conditions steadily became worse. In the spring of 1930, the unemployment index was 9 per cent of the working population; it was 20 per cent in the United States and 14 per cent in Great Britain. It shows that Canada was in a favoured condition due to the sound policies of the former government, the wise administration of -the Right Honourable Mr. Mackenzie King and specially the salutary effects of the Dunning tariff, which, though depression had set in, stimulated the trade between Canada, the other parts of the empire and the rest of the world.
But the cry raised by the Conservatives during the election had a fatal result. In fact during two or three months through the campaign, the dealers, the manufacturers and the business men heard nothing but speeches on depression, ruin, and distress. Confidence gradually gave place to -fear; undertakings were stopped; the industries, instead of going ahead, waited for better days; and so, in a very

Unemployment Continuance Act
little time, what was but a feeling of uneasiness became a serious crisis, the direct and immediate cause of which may be found in the thoughtless statements of the leader of the Conservative party and of his supporters. At the end of 1930 there were 200,000 unemployed, and at the end of 1931, or rather at the 'beginning of 1932, their number had more than doubled and had reached 500,000, according to official statistics. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, all the fine pledges of the Conservative party have vanished; all the efforts of this government have been useless. The government spent enormous sums, they wasted the money of the country and of the ratepayers, not only in vain, but each attempt oh his part made things worse. If the government wanted to spend money for the unemployed, why did they not do it in a practical way, why did they not foster the trade, which would have been a real asset for this country. And why did they not confine the expenditures to the Dominion government, instead of compelling the provinces and the municipalities to go into debt and to ruin themselves trying to follow the Dominion government in the fatal path in which it had engaged.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Maurice Brasset: Mr. Speaker, when the house took recess, I was discussing the resolution for the extension from March until May of Bill No. 58. I said that the duty of the members of the government and of the opposition was to study whether this resolution was actually in the interest of the country, before assenting to it. I also said that last year the Prime Minister had presented his bill quite late when the members of this house were on the eve of returning home, and I pointed out that he is also late this year. I stated that he should have presented his resolution at the very beginning of the session, instead of waiting until March, that is after the expiration of this measure, to try and have it revived. The government had no reason to wait so long. I said also that the Liberals did not wish to obstruct and that they were willing to adopt a supply bill, but that they could not gladly grant to the Prime Minister and his government the powers of a dictator and the powers conferred exclusively by the constitution upon the people's representatives. I went further and stated that if this measure were absolutely necessary, 1 for one, would be ready to vote for the reso-41761-771
lution; but, as I have just said, it is not only unnecessary, but useless, because we are ready to support the government provided that they mention the amounts that are required and the purposes for which they are intended. I stated also that the policies of this government had made conditions worse instead of improving them, and that in any case they should not have dragged the provinces and the municipalities after them in the fatal path they were following.
Mr. Speaker, what was the result of this policy of the government? The result is that several provinces are virtually in bankruptcy to-day, that the municipalities are so deeply in debt that they will require years and years to emerge from the abyss they are in. Somebody stated to me only recently that six municipal councils of Ontario had made an assignment of their property on account of the debts incurred for the relief of unemployment. And the Dominion government is not in a much better position. It is rumoured that the Finance Department is at present in a pretty hard predicament. Failures everywhere : failure of municipalities, failure of provinces, failure of the Dominion government, failure of the government's pledges, and soon, at the next election, failure of the Conservative party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. DO RIO  N@Translation: That is the best thing you said so far.


Maurice Brasset: Exactly.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is true.


Mr. DO RIO  N@Translation: Lucky hit; have it patented.


Maurice Brasset: We shall wait for the next election to have it patented. And all that because the funds were improperly spent and in many cases wasted.
The government spends millions of dollars trying to give work to the unemployed, but at the same time they decrease other expenses, particularly in the Department of Public Works. From September 1930 to April 1931, the government has spent about 17 millions of dollars to relieve unemployment and during the course of the 1931 session, they reduced the Public Works estimates by over 17 millions. They spend on the one hand, but they cut down expenditures elsewhere. If the present government had followed the policy adopted by the Mackenzie King administration, so far as public works are concerned, wharves, breakwaters, lighthouses, public buildings and railways would have been

Unemployment Continuance Act
built all over the country; works which would have increased the assets of Canada without
endangering her credit, or that of the provinces or of the municipalities.
In my county, the conditions are as bad as in the other parts of the dominion. It is inhabited mainly by fishermen and farmers. Last year, fishing operations were a complete failure,-the government is not to blame for this, neither do I blame them for this state of affairs,-and farm produce could not be sold because there were no markets for them. In many instances, the unemployed have had only a few days work and, unfortunately, those who least needed work were often those who did most of it. I know of many cases where people with bank deposits were given work on jobs to relieve unemployment, whilst others in poorer circumstances, fathers with large families, could not get work or got only a few days work. Men who needed this money most did not get it, but, as I stated a few moments ago, it was largely wasted. I could mention one instance where, through delay in getting the job under way, the ground froze and dynamite had to be used, with the result that instead of spending $500 or $600 on it they had to spend from $1,200 to $1,500. In another case, a bridge was to be built, and the workmen had to clear the ground of snow before they could start on the bridge, but when they were about through clearing the snow another storm came up and they had to start all over again; and thus about one third of the money voted for the bridge was spent before they could start the building operations. If the government had been a little more expeditious, if the work had been started in October and November, and not in December or January, there would have been no money wasted; the unemployed would have benefited to a greater extent, and a better job would have been done at a lesser cost. Gaspe county, which I have the honour to represent, is a maritime constituency; all its parishes are scattered along the shore of the St. Lawrence. Every year, while the Liberals were in power, the Department of Public Works built wharves, lighthouses and breakwaters, and repaired damages caused by the sea; this was done all along the cost hot only in the interest of the constituency but in the interest of shipping in general and of the country as a whole. Prosperity thus reigned in that county, and by following the Liberal policy, the present government would obtain better results than they have had so far with the money spent on unemployment. Instead of that, all public works in the constituency of Gaspe have been practically stopped.

Whatever was accomplished last year had been planned by the Liberals, during the last session of their administration. Public works provided for in this year's estimates are still less numerous. Nothing, or practically nothing will be undertaken in Gaspe, or in the lower St. Lawrence, and it will be the same all over the country. The government has taken this stand because we have a deficit and because they want to put an end to unemployment. But, Mr. Speaker, is the government following a sensible course in doing this. Why does it not follow the Liberal program, why does it not provide large amounts in the estimates for public works which would be advantageous to the country? Optimism would return again, business would recover slowly but surely, and depression would vanish to make room for prosperity.
There is only one thing that keeps going in my constituency, as it does elsewhere, I believe. Recently I asked to be furnished with the list of all employees dismissed in Gaspe, since September 1930, by the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Marine and the Post Office Department, and I have a long list of victims who have fallen under the Tory axe. This list refers only to Liberals or so called Liberals; there is no mention on it of civil servants who, having been appointed by a Conservative administration, were kept on by the Liberal government. No investigations were made in their case; they were not disturbed, whilst fathers of large families were thrown on the street because they were appointed by Liberals.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame, shame.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: It is awful.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is dreadful.


Maurice Brasset: Is this the method to be followed by the government to relieve unemployment?


Charles Napoléon Dorion: What a
calamity.


Maurice Brasset: Yes, what a calamity. We find calamities everywhere under the Conservative administration.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: It is wonderful.


Maurice Brasset: Would you allow me, Mr. Speaker, even now that you have heard so many suggestions, to state what would be a good way, it seems to me if not to stop unemployment completely, at least to reduce it. I would suggest a general decrease

Unemployment Continuance Act
in tariff duties, or tiiat we go back to the tariff schedules in, force under the Liberal administration. The tariff legislation passed by the present Conservative government has been a gigantic failure; it has ruined our trade abroad, without increasing our trade at home. The government said that higher duties would increase the number of factories in the country; what happened? In 1930, there were 4,400 manufactures and two years later, there are 4,670, an increase of 270; which is only a normal increase and it probably would have been larger under another administration. Furthermore, Canadian factories employed
525,000	men in 1930, and to-day they are only employing 400,000. What a success? It has been thus with the Conservatives ever since they have attained power; its the only kind of success they are capable of.
I wish to quote a striking example of the disastrous effects of the present tariff on my constituency. For many years back, practically all the fish caught by the fishermen of Gaspe was exported to Italy; and a small quantity went to Germany. This was a good and convenient market. But the Bennett government having raised the tariff duties on foreign commodities, Italian goods imported into (our country were affected by this raise, and the Italian government retaliated,-as naturally did other countries,-by increasing its tariff duties on Canadian fish by 15 per cent. Yesterday about thirty countries were quoted as having retaliated against our tariff legislation. The Gaspe fishermen could not meet the Norwegian competition, on account of this 15 per cent duty, and have thus lost their most profitable market. This is another example of the results obtained through the destructive policy of the present administration. We have turned Italy and thirty other countries against us, and now Germany is raising her tariff duties on Canadian goods. The Ottawa Journal, under date of March the 15th, prints the following editorial:
Germany Doubles Its Duties Against Canadian Goods
Wheat not Included in List on Which Tariffs Will be Increased 100 Per Cent Canadian Press Cable
Berlin, March 15.-The official gazette of the German government, to-day published a decree authorizing the finance minister to impose the so-called super-tariff against goods from Canada, increasing existing duties 100 per cent, as from April 1.
Goods specifically mentioned in the decree were:	fresh, dried and tinned fruits, fish,
lobsters, oysters, turtles, flour, butter, paper, cardboard, aluminum, shoes, certain kinds of machinery.
The decree provided that the duties can be suspended for six months, providing Canada at once enters into negotiations with Germany for the conclusion of a commercial treaty.
It is a suggestion asking Canada to lower her tariff duties on German goods, if we want Germany to reciprocate with us. With her present trade policy, Canada will soon be hard pnt to find countries bo trade with, she will have to deal with the inhabitants of other planets, possibly with the man in the moon.
Mr. Speaker, the government wants to relieve unemployment, but let us see how they went about it a few days ago. A newspaper, Which as a rule is a true supporter of the government, said in an editorial-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Le Soleil?


Maurice Brasset: No, the
Ottawa Journal. If my hon. friend has not read that editorial of the Ottawa Journal, I shall read it to him. It was published on Friday, March the 4th, and reads as follows:
(Text):	An Un-British Spectacle
The scene on Parliament Hill yesterday was one that no British citizen could view with pride. With its spectacle of gun-toting and its parade of armaments, it was too reminiscent of Chicago.
The task of a government is to govern. But while under certain circumstances performance of that duty may compel the use of force, there is little but revelation of timidity and panic in the sort of thing that was flaunted in the face of Ottawa yesterday. Consider this, from the press reports:
"On Parliament Hill about 100 uniformed and armed men of the R.C.M.P. guarded the gates under the direction of Inspector J. W. Carroll, while 26 mounted men from "N" Division R.C.M.P., were drawn up behind the Parliament Buildings in anticipation of trouble."
"A special squad of 50 Ottawa police under Deputy Chief J. P. Downey patrolled Wellington street, while another squad of 35 was held in readiness at the police station. Pla,inclothes-men mingled with the crowd.
"An armoured car made the rounds of the Hill several times during the morning."
(Translation):	I pass over several paragraphs and I come to this a little further:
(Text): The Journal has no sympathy with lawlessness or with Reds. It 'doesn't believe in "demands" nor in "threats". But neither does The Journal believe in the almost craven and un-British things that went on on Parliament Hill yesterday; in this Chicago-like flaunting of firearms; in a scene that smacked more of Fascism than of Canadian constitutional authority.
Such a spectacle doesn't destroy communism; it builds it up. Breeds it. Creates contempt for authority distrust and hate of it.
Two dozen of those able-bodied policemen without even batons could have handled the men who gathered here yesterday. A hundred unarmed officers could have overpowered them. Instead we had a war-like display and a clatter of armaments that was all but suggestive of Moscow.
The Journal proteste. Protests against what was uncalled for, unnecessary, and un-British. Against a thing that couldn't take place in London; that would be laughed to scorn.

