[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I wish to direct to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) a question based on a telegram which I have received from Cowley, Alberta, protesting against the closing of a branch of the Royal Bank of Canada at that point. A great number of branches are being closed and I understand that this is a matter of policy on the part of the banks at the present time. Would the Minister of Finance be good enough to take the matter up with the different banks concerned to see whether some arrangement might not be made to keep these branches open in order to give service to the people in the different localities.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: I have received a number of communications arising out of the closing of branches of banks. The hon. member will appreciate the fact that the question of location of or the closing of branches is not a matter within the purview of the Department of Finance; it is solely a question of administration for the banks themselves. In each instance, however, I have forwarded the communication direct to the bank concerned.



RUSSIAN LUMBER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timis-kaming):: I wish to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) a question with reference to certain prese despatches that appeared last week to the effect that the British government had given an order to the Russian government for $25,000,000 worth of lumber of a kind and quality that can be produced in Canada. Has the Canadian High Commissioner in London ever notified the government here or any of the trade commissioners in Europe that such an order had been given to Russia in preference to Canada?
Unemployment Continuance Act


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The matter to which the hon. gentleman refers is merely gossip. We have no official information on the subject.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 18, consideration of the motion of the Prime Minister that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word March ^ in section 8, and substituting the word May therefor.
Mr. J. F. FAFARD (L'lslet):: Mr. Speaker, let me extend my congratulations to the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), who has been away owing to illness. We all rejoice to see him in his seat once more and trust he will have a complete recovery.
When the house adjourned at eleven o'clock on Friday night I was discussing the resolution now under consideration, and I was opposing it on various grounds. In the first place, as I pointed out, it is unconstitutional inasmuch as it is an abuse of power, and because the money expended under the provision of the statute last year was spent lavishly and without consideration for the farmers of the country. When the measure was brought before the house last year it was strongly opposed, but it was understood then that the blank cheque, so-called, was to be used to relieve unemployment, to aid agriculture, and to assist the country generally. We find now, however, that under that blank cheque the government has seen fit to pass orders in council to amend the Bank Act, to lend money to the provinces-which money will likely be given away at the next election -to increase the force of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to buy riot machines, guns and so on, and to spend $20,000 for the secret service, which secret service, if I am rightly informed, is used to have men follow the Liberal speakers throughout Canada in case they say anything against the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett).
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, a member of this house who respects the mandate given to him by his constituents will not vote to give such power to one man, whatever his ability may be. In the second place, the money was spent in such a way that only one-third went

Unemployment Continuance Act
to the unemployed, the balance having been used to buy material to build camps, and for expropriations, creating new rich at the expense of the unemployed. The narrow politics of this government has stopped our trade with other countries, has depreciated our money, and has created all sorts of suffering throughout Canada.
No matter what the mistakes of the government may be, we are ready to help them. We are ready to help our sister province of Saskatchewan in her need and we thank God that a similar disaster has not fallen upon the other provinces. However, I consider I would be a traitor to mj' country, if, while doing that, I should forego my rights in parliament. That I will not do.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, the present government has spent to ill purpose the money voted for the unemployed. In order to cure an ailment, the diseased or affected organ or member is first treated. The agricultural industry is the really sick individual at this stage. So long as that industry does not receive the treatment which will restore its economic health, prosperity will never exist in Canada.
What has the government accomplished for agriculture? It cannot be credited with helping the agricultural population of this country by a reduction of three million dollars in the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
I wonder what has become of those orators taking part in the last federal election campaign who then evinced such affection for the agricultural classes. The government has done nothing and the ministers who represent our province in the cabinet have done nothing either. Surely it is not by the dismissal of hundreds of postmasters in the province of Quebec that the powers that be have helped agriculture.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame!


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: And they certainly did not help the agricultural classes by the construction of a fire engine boat to meet the situation should the St. Lawrence catch fire.
Mr. Speaker, some have complained, though very wrongly, that the members sitting to the left failed to submit constructive proposals. Last Friday I asked the government to help agriculture. For instance, it would have been quite an easy matter to utilize some of the millions expended in the past two years for land drainage in our province. Many farms require drainage and it is a well-known fact that the returns from farms of drained land are rMr. Fafard.]
200 per cent greater. Why did the government not help the settlers improve their farms? The government could quite easily have appointed in each parish committees comprised of the parish priest, the agronomist, the mayor and four or five leading citizens, and the unemployed could have applied to these committees for work. The government could have placed an unemployed at the service of the farmer who wants to drain his land on condition that he also engages in that work. It would have been equally easy for the government to place a man at the disposal of the settler who wished to clear his land of stumps. Through the application of these various measures, the government would not only have given work to those who needed it but would also have shared in the improvement of farm lands in our province.
A representative from Prince Edward Island, I believe, recently demanded that his province be supplied with fertilizers. We who come from the province of Quebec would also like to receive fertilizers from the government. But this is only a temporary expedient. Once the benefits to be derived from fertilizers on our farms had disappeared, we would be back at the starting point. However, if the hon. minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) who will address us shortly made a grant of S75 to the farmers to enable them to build manure sheds, he would help the cause of agriculture to a much greater extent than he would by distributing fertilizers, for the same buildings would still be of use to the farmers fifty years hence. The provincial government makes a grant of S25 for this purpose.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: One would
have to construct them of cement (ciment).


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: They are such liars (si menteurs, eimenteurs). We have to keep in mind that the province of Quebec is the premier province in the Dominion and that many, many farms have been under cultivation two or three hundred years. I do not intend to enlarge on the advantages of fertilizers for agricultural purposes. Agronomists and technicians have already stressed these advantages. However, it is well to remember that nitrogen, phosphoric acid, potash and vegetable matter constitute the principal elements absolutely requisite for plant life and no substitute can perform the function of potash in vegetable economy.
I have observed, Mr. Speaker, that the money was spent without any regard for the agricultural class. If the few suggestions I submit to the government were acted upon,

Unemployment Continuance Act
the unemployed and the agricultural class would both be helped at the same time, and any help given to the agricultural population is a contribution to the country's assets.
I am told the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) has inaugurated a return to the land policy. I must congratulate him.
Unfortuately, 1 cannot see eye to eye with many economists on this point. I have always observed that a farmer who abandoned his farm, lived in the city five or six years, enjoyed the benefits of modern improvements and the somewhat artificial amusements he may find therein, finds it somewhat difficult to once more get in touch with the land. I believe the Minister of Immigration by inaugurating now a return to the land policy puts the cart before the horse, as we say in my part of the country. Before urging the return to the land, they should apply a policy that will enable the farmers to earn a decent living.
We have heard many complaints from other provinces. Coming as I do from the province of Quebec, I can tell my friends from those provinces that Quebec in common with other sections of the country has suffered and is still suffering.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: That is not
what Mr. Taschereau maintains.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Potatoes,
butter, eggs, in fact everything the farmers produce at the present time-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Are going up
in price.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: [DOT]-are selling below cost. I recently met a member from the west and he asked me how the farmers were getting along in the province of Quebec. I told him the old parishes in the province would come through the crisis for three reasons:	in the first
place, our early settlements in the province of Quebec instead of taking advantage of prosperity to run into debt, availed themselves of the good times to wipe off their indebtedness. In the second place, they would come through the crisis by reason of their industry and sense of thrift which are things unknown in many other provinces. Thirdly, their spirit of charity and Christianity, a subject which was so ably treated in the past few days by the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Dubois) and the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. St-Pere), the workingmen's *'Saint Pere," would see them through their difficulties.
We have poor people in our parishes. We have always had some. I will avail myself of what little time is at my disposal to outline to my colleagues in this chamber the manner in which the problem of the poor is handled in our old parishes of the province of Quebec. As a rule, at the end of December, during the Sunday service, the parish priest addresses his flock thus: "My dear friends, the harvest has been poor this year. Your returns have not been as good as in former years. However, we must not forget that there are poor people in our midst. Monday, Tuesday, such and such a one will go through the parish and collect for the poor. And you would be surprised, Mr. Speaker, if you were to see the quantity of provisions, farm produce, and the sums of money they collect. And these provisions and money are distributed without anybody having any knowledge as to their destination, this being done in order not to hurt the feelings of the poor. We are happy to have these poor people with us in the province of Quebec, for we are indebted to them for the development of a charitable feeling and Christian spirit which possibly* do not exist everywhere.
Canadians living in the province of Quebec are aware that sixteen million dollars have been loaned or given to Saskatchewan. They are also well aware that the province of Saskatchewan is under the premiership of Mr. Anderson who persecuted French-Canadians and who still persecutes them by means of his school laws. Well, Mr. Speaker, because of the spirit of charity we have developed amongst our citizens it is possible to make them understand the necessity cf helping Saskatchewan notwithstanding the wrongs committed by the premier of that province.
The spirit of charity! Let us compare the methods of the federal government with those of the provincial government. Upon our arrival here for the parliamentary session, the Prime Minister rose in the house and without consulting anybody recommended a 10 per cent salary cut for all government employees. For many years, a very large number of these civil servants made generous contributions to the Salvation Army, the St. Vincent de Paul Society. They practised what we call " charity " in our part of the country*. In the province of Quebec, the Prime Minister told the government employees: "You need not worry, there will be no salary reduction. On the other hand, we have in the city* of Quebec many people who used to work in offices or stores and who

Unemployment Continuance Act
are now idle. They are what we call the " white-collared needy." He asked the civil servants to be charitable and they were. They were true to the spirit of charity which we have developed as I mentioned a moment ago. They contributed hundreds, thousands of dollars in donations for the relief of the needy. I believe the members who sit to the right, including the Prime Minister, do not understand the mentality of the province of Quebec very well. Were I so bold as to offer him a word of advice, I would say to the prime minister: If you wish to win the goodwill of the province of Quebec, appeal to her heart. You will not secure her cooperation with blank cheques such as you are now demanding.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: How wonderful!