Unemployment Continuance Act
Strong government is required-sometimes. But there is a difference between strength and hysteria. And it was .the latter that Ottawa saw yesterday. Unnecesary fear.
(Translation): It is under the present dictatorial administration that such a condition is allowed. The hon. Minister of Trade (Mr. Stevens) said the other day that the Prime Minister was seeking to get a dictatorship. That is the result he gets for seeking to obtain such wide powers: he has to call out the police force just as if he needed the protection of an army.
During the last electoral campaign I had several opportunities to say to the electors of my constituency: " If the Conservative party ever gets to power, the result will be a general increase of the tariffs and of the cost of living; the prosperity you enjoy just now will not last long; foreign nations will put a duty on the products of your fishing industry as well as on all your other products."
Unfortunately for my constituency and the rest of this country I was right in my prediction. Prosperity will only come back when a new administration, respecting the wishes of our population, will have put aside the oligarchy which takes the form of the present government.
This government did not keep their promises, they have failed to cure us of that ill we call the unemployment situation, and the unusual measures that they have enacted did nothing but increase the general distress. If the government are willing to relieve the unemployment conditions, let them abide by constitutional measures; let them introduce a supply bill and we are ready to adopt the same immediately.
We are not going, just to suit the Prime Minister's whims, to let them destroy the franchises of the people we represent in this chamber.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against the resolution.


Mr. M. F. HEPBURN (West Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my first remarks this evening will be by way of congratulation to those hon. members on this side of the house who have contributed to the debate, and in this connection I would mention particularly the very, excellent presentation this afternoon of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). As I listened to that brilliant oration I was struck with the fact that he must have been inspired with the spirit of St. Patrick, which seems to be so much in evidence on this day, not only in the House of Commons but throughout the city of Ottawa.

Hon. members on this side who have taken part or purpose taking part in this debate do not feel we should be charged with obstructing. Actually we are fighting to maintain the rights of parliament. In his speech on Tuesday the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) said that the constitutionality of the measure now before us was settled by the vote last year. With that statement I totally disagree. True, parliament by that legislation did give certain rights and privileges to the executive, but may I add that the measure was opposed by practically every hon. member on this side of the house. The effect of the power given to the executive is that it may disregard any statute in Canada, and make any new regulation it sees fit. I do not believe the spirit which permeates Conservative minds is in sympathy with either the farmers or the unemployed. The government has another reason for maintaining this principle. If hon. members on this side concur in the resolution now before the house the principle will be maintained.
In my view the title of the bill was a misnomer, and a complete misrepresentation. It should have been entitled, "An act to delegate to the executive the power to grant additional privileges to financial interests, notwithstanding anything appearing in the statutes of Canada." That is the real purpose of the measure before the house, and to bear out my contention I shall trace the history of the government's action since the legislation of last year was passed.
One of the first orders in council had to do with the guarantee of $20,000,000 to the chartered banks of Canada to save them against any possible losses in connection with loans to the western wheat pool. That was a move to make sure that the big interests would not suffer.
The second order in council had to do with the prohibition of the export of gold, extending a special privilege to the banks whereby on application special export credits or privileges would be given. The effect of that order in council I should like to explain. Canadian bank notes had depreciated in value on the New York exchange: If a man went into a chartered bank in Canada and withdrew $500 in bank notes, took them to the United States and changed them into American money at the depreciated rate as it obtained early in the month of January, he would receive only $400 in American cash, thereby losing S100. If however the Canadian chartered banks could get a special privilege from the Minister of Finance to export some of their own gold reserve, they could,

Unemployment Continuance Act
by exporting $400 in gold, redeem in the United States clearing house, their own bank notes to the extent of $500. In that respect a special privilege was given to the banks.
The next order in council gave the banks the right to file with the Dominion government statements which were not according to the facts. In other words the banks could totally disregard the Bank Act of Canada and value their assets in any way that would be acceptable to the Minister of Finance. There, again, a special privilege was given to the big interests, with no regard whatever for farm or unemployment relief. Then, the other order in council, about which we heard so much a few evenings ago in the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich), gave to the insurance companies of Canada the right to make a retroactive valuation of their stocks when on December 31, of this year, they filed their statements with the superintendent of insurance.
No one has condemned more than the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) wild speculation in Canada, and yet when one of the greatest financial houses in Canada-probably the greatest-finds itself in difficulty as a result of a wild orgy of speculation with trust funds which probably belonged to widows and orphans, all it had to do was to come to this Tory government and have an order in council passed allowing them to inflate the value of their stock holdings. Prominent newspapers have taken issue with the motion sponsored by the hon. member for Vegreville and with his statement that one of the insurance companies in Canada was, in effect, bankrupt. If the powers granted under the act of last year had not been exercised, and had the government not allowed this insurance company the right to make a retroactive valuation with respect to speculative stocks held, the statement of the hon. member would have been absolutely true. So much for the big interests.
Another very interesting order in council, a copy of which I hold in my hand, was passed. It authorized the government to expend $287,000 to increase the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by three hundred. Speaking in the house the other day the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce' (Mr. Stevens) said the reason for this increase was that an arrangement had been consummated with Alberta and the other western provinces whereby the Dominion government was taking over the policing of those provinces. It was not long before the inaccuracy of that statement was shown, because at the time of the
increase in the mounted police force there had been no negotiations with Alberta or with Manitoba. There was another reason for the increase of the mounted police entirely separate from the reason given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I can understand why the government is very much perturbed at the present time. The people of this country have been thoroughly fooled, and there are rumblings now in the back concessions-the people are getting dissatisfied. This government holds office by virtue of promises made. If members on the other side of the house had been honest during the campaign and had said to the industrialists, "If you vote for us we will put into effect policies which in two years will create conditions whereby the number of employees in your factories will be reduced by 200,000, and conditions will become so bad for you that you will be taking the greatest strain on your shoulders ever known in the history of this country," would they have received any votes in that quarter? They certainly would not. If the same gentlemen had said to the farmers, "Instead of blasting a way into the .markets of the world and selling your produce for you, after we have been in office two years and thoroughly put our policies into effect, the prices for your farm commodities will be the lowest known in your generation," would they have received the votes of the farmers? They certainly would not If our friends on the other side had said to the taxpayers, "After we get in office and have had a chance to demonstrate our policies, we will at the end of two years have a deficit of something over $225,000,000 and we will have put into effect every known method of taxation possible," would they have received any support from the taxpayers? They certainly would not. If instead of saying to the unemployed, "You vote for us and we will end unemployment or perish in the attempt; we will give work to every man who is willing to work," they had said honestly, "After being in office two years and thoroughly applying our policies, instead of 120,000 men out of work we will have
550,000	men on the streets," would they have received any votes from the unemployed? They certainly would not.
So these chickens are coming home to roost, and our hon. friends opposite are trying to avoid any further demonstration such as we had on parliament hill last week. And let me say a word with respect to that demonstration. I arrived at parliament hill at about two o'clock and was amazed to see guards at the gates armed to the teeth. 1 dodged out of the way of the armoured car

Unemployment Continuance Act
and kept clear of the cavalry. When I got to the main door I could see troops concealed in both directions. Why? Because some of these men who had 'been fooled by the wild promises of hon. gentlemen opposite were here as citizens of Canada to lay their just claims before the government of Canada. I went into the railway committee room and listened to the interview between the Prime Minister and the delegates representing these unfortunate unemployed men from practically every city in Canada. The Prime Minister had only twenty-five minutes of his valuable time to give them. He had plenty of time to satisfy his wounded vanity when that same day he attended before the committee that investigated the Gordon charges, but he had very little time, and very little patience either, for the unemployed. I listened to the presentation of their claims and I thought the delegates were very reasonable. These men were victims of a situation beyond their control, they were helpless, and they were looking to the Prime Minister to implement some of the promises he made to them when he was appealing for their votes in the campaign of 1930. But they got no satisfaction. I noticed among the delegates many members of the Canadian Legion. Being myself a member of the Legion, I took occasion to speak to these men. They said to me, "We fought for our country. We came down here to-day looking for bread, and we have received a stone from the Prime Minister. That is the gratitude we are getting from the man who appealed to us for our votes not quite two years ago."
Now, Mr. Speaker, when one sees what transpired the other day, and when one reads in this order in council that provision has been made for So,000 to purchase riot bombs and for S21.750 for new secret service men, one is forced to the conclusion that the effect of this power is to enable the executive to give the glad hand to the big interests and the mailed fist to the unemployed who are smarting under present conditions.
This afternoon I listened to our hon. friends across the way while they heckled and ridiculed the statements made by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), and I recalled that when those hon. gentlemen came down here after the election of 1930 they supported their leader enthusiastically; after the policies of the government had been in effect about a year and the results were beginning to show, and rumblings were being heard in the back concessions, the enthusiasm of our hon. friends opposite turned into dignified acquiescence; now when they are begin-

ning to feel the full weight of the effects of their policies they are giving the Prime Minister what you might call spineless subservience, because any man who at this time votes to delegate to the government all the rights of parliament must feel that from now on he is more or less of a rubber stamp. I do not know how otherwise he can justify his barren political existence. Our friends opposite are quite prepared at any time when the Prime Minister indicates how they should vote, to get up row by row and quiescently do his bidding.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: "Hear, hear!" There is a typical disciple of the Prime Minister. He reminds me of the reference made the other day to the Prime Minister being like one of the sultans of old, that when he clapped his hands his janizaries jumped up to do his bidding. If hon. members across the way delegate all their power to the Prime Minister instead of parliament being a debating society, it just becomes the land of nod, and I would suggest that before the orders of the day are called they get their leader to tell them a bedtime story so that they may sleep all the afternoon. If their conscience is like their appendix, an inactive organ, they will have no trouble in sleeping soundly.
This motion, Mr. Speaker, is a challenge to responsible government. Never before have we had such a request made in any parliament that I know of. I only wish we had the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) on this side of the house. What a powerful oration he could deliver under these circumstances. I well remember when a few years ago I was sitting on the government side and the hon. gentleman-he was then in opposition-coined a new expression, and enunciated a new policy: he said that what we needed here was "red-blooded Canadianism." I recall vividly how he waxed eloquent on that theme; in fact he floated on the full tide of his own verbosity, so to speak. But fate plays strange pranks with the lives of men; the hon. gentleman now sits on the treasury benches and the responsibility of office has had a mellowing effect upon him. After he had been Minister of Railways for some few months he declared that what the Canadian people needed most of all was a tomato juice cocktail. His red-blooded Canadianism has turned into tomato juice at the present time. I think that change applies pretty generally throughout the ranks of our friends opposite.
Another hon. gentleman who has taken part in several debates is the member for South