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Is that a
question?


Charles Napoléon Dorion: No, it is a
find.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: My, but
that fellow is dull!
Mr. Speaker, what are they doing to relieve unemployment? Well, the municipalities and cities are asked to spend money, and the government believes it can attain its objective by inducing them to spend $100,000, $200,000 or $500,000. We are willing to help you, they say, and to give you an equal amount. I would not be surprised if the Prime Minister before the close of this session were to offer a premium to the municipality or city that spent the most money. What would you think of a farmer who, at the end of the year, having no money to pay his taxes, his insurance premiums or his debts, would say to himself: "This has been a bad year, but I have found a way of restoring prosperity; I will borrow one thousand dollars to construct a large building. I do not need it, but it may be of some use to me fifty years hence." You would evidently agree, Mr. Speaker, that such a policy was foolish. Yet, that is what the present government is doing.
These enormous amounts granted for the relief of unemployment are nothing more than dope handed to the unemployed to put them asleep. The ailment remains uncured. If we seek a remedy that will be of some real benefit to the unemployed, let us develop our industries, let us reestablish the prosperity tariff, the Laurier tariff, and we will see our industries thriving again and our people resuming work by hundreds of thousands. In order to do away with unemployment one 
must encourage agriculture. I will go so far as to tell the government: if you wish to end this unemployment crisis, you need do one thing only: first, help agriculture.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, I have sat here day
after day listening to the debate on this resolution hoping against hope to see it end, with the full appreciation that I have of the incalculable danger of suffering that is liable to occur if the debate should be prolonged to such an extent as to make it too late, especially for the farmers in western Canada, to receive the seed grain which they need so badly for this year. Moreover, the prolongation of this debate has held up the machinery to look after the problem of unemployment relief work throughout the dominion to such a degree that great distress has been caused, which perhaps few members of the opposition seem to realize.
I have hesitated to rise, but I feel that we have reached the stage when I cannot keep my seat any longer. I shall, however, be very brief. What are the questions that have been under discussion in this debate? First, why has this resolution been brought down in this particular form? Members of the government believed that by a continuation of the act the work that had been started could be carried on with the same machinery and with less disturbance than would otherwise be the case. We were also advised to this effect by the premiers of the western provinces. No one will accuse the government, in dealing with this whole problem, of not in every way cooperating with the provincial governments. Therefore, this being our opinion, and it being backed by that of the premiers who were in the field, we felt that the only logical course to pursue was to ask for a continuation of the act for a period of two months.
During the debate hon. gentlemen have asked:	Why was the bill not brought down
earlier? At the time this resolution was put on the order paper, it was believed that the report which was to be 'brought down not later than March 15, setting forth the works that had been undertaken and the amounts spent under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, would be ready by March 1, and it was not deemed advisable or fair to ask for an extension of the act if the information was not before the house and especially before hon. gentlemen opposite so that they might have the facts available in order to discuss properly the resolution leading to the bill. As has been said, however, due to the illness of Senator Robertson, the former Minister of

Unemployment Continuance Act
Labour, it was impossible to have this report brought down at the time it was then thought certain it would be ready.
Hon. gentlemen opposite, in reply to the criticism that money will not be available for the purchase of seed wheat in western Canada and particularly in Saskatchewan, have said that this wheat should have been bought and delivered much earlier. That at first sight would seem to be an honest criticism, and I shall ask the indulgence of the house for a very few minutes in order to disclose to it the steps which were taken. I believe that hon. gentlemen, especially the farmers from the west, will agree when I have concluded that no precaution has been overlooked to place in the hands of the farmers in that great dried-out area in Saskatchewan the wheat that was felt to be most suitable to that particular soil and the conditions of farming in which they are engaged in that territory; and not only that, but placed in their hands at the lowest possible cost.
It was realized early in 1931 that seed wheat would have to be supplied to the extent of many millions of bushels. It was realized after June 1, 1931, that there would not be any considerable crop in a large area in Saskatchewan. The wheat best suited to this area is marquis wheat. The farmers from western Canada know that if the wheat held in the elevators in storage throughout this area had been allowed to be shipped out it would have been well nigh impossible to get pure marquis wheat from any other part of western Canada, and therefore steps were taken to hold the crop of 1929-1930 for the distribution of seed wheat if it were necessary. This crop has been held by the taking of options at the lowest price to which wheat went, and exchanging these options until finally we had options for the delivery of wheat on May 1, 1932. Hon. gentlemen opposite who have said that this wheat should have been bought a year ago will surely realize if they are western farmers what a great addition to the cost per bushel it would have meant to the western farmers had the wheat been bought a year ago, the cash paid, interest on the money paid, plus storage and insurance costs, and so forth. No precaution has been overlooked. We have to put into the hands of the farmers the wheat most suitable to their operations in the territory in which they farm, and also put that wheat into their hands at the lowest possible cost, and we have put it into their hands at a cost very much lower than even the most optimistic of these farmers felt was possible.
Hon. members of the opposition have discussed what they call the constitutional issue raised in the resolution leading to the bill. I am free to admit that there are hon. gentlemen opposite who were serious in their discussion of this question, but I do not think that anyone reading Hansard seriously, especially the farmers in the west who are in such dire need, could feel in reading the speeches of most hon. gentlemen opposite that the constitutional issue was taken very seriously by the great majority of members who have spoken on the other side of the house. Time does not permit me to go into the details of speech after speech, but in order to be as fair as I possibly can I shall take some of the speeches of the so-called backbenchers and then some of the speeches of those who sit nearer to the front benches on the opposition side.
Surely no farmer and no sane person would think, listening to the speech of the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee), and hearing him discuss his communion with the dairy cows away back in 1930, that he was very much concerned with the constitutional issue or with the distress in which his fellow-farmers find themselves in the province of Saskatchewan. Who would think it of the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Both-well), also from the province of Saskatchewan, who in dealing with a piece of highway built back in 1930 did, much as I regret to have to say it, misrepresent the facts of the case when he stated that the 2-68 miles of road that he was discussing was very similar to the highway that was built in the United States. I shall not dwell further on the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite from the back benches.
I shall now take a few minutes to deal with the speech of a member who has always stood high in the Liberal ranks, one therefore who must be considered pretty much as a standard of the present Liberalism in Canada, one who must be considered pretty much as the yardstick by which young Liberals would measure Liberalism, one whom the young Liberals of to-day, taking part for the first time in the discussion of great public questions and following the traditions of what has been a great Liberal party would hold before their mind's eye as their ideal. I will take his speech to see if he made any serious contribution in the way of a discussion of the constitutional issue or said anything of a serious nature suitable to -a crisis like that in which we find ourselves at the present time. I refer to the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell).