Unemployment Continuance Act
Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), the present Minister of Justice. He turned a political somersault from the Liberal party and landed on the Tory benches-what might 'be termed an instance of economic determinism. That is what makes a man turn in the direction from which he hears the jingle of a cabinet minister's salary. But I do not think his efforts, or those of the Minister of Railways, who is also a former Liberal, have been appreciated, because in Guelph their own leader said that you can always depend upon a convert to make a mess of things. I think he spoke the truth, because the railway situation is worse than it ever has been 'before, while the Department of Justice is practically the only department this year requiring an additional vote in order to carry on.
The other day during the course of this debate the Minister of Railways had a very excellent opportunity to tell the people of Canada something about the complicated railway problems which confront the country at the present time, but he did not do that; instead he indulged in a wild discourse on Russia. I have something to say about Russia, because we have had a lot of speeches with regard to what is transpiring over there, and we have heard the Russian people condemned because a few of them happened to massacre the czar and his family. I hold no brief for the Russian people, but I do not choose to condemn 165,000,000 people because a few of them massacred their own crowned heads. As a direct result of this sort of talk we have practically prohibited all trade with Russia, and that has had a bad effect on the industrial life of Canada, particularly with regard to the agricultural implement plants in Brantford and Hamilton. Many men now out of work would have had employment if we had not indulged in such silly talk as we heard from the lips of the Minister of Railways the other day.
I know by the genial smile and twinkling eye of the Minister of Railways that he is a son of old Erin, and like all Irishmen he loves a fight. When the Irish cannot fight anyone else they fight among themselves. I know whereof I speak, .because my maternal grandfather came from Ireland, and when he landed here he still wore a bullet-proof vest, yet I think the Irish are among the most likeable and lovable people in the world. My grandfather, who came from Scotland, used to tell us that Mary Queen of Scots was taken to England from near where he lived, and executed; but he did not hold that against the English people at all; as a matter of fact on his farm in West Elgin he always had several
Englishmen working. Those men had no inferiority complex at all with regard to their own country; they thought, and perhaps rightly so, that you could not add to or take away from anything in British history, yet a few oenturies ago the British .people cut off the head of Charles I, although he was a quiet, lovable fellow. I do not hold that against the progeny of those British people at all. I heard the deputy speaker of this house (Mr. Lavergne) condemn the Russian? in a similar way, but some years ago his forebears in France rose in revolt against the thorough application of the caste system of the day, and I think if J had been there I would have been with them. They .beheaded Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, and knowing something of the fiery spirit of the deputy speaker I have no doubt he would have wielded an axe himself with considerable gusto if he had been in France at that time. Across the line our American friends at one time had a propensity for assassinating presidents, but I do not hold that against the American people. I do not think there is any other people in the world we would rather have on our southern boundary than the people of the United States. They even assassinated their great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln. I want to commend to hon. members across the way a few lines from that memorable address at Gettysburg, that great masterpiece of simple English.
Fourscore and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
I have dealt, Mr. Speaker, with some of the civilized countries of the world, and I say that generally speaking we do not hold a grievance against any nation because in times past some group or other happened to assassinate some of the heads of that nation.
Now I should like to point out to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens)
[DOT] something that probably will be of interest to him. Some little time ago our Minister of Trade and Commerce was a soldier in the American army, and he went to the South Seas with a rifle and bayonet. I do not know why he needed the bayonet, because the cannibals of the South Sea islands were pretty elusive, and had to be shot on the run. But, as I say, he went to these islands with his rifle and bayonet. A few years later we find him as our Minister of Trade and Commerce, as a delegate from Canada, going to Honolulu to meet a delegate from our sister dominion of New Zealand in order to try to repair some
Unemployment Continuance Act

of the damage done by the Bennett eight cent tariff on butter. I do not think there was any warlike demonstration against him by the natives of that island because he had been there a few years before fighting their cannibalistic ancestors; in fact I believe they gave him a real welcome and decorated him with what is called the chain of peace. They even tell me that on the beach of Waikiki, where the natives dress like shredded wheat, they dedicated a song to our minister which was entitled " Honolulu Harry." So, Mr. Speaker, while that may sound rather ridiculous, it is no more ridiculous than the attack on Russia which has come from hon. gentlemen opposite.
Now I see my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is in his seat. The statement has been made that unemployment funds never have been used by this government for political purposes. I want to draw the attention of the minister to something that happened during the by-election in South Wellington. During the progress of that campaign there appeared in the newspapers an advertisement calling for tenders for the construction of a post office in the city of Guelph. Then on November 13, which was five days before the voting took place, this article appeared in the Guelph Daily Mercury:
Government Will Erect Fine Modern Structure On Quebec Street East Official Word from Ottawa Received by P. Kerwin, K.C., To-day Are Calling for Tenders Undertaking Will Provide Additional Work for City's Unemployed
Definite announcement was made to-day that Guelph will have a new post office and that it will be erected during the coming winter.
The official word was received by P. Kerwin, K.C., who is acting in the matter for the Department of Public Works and the Minister of Justice, the Hon. Hugh Guthrie, K.C., and the statement was also forwarded that tenders will be called for at once, 'with the closing date for the acceptance on these being set for December 10. The actual work on the building will be started just as soon as possible after a tender has been accepted.
Mr. Kerwin stated this morning that the prime object in the building of the new post office is to provide some relief for the unemployed men of this city and the assurance was given by officials that on the big job every possible bit of labour will be used. Men will be used to do the work instead of machinery in every possible case.
The site of the new post office is to be the property at present occupied by Daymond Bros., on Quebec street east, and the government, having taken over the ground, has notified the present occupants that they will be forced to vacate very soon.
Mr. Kerwin stated that he has been notified that the actual cost of the new post office, aside from the value of the land, will be from
fMr. Hepburn.]
one hundred to one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars. A further announcement was made to the effect that the present post office is to be put into use as the headquarters of the local customs and excise officials.
While the definite announcement of the building of the new structure has only been made, the matter has been under consideration for some time. When inquiries were first made by the government as to what work in Canada could be proceeded with to relieve unemployment, the Hon. Hugh Guthrie, K.C., considered that a post office building was needed here, and he had investigations made as to the advisability of such a procedure. The result is that the work will be carried out.
Bearing in mind that this notice appeared in the local paper five days before voting took place in connection with that by-election in South Wellington, you can judge for yourself the effect it had among the unemployed. They were told by this notice that wherever possible men would be used to do the work instead of machinery. A few days ago I had an inquiry from Guelph asking why work had not been started on the post office. I put a question on the order paper, and I found that tenders were called for in accordance with the advertisement, the closing date being December 10. I asked if anyone had authority to issue a statement of that kind on behalf of the government, and here is the reply which was given:
No one has been authorized to make any statement on behalf of the government in respect to this matter.
Here is a case, Mr. Speaker, where the powers given this government could have been used, had the government so desired, to build a post office in Guelph without requiring a vote of this parliament, but the fact of the matter is that as yet the construction of a post office in that city has not been commenced. It looks to me as though first there was a conspiracy with the Department of Public Works to call for tenders, and that then whoever inspired this article, which was given out by the former partner of the present Minister of Justice, also conspired to fool the people of South Wellington. Yet they say the unemployment funds are not being used for political purposes.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: There was a vote for this post office in the estimates of last year, and furthermore the gentleman to whom my hon. friend refers is not my law partner.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: The firm is called
Kerwin and Guthrie.


Hugh Guthrie: That was the firm with
which my father was connected.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: The fact is that this
notice was issued by Mr. Kerwin, who stated

Unemployment Continuance Act
he was acting for the Department of Public Works and the Minister of Justice, and it states that work will be started immediately and carried on during the winter. That notice appeared on November 13 of last year, but construction has not been commenced yet. I might also mention that the minister was there himself during the progress of the election; he had his private car spotted on the siding, but he folded his tent like the Arabs and faded quietly away when he found how the wind was blowing.


Hugh Guthrie: I rise to correct an error
on the part of my hon. friend. He has charged that I was there and was taking part in that by-election. That statement is absolutely untrue. I went to Guelph to attend an Armistice day meeting, and left the same day to return to Ottawa. I did go up to vote. Had I been there I do not know that my hon. friend would have had so much to blow about.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Well, the fact stands out that we won the election, and I think the going will be pretty hard for the Minister of .Justice if he tries to get reelected himself. This indicates just what can be done if we set up a dictatorship in this country; but if we are going to have a dictator I should like to have a man of proven worth, not a man of extremes.
The Prime Minister states on the one hand that this is the best country in the world, while on the other he tries to justify his request for these unlimited powers on the ground that we are facing a great national crisis and that conditions are so bad that only such legislation as he asks for will meet the requirements of government at the present time. The right hon. gentleman has made extreme promises, and on top of all that he has said, "All these things I will do or perish in the attempt." These are the words of an extreme man. He says that he is feeding
300,000	people in Saskatchewan and he brags about it, and at the same time he is using the axe in Ottawa, so that while he is feeding all these people in Saskatchewan he is leaving others to starve here. He is a man of extremes, I say. I do not think he minds being referred to as a dictator; it rather tickles his inordinate vanity. It flatters him to be so described. Some people say that he is like Mussolini. I do not think the comparison is fair to Mussolini because after all Mussolini is accomplishing something: he is building up a national spirit in his own country- something the Prime Minister is not doing in Canada. Some of his admirers across the way
have referred to him as Napoleon. Well, there is only one similarity: Napoleon practised nepotism and put his relatives on the thrones of Europe. If the Prime Minister had another brotherdn-law, the Hon. Howard Ferguson's job in England as High Commissioner would not long be retained by that gentleman.


Eccles James Gott: The Liberals of Ontario ought to be proud of their leader.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: There is another interruption from the hon. member for South Essex-the Minister of Onions, someone says. But I can plead extenuating circumstances for the hon. gentleman because he comes from a riding in which there is located Jack Miner's famous wild goose sanctuary.


An hon. MEMBER:: Pouliot told you that.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: He is living among queer birds and he cannot get away from their influence. We have been interrupted so many times, Mr. Speaker, that I think it would be well to take up a collection and supply you with some insect powder to spray the hon. gentlemen with. The next time the hon. member interrupts us, let him have some of it. It will be justifiable homicide.


Eccles James Gott: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Eccles James Gott: I want to say to the hon.
gentleman that one of the Prime Minister's passing thoughts would give him a headache.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I assure the hon. gentleman that if he had a headache it would get lonesome.
The only great autocrat in history that I can find, with whom I can fittingly compare the Prime Minister, is Nero. Nero had all the powers the Prime Minister is asking parliament to give him; yet he was a poor administrator. In fact, he ruined the civilization of his day. It is said that he fiddled while Rome burned, and we have the same situation in this country. The Prime Minister is trying one expedient after another, while debts and taxation are increasing and unemployment is getting worse, trade falling off, and commodity prices have fallen to the lowest level it has reached in the present decade.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: And you are doing the fiddling.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Hon. gentlemen opposite can sit with a smirk on their faces now, but they are humble when they get back to their own concessions. They are not so enthusiastic when they explain to their people the record

Unemployment Continuance Act
of this government. That brings to my mind an article I have here with reference to a speech delivered by the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker). The hon. member was addressing Ward 9 Conservative Association in Toronto, with reference to the situation in this house-the hon. member for South Essex will have that spray gun turned on him if he does not keep quiet. This is what my hon. friend said:
"But, generally," he amended, "Mr. Bennett would stand it as long as he could, and then -would he go for them? And would they get it?"
Referring to the opposition.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I understood the hon.
member to say that he was quoting the member for Toronto Northwest.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Toronto Northeast.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Pardon me.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I do not blame any man for trying to get from under this kind of rubbish; I fully appreciate the hon. gentleman's feelings in this matter. According to the report, the hon. member for Toronto Northeast continued:
"He never lost his temper, mind you, but sometimes when his patience was stung to the limit he would start after them. Gentlemen, it was a treat of a lifetime to see the Hon. R. B. Bennett give it to them. And he generally closed the question. They didn't have much to say after he got through with them. For -there isn't a man in that house knows the ins and outs of every question the way he does. AVhen he summed up a situation there just wasn't anything left to say."