Unemployment Continuance Act
Take, for instance, that passage in which he stated that whenever a minister went to Regina the relief officers used to rush in to see what it was all about and who would be coming next. I think I am in a position to state, Mr. Speaker, having made visits to Regina, that that statement is absolutely without foundation in fact. Never at any time when I visited Regina were any of the relief officers called in for consultation. They had their work to do in the field, and they did it. I do not impute that the hon. member deliberately made a misstatement. I will be more charitable and say that I think it was rather a mental habit.
Secondly we had his statement, or rather imputation, that the men who are in charge of the branches of the various works of the relief commission had had no experience for their work. I think it is only fair to hon. members of this house and to the people at large to refute that imputation, and therefore I shall read in short the qualifications of the men who had charge of the branches engaged in the distribution of relief:
Charles Stevens, Accountant, nine years' experience; chartered accountant certificate; former secretary, Regina Trading Company; ex-service man.
Leslie Whitley, Clothing, twenty-five years in wholesale clothing business with Gault Brothers, Ames Holden and Commission Lines.
A. W. Snider, Fuel, seventeen years' experience wholesale and retail, fuel, lumber and hardware business.
Guy Hummel, Feed and Fodder, farmer, age forty-nine, eleven years on executive rural municipal association, now' president for sixth year, reeve of own municipality for eighteen years.
William McMullen, Foods, twelve years' experience wholesale groceries; ex-service man.
A. E. Wilson, Grain Purchasing Department, long experience as grain man and prominent farmer.
All with either high school or college education.
There is another statement in the speech of the hon. member for Melville, a rather prolonged and winding statement, to which I feel I must make reference on account of the part that I played in the matter, and that was his reference to Percy Gordon's connection with the relief commission in Saskatchewan.
Who is this Percy Gordon about whom statements, or rather imputations, are made that leave an impression that is absolutely unwarranted? He is an example, of which we have many in the west, of a boy who came out from the east and who with his brother rode as a little lad from farm to farm in western Canada to make a few cents here and a few cents there to support his early widowed

mother and themselves. He has overcome practically all obstacles until he finds himself now in a very enviable position at the bar. Percy Gordon will take second place to no man in this country for integrity, for public service and for everything that marks a man in the truest sense of the term. It was only after some considerable persuasion on my part, and I did not minimize the sacrifice of time that it would mean for him, that he undertook this work, but I was able to persuade him to give his time to the work, and he has discharged it with great credit. Let me read the inference of the hon. member for Melville with reference to Percy Gordon, and show the time that the hon. member took in leading up to that inference. I must refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Melville in using his notes for the statement appearing in Hansard. I wonder if any hon. member in the house would take a chance of saying what I am about to quote without first having made notes on the subject. The extract from Hansard is as follows:
Percy Gordon, Conservative, K.C.-that is the one I expect the Prime Minister was referring to. I am not going to report to the house what I have noted here in regard to him because I cannot prove it. But I know there was somebody around the Regina Star for two years before the provincial and federal elections conducting a violent anti-French

Campaign. I think we have heard that anti-French statement made before, from somewhere. Then the extract continues:
-and pro-K.K.K, campaign, and this gentleman was also associated with it in some way.
Percy Gordon has never been an instigator of propaganda for the Ku Klux Klan. He does not belong either to the Ku Klux Klan or to the Knights of Columbus; I have that from his own words. Neither has he conducted an anti-French campaign, but the very opposite to anti-French. I regret to have to refer to this incident, but I am sure hon. gentlemen will agree that I am responsible, perhaps more than any other hon. member, and it is is only fair I should say these few words in defence of the man who has been attacked. Surely no one would expect such reward to be given to a man who has devoted nine-tenths of his time, free of charge or remuneration of any kind, to this relief work.
I have endeavoured to show in a few words that the debates on this resolution have not been of a serious character. With a few exceptions speeches have not dealt even with the constitutional question. Then, why all this debate? There must be some reason other than what appears on the surface. The point that strikes hon. members from the

Unemployment Continuance Act
west is this, that in consequence of the delay in the passing of this resolution and the bill one province in Canada will suffer more than any of the others; I refer to the province of Saskatchewan. Two years ago the right hon. leader of the present opposition, so far as his party was concerned, declared a very definite financial policy in reference to the province of Saskatchewan. Hon. gentlemen behind him acquiesced by their silence. That policy was not declared in the heat of the moment, because it was finely calculated, carefully thought out; the calculation was perhaps finer than on any other financial policy or fiscal policy at any time in Canada. He stated that his policy towards the province of Saskatchewan was that he would not give a cent to that province, to a Tory government. The whole basis of such a policy was that there was a Tory government in Saskatchewan.


Mr. VALLANCE:: There was not.


Robert Weir: That was the reason the right hon. gentleman gave, and that is the substance of my argument. The reason that statement was made is evident to everybody. It was made because the Liberal government, which had been in office in Saskatchewan for over twenty years, had been defeated, and another government had taken its place. The answer of the province of Saskatchewan to -that statement made by the right hon. gentleman lies in the fact that although in the previous federal parliament there was not one Conservative from that province, at the last election eight Conservatives were elected. I hate to think that any mind could conceive of anything so diabolical to vent further his vengeance upon the people of a province, but it would seem that the right hon. leader of the opposition wishes to continue this debate further to embarrass the people of Saskatchewan because they elected eight Conservative members.
In what condition is the country in which we find ourselves at the present time? So far as the west is concerned 50,000 farmers are waiting for seed wheat. They are looking as they never looked before, for the passing of the winter months and to a spring which holds for them either the possibility of retaining their homes, or of losing them if they do not get their seed and their crop. They may lose their homes representing the toil of a lifetime, losing not only something of financial value but also the memory of their successes and defeats. This is, however, not a problem for Saskatchewan alone, and the question as to whether or not there will be a good crop interests more than the province of Saskatchewan; it pertains to the whole of the 41761-85i
Dominion of Canada. No one could estimate the importance to Canada if in the year 1932 in western Canada there were another bumper crop of. say, 500.000,000 bushels of wheat. Who can estimate, even with wheat selling at 50 cents or 60 cents a bushel, the stimulating effect such a crop would have throughout this dominion, when again millions of dollars of wealth from the west would again flow through the channels of trade into the coffers of the east? Yet, with that position before us, and with disaster liable to ensue if succour and aid is not, given by the way of relief, what have we witnessed during the past ten days?


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: We have seen (he worst exhibition of autocracy on the part of this government that has ever been witnessed in Canada since confederation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Robert Weir: No hon. member
on this side of the house has in any way tried to hamper the debate. The situation is apparent to anyone who will look at Hansard. Only eighteen government members have spoken on this subject while fifty-two opposition members have spoken. The speeches of government members cover only 130 pages of Hansard, while those of opposition members cover 463 pages. At this point I should like to place on Hansard some figures in connection with this debate, showing the names of the different provinces, and the number of government and opposition members representing those provinces who have spoken:
Province-	Government	OppositionAlberta	i	3British Columbia	i	3Manitoba. . . .	i	4New B r unswi ck.	0	1Nova Scotia. .	3	2Ontario	3	10Prince Edward Is	1	1Quebec	5	21Saskatchewan. .	3	7
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that every opportunity has been given hon. members opposite for free and frank discussion. There has been a cry of autocracy, despotism and the like. However has any hon. gentleman in the opposition made one serious criticism of any abuse by this government, or by any member of it, of the powers given under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act? Not one. Therefore, why should there be such opposition, if it were not for political purposes, to an extension of this policy for two more months? The question, I take it, before the house at the present time is not so much the question of this resolution or of a constitutional issue in the resolution as two or three

Unemployment Continuance Act
hon. members have suggested; the question is greater and more fundamental in this supposedly democratic parliament.


An hon. MEMBER:: Supposedly.


Robert Weir: In view of what I
have said I maintain there is only one conclusion at which we can arrive, namely that hon. gentlemen opposite, a minority in this house, are deliberately obstructing, holding up, legislation at a time when there never was such a crisis.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Weir: Therefore, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I do move, seconded by Mr. Murphy that this question be now put.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Mr. Weir moves, seconded by Mr. Murphy, that the question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. A. F. TOTZKE (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put I want to say a few words on the subject. When the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) rose in his place to-day I did hope I would have the opportunity of congratulating him on the remarks he was about to make. I want to tell hon. members that the Minister of Agriculture held in the minds of the people of Saskatchewan quite a high position; I have known of him for quite a number of years; he was more or less concerned with the affairs of my own constituency, and the people thought a lot of him. But I want to say that his maiden speech in this house did a lot to lower him in the estimation of the people of Saskatchewan. He has somewhat improved since then, Mr. Speaker, and I trust that as he goes along and gets more experience in the house he will improve still further and devote more of his time to the important affairs of the country and of his own department, rather than to these partisan issues with which he was dealing. The minister stated to-day that owing to the obstruction and delay caused by members on this side of the house the farmers of western Canada would suffer through not being able to get their seed wheat for spring seeding. Before I say anything else, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that if the government will come down with a bill or even amend the present measure, striking out the words "peace, order and good government" and putting in an amount for seed grain or relief of any other kind, we will have nothing more to say and will do everything we possibly can to expedite the passage of the measure.


Mr. BENNETT:: Since when did minorities run governments?


Albert Frederick Totzke: If I understood the question correctly, Mr. Speaker, it was "since when did minorities run governments." All I can say is that in Canadian history this is the first time that I have ever known any government to undertake to run the affairs of this country under the authority of only one man.
In making my contribution to this debate to-day, Mr. Speaker, I do so without fear of the accusation of hon. members opposite that we are deliberately blocking the legislation in regard to unemployment and farm relief. In my opinion the present situation which must be faced is the most important one to engage the attention of parliament since I have had the honour of sitting in this house. The question of whether the government should be given the dictatorial powers they are seeking, while parliament is in session, has been fully discussed and does not require any reiteration on my part. I want to say, however, that I am in entire accord with the attitude taken by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), and I am sure my constituents will expect me to support that position to the utmost. Conditions in my province have not improved, and cannot improve for some time. My constituency is perhaps in a little better position than many others in my province, but we have had sufficient distress even in my own constituency to enable us to realize the seriousness of the situation, and I want to say that I.am ready to do everything I possibly can to assist in bringing about a solution of the problem. When the Prime Minister said, during the campaign of 1930, that he would end unemployment and would find markets for our products, enough people believed him to enable him to be returned to power. Since then the people have been waiting for him to implement his promises, but the fact is that to-day there is more unemployment and more distress than there was at the time that promise was given. This government has been a complete failure; they have no scheme whatever for the relief of unemployment.
The Prime Minister was most prolific in his promises during the campaign of 1930; they have been placed on Hansard a number of times and every hon. member of the house is familiar with them. The other day the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) enumerated some of those promises which he said had been implemented, and I should like to take just one or two of them and see to what extent they have been ful-

Unemployment Continuance Act
filled. At page 24 of Hansard for the special session of 1930 I find that the Prime Minister speaking in Calgary on June 12, said:
There are great national works that may be undertaken in times of stress and strain. They will be undertaken, and I propose that parliament shall formulate a definite plan for permanent relief, and that parliament shall deal with this national problem and provide amelioration for the conditions in order that next winter the Canadian people may not he facing the crisis that is upon us, without having a remedy at hand.
Let us admit, Mr. Speaker, that some national projects were undertaken, and that they did ameliorate the distress to some extent. But where is the definite plan for permanent relief which the Prime Minister promised at that time? At Victoria on June 17 he said:
You have my promise that if the Conservative party is returned to power, that as soon after July 28 as possible parliament will be called together to deal with the problem of unemployment by providing not doles, hut work, and that legislative action will he taken to bring about the future security of our country and the well-being of its people. We cannot tolerate the dole. Men and women of this country want work, not charity. Is there any excuse for Canada to have hard times if the government is discharging its duties as it should?
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party was returned to power and the special session was called. To some extent work was provided, but where is the legislative action which was to bring about -the future security of our country and the well-being of its people? And let me recall the last sentence of that quotation:
Is there any excuse for Canada to have hard times if the government is discharging its duties as it should?
I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of my horn, friend from Regina (Mr. Turnbull) the other night. He introduced an entirely new line of thought in this debate. He pleaded with the hon. members of the opposition to forego their obstruction and to allow the resolution to pass. He said that because of our tactics a large number of farmers of Saskatchewan would be unable to obtain seed wheat, and to-day that argument was supported by the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Further, the hon. member from Regina said it would require an immense amount of grain, and that the distribution of that grain would entail a large cost. Then, at page 1270 of Hansard the hon. member went on to say:
I think it is beyond the powers of the province at the present moment to finance this undertaking unless they receive assistance from
the federal government. Should this assistance not be forthcoming immediately the farmers of Saskatchewan will he without seed for their crops.
An hon. Member: Bring in a supply bill.
Mr. Turnbull: I thought some bright hon. member would raise that question. I am no.t trying to deal with this question in any controversial sense, and I do not intend to discuss whether action should be taken by means of a supply bill or otherwise. I am not going to say that the government is or is not to blame for the course it has pursued, and I am not going to argue that the opposition is right or wrong in the stand it has taken. I do not intend to be brought into any partisan discussion as to whether or not this matter should be handled by means of a supply bill.
It sounds very well, does it not? The hon. member takes a lofty attitude and asks members of the opposition to let the government-help Saskatchewan farmers secure seed grain -and this in face of the fact that every member on this side of the house has assured the government that if they will bring down a supply bill for the amount required we will do everything we can to facilitate its passing. Why did not the hon. member address his appeal to his leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) ? The hon. gentleman said he would not discuss the question of the right or wrong of the attitude taken by the opposition. Knowing him as I do, I would say it is an admission on his part that the stand taken by the government is wrong. The hon. member is a lawyer; surely, therefore, he realizes that there can be no justification for the continuance of these unheard of dictatorial powers given to the government while parliament is in session. He is sitting in this house as a supporter . of the government, and he and hi3 colleagues from Saskatchewan will be held responsible if there are farmers who do not obtain seed grain this spring. Perhaps he has tried his persuasive powers on the Prime Minister and has failed. It is just another illustration of the vanity and stubbornness of the Prime Minister. He has made another mistake but he cannot admit it.
Let me discuss for a moment the importance of this question of seed grain to the Saskatchewan farmers. I wish to quote a Canadian Press despatch dated Swift Current, March 12. It was quoted in part the other day but I wish to put the whole of it on record:
Drought Areas In Saskatchewan To Get Seed March 15
Distribution To Be Made Simultaneously At All Points, C. B. Daniel Announces
Swift Current, Sask., March 12.-Distribution of seed grain will start simultaneously at all points in the drought area on March 15, C. B.

Unemployment Continuance Act
Daniel, general manager of the Saskatchewan relief commission, announced in an address here Friday before a meeting of relief officers repre-centing the southwestern section of the province.
The object of the meeting was to discuss relief matters with the relief officers and representatives of the various municipalities.
On and after March 15, farmers holding allotment tickets from the commission will be at liberty to take delivery of their seed grain from the elevators.
"The commission will insist upon the repayment from the 1932 crop of all advances of grain for seed purposes, fuel oi'l, greases, formalin and machinery and harness repairs," Mr. Daniel said.
Mr. Daniel also announced that a million and a quarter bushels of oats for seed purposes have been purchased and ordered out, and that distribution is proceeding at the present time.
There is another news item which was referred to by the hon. member for Regina but which was not quoted. It reads:
Sask. Seed Plans Awaiting Passage Of Federal Bill
' Regina, Sask., March 15.-The $6,000,000 seed plans of Saskatchewan are hanging fire until the passage through the federal house at Ottawa of a bill now' under debate there, said Premier J. T. M. Anderson in the legislature, Monday. The premier was replying to a question put by John Gryde (C., Cypress.)
The premier suggested that the leader of the opposition might use his influence, if any, with the federal opposition to facilitate the passage at Ottawa of the amendment to the relief act, 1931. The amendment referred to, proposed to extend the "blank cheque" to Premier R. B. Bennett's government and is encountering heavy opposition.
Here we have on March 12, four days after the introduction of the resolution and the position of the opposition definitely stated by its leader, a statement made by the general manager of the Saskatchewan relief commission that on and after March 15 farmers holding allotment tickets from the commission will be at liberty to take delivery of seed grain from the elevators; and in the last sentence of that despatch Mr. Daniel states that a million and a quarter bushels of oats for seed purposes have been purchased and ordered out and that distribution is proceeding at the present time.
Then on March 15, after this resolution had been debated for almost a week, we find the premier of Saskatchewan saying that the distribution of seed grain was being held up until the passage of the bill under discussion. What happened between March 12 and March 15? Perhaps the hon. member for Regina can tell us that. Perhaps he can tell us whether or not seed grain is being distributed in accordance with the statement of Mr. Daniel. So far as I know, no member on this side of the house has had any word protesting our

action in this matter; and so far as we know distribution of seed grain is now going on. Perhaps that last statement of mine is not strictly correct because we have had a wire from Premier Anderson of Saskatchewan. I had better read it for the information of the house. It is dated Regina, Saskatchewan, March 21, and is addressed to myself:
In interests of thousands Saskatchewan farmers victims of national disaster through drought respectfully urge your sanction relief bill before Easter recess as indications early spring and provision seed dependent upon passing bill.
My reply to that telegram is dated March 21, addressed to Premier J. T. M. Anderson, Regina, Saskatchewan:
Strongly urge you wire Premier Bennett that he bring down supply bill for amount required for seed grain and relief before Easter recess. If this is done opposition will facilitate passage in every way.
Perhaps I am wrong there too; perhaps Premier Anderson did wire to the Prime Minister without success. Perhaps the suggestion for the wire from the Saskatchewan premier came from Ottawa. Let me quote what the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said when he introduced this resolution on March 8. At page 906 of Hansard he is reported as follows:
The federal authorities feel that they are not in as good a position as the provincial authorities to arrive at a proper judgment. Therefore w'e have concluded that instead of doing what has been done in days gone by, merely undertaking the responsibility for seed and feed as a national or dominion obligation, we will advance the necessary moneys by way of loans to the three provinces on their treasury bills, to enable them to provide seed and feed to fulfil the requirements of their agrarian populations. It may interest this house to know that we took steps last year to acquire through the aid of Mr. McFarland

who has so generously and freely without salary or compensation given of his time in the management of the wheat pools-sufficient quantities of wheat to take care of that situation at a price which I should say is at least ten cents lower than the rate to-day prevailing.
What does that mean? It means, if I am ' any judge of the English language, that the wheat has been purchased, and there is, in my opinion, no necessity for the holding-up of seed wheat for the farmers of Saskatchewan. The Prime Minister, in his statement, said that it was being advanced to the provinces by way of loan and that the security was to be their treasury bills. I submit that the issuing of provincial treasury bills is not dependent upon the passage of this legislation in this house. It is just another method of using the big stick to coerce us into acquiescence in the passage of this legislation.