Mr. BAKER:: I have the honour to be the member for Toronto Northeast, and I should like to know when and where that was said.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: The heading reads:
Ward Nine Tories held first meeting of the season.
Richard L. Baker, M.P.. and Coulter McLean, M.I'.P. are strong for leaders.
That appears under date October 15, 1931, in The Herald, North Toronto's Own Weekly.


Richard Langton Baker: I deny the accuracy of the statement.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Well, the only point I want to make in regard to this very illuminating and interesting and elevating address is with respect to the concluding sentence:
When he summed up a situation there just wasn't anything left to say.

That applies very well to hon. members across the way, because they dare not say anything after the Prime Minister has summed up a situation. I want to say to the right hon. gentleman that we on this side are not going to be bullied or browbeaten or intimidated by him or any other hon. gentleman there.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a further reason why I do not like to delegate all these powers to the present executive is that I do not think their policies are applicable to the best interests of the country. After all, this country has an ever-increasing exportable surplus, and its future development and prosperity depend upon an expansive trade policy and not a policy of trade restriction such as is in force at the present time. The government's policy is becoming more drastic all the time and the only thing left for the Prime Minister to do is to order the guns of Quebec to fire on trading vessels coming up the St. Lawrence, or to bring back our wandering navy and station it at Vancouver island to attack any trading ships coming up the Pacific coast. Probably hon. members opposite think I am a little bit bitter in my condemnation of the government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: But let me say that in the back concessions the people are actually suffering to-day as a result of the application of the present government's policies. There is real suffering among these people and I sympathize with them; and I lay the whole blame on the Tory element, not only in this country but in every other country. But we in this country particularly had a glaring example of the application of Tory policies at the special session of the Canadian parliament held in September, 1930. In 1928 we had in this house the report of an economic commission which had investigated conditions in our sister dominion of Australia. There they were just a little ahead of us in the application of the same kind of policy we have adopted. They put into effect a forty per cent tariff, thus serving to stimulate falsely the industries of that country, and increasing the cost of production to the basic producer. The farmer of Australia, the real wealth-producer, could not get a corresponding increase in price for his wheat or butter or anything he had to sell, although he had to pay more in cost of production. So that in the great struggle for world markets the basic producers were actually put out of business there. Industries falsely bolstered up could not be maintained, with the result that there was chaos; and then

Unemployment Continuance Act
the basic producers, who were suffering most of all as a result of that policy, applied to the government. The government in the second of the three stages leading to bankruptcy started to subsidize. The first stage was high tariffs; the second stage was subsidies. Then when the people started to feed out of the public treasury they found that they could not stand the taxation any longer, and the whole financial structure of Australia collapsed, and collapsed as a result of the application of the very same policies which were put into effect by hon. gentlemen opposite in the special session of 1930.
In the United States we had a very similar situation. Notwithstanding the glaring example of what had occurred in Australia, President Hoover, for his own aggrandizement, went up and down the country promising the basic producers increased prices for their products if they would but vote for his high tariff policy. He put that policy into effect, increased the tariff on 1,100 articles of trade, but that did not help the basic producers of that country in any way. The basic producer is not getting any more for his products, which are sold in competition with other countries. The wheat grower is not getting any more, the cotton grower is not getting any more, the dairy producer is not getting any more for his products, but the basic producer did lose in this respect, that he had to stand increased production costs, and on the other hand the markets in which he might have sold his products were closed to him as the result of the policies put into effect by President Hoover. There was the second stage.
After high tariffs, you found subsidies applied. Then the government was confronted with the people clamouring for President Hoover to redeem his promises, and the only thing left to do was for President Hoover to appropriate money out of the treasury, which he did to the amount of $500,000,000, and he put this huge revolving farm loan fund into the hands of a board created by himself. This board tried by unsound economic measures to buy wheat off the market, to buy dairy products off the market, and to buy cotton off the market, in order falsely to stimulate the price. But that did not help the basic producers. After this $500,000,000 revolving fund had been appropriated by President Hoover, the basic producers, to their disillusionment, saw the prices of their products go to the lowest level known in the history of the United States, and now these same producers have to stand additional taxation to meet the deficit created by such a policy. There in the United States, as well
as in Australia, you see first of all high tariffs, then the demand for subsidies, then a huge deficit, and' in the end there will be bankruptcy over there unless their policy is changed. So I say that we had these examples before us of a thorough application of such a policy in the United States and of a thorough application of such a policy in Australia, and yet hon. gentlemen opposite, for their own aggrandizement, adopted this false doctrine which they knew was not applicable to the needs of this country. The events which have transpired since they adopted such a policy have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I say is absolutely true.
Are we fundamentally tackling any of the great problems before us in this country? Certainly not. We are simply resorting to expedients. Is there any justification for a five cent bonus on wheat? It is just a sop to the western wheat farmers. The tariff policy of this government has cost the western wheat farmers $200,000,000, yearly, and then as a sop the government throw to them a bonus of five cents a bushel on wheat.
We had a debate on wool in this house the other day, and hon. gentlemen opposite supported a tariff on wool. That is an unsound policy, because we are now exporting more of the wool produced in Canada than our domestic market can consume.
Some hon. MEMBERS Oh, oh.
Mr. HEPBURN That is quite true. Because of climatic conditions we are able to produce in this country only a coarse grade of wool which is not suitable for use in the manufacture of the finer grades of woollen goods. We have to import the wool for these finer grades from Australia, New Zealand and other countries, and we export the surplus of the low grade wool produced in Canada. A tariff on wool will have no beneficial effect. The only effect will be to increase the cost of a class of wool not produced in Canada, and that cost will be passed on to the consumers in this country.
We had another resolution presented to the house asking for a bonus for the beet sugar industry. We have never had as much sugar in the history of the world as we have to-day, and yet we in this country are asked to tax ourselves to stimulate the production of a product which is to-day glutting the markets of the world.
Mr. SPEAKER The hon. member's time has expired.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Mr. J. A. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: At this stage of the discussion, Mr. Speaker, it must be evident to everyone that it is difficult to bring forward any new arguments or to say anything that has not already been said since the Prime Minister brought down that innocent looking little resolution on the Sth of March last, reading as follows:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May therefor.
If I venture to take part in this debate it is only because the electors of my division might otherwise think that my silence meant that I approved of this resolution, the effect of which is to upset the fundamental principles of our parliamentary institutions and relegate them to the dump heap of uselessness.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: As some of the electors of my division may not be aware of the situation which presents itself before the house to-day, I should like to make a few brief remarks.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish, Mr. Speaker, you would kindly rule that we have better order. We cannot even hear the speakers on this side.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I would like in a few words and in a simple manner to sum up what has been said in this debate. I do not intend to guillotine any crowned heads, to shoot any cannibals in the back, or to eat any Russians. The question raised by the opposition is a constitutional issue. It is whether parliament shall be supreme over the expenditure of public moneys, or whether the governor in council shall be given while parliament is sitting the powers which the government possesses during the recess, powers which expired on March 1, nearly a month after the opening of parliament, and which the government seeks to have continued until May 1.
The right hon. leader of the government (Mr. Bennett), in introducing this resolution, admitted his reluctance from a constitutional standpoint to ask for a continuance of the powers he sought. He expressed himself as follows:
I am reluctant, in the constitutional sense, to ask for the continuance of these powers; I am not reluctant on any other ground. And if I knew of any other method which I believed would accomplish the end we have in view, of assisting in the fair discharge of our obligations, I would not ask this. But after the most careful thought that I have been able

to give to the subject-and I will welcome any suggestions that others may offer towards the solution of the problem-I know of no way, except by this method, whereby we can assist the provinces and supplement the work they have to undertake, and at the same time have ready at all times the executive power which would enable us, if the occasion arose,_ to deal with the situation on a competent basis.
The Prime Minister further stated that his government were confronted with a serious situation, and the question they had to consider was how that serious situation was to be met, whether by a. supply bill, as suggested by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), or in the manner proposed by the right hon. the Prime Minister, namely, by extending the provisions of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931 for a further 'period of two months until May 1. The Prime Minister 'had this to say:
I think it is fairly obvious to those who have followed me that to ask for any particular sum of money at this time in the form of a supply bill with the usual limitations that are imposed upon such measures would not meet the situation. In our judgment at any rate, having regard to our experience, it would not. Parliament is in session, parliament has the fullest opportunity to consider and criticize and deal with every step the administration takes. I am not lacking either in sympathy or respect for the views that were so strongly urged last session, and doubtless will be again urged, against our taking the course which I am asking the house to permit us to take, namely, to declare that the provisions of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931 shall continue for a further period of two months. I do that, you may say, with some reluctance, but I do it because I believe it is the only method having regard to the necessity for elastic provisions to deal with complex problems promptly. But I do sympathize with the views expressed in a few words yesterday by the right hon. leader of the opposition, and so I suggest to this house that we frame and add to the single section of the bill which makes the provisions of the statute of 1931 applicable for another two months, a provision whereby every order in council that is approved by the Governor General shall be laid upon the table of this house at the next sitting following its passing. That, of course, would be the next day, if the house were in session. I cannot but think, having regard to the gravity of the situation and the difficulty of dealing with it by any hard and fast rule, that this chamber will confer these powers upon this government. I would not deprive this parliament of its right to criticize freely and, if it thought desirable, destroy this administration for the improper discharge of its obligations, but I can conceive of no way in which this; house can have larger powers conferred upon it than by the method I have suggested, so that in every instance it might have the fullest opportunity of dealing with these matters.
The answer is, of course, that it is done before the opportunity is afforded to criticize.
The right hon. gentleman gave no intimation to the house as to what might happen