Unemployment Continuance Act
May I say to the Prime Minister that however much he may be able to dictate to his own followers, we on this side of the house will resist coercion to the utmost. Let me repeat that if Saskatchewan seed grain distribution is being held up until this dead bill is revived, and if the Prime Minister has the interests of Saskatchewan farmers at heart, as he says he has; he should bring down a proper supply bill to take care of the situation. Let him do that and we will give him every support.
May I discuss for a few moments the statements made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Beynon). As appears on page 1156 of Hansard, he said:
There were municipal councils that were wholly non-political, but they were few in number, and while the municipal organizations were administering relief, the dissatisfaction was very, very pronounced, as the relief was administered inequitably. That was one of the reasons for discontinuing their services. Another reason was that even where the municipal councils were non-political and did their utmost to administer relief-
Mr. Totzke: Did the hon. member say the municipal councils were political?
Mr. Beynon: Oh, yes.
An hon. Member: They were Grits.
Mr. Beynon: I do not think anyone coming from Saskatchewan seriously disputes it. In fact, I might just tell the house that for the last twenty-five years there was very little, if anything, in the province that had not had politics in it.
I resent the allegation that the municipal councils are political. In so far as my own constituency is concerned there has never been any question of politics in the election of municipal officers. What strikes me as peculiar in the remarks of my hon. friend, and which illustrates his ingenious mind, is the statement that these municipalities should not be used in the work of the distribution of relief because they are political, and then his government proceeds to appoint its own political friends for this purpose. The hon. member then went on to discuss the personnel of the commission, and on page 1259 he is reported as saying:
He could not choose men and women trained in that particular work; he had to go out among the unemployed and the needy and choose his staff and form his organization.
As an illustration of how these men were chosen from among the unemployed and the needy, I shall give the particulars of the appointment of three men in my own immediate home vicinity. The first man chosen was more than an ordinary relief officer, he was a sort of superintendent over a number of relief districts. I have nothing to say against this gentleman personally; he is a friend of mine and I have known him for many years
and I believe him to be a man of the highest integrity and ability. However, this man was a hardware merchant and did not come from the ranks of the unemployed and needy. He was not chosen because he had no political affiliation; in fact, during the last two elections he appeared on a number of platforms throughout the constituency and made speeches on behalf of my opponent, the Conservative candidate.
The second man chosen was carrying on the business of blacksmithing and could not be termed as being unemployed or needy. He was a man who had worked as hard as possible on behalf of the Conservative candidate in both the provincial and federal elections, and his political affiliations were well known. I have nothing to say against this man as to his integrity; he will do the best he can, and I will not say anything as to his ability.
The third man chosen was employed and could not be classed as one of the needy. It may not be creditable, but the fact is he was a postmaster-he was one of those whom this government has said must keep their fingers clean of political partisanship. A number of postmasters in my constituency have been wrongfully dismissed on charges of political partisanship, and I will have something to say about this later on. This third man was noted for his political activities. During the elections of 1926 he went through my constituency and appointed scrutineers for the Conservative candidate.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw has stated that the officers of the rural municipal councils could not be used because of their political activities, and yet I am able to give illustrations of three men who were appointed in my own community, each of whom was very active politically. From experience I know that 95 per cent, I might almost say 100 per cent of the relief officers are supporters of the government.
The hon. member did instance one constituency in Saskatchewan where no Conservatives were appointed. I took the trouble to inquire into this and I found that no Conservatives had been appointed as relief officers but everyone who had been appointed was a supporter of the Saskatchewan government.
I do not make these remarks as a complaint against the carrying out of the duties of these officers, but I contend that if the relief commission and the government had used the municipal organizations for the distribution of relief, the cost would have been much smaller.

Unemployment Continuance Act
In conclusion I say that I believe that the only way in which this country can be brought back to a position of prosperity, the only way in which we can get away from this serious problem of unemployment is for the government to make a complete reversal on its fiscal policies-restore trade in the country and unemployment will cease. I think that the government should introduce at the earliest possible moment some form of unemployment insurance. I do not know in just what way this can be done, but the government should introduce some measure to show the people that they are trying to do something to help the unemployed.


Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that anyone in this house or in the country can deny this feature of the debate. An attempt is being made to reinstate a measure which has been in operation for a year and a half and I think we are entitled to the fullest opportunity to discuss and consider the details thereof and the progress which has been made under this particular legislation. The resolution reads:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor.
Of course that is an innocent looking change, but when one reviews the act to be amended he gathers the true significance of what is being asked. By the way, this act has been dead now, for twenty-two days. Section 4 of the act which we are being asked to amend reads as follows:
The governor in council shall have full power to make all such orders and regulations as may be deemed necessary or desirable for relieving distress, providing employment and, within the competence of parliament, maintaining peace, order and good government throughout Canada.
I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the constitutionality of this procedure except to point out that we on this side of the house take the position, and I believe rightly so, that the government by its action in this regard is taking from parliament control which rightly belongs to parliament and vesting that control in the hands of the cabinet. To this procedure we conscientiously protest, particularly when parliament is in session and in a position to do the very thing the government is trying to do under this legislation. It seems passing strange that when the original bill was introduced last summer, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) himself on his own initiative changed the date upon which this measure should expire from March 31 to March 1. The argument used on
(Mr. Totzke.l
that occasion was that there was every likelihood that parliament would be in session during the month of March and the money could be voted in the regular way. At that time the right hon. gentleman took the position, and I believe properly so, that parliament had a right to know how the money is going to be expended and that the purpose of the act as passed last July was to provide for a period when parliament would not be in session. When the Prime Minister changed the date from March 31 to March 1, he admitted by his own action the desirability of parliamentary control over expenditures.
In addition to that hon. members on this side of the house have pointed out several instances where the authority secured under this legislation has been used for purposes far from having any connection with unemployment or farm relief. I should like to indicate a few of the orders in council that have been passed under this legislation, under the supposed authority of maintaining peace, order and good government, the legislation having been passed in the interests of unemployment and farm relief. Under this legislation there was passed first an order in council guaranteeing the advances made by the banks to the wheat pools; second, an order in council prohibiting the export of gold; third, an order in council increasing the strength of the mounted police by over 300 men; and, fourth, an order in council virtually amending the Insurance Act and thereby allowing the insurance companies to arbitrarily value certain of their securities. I cannot see how measures of this kind have anything to do with unemployment relief; they are totally foreign to it. and why they should be connected with this legislation, I fail to see. These actions may have been good or they may have been bad; I do not propose to discuss that. The point is that they are totally foreign to the measure which we understood we were passing nearly one year ago.
In this country there are several very controversial problems on which public opinion is probably quite evenly divided. Under this legislation those problems could be dealt with by the government, the measure decided and the subject closed for all time to come without parliament or the people of Canada having had an opportunity to express themselves. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), during his remarks this afternoon, indicated that there must be behind the actions of the opposition in prolonging this debate, something which could not be seen on the surface. I would venture the same assertion to him, that the introduction of this legislation in the