Unemployment Continuance Act
after the first of May. He does not say how much he will take, how much he will expend, what appropriations he will make. He wants simply to draw once more on the blank cheque given to him at the last session. He asks for an additional two months during which he will spend whatever money he sees fit without stating what that amount is to be. The Prime Minister says that he knows of no other solution of the problem than this extension of the act, and that he would welcome any suggestions that others might offer. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) offered two suggestions as to a constitutional solution of the problem when he expressed himself as follows:
My right hon. friend-
Speaking of the Prime Minister.
[DOT]-spoke, next, of the province of Saskatchewan, and he dealt with what he described as the admirable manner in which relief had been administered in that province. He stressed the splendid service which had been given by the unemployment relief commission, and he drew the attention of the house to the fact that the federal government made its contribution to the province by means of a cheque payable to the unemployment relief commission. He stated that this commission had carried out the work of unemployment relief in cooperation with the province and the municipalities, in addition to what was being achieved by voluntary cooperation, and that it had used all the safeguards which it could in the matter of protecting public expenditure.
If an unemployment relief commission has worked so successfully in one province in connection with the expenditure of public moneys for relief, why has not my right hon. friend adopted, before this, the suggestion which has been made over and over again from this side of the house of having an unemployment relief commission deal after the same manner with dominion unemployment relief? Instead of giving to the governor in council the power to spend money at its will without consultation even with parliament, why are we not doing what was done in Saskatchewan, particularly when the example has so much to commend it as the Prime Minister says it has? I say to my right hon. friend that even now he should adopt that course, notwithstanding the fact that he has not adopted it up to the present time.
With the example of Saskatchewan before him, instead of coming and asking this parliament to give to the government the power, by order in council, to grant unemployment relief and relief for distress in rural areas, my right hon. friend should establish immediately an unemployment relief commission, composed, as I stated the other day, of representatives of the different economic interests involved. This commission should be given the power to do what may be necessary and this parliament should make its cheque payable, through the executive, to the relief commission, which would transmit to parliament with a full statement of the manner in which the money has been expended. I say that it is no 'longer defensible to ask parliament to vote further sums to the
governor in council when, out of the lips of the Prime Minister himself, we have the declaration that unemployment relief has been better administered under a relief commission in Saskatchewan than has been the case elsewhere.
That is one suggestion offered by my right hon. leader. Here is another he made when he protested against the resolution in the form in which it is presented:
In saying that, let me make this perfectly clear. I am not raising this objection as a merely technical one. 1 am raising it, as I have said, because I feel that the precedents which are established in this house are allimportant, and that members of the House of Commons incur a very grave responsibility in countenancing precedents which should not be set. To make clear that this exception is not being taken on merely technical grounds; that we are not trying to obstruct the voting of any moneys which may be necessary in order to give the provinces the needed loans that my right hon. friend says he now proposes to give them, let them say again as I said yesterday: If my right hon. friend will drop the resolution which is now before us and ask his Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) to come to the house this evening with a supply bill indicating the amount of money which the administration feels it will be necessary to have in order to meet the situation between now and the first of May, or the period during which parliament may be in session, if he will take that course, and move that the rules be suspended so that such a supply bill can be speedily passed through the house and sent over to the Senate, we of the opposition will cordially join with the government in agreeing to the suspension of the rules, and will seek to expedite the passage of such a measure through the house to-day. I make an urgent appeal to my right hon. friend-who as Prime Minister surely has an appreciation of the responsibility involved in the setting of a precedent, who surely venerates British parliamentary institutions and would like to have them upheld-I appeal to him at this time not to be responsible for a controversy in this house over the method of doing something which all of us, regardless of the parties to which we belong, are prepared to assist the government in doing and say should be done, particularly when the controversy relates only to the taking of a right course, and the avoidance of a course which hitherto has not been taken in this parliament, and cannot be countenanced under constitutional practice and procedure, as we have sought to-uphold them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
date of that?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I do not know the date, but those remarks were made by the leader of the opposition in answer to the speech made by the Prime Minister.


Eccles James Gott: Doesn't the right hon. gentleman remember making that statement?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I
believe the date was March 8.

Unemployment Continuance Act


An hon. MEMBER:: What year?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Then, later in his speech the right hon. leader of the opposition offered this further suggestion:
Why should any power be given to the government to do by order in council what can be done in the regular way by parliamentary enactment? We .cannot permit a step of that kind to be taken, if it is at all possible to prevent it. We do not wish to obstruct the government in any legislation they may have in mind. We do not wish to add an hour's delay to their obtaining any sum of money that they may consider necessary to meet existing needs; but we cannot countenance a step which means giving the government power to do by order in council, while parliament is in session, the thing which parliament itself alone should do. It is an indignity to parliament itself that any such power should be asked for.
On Tuesday the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) made an appeal in a well prepared and well presented speech. I thought, however, that the fiery delivery which usually characterizes the speeches of the hon. gentleman was missing. I do not know whether his lack of fire could be attributed to the responsibility of holding office or to the fact that he knew he was defending a weak cause. During the course of the minister's remarks he said:
I am reminded that at the moment the fundamental issue here is the relief of the people and the bettering of conditions with which we are confronted to-day.
Then the leader of the opposition interrupted as follows:
And I might add the immediate relief, which can be given at once if the government will bring in a supply bill this afternoon.
Hon. members on this side of the house are not offering captious opposition of the resolution. In his speech the Prime Minister made the suggestion that he was reluctant to take the course he is taking, and remarked that if any suggestions were made to him whereby he could deal with the situation in a purely constitutional manner, he would accept them. Sir, we have offered suggestions to the government, and we appeal to them not to ignore the rights of parliament, not to discard our parliamentary procedure, as they are doing in this case and have done in others. Canada is confronted with a serious problem. Hon. members in this house are trying to do what they can for the betterment of conditions. Hon. members on this side are sincere in their desire to do what they can to end the suffering of the Canadian people, and it seems to me that when the opposition offers helpful suggestions, the government should accept them, even if they come from the opposition benches. By such acceptance they would
[Mr. J. A. Mercier.l
prove their sincere desire to bring to an end the distressing situation in which Canada finds itself to-day.


Mr. LUCIEN DUBOIS (Nicolet) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my turn to protest against the resolution actually before the house. This resolution constitutes a challenge to the dignity of the deputation, Conservative as well as Liberal, Progressive or Labour and Independent. I wish to make my position absolutely clear at the outset. With the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), with all my Liberal colleagues and all the right-thinking men in this house, I am prepared to vote the amount the government will request, determine and advise us is requisite to meet the needs of the present crisis. I am ready to vote in favour of a measure involving an expenditure of twenty-five millions, fifty millions, even one hundred millions, if need be, on condition that the government proves to us these expenditures are necessary. But to vote in favour of a resolution such as that we are presently debating, never 1
I want to register the sharpest possible protest against this measure, in the first place because it. is ineffective, and secondly, because it is what I call a sacrilegious encroachment on what, we hold dearest, namely: constitutional government, responsible government.
One must admit that few really practical means have been taken to cope with the economic crisis, principally unemployment, since the present government is in power. At the special session held in September, 1930, the government had a sum of $20,000,000 voted to aid the unemployed and give them work. In order to secure their share of this sum which the government made available, the provincial governments and municipalities were required to carry out works that could certainly have been postponed until such time when they could be more readily undertaken at a lesser cost to the taxpayers.
What is the result of the policy which the government extolled in September, 1930? The provincial governments and municipalities were driven into debt and no great advantage accrued to the unemployed.
In July, 1931, in order to throw dust into the eyes of the people and the group of citizens known as the unemployed, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) induced his slavish majority to vest him with the plenitude of power and hand him a blank cheque, authorizing him to spend whatever sums of money he deemed necessary to end unemployment, to relieve the agricultural class and

Unemployment Continuance Act
to maintain order and good government in this country. It was a case of securing a temporary dictatorship. and nothing else! Under the terms of this bill, the government will be free to propose and apply by order in council any remedies of its own choosing in order to alleviate distress among the Canadian people. Armed with this legislative authority and supported by this expression of confidence on the part of its followers, the government will do all in its power to help the workers and the farmers. The law embodied in chapter 58 of the statutes confers certain powers on the government with respect to the relief of unemployment, the helping of agriculture and the maintenance of peace. On October 19, 1931, the government passed an order in council banning gold exports. To relieve unemployment, to help agriculture, the government passed another order in council on October 27, 1931, amending the Bank Act. Some time later, we have a further order in council amending the Insurance Act. And again, always in accord with Bill 58, to relieve unemployment, help agriculture and maintain peace and order, on December 16, 1931, the government passed an order in council whereby 300 men were added to the police force and the expenses of the country increased by $274,435. We have in a nutshell what was done with the wide authority secured at the 1931 session. And we would refrain from stating this constitutes an abuse of power? And the Liberals would be doing wrong in opposing this measure?
Let us go on: under the terms of Bill 58, the federal government authorized public works involving an outlay of $70,000,000 with respect to which it contributed its proportional and agreed share of 25 per cent. Then, in order to convince the people, to convince itself of the efficacy of the remedies applied, this same government comes forward at the present session and from the lips of its Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) tells us emphatically that in the course of the year 1931 and by reason of the above-mentioned dictatorship some 300,000 people were employed and given 6,917,000 days of work at a cost of 870,000,000 to the treasury. These gentlemen remind me of the individual with a Gascon temperament who folded his bills in two and added the figures at both ends to convince himself he was rich. 6.917.000 days of work-close to 7,000,000 days-$70,000,000 of public money expended, that really amounts in round figures to an average expenditure of $10 per work day. The labourer's average wage being S3 a day, can the government tell us what happened to the $7 that makes up 41761-78
the difference or who secured the benefit of that amount? The workingman received three dollars out of every ten dollars disbursed. Where did the seven other dollars go?


Mr. POULIOT (Translation):: They bought cement in my part of the country.


Lucien Dubois: Was this money distributed in expropriation costs, in benefits to the manufacturers supplying material?-


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: They are so untruthful!


Lucien Dubois: -or again did the money go to the merchants dealing in implements?
What splendid aid to the unemployed! Of every ten dollars expended, three dollars go to the workers and the seven other dollars we know not where. What an effective means to end unemployment! I would like to speak less harshly of the government but I can feel no admiration for those who after securing a mandate under false representations treat the suffering people with such haughtiness and impudence.
Figures convey something to me, and I am using the information of the hon. minister of Labour for my figuring. Mr. Speaker, are we not justified in opposing the present resolution, when after an almost two year tenure under a Conservative administration that promised to remedy everything we observe that the unemployment problem remains unsolved, the country is in debt, certain provinces are in a bad way financially and a number of municipalities are almost bankrupt?
And we would grant the Prime Minister an extension of power to continue this poor job? If parliament was about to prorogue, there would be a semblance of reasop to warrant the present resolution, a measure designed to instil a little life into Bill No. 58 which died of old age on March 1. But parliament is in session. All of us delegated here by the people and assembled for the purpose of discussing legislative measures and seeing that public funds are administered in a businesslike manner, we would abdicate our powers, we would betray the people and hand over our responsibilities to an incompetent administration! Never. We are ready to cooperate with the government in remedying the present situation, and if, to achieve that end, as I stated at the outset, he requires 25, 50 or 100 million dollars, we are prepared to grant him that sum. Let him set whatever sum he chooses, let him prove to us that this sum is necessary to relieve the present crisis, and we will vote the money required inside



Unemployment Continuance Act
of twenty-four hours. But to surrender the people's rights, never! Giving a blank cheque to the Prime Minister would be tantamount to an admission of incompetence on our part and it would ill behoove us to remain here any longer.
The Prime Minister realizes the gravity of the situation and seeks to enlist the support of all men of good will. We are assembled here for that purpose. Parliament is convened with no other objective. What more does he want?
I also protest against the present resolution because it is ultra vires and unconstitutional. More eloquent speakers, greater authorities on the subject than I am, have discussed the issue with marvelous thoroughness. I will not tarry any further over the legality of the present resolution but I protest against its adoption because it implies an unpardonable encroachment on what we hold dearest, I mean responsible government. Some honourable members are unwilling to face the constitutional point raised in the course of the debate. Some honourable members who enjoy a certain repute outside the precincts of this chamber have steered clear of the constitutional aspect when discussing this resolution. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) who stood up in this house also evaded the question. Yet, he is lacking neither in intelligence nor knowledge. He even went further and ventured to assert that the Liberals were equally responsible for the blank cheque which parliament gave the hon. Prime Minister in July, 1931. Do they imagine they can disabuse the people?? Do they believe our electors are so lacking in intelligence as to be unaware that a law adopted by the Commons always secures the support of a majority? When the majority is Conservative and the blank cheque is secured under a Conservative regime, the Conservatives alone are to be held responsible for this measure.
The honourable member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) also discussed the resolution but he did not touch upon the constitutional aspect of the question.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


Lucien Dubois: He also evaded the issue and when he delivered his speech we thought a provincial election campaign was in full swing. They say he is a brilliant lawyer. Qualities are ascribed to him and he is reported to be a man of some worth. Yet, he practically avoids the question in the course of a speech that takes up nine columns of Hansard. He devotes four columns and a half to the election in Three-Rivers, and a column

and a half to disparage the premier of our province, Mr. Taschereau.


Jean-François Pouliot: Shame,
shame I


Lucien Dubois: In one column he applies himself to the task of hurling darts at the former Minister of Justice, the honourable member for Quebec-East (Mr. Lapointe). He takes up a column and a half speaking of the benefits of the 1930 enactment and in a half-column he tries to convince us that all the young people of to-day are imbued with Conservative ideals, that they greatly admire Bennett, that they think of him only, that they are ever dreaming of him, and that they hope to some day have the opportunity of banding together in the province of Quebec and giving assent to his policies. The honourable member who took up part of his time criticizing the former Minister of Justice must be well aware if he is proud to-day to live in this country which shook off the colonial yoke, he is indebted to my leader and the former Minister of Justice. The honourable member must know that if the government has the power of signing treaties to-day in the name of Canada he owes it to my leader and the former Minister of Justice. The honourable member should know if Canada now has representatives in Washington, Paris and Tokyo we owe it to the honourable leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Quebec East.
Instead of discussing the question and trying to prove this resolution is really constitutional, he preferred wandering far afield. Instead of trying to prove the honourable member for Quebec-East was in error when he stated this measure was unconstitutional, the honourable member for Dorchester preferred discussing petty politics probably with the object of securing certain favours. Instead of respecting those who truly served their country he preferred playing the part of a Felix Poutre. Others who are always content to play second fiddle seem happy and feel honoured in surrendering their responsibilities and the people's rights into the hands of their cherished leader. As for the honourable member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion), if he chooses to sell his birthright for a mess of potage, he is free to do so; but we who are accustomed to walk with our heads erect, and to see beyond the feed trough those fruitful doctrines that safeguard our rights cannot approve of his abdication.
This resolution seems insignificant if one merely considers its immediate object which is to substitute the word May for the word

Unemployment Continuance Act
March; but it really implies an extension of legislative power which deprives us of our prerogatives and our right of deliberation.
You can sense the danger, Mr. Speaker. In 1932, they already avail themselves of the precedent of 1931, and if we were to grant to-day the two months' extension as requested, how could we refuse to-morrow a four months' extension, or again refuse an eight months' extension, or even a twelve months' extension. Thus it happens that the removal of one stone from the foundation causes the fall of another stone, of four, of ten other stones, and finally the building itself collapses. As precedents always end by becoming laws, the adoption of the measure now before the house would show the way to even more dangerous requests. What accounts for this thirst after absolute authority on the part of the Prime Minister? Why this desire to legislate as he likes? Under cover of Bill No. 58 adopted to provide unemployment and farm relief, the government deemed fit to pass orders in council banning the export of gold, amending the Bank Act, amending the Insurance Act, increasing the Mounted Police establishment by 300 men and adding thereby $274,435 to the expenses of the country. Let us suppose for a minute that we are going to vote in favour of this resolution, and the thought occurs to-morrow to the Prime Minister that in order to relieve unemployment, help agriculture and maintain order in the country, it is necessary to pass an order in council enjoining or favouring the fusion of our two great railways! .... I will carry the point further: everybody is aware that grave questions loom on the horizon at this stage. If in order to relieve unemployment, help agriculture and maintain order and peace, the Prime Minister believes an order in council should be passed ordering the carrying out of the St. Lawrence deep waterway, what could we say by way of a reply?
Under cover of the bill which we are now asked to extend, various orders in council providing for the expenditure of public funds have been passed, when, as a matter of fact, we are delegated here by , our respective constituencies to see that the people's money is properly administered, to see that the laws conform to the people's needs, and to keep a watchful eye over those matters that relate to the public interest. The Right Honourable Prime Minister who knows the value and force of precedents could, following the granting of the present request, ask us to grant a second, possibly a third extension of power, and thus exercise a complete dictatorship during his full term of office. And we would have no cause to be distrustful; we would 41761-781
have no cause to offer opposition. I ask myself, can we, in order to please a potentate about whom there is no touch of chivalry, abdicate our most noble responsibilities and surrender our most sacred rights? Can we, simply in order to please the leader of a party never sated with authority, sacrifice on the altar of autocracy the prerogatives that devolve upon us as representatives of the people? Can we, to avoid being taxed with political partisanship or ill-will, surrender to a papier-mache dictatorship that which belongs not to us but to our constituents; I refer to the guarantee of exclusive legislative authority conferred on the Canadian Parliament. Can we sacrifice these things without giving some thought to the matter simply to please our friends opposite? No, never; we shall never do it. I protest with every ounce of energy at my command and with the full force that the rights of 30,000 British subjects in my riding represent against this unconstitutional measure which violates section 91 of the British North America Act.
One had to live in the twentieth century, Mr. Speaker, to hear a government propose such audacious measures. And to think that our forefathers should have fought for years and years to secure this legislative power. Our forefathers would shed their blood in seeking an objective that did them credit? Our forefathers would appeal to the broadmindedness of English statesmanship and receive this legislative regime in token of their devotion to Great-Britain? Our forefathers would by word of mouth, the use of the sword and innumerable sacrifices offered up for the sake of future generations, establish their claim to freedom only to see their cowardly grandsons hand over to a sham dictator the fruits of so many struggles? No, Nicolet county will never lend itself to these tactics!
Were it possible for the right honourable prime minister and his followers to relent in the face of all these arguments! But they will not relent. The honourable member for Quebec East ably proved in the light of constitutional law that this resolution was utterly arbitrary. The prime minister did not unbend. Held fast, like a prey in the tentacles of some giant octopus, by the very apt and cogent speech of the honourable member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) he did not flinch. He was still unmoved in the face of the sarcasm and satire so cleverly dispensed by the honourable member for Labelle (Mr. Bouras-sa). I do believe, were we to crush him under the weight of all the arguments we could marshall after poring over all the books in the library, he would still persist in his stub-
Unemployment Continuance Act

bornness to put this measure through and claim this dictatorship. If one could at least ascribe the quality of courage to this attitude. I have tried to understand this mentality, to grasp this state of mind. I resorted to what little psychological knowledge I possess and I failed. I even perused La Bruyere's "Les Ca-racteres" in the hope of finding the prime minister's double, and I met with no greater success. I had to go far back into antiquity .. . .1 had to search among the fossil characters to find the prime minister's counterpart. I went as far back as Plato and Aristotle and I ran across an individual by the name of Theophrastus who in one of his works entitled "Les Caracteres" gives us a very accurate portraj'al of the present prime minister. Here is what he says with reference to the great men of a certain republic:
The ruling passion of those holding the first places in a popular state is not the desire for gain nor the accretion of their income, but an impatience to aggrandize themselves and to set up for their benefit, were it possible, a sovereign power above and beyond that of the people. If a man of this type called a meeting to consider whom among the citizens he would commission to help the first magistrate in the management of some festival or spectacle, this ambitious man whom I have just described stands up. demands the position and protests no other person can discharge the duties of the office quite as well. He dors not approve the domination of the many, and of all Homer's verses he remembers this line only:
"Nations are happy when only one man governs them."
During the	1930 campaign, we	saw
our opponents going u,p and down our respective ridings telling the electors:	"Do
you want prosperity? Do you want to be happy? Vote for the Honourable R. B. Bennett." They distributed the honourable prime minister's photograph with these lines appended: "If butter does not sell, if the land is becoming impoverished, if there are unemployed, if factories close their doors, the Liberal government is to blame. Do you want prosperity, do you want work, do you want to see the price of butter increase? Vote for the Honourable R. B. Bennett." And inscribed below were these words: "People, this is your master." Citizens of Canada, the prime minister told them through his acolytes, if you want to be happy, vote for me, because the people will be happy when I alone govern them.
He alleged the same reasons when demanding a blank cheque in 1931: I cannot administer the country hand in hand with the opposition, he was wont to say. Give me a blank cheque so that I alone may govern. Give me a blank cheque, and I am convinced
TMr. Dubois.]
the people of Canada will be happy when I hold sway. One feels tempted to call his actions hallucinations. We will not do so in this chamber, but the people on the outside have weighed his actions and they impatiently bide their time until opportunity offers to take their revenge.
The honourable members to the right have accused us of not offering any constructive suggestions. The honourable member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) confuted this specious charge this afternoon. With the honourable member for Nipissing (Mr. * Hurtubise) I suggest to the present government just as I suggested last year when I spoke on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, that it should do all in its power to encourage the establishing of industries and the return to the land. Why spend millions and millions on works that provide the workers with a mere pittance? Could these seventy millions of public funds not have been used to encourage the return to the land? With these seventy millions the government could have given a home and shelter to at least 350,000 citizens. How many people are there living in our cities to-day who, attracted by the lure of easy gain abandoned their farms, and who would be willing now to return to the land but are unable to do so? Why does the federal government not come forward with a generous measure of assistance to the provincial governments in order to enable these people and their families to return to these farms for which they experience a feeling of homesickness? Who can gainsay that the land breeds morality? Who can gainsay that the land is the most favourable environment for the development of civic virtues, virtues that are the warp and woof of strong races? Can one ignore the fact that the land constitutes the soundest capital? How many of our people would be happy to return to the land? All might not remain, but a large number would be proud to renew acquaintance with the wholesome soil which, when one loves it, when we give it our hearts and offer it the use of our arms, when we lean lovingly over it, is never ungrateful and returns a hundredfold what we give it. With the object of recalling the matter to mind and in order to convince the government the return to the land is a sound policy, that the expenditure of millions in furtherance of the return to the land is a good investment for the country, I will quote a few observations made by a Catholic priest who was a leader in the agricultural settlement of the country.

Unemployment Continuance Act
Landed capital is the most 6table producer of real wealth. It goes its way unshaken by stock market upheavals. One might liken it to the ocean liner riding the storm which small craft could not weather. Landed capital is the most stable and fixed capital; it is the only truly stable capital.
Industry is the airplane that soars above the clouds but whose fall involves a complete loss.
The land is the plough moving along gently but incapable of sustaining any fall.
If we settle our sons on the land, we will develop a generation that will be an honour to us, that will be an honour to the race. In the years to come, when their eyes rest again on their little valleys, homes and fields, they will be able to repeat the lines which we speak when we again set foot on our farms:
Que j'ai de joie a vous revoir, 6 paysage!
He quel regard d'amour j'enveloppe, 6 eommets, Votre forme rustique et votre humble visage Qui malgre les antans, ne vieillissent jamais!...


Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of speaking to-day, but after looking over the house and observing that to-day is March 17, St. Patrick's Day, and therefore a day for speeches, I am going to say a word. I am glad to offer my congratulations to hon. members on both sides of the house who are observing this as a national day of celebration. St. Patrick was a good saint and a great protector; I am told he belonged to no party at all and never entered politics, and therefore he is always blessing good Irishmen all over the world.
Speaking of St. Patrick reminds me of a man in provincial politics in Quebec of whom we have heard a good deal in the last week or so. I refer to Hon. Mr. Dillon, who was in charge of a bill which passed the Quebec legislature last session. I see my good friend from Compton (Mr. Gobeil) in the house. He made quite a long speech yesterday about Mr. Dillon and his bill, but that must be a sound law-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Paul Mercier: Just a moment. I also see my good friend from Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Moore), who is also a worthy Irishman. This must have been good law, because it was introduced by an Irishman, and when it left the legislative assembly and went to the council it was sponsored by Hon. Mr. Bryson, another able Irishman, and was seconded by Mr. Kelly, still another reputable Irishman. Then, after it was passed, it was duly sanctioned by still another very brilliant Irishman, the lieutenant governor of the province of Quebec, Hon. H. G. Carroll.
That law has helped many elected candidates, and they were not all Liberals. I know that
for one it helped Mr. Bertrand, who is now a Conservative member of the legislative assembly for Saint-Sauveur. His election was contested and because of that law he now represents that constituency. Ask Mr. Bertrand if he does not bless that law to-day; he knows it gave him the chance to sit in the provincial house as a Conservative member. To meet the argument advanced by my hon. friend opposite let us imagine that the Liberal party, after the last dominion election had contested one hundred seats in the house. Of course that is absurd, but by making a comparison it is easier to understand the fact. It would have been an intolerable thing if we had taken that action; perhaps an order in council would have been passed by the present government, declaring the petition null and void. But we saw the spectacle in the province of Quebec of 55 seats being contested, some of them having been won by majorities ranging from 500 to 1,500, as was the case in my own county of St. Henri. Of course when we look at a thing through a binocular it always seems greater than when we look at it through a microscope; in the latter case it seems very small.
During the course of this debate we have heard many things about the province of Quebec. As members of parliament we should do our best to foster a proper appreciation of the provinces from which we come. What is the use of criticizing the Liberal administration in Quebec because it is a Liberal one? Why suggest that the people were bluffed in the last election in that province? The people were not fooled, they were not bluffed; you cannot fill them up as though they were bottles. The Liberal party in that province were returned by a vote of the majority of the people, and any stranger, viewing the situation impartially, will agree that the people in that province were right. Where is my proof in support of my contention that the people of Quebec were right in returning the Liberal government to power? It is to be found in the report of the Dominion Director of Unemployment Relief, March 1, 1932, published by this government. This report gives an accounting of the appropriations and disbursements throughout Canada under the act. I do not find, according to the report, that my province has come to Ottawa and asked for any advances, but I do find that the province of Manitoba asked for three and three quarter millions, Saskatchewan almost seventeen millions, and Alberta four and a half millions. And what about the province of Ontario- a wealthy province forming, along with the province of Quebec, the cornerstone

Unemployment Continuance Act
of the Dominion of Canada? It is true that Ontario asked for a small amount, but just the same that province did ask for $190,364,74. Then British Columbia, on the verge of bankruptcy, gets an advance of $5,664,366.19. Altogether, we find that over $31,000,000 has been advanced to five of the provinces; but I see nowhere any mention of the province of Quebec. Now I do not say this in order to belittle any of the other provinces of Canada; not at all. My sentiments are too broad for that. I know that the nine provinces of Canada are the nine jewels in the crown of confederation, and each part of the dominion should be willing, if necessary, to come to the assistance of the rest. On the other hand, I think that my contention is borne out by the figures disclosed in this report, for they show the condition of the province of Quebec, the first settled land in this dominion. My province, I claim, still leads the dominion. I am proud of that province, and when I say so I am speaking on behalf not only of the Liberals of Quebec but of all the people who so strongly supported the government of Premier Taschereau in the last provincial election.
The province of Quebec, we are told, had a deficit of $10,000,000. As everyone knows, we were obliged to contribute our share under the unemployment relief scheme. For every dollar advanced, for provincial works, Quebec was obliged to pay its share on a fifty per cent basis, and for municipal works, Quebec was paying between thirty-five and forty-five per cent. We were obliged to take money from the treasury of Quebec to contribute to such work as was done. Perhaps other provinces were not on a financial basis strong enough to meet current liabilities, but Quebec was ready to meet hers, from her surpluses. But at that very moment she was obliged to contribute millions towards works carried on in the metropolis of Canada. It is not surprising, therefore, that the treasury of the province should be depleted after helping to meet the exigencies of the federal government. But let me say that before the first of May the banks will be reimbursed that $10000,000, for the credit of the province of Quebec is still unimpaired in Canada, in England, and in every other country of the world, and Quebec will come back with flying colours. That province will balance its budget and will go ahead and prosper, to the advantage of the farmers and the people of the cities.
I have looked through this report very carefully, and it is astonishing to see the amount of money that has been spent under the Unemployment Relief Act. I may say quite

frankly that when the bill was introduced last year I realized that the situation was desperate. When the Liberal government was in power there were signs of the tornado that was about to strike us. Anyone could see the clouds hanging over us, and the Liberal government foretold a tremendous storm. Our opponents did not agree with us, but the storm came just the same and we are in the midst of it now.
I should have liked to see this bill drafted differently. Does any business man in this house imagine for a moment that he would confer upon his manager or upon any other person in his firm or industry such wide powers as were given to the government under this act? Not at all. Not at all. Parliament must retain control over the expenditure and over the mandate given to the government so that we may hold the government to account and see that our ministers do not engage in risky undertakings. The government are asking that the powers conferred under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931 be extended for a further two months. It is true that the government has presented a report on .the work that has been done under this act, but why does not the government ask parliament to vote a specific amount? If it did that, I would be the first to support it. Navigation will be opening up at Montreal within two months. I see on -page 19 of the report on the administration of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, schedule 18, that there has been spent by the Dominion government, as its share, in the city of Montreal for public works $1,200,000, but I contend, Mr. Speaker, that the money should not have been spent in the way it was. I am not here to give advice, for I know that any advice coming from the opposition will not be listened to by the government, that it will have no more chance than a cat jumping in an alley. But if the money had been spent on improvements to the Montreal harbour, for instance, not only would it have given work to the labouring people of Montreal, but work would have been done that would have been of benefit to the city and to this whole country for the next ten or fifteen years. Sheds, for instance, might have been built and new construction of various kinds which would have supplied the port's requirements for the next ten or fifteen years. The unemployed in Montreal would be glad to work with a pick and shovel on this work. I contend that that would have been a much better way to spend the money, because not only would work have been provided but public works of value would have been constructed which would

Unemployment Continuance Act
serve this country for a considerable number of years to come. The government might have built a new custom house, for instance, at Montreal. A foundation was laid for such a building nearly fifteen years ago 'by a former Conservative government, under Sir Robert Borden. This foundation on McGill street cost approximately $1,000,000, but nothing further was done with regard to it. If work had been proceeded with on that project, we would to-day have a new federal building in the city of Montreal which would have served the needs of the city for perhaps twenty-five years hence, and at the same time work would have been provided for the unemployed. But I humbly submit that at present the money is being spent in a way that is not of benefit to Canada, and if this crisis continues, and if the treasury remains empty of revenue, the government will 'be obliged to increase taxation. They will have to borrow money and they will not be able to say to the people: Look at the public works that we have built with the money voted for unemployment relief. It would have been far better to construct public buildings, dredge rivers, and make harbour improvements, providing for the needs of the future as well as looking after the present.
I read in a Montreal paper a few months ago-if I am wrong I shall be glad to be corrected-that the chairman of the Montreal harbour commission had urged the building of a wharf and shed at Windmill Point at Montreal. This project would have provided work for a very considerable number of men and would have been of benefit to the Marine department and to Canada as a whole. But nothing was done. If that project had been gone on with, you would not see, 30,000 unemployed walking the streets of Montreal today. Money voted for unemployment relief and to be spent in the city of Montreal should have been spent in the harbour of Montreal, in the construction of improvements.
In distributing the money to municipalities, I contend that the government is relinquishing too much of the control over the funds voted by parliament. In the city of Montreal, for instance, more was expended in expropriation proceedings than on public works undertaken for the benefit of the unemployed. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment which this government has proposed will be withdrawn because I humbly submit that a constitutional issue is involved. The control of public moneys should not be taken out of the hands of parliament.
I heard the learned speech the other day of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and
Commerce (Mr. Stevens). He argued that it was impossible to spend a definite amount without asking parliament to vote it, and that if it was not voted the Auditor General would scrutinize the item very closely to see that it was devoted to the purpose designated by the house. That is the very principle that I am advocating, that parliament should have control over the moneys it votes. But today we do not know where we are going. Are we going to spend fifteen or twenty or fifty million dollars during the next few months for the relief of unemployment? Nobody knows. But if the government would ask this house to vote a definite sum,, say fifty or sixty million dollars, if needed, that would be in accordance with constitutional practice and in accordance with the principle of the voting of supplies by parliament which has always prevailed in this country.
I hope that I have not delayed the house too long, Mr. Speaker, but what I have said I have said sincerely, presenting my view as to the issue involved, and speaking also in the interests not only of the city of Montreal but also of my beloved province of Quebec, which in common with the other provinces of this dominion is vitally concerned in the prosperity and welfare of our country.


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: In rising to make a few observations on the resolution before the house, I wish to be as fair as I can and to present the view which is taken by hon. members on this side of the house.
At the outset there is one question that I should like (to ask. If the government were very anxious to bring in this measure in time to have the amendment made before the first of March, why did they not introduce it earlier in the session? The speech from the throne was disposed of in a couple of days and there was no reason in (the world why the government could not have introduced this measure and had the act amended before it lapsed. Our friends, however, chose to sit back quietly, do nothing in connection with the situation, and allow the act to lapse. Then, after it was dead, they came to parliament and asked for an amendment to what has been termed a dead statute. I do not think our hon. friends opposite or the country at large can take any objection to the criticism that has been offered by this side of the house, because it has been made clear from the first that the Liberal party are perfectly willing to vote the supply necessary to carry on any undertakings the government may have on hand or any new ones on which they may wish to embark. It was made quite plain by the