Unemployment Continuance Act
way in which they have brought it iu, in the expectation of maintaining it in force, indicates something below the surface which the government are not prepared to bring into the open. I believe there is grave danger in this legislation. There is danger to the government of the day. I cannot see wliy a government should want to take to itself power of this nature. Why not share the responsibility of the making of laws? It is dangerous for a government to possess such power and authority as this and it will sooner or later undoubtedly run them into difficulties.
A few days ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), in discussing this legislation, said in effect that the principle of this measure had been established last year when we passed the measure at the last regular session of parliament. If that is the position of hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to this legislation, we have every right to prolong this debate as long as we possibly can. I for one certainly was not voting in support of that principle, and if it is going to establish a precedent for parliaments yet to come we have an absolute right to fight it just as hard as we can. The government argue that the reason they want to resurrect this legislation is that they are not in a position to know what their actual requirements are. To me that shows weakness on their part. They have had full control and power since 1930 and they now by their actions admit that they are not in a position to know what their requirements will be for sixty days in advance. That is the situation. They have had full control in this regard, being able to gather all the reports, and from their experience they should be in a position to know exactly, or very nearly so, what they will require to carry on their undertakings for sixty days. Their argument in this regard is, however, further shattered by the Prime Minister's remarks of a few days ago. When he was speaking to this resolution earlier in the debate he said that calculations had already been made as to the feed and seed requirements of the three western provinces. He stated the amounts of money that each of the provinces had asked for, that is the amount of money required for that purpose is definitely known to-day by the government. The applications of the three western provinces have been made to the government, and I understand from despatches from Winnipeg that the Dominion government has agreed to the amounts suggested. Therefore the amount of money for seed and feed purposes and the cost of putting in the crop in
these three provinces has been determined so far as it is possible to do so. For instance, the Prime Minister said that Alberta had asked for $140,000, Manitoba for $650,000 and Saskatchewan for some $6,000,000. Therefore the government's argument in that regard is not sound. They already have the information they need.
I wish to make a few observations with respect to seed and feed relief, particularly as it applies to Manitoba. I do this because of an interjection made by the Prime Minister some days ago when the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) attempted to adjourn the house to discuss a matter of grave national importance. On that occasion, the right hon. gentleman interjected:	"What is your Manitoba government doing?" That would indicate to those of us who heard the remark that there was an implication that the Manitoba government was not fulfilling its duty in this regard. The Manitoba government has requested that the federal government in respect of seed and feed relief share with it certain of the obligations. It has asked that the Dominion government assume one-third of the cost of feed and seed and also one-third of the freight cost of bringing in those materials, the provincial government agreeing to assume a similar responsibility. I think that is a very reasonable request and one which if the Dominion government is going to assist in the matter of relief they might very well act upon. That there will be loss with respect to feed and seed there is no doubt. Any municipal man who has had experience in this matter in years gone by knows that there will be loss in that regard, but I will let that pass for the moment because the Prime Minister in his remarks on that same day did state that whereas these advances to which I have referred were loans to the provinces, and that the dominion was assuming no responsibility for losses in connection with them, but that when the losses were actually determined and known the matter might be opened up for further consideration. Those remarks of his will be found at page 906 of Hansard, and I hope that the Prime Minister will keep them in mind when this matter comes up for consideration after we have found out what the losses actually are in this regard.
Coming back to the inference that the Manitoba government was asking for something unreasonable, I really got the impression that the Manitoba government had been asking for something that no other government had been asking for, and therefore I was very much surprised to learn from the remarks

Unemployment Continuance Act
of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) the other day that the government of Alberta had asked for exactly the same thing. So why pick on Manitoba?
A return was brought down in the house some days ago which showed the amount of money which had been advanced by this government to the three prairie provinces and British Columbia. This return shows that Alberta has received advances of S4.624.000; Manitoba, $3,205,537, and that figure has since been raised to S3,775,000; Saskatchewan, $16,302,496, and that figure has since been raised to $16,800,000. In addition to that, may I point out that the province of Saskatchewan has had advanced to it, for the drought area of seventy-six municipalities, $5,250,000 as a straight gift. I am finding no fault with that whatever. In addition Saskatchewan has received for purely provincial purposes $6,500,000; in other words, Saskatchewan has received $6,500,000 for carrying on purely provincial undertakings.
Coming back to the matter of seed and feed relief so far as it affects the province of Manitoba, the Prime Minister stated in his remarks that the three western provinces were being treated in exactly the same manner, that these moneys that were being advanced were being advanced as loans pure and simple and it was intended that they would be paid back. I think there has been some misunderstanding in this regard. I take the Prime Minister's word, of course, but I should like to put it in this way: Is this government advancing that money to Saskatchewan as a loan, or is it giving some money directly and assuming responsibility for some of the losses in the drought area? I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) is not in his seat because I have under my hand a letter signed by him dealing with the matter, in which he says:
This government is providing the funds to purchase food, clothing, fuel, feed and seed which is being distributed by a relief commission.
I do not propose to deal with that further, but hon. gentlemen can easily see how differences of opinion might arise in that regard. So I think that the inference of the Prime Minister and it was merely an inference- with respect to Manitoba was quite unfair and quite uncalled for.
May I point this out, that up until January 26 last the Dominion government actually had no policy with respect to this very matter of farm and unemployment relief, because I have under my hand a letter from the Min-
ister of Agriculture, dated January 26, 1932, in which he says:
I hope to be able to get in touch with the Ministers of Agriculture within the next week, and set out the extent to which we will be able to help or not help.
That shows that the Dominion government actually had no definite policy on the date of January 26 last in spite of the fact that the matter was brought to their attention in a conference as early as August 31 last, correspondence respecting which I have under my hand. Now the Dominion government comes along and says that we are holding this matter up, that seed and feed are wanted badly by the farmers of the western provinces and that the government is not in a position to provide it. In spite of the fact that the Dominion government was able to provide bombs and other paraphernalia for the police force, they were not far enough advanced in their program to have the seed wheat ready for the farmers of western Canada.
We have heard from several members on the other side of the house indicating that they would like members on this side to cooperate with them in dealing with this vexed problem of unemployment and farm relief. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that cooperation works both ways. For example, last summer when we were discussing this question the Prime Minister indicated that the members of the house would be communicated with and asked to submit to the director of unemployment relief federal projects that might be undertaken in their respective constituencies. That letter was received in due course and I presume that most of the members acted upon it. I know that I spent considerable time in getting in touch with the reeves of municipalities and the mayors of various towns and the local provincial representatives, of whom there are five in my constituency, two of them good Conservatives, and I submitted their suggestions to the dominion director of unemployment relief, but of all the projects I suggested, and there were several, I was informed that only one project could be classed as a federal undertaking, namely, the building of a small post office in a rural town in my constituency.
Further, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy)-I am sorry he is not in his seat- visited my constituency last fall in the interests of unemployment and farm relief. He visited the largest town in my constituency, a town of some twelve hundred people. I live only some ten or twelve miles out of that town; in fact, it is my business town. Of course, I did not expect that the minister

Unemployment Continuance Act
*would get in touch with me, because that would be expecting too much, but I became curious after I knew that he was there and I began to make inquiries as to who he dia see. Mark you, Mr. Speaker, it was pub- [DOT] lished in the paper that he was out there in the interests of unemployment and farm relief. On checking up on his activities I found that the hon. minister did not even see the provincial representative, who lives in that town, that he did not even see the mayor of that town, who lives right in the town, that he did not see the reeve of the municipality, who lives a few miles out of the town; in fact, he did not officially see a single representative of the town or rural municipal council, and he was there in the interests of farm and unemployment relief. But he did see some people, Mr. Speaker. I see the minister coming into the house now. Strange as it may seem, about a week or so after the hon. gentleman's departure, a Conservative nomination convention was held for that provincial constituency. That is the way the hon. gentleman proposes to cooperate with us in dealing with this vexed problem of unemployment and farm relief.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, to refer to another feature of this legislation which I think is very unfair and unjust. I call it the big stick feature. When we met at the special session of 1930 the request was made for $20,000,000, and at that time we were told that we had to vote the amount asked for or the Prime Minister would not go to the Imperial conference. That was the big stick held over us at that time. Then we come along to the regular session of 1930, and we find that no legislative program was brought forward with respect to unemployment until the dying days of the session when everyone was fatigued and anxious to get home. In other words the government waited until everybody was wearied of attending parliamentary sittings, knowing all the time that the government's majority would carry the measure through the house. That was the big stick used on that occasion.
Now, at this session of parliament, we find another big stick being used when, in effect, we are told, "If you do not pass this legislation the farmers in western Canada will not get their seed and feed grain." So, we are being coerced into the adoption of this measure. I think the government is going altogether too far. If hon. gentlemen opposite maintain the position taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) that the principle of this legislation was endorsed last year, hon. members on this side of the house would be
making a very serious mistake if they were to let this measure go through the house without finding out definitely the government's policy in connection with relief.
I wish to touch upon the government's policy with respect to unemployment and farm relief from a little different angle. To my mind the government's difficulty in handling the present situation is one of its own making, and I make that statement for three reasons. First, there were the election campaign promises made by hon. members opposite. Every man was promised a job. According to hon. members opposite the reason men did not have jobs in 1930 was the failure of the previous government. I ask hon. members to think of the psychological effect created by that kind of campaigning. A good many people took the Prime Minister and his followers at their word; they accepted the statements made by hon. members opposite at their face value.
Then we come to the $20,000,000 voted for the relief of the unemployed. The voting of that money was another very definite factor in creating the attitude of mind among the unemployed. .Then we come to the blank cheque, whereby unlimited money was placed in the hands of the government. People are still looking for the government to carry out its promises. They accepted in good faith the utterances of hon. members opposite, believing that they would be carried out. I ask, Mr. Speaker, if it is any wonder we have delegations at Ottawa who place their views very forcibly before the Prime Minister. He created the attitude of mind in the people of this country that there were jobs for everybody. Probably they think he is a machine, that he can turn a wheel and kick out a job whenever he likes. The problem with which the government is faced is of their own making.
There is another feature of this legislation to which I think reference should be made. I think we should give very serious consideration to the continuation of a policy of spending money to create employment. Up to the present time that is all we have been doing. Have we obtained results justifying the amount of money which has been spent? We have adopted a policy forcing municipalities and provinces to go further into debt so that jobs may be created. I am not so sure the country is prepared to continue with that policy. By this legislation we have already increased the debts of the provinces and municipalities by about $100,000,000. How much actual employment has been supplied? I think those are questions the people of