Unemployment Continuance Act
leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) 'that if a supply bill were brought in to take care of any emergency that might arise, it would be put through the house in the course of a few hours and then the government could bring in a new bill which they could frame at their leisure, without attempting to rush through a bill to amend an act which, as has been pointed out, is defunct and no longer capable of amendment.
If lan-y mistake has been made in this regard, our hon. friends on the government benches will have to assume the responsibility. I do not think the government could ask for anything clearer than the offer which has been made by the opposition that if a supply bill were introduced, it would be put 'through all its stages without undue delay. The government, however, are not satisfied with that; they come to parliament and, under this resolution and the bill to be founded on it, ask us to hand over to the executive the exclusive power to put through almost any legislation they may wish. Why do they do this? I think we have a complete answer in the speech which was delivered the other day by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). This is what he said on March 12:
It is true that at that time an appropriation might have been voted, and it was very largely the burden of the complaint of some hon. members that that was not done, but I invite hon. gentlemen to consider this, that when an appropriation is passed the purpose for which it is to be used must be specified, and the Auditor General and other officers of the crown in scrutinizing expenditures under such an appropriation always keep the government very closely to the purpose specified in such a vote.
If there has been advanced from any part of the house one argument which condemns more strongly than any other the action of the government in proposing this amendment to the act, it is the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He says positively that if they bring in a supply bill, then the country is going to know where every dollar of that money has gone. If they bring in an amendment to the act, then the government can do almost anything they want and the Auditor General has not the power to scrutinize that he would have if a specified1 sum were voted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quite sure my hon. friend does not wish to misrepresent my statement. If he will refer to the remarks which I made on 'that occasion, and part of which he has just quoted, he will note that I was referring to conditions that -could not possibly have been foreseen or provided for, and therefore an appropriation which must specify what it is for, -could not be used for unforeseen cir-
[Mr. MacLean.l
cumstanees which might arise under these emergent -conditions, particularly the drought conditions of the west.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: My hon. friend's argument would hold good if the house were not in session; but the government must know the commitments they have made up to the present time; they must have a fairly good estimate of what is needed for the different provinces, and they could have brought in a supply bill sufficiently large to take care of any emergency that might arise within the next two months. That supply bill could have been passed by the house and then the Auditor General could have been in a position to check up and see where every dollar of the money went. The hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier) has referred to the report which has been submitted to the house. What does that report show? Do we get any itemized expenditure in it? We do not. All we get is a statement showing lump sums that were approved by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), one sum for this province and another for that. Those appropriations were approved and the government gave the municipality or the provincial government authority to go ahead and carry out the relief works at a specified amount. Nobody knows whether those projects cost too much or not, or what was done for the amount stated, or how the money was really expended. I do not wish to be harsh, but if when the former Liberal government was in power my hon. friends opposite had had half the chance that we on this side have had, I know the criticism they would have offered. As I said before, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has condemned this course of asking for a blank cheque more strongly than any member on this side has been able to condemn it.
If they are given a blank cheque and this wide power in regard to the provision for peace, order and good government, they may do anything. We might have a merger of all the banks in Canada; we might have a merger of the great railway systems; we might have the deep waterway scheme put through in this country by order in council, and we know how divided public opinion is on the question. We know the attitude which is being taken in the great province of Quebec; they are prepared to carry the matter to the seat of the throne rather than give away their rights. Therefore, to give this blank cheque and this wide power of legislation to the government at this time, is going a step too far. The situation should be dealt with as it arises; our friends opposite should

Unemployment Continuance Act
now know pretty nearly what they want; they should bring in a new bill and allow the house to debate it, without asking for a blank cheque at this stage of the game.
They say that we have made no worthwhile suggestions. It has been pointed out by the speakers to-night that the leader of the opposition has on different occasions indicated that the appointment of an independent commission in each province is the proper manner of handling the situation. This is the people's money. One of the regulations approved by the Minister of Labour under the statute that was passed is as follows:
All agreements with provincial and municipal authorities shall contain a provision to the effect that all persons employed on the works or undertakings referred to herein shall be residents of Canada, and in no case shall discrimination be made or permitted in the employment of or in the granting of direct relief to any British subjects by reason of their political affiliation, race or religious views.
This was to be a fair deal to the country as a whole. We have heard representatives from different provinces state that this principle has not been followed. I am not going to complain in regard to Prince Edward Island; I think the work was handled there as well as in any other province, but a new Conservative government had just come into power; their friends were very hungry for government jobs, and there is no doubt in the world that they pressed that government very hard. We had complaints by the score from people who said that no one need apply unless he was of the right political stripe. I do not know whether or not that is true, but I do know that we have had complaints that the money did not go to the men who needed it, that for some reason or another those moneys in many cases did not reach their proper destination-that is, the man out of work. A large amount of the money spent went to people who did not need it, to people who could afford to buy motor trucks, to merchants, to contractors and to speculators who were able to grab a large proportion of the money. Those people received the benefit rather than the men who were really in need of assistance. No wonder the public press and the people in general condemn this measure. I think it was "Alfalfa Bill" Murray, or Senator Bill Murray, of the United States who said that people do not exist for government, but that the government exists for the benefit of the people. Our hon. friends opposite seem to think that the people exist for the government, and we find them endeavouring to control everything in the way of expenditures to suit themselves.
Turning to the public press for expressions in this connection we find the following in the Financial Post;
It must be obvious to everyone that the proposed plan for carrying on relief work in the same way as last season does not commend itself to the public generally.
When we see such papers as the Financial Post, publications which have made a study of the plan, condemn it and make publicly the statement that the procedure is too expensive, I think it is time for the government to call a halt and take into consideration some of the suggestions put forward by the press and by hon. members in this house.
The Financial Post of January 30, 1931, states that $10 has been added to the public debt of Canada for every day's work given to the unemployed. The figures reveal waste and prove that the plan is unsound, that it is calculated to strain the credit of municipalities and provinces, and is loading them up with debts that they would not otherwise assume. That is the view of the Financial Post. In the same issue I find the following statement:
In other words, it cost the state not more than $20 per head to carry the unemployed under direct relief, and $210 per head to give 332,000 people 22 days work each in the year. The expense of the relief work was at least ten times greater than that of direct relief. The figures for this year will run about the same.
That is the astounding statement contained in the Financial Post, a publication which has gone into this matter thoroughly and has attempted to show to the public that the giving of relief has not been economically handled. The article in the Financial Post goes on to say:
A relief problem of 350,000 unemployed, therefore, can be met by direct relief for $7,000,000; by indirect relief (22 days work apiece), $70,000,000.
An analysis has been made by that publication to show that some $60,000,000 has been thrown away in an attempt to carry out the relief plan adopted last year by my hon. friends opposite.
Concerning the question whether or not the provinces are able to carry on, a great deal has been published in the public press. Mr. C. A. Bogert, general manager of the Dominion bank, stated at the annual meeting of that institution that Canada is now borrowing $6 for each SI she is repaying. Referring to the public debt of Canada he said:
The Dominion government during the past few years had reduced the public debt approximately 11 per cent from its peak, but this again was more than wiped out in the past few weeks by the national service loan.

Unemployment Continuance Act
That is a very strong statement coming from a man who holds the position of general manager in one of our greatest banks. Hon. members must realize that we cannot go on rolling up debts in the municipal, provincial and dominion governments, because there is a limit to credit. The time would soon come when even this Dominion of Canada would not be in a position to borrow enough money to keep going. There is no use misleading the people regarding these grants, because down in our little province of Prince Edward Island we know that in the past few years we received fair treatment from the federal Department of Public Works. Last year, however, when the dominion government gave $125,000 to that province for unemployment the contribution was heralded throughout the press, and statements were made about the wonderful help the federal government was giving. May I point out that on the one hand this government is withholding hundreds of thousands of dollars from Prince Edward Island, and on the other hand it is making a contribution of $125,000 for the relief of the unemployed.
Let us survey the situation. We find that the amount voted for public works in the province of Prince Edward Island for the year 1928 was $339,800. In 1929, the sum of $229,800 was voted. What do we find in the estimates for 1932? There are only two items, totalling $8,000. Yet, under a Liberal government in 1929 the province of Prince Edward Island received $339,800. Although our hon. friends opposite are spending money for the relief of the unemployed, they are at the same time allowing the public works of this dominion to run down. Public works in the province of Prince Edward Island will fall into a state of decay; the amount stipulated in the estimates for this year is not sufficient to keep them in repair. True, the sum of $50,000 is set aside for harbours and rivers. That sum, however, is voted every year, and is used only in cases of emergency where trouble may develop after a storm, and repair work may be necessary.
Let us consider dredging in the maritimes. In the year 1929, the sum of $540,000 was set aside for that purpose, and of that sum $60,000 or $70,000 was spent in the constituency I have the honour to represent. We find that for 1931-32 the amount was only $235,500, indicating a reduction in that one item of $304,500.


Eccles James Gott: The Conservative governments apparently did more for the hon. member than the Liberal governments did for us.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I think the records show that the country was well cared for by the Liberal government. During the last election campaign the Conservative candidates were telling about the wonderful things they were going to do when their party came into power, so far, none of their promises have been fulfilled. They promised to find a market for our products. They went up and down the country telling the people to look at their milk cheques. I ask my hon. friends to-night to look at their milk cheques, and not only their milk cheques but all other cheques for farm produce. Look at the cheques they receive from the sale of their potatoes, their poultry, their pork, their beef, their grain. I ask my hon. friends what has happened to those silver-lined promises they handed out so freely during the election campaign.
In the few moments I have at my disposal before eleven o'clock I wish to make an appeal to this government on behalf of the potato growers in Prince Edward Island. Millions of dollars have been voted in this house for the benefit of other provinces. My hon. friend from the province of Quebec who preceded me told us that within the last year about $32,000,090 had been voted to the different provinces to take care of unemployment and farm relief. If hon. members would take the time to search the records from confederation up to the present they would not find one dollar voted for the relief of farmers in Prince Edward Island. To-day those farmers are in a worse position than they have been at any time since confederation. In western Canada the farmers are blessed with a fertile soil, and about all they need do is put in their crop; then if there is anything like a good growing season they are assured of a bountiful harvest. In short, the only essential thing is seed. But in Prince Edward Island we need not only seed, but something that is equally essential-fertilizer. For the past two years our farmers down there have been in a most unfortunate position. Last fall the potato association shipped large quantities of potatoes into the United States on the understanding that they would be sold when the market opened up this spring. They had to pay the duty and freight and storage charges, and now the prospects are that they will get scarcely anything in return. I see my friends from Prince Edward Island on the other side and I know they will agree with every word I say. To-day our farmers need some cash assistance to help them buy their fertilizer for this year's crop. They cannot get that fertilizer on credit because it is a cash article. The banks are carrying the

Unemployment Continuance Act
farmer's notes for the fertilizer purchased last year and they decline to make any further advances for this year's requirements. I appeal to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) -and if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. M eir) were in his seat I would make the same appeal to him; I appeal to them to have a survey made of the situation. It can be easily done through the provincial government or the Potato Growers' Association, either of whom, I know, would verify the statements I am now making. I think the provincial government and the association would be well-advised to put in a claim for $500,000 to enable the farmers to get their fertilizer this year. If this appropriation were made it would be greatly appreciated by our farmers on the island, and would be only doing justice to the province in view of the millions of dollars that have been voted to the farmers of the western provinces. Our friends opposite were going to blast a way into the markets of the world, but they have not been able to blast out of the way even that little insect, the potato bug, and so get removal of the British embargo against our potatoes. I believe unless our farmers can get an outside market for their potatoes they will have to discontinue potato growing altogether.
The question of subsidies has also been agitating our people in Prince Edward Island. In the election of 1930 they were told that if the Conservative party came into power the Duncan report would be fully implemented; but this government has not shown the slightest disposition to redeem that promise. I know that the Conservative campaign literature circulated throughout the province at that time was very definite in promising that if the party was successful they would supplement the treasury of Prince Edward Island by a subsidy of $700,000. I see the premier of the province in his budget speech states that the provincial debt in 1910 was $877,756, that by 1920 it had grown to $1,176,264, and that at the end of 1931 it had pyramided to 83,342,241

or an increase in the last eleven years of $2,165,817. It took fifty years from confederation up to 1910 to bring the debt of the island up to less than a million dollars, yet in the decade from 1920 it has, as stated by the Premier, reached a total of over three million dollars. From this it will be apparent to every hon. member how necessary it is that the province should have an increased subsidy. The premier paid a wonderful tribute to the Liberal party in his budget speech. He said in effect that the Liberal government under Mr. Mackenzie King had increased the subsidy by $125,000. When asked by the
opposition if anything had been done with regard to getting a further increase, he said, "No, now is not the time to go to Ottawa to ask for an increased subsidy. It will be years before we can get any increase." In that statement he unconsciously paid a fine tribute to the Liberal government. In effect he said: We got $125,000 -under the Liberal government, we have not been able to get a cent since, and we shall have to wait until the Liberal party gets back to power before we can expect a further increase in our subsidy.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 18, 1932