Unemployment Continuance Act
Canada are anxious to know. Lack of time prevents me discussing further this phase of the question. I say again, however, that the feature to which I have referred is one which should be given the greatest possible consideration by hon. members in this house. Has the government's policy of spending money produced the results expected when the legislation was originally introduced and passed at the various sessions of parliament?
Summarizing the remarks I have made, the situation presents itself to me from three distinct points of view. First, the constitutionality of the procedure adopted. In other words, will this house reinstate a blank cheque policy for another sixty days, or shall we follow the procedure of voting supply in the ordinary way? The government has taken the position that they have not sufficient information, that they do not know the actual conditions they might run into, that their information does not enable them to name a definite amount of money, and bring in a supply bill. I think hon. members on this side of the house, knowing the circumstances surrounding this legislation, are quite justified in pressing for a money bill which could be brought in in the ordinary, proper parliamentary way. Is a precedent being established for years to come? I sincerely think that hon. members must view the proposed legislation with real seriousness, because it would seem that the government is establishing a precedent whereby they may have control of the spending of money, the making of policies, the placing of law making in the hands of a few cabinet ministers and probably the hands of only the Prime Minister. Such policies are going much too far in the creation of an absolute dictatorship in Canada.
Then, I should like again to refer to the policy of obliging provincial and municipal governments to go further into debt, so that work may be created for the unemployed. Is that a policy which this government will continue to follow? I think that that is a feature of the proposed legislation which should receive the most careful consideration from all parties concerned, if our municipal and provincial governments-and particularly those in western Canada-are to remain solvent. To my mind this is a very important matter, and one -which this house cannot afford lightly to pass over. I feel that the government should be in a position to state the amount of money it requires to carry on business for a period of sixty days. For the life of me I cannot conceive of any board of directors while they are in session, saying (Mr. W. G. Weir.l
to their general manager, "Go ahead and do what you like; you do not need to consult us." I do not think we would find any board of directors which would give their management such unlimited powers. Why should we be obliged to do that so far as this government is concerned? We have a right to know the amount of money required to carry out the proposed program, and should proceed in the regular way by bringing in a supply bill, thereby eliminating further discussion.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the debate of the past week concerning the resolution before the house one is constrained to think that the government might at least pay some attention to the objections registered. I am quite well aware however that no attention will be paid, and that the government will not take heed to the objections registered against them. I am quite well aware that the majority sitting opposite will, as usual, vote for this resolution, and when the time arrives, put it through the house.
Perhaps I would not have spoken on this occasion, knowing the futility of speaking in this House of Commons at this time, had it not been for the fact that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) the other day announced that the principle of this legislation had been established at the last session of parliament, and that parliament had given the government the right to legislate in every particular. In the first place parliament gave the government the right so dearly bought, and which caused so much friction and distress in days gone by, to control taxation and expenditure. The expenditure of public money is carried on by the government under the direction of parliament, or at least that was the principle in days gone by. Now, however, by the force of the majority of members behind the government, that right has been wrested from parliament and given to the government of the day. Then, forsooth, hon. members on that side of the house excuse themselves by saying, "You delegated this right to the government so what have you to say about it"? That is about all the satisfaction we get from our protests against this high-handed behaviour on the part of the government.
Then, not content with that, my hon. friendg took the right to reestablish what was known amongst us as the War Measures Act; by the force of their majority again they seized the right to interfere with statutes already passed, which is the clear prerogative of parliament.

Unemployment Continuance Act
Surely, Mr. Speaker, if we believe in a free parliament, we who have some respect for the rights of parliament and the representatives of the people have the right upon this occasion to protest as vigorously as we can against actions of this sort.
Perhaps the thing to which I personally take the greatest exception is the power taken by this government to interfere by order in council with our tariff. I do not know of a single industry in this country or of a single importer who is not in entire agreement with what I have to say with respect to this point. Why should this government take from parliament the right to fix the tariff upon imports entering this country? Where is the necessity for that? No other answer can be given, Mr. Speaker, except that they wish to seize authority upon any and every occasion not to impose tariffs upon goods coming into this country but absolutely to exclude those imports. This might be classed as the most high-banded piece of legislation this government has seen fit to pass, and the way it has been administered is infinitely worse than the seizure of the power itself. But hon. gentlemen opposite were not content with getting parliament to place upon the statute books the highest duties in the history of this country and in the history of most countries of the world; paying no attention to the results that would accrue, they took this step in the name of unemployment relief. They announced that their policy would be to spend money in conjunction with provinces and municipalities in order to relieve unemployment, but the permanent cure for unemployment was to be these drastic increases in the tariff. That was the cure-all for the difficulties in which they said they found this country when they came into office in 1930.
Did hon. gentlemen pay any attention to what would be the results? Have they cured unemployment by the drastic increases which they put through, followed by the orders in council which practically shut out many imports? Has that cured unemployment? Has it increased the revenues of the government? Are they paying their way? What has it done to our great transportation system? In Canada, rightly or wrongly-and no government and no party will take credit for it-we built up what we thought was a great national transportation organization known as the Canadian National Railways. We spent money lavishly on our ports, upon steamship subsidies and in the construction of vessels; we dredged our rivers in order that the larger vessels could get to our ports; we improved the harbours of Vancouver and Prince Rupert
and spent millions of dollars on all these undertakings. For what purpose was that done? Was it done for domestic trade? No one for a moment will say yes to that question. Certainly not; we spent this money for the purpose of creating international trade, and we were all in agreement about it. Then along came this government, and what did they do? During the short session of 1930 they started to stem the flow of imports into this country by unreasonable and excessive tariffs, and they created unemployment to an unprecedented degree by that action. Then, not satisfied with that, whenever they found an opportunity, whenever some poor importer was endeavouring to get some goods into this country and they were notified of that fact, overnight they placed prohibitive duties against such articles by order in council, and in particular with our trade with Great Britain.
What has been the result of all this? Never in the history of Canada since Canada has had a railway; never in the history of Canada since Canada has had steamships has there been unemployment to the extent there is at the present time, and I say it is useless for these gentlemen to rise in the house and argue that because of the excessive tariffs in the other countries, because of obstructions placed in the way of international trade by other countries, Canada is suffering and they are only moving by way of retaliation. That retaliation is coming home; it is striking back in the way of ever-increasing unemployment, and I say if the government persist in their present policies and continue along present lines we will not have half a million unemployed in this country; we will have a million unemployed in the very near future.
Not only have the government persisted in this policy with regard to the tJnited States and other foreign countries; even prior to the visit of the Prime Minister to England at the time of the Imperial conference increased tariffs were put into operation against the best customer Canada ever had. Now we are approaching another conference, and I for one am very gravely concerned about the success of the conference that is to be held in this city this coming summer. If this conference is not a success, Mr. Speaker; if it does not bring about something in the way of interimperial trade between ourselves and the motherland, then 1 have very grave fears that the government of Canada will find itself in the same position financially that the western provinces are finding themselves in to-day, largely as a result of the policies inaugurated by this government.

Unemployment Continuance Act

In 1930 the public were told that if they voted1 for the Conservative party the farm products which, so it was said, the government of the day were unable to market, would find markets under the direction of the Conservative government. Prices would be increased; all they had to do was vote for the Conservative party. What a spectacle we have to-day. I defy hon. gentlemen opposite to name one single promise made by the government of the day or by any speaker on behalf of the government, which has been fulfilled in any single particular.
Rather the opposite; they have brought ruin and disaster in their path by the policies they have adopted and persisted in. That is the situation we have to face to-day, and then we wonder why unemployment is on the increase. Is it any wonder that unemployment is increasing? I reiterate that unless that policy is changed there is no hope for the relief of unemployment. In view of the attitude of the government to-day on this very simple but very vital question, is there much hope for a change in the attitude of those gentlemen who will be our Canadian representatives at the forthcoming conference? They are destroying our markets everywhere they can by refusing to buy, by refusing to consult parliament as to where they shall buy; and by the most highhanded procedure that has ever characterized any government under the British constitution, hon. gentlemen opposite to-day persist in this mad policy so fatal to the Canadian people. Then they say, "Why do you protest? Why are you not willing to give us a. blank cheque to purchase the necessary grain and fodder for the relief of western farmers?"


Mr. MANION:: Does it take ten days to protest?


Charles A. Stewart: As the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir) said a few moments ago, only four or five days ago, standing in his place, the Prime Minister stated that he knew how much money was required to purchase seed for the relief of the western provinces. He stated the amount to the house. What, therefore, is the use of hon. gentlemen suggesting that they do not know how much is required? Moreover, have they not been told time and time again that if they will follow the constitutional practice they will get in five minutes whatever further money they require? They will get it if the}1 will ask for it in a constitutional way. But what is the use of making the statement that the Liberals are delaying progress in this regard?


Robert James Manion: So you are.


Charles A. Stewart: We are not doing anything of the kind.


Robert James Manion: For ten days.


Charles A. Stewart: The Minister of Railways boasts about his red blood. When he was standing on this side he used to speak about his red blood.


Robert James Manion: You people talk about it; I don't.


Charles A. Stewart: No, he does not to-day because a tremendous change has taken place since he crossed the floor. There is a great change in his attitude towards a good many things. My hon. friend see3 through a different pair of spectacles to-day than when he was in opposition fighting the policies of the then government. But I will say one thing: The Minister of Railways would give a good deal if he had the record to point to such as the ministers whom he criticized so vehemently at that time had when they were sitting on his side of the house. He would be glad to be able to say that the institution which he administers today as Minister of Railways was in the same happy position it was in when administered by the Liberal party. He would be glad to be able to say that his government was making the same reductions in taxation that the government of that day made for the relief of the people of Canada. He would be glad to be able to say that his government was reducing the debt of the country. There are a great many things which he would be glad to be able to say but which he dare not say to-day because of the insane policies, if I am permitted to say so, which have been inaugurated by the government he supports so strongly.
No, Mr. Speaker; the root of the matter is not the gold standard. That is not what is troubling us to-day, nor is it the currency question. These are incidental, it is true; but the whole trouble results from the fatal policy which hon. gentlemen opposite are pursuing.
One would have thought, to hear hon. gentlemen speaking about what was happening in foreign countries, and particularly what had been done in the United States since the great war, that if the Liberal party, when in power, had only put into practice the policies adopted in the country to the south of us, Canada would have benefited very largely. And no one was more vehement in these statements than the leader of the government (Mr. Bennett), who was continually pointing to the success of the United States as a result of the tariff policies put into force in that country.

Unemployment Continuance Act
In speech after speech which he made he repeated that statement, on the floor of the house and outside parliament. Is he saying much about the United States to-day? Do we hear any speeches now about the prosperity which the people are enjoying across the line, and about the depression in Canada necessitating young men and women leaving this country? Well, they cannot leave Canada now because there is a restriction against Canadians entering the United States for the simple reason that they have more unemployed there than they know what to do with.


Mr. GORDON:: They are coming back in
large numbers.


Charles A. Stewart: I am glad
to know that they are coming back. But may I suggest to my hon. friend that he read some of the speeches made by members of the Conservative party when they were on this side of the house. When we were wanting to go slow with respect to immigration, what did those hon. gentlemen say? I heard my hon. friend state in this house the other night that his difficulty was the result of too much immigration. I agree with him in part.


George Gordon: Of the kind you permitted.


Charles A. Stewart: Had we
accepted the suggestions which were put forward by hon'. gentlemen who belong to his party when they sat on this side of the house, I can assure the minister that his difficulties would have been very greatly increased and to-day, not one or two farmers but millions of them with millions of expenditure, would be involved in those difficulties. That would have been the result if we had adopted the suggestions his hon. friends made. What , was said to me in 1922 and 1923? We were then told that if we did not change our policy with regard to immigration into Canada we should not be able to discharge the public debt. Speech after speech was made to the same effect. They will make nice reading for my hon. friend if he will look up some of these statements which hon. gentlemen who belong to his party made when they were in opposition. It is a fortunate thing that immigration was kept at the point at which it was held. But that was not the point; that was not so much the criticism that was offered by hon. gentlemen opposite; their point was that it was the policies of the government then in office that were driving the young men and women out of the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, let me say to the hon. -gentleman that there are a good many young men and women in the country now who would be mighty glad to get out if they knew where to go, if they knew where they could do better.


George Gordon: But they cannot do better.


Charles A. Stewart: There are 500,000 of them who would be glad to leave.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: That is
absolutely wrong.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, there are 500,000 out of employment, and how many more there are out of employment about whom we know nothing is another question. My hon. friends do not like this.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where would they
go?


Charles A. Stewart: They might go to England and be infinitely better off.


An hon. MEMBER:: England?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, they might go to England, which some hon. gentlemen think so little about.
Mr. HACIvETT: Free trade England?


Charles A. Stewart: Who said free trade England?


Mr. HACKETT:: I did.


Charles A. Stewart: Let me say
to my hon. friend that, notwithstanding all her difficulties, England has never adopted, and I doubt whether she will ever adopt, the insane policy with respect to protection which this government has adopted. If the hon. gentleman is a student of political economics he will agree at once that if ever there was a country which perhaps would profit by a little bit of protection England is that country. But up to the present time she has steadfastly refused to adopt such a policy. I do not know what my Conservative friends would have her do if they were able to; perhaps she may adopt some small measure of protection. I say, however, that the government could reduce unemployment in Canada considerably over night if they would adopt the same scale of tariff protection in Canada that England is putting into effect. Moreover, they would have room for people in Canada. But I say to the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) that until the government changes its policy we shall never have room for anyone in this country.
Unemployment Continuance Act

For many years I have been arguing both in and out of this house 'against excessive protection in Canada or any other country. We have never had demonstrated how ruinous a policy of this kind can be until the present occasion. I ask my hon. friend to point out one country which has adopted excessive protection which is not to-day in difficulties, in which unemployment is not rife, and which is not unable to pay its way promptly. If he will show me one country which has adopted an excessive scale of protection and which is not in these difficulties, then I will make no more moderate protection speeches.


Robert James Manion: When did the United States stop paying its debts?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
prophesy what this government will do, what taxation it will bring down or how large its deficit will be, but if my hon. friend has been reading the press he will have seen that the United States has a considerable deficit under the present system. This will have to be taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers, as will any deficit in this country.


George Gordon: How does it compare with the deficit in Great Britain under free trade?


Charles A. Stewart: Under free trade that country had far more surpluses than deficits. If my hon. friend will look up Canadian history he will find that this country has had the most serious deficits when Conservative governments were in office and Conservative principles were being practised. He does not need to go to Great Britain to find an example; he will find it right here at home. He will find also that the most prosperous period in the history of Canada was during the eight years when the Liberal government was in office.
Why do I say these things? Because we are discussing unemployment. Hon. gentlemen opposite have a majority and they are going to carry on until the end of their term and demonstrate to Canada what a high tariff policy will do. If they have as much success during the next two years as they have had in the past, there will not be much left of the Conservative party. May I say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) and to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion): If you have the same success in financing during the next two years as you have had in the past, we will not have much of a Canadian National railway system.


Robert James Manion: We did not have much when you left.


Charles A. Stewart: The time
will come when the people of Canada will be totally unable to bear the burden. This is the sort of thing which must be giving the Minister of Finance many headaches. He has my entire sympathy, as has every member of the government. I do not deny for a single moment that they have a difficult situation with which to deal; it is perhaps .the most difficult which has ever been faced by Canada, but I say to them: You are making it infinitely worse by the adoption and pursuance of policies which are leading to complete exclusion of trade. Canada was most prosperous when we had the greatest amounts of imports and exports. Hon. gentlemen opposite will argue the exact opposite, but history demonstrates that that is the fact. The government continue to pursue these policies and then state to the house and to the country that their difficulties are not of their own making, that they arise from conditions outside of Canada.
Why have we not heard of the Australian treaty up to date? Why the reserve with respect to treaties with countries which would be willing to trade with us on a reasonable basis? The very vigour with which the government pursue their policy of protection to the exclusion of trade, prohibits trade with any country. We are ten million people trying to live within ourselves, producing more -foodstuffs than three times ten million people could -consume, and our limit of production has not been reached. We are -manufacturing more goods than we can consume, and we have the facilities to manufacture still more. We are mining more minerals than we can possibly use within our own country, and yet the government says: We can live within ourselves, and we intend to blast our way into some unknown. markets. How silly, how futile and how helpless this government is in the face of the most serious situation with which Canada has ever been faced!
I have some sympathy with hon. gentlemen to my left who claim that our monetary system has something to do with the situation, but as I said a few moments ago, the monetary system is secondary in importance to the policies of this government with respect to tariffs. I will go as far as to say that we would welcome the bringing down by the government of a bill which would prohibit the charging of a greater interest rate than six per cent, and to make it a criminal offence to do so. We have had all the credit that is good for us in Canada, not because the policies of this government have prohibited investments in this country; they have been

Unemployment Continuance Act
limited to a large degree-I ask the most ardent supporter of a new currency: If you had $10,000 or $15,000, where would you invest it? Where could that amount of money be invested in Canada with a hope of return? I ask that question in all sincerity. Does any hon. member know where it would be safe to invest that amount? I do not know. Where could it be invested in Canada to return six per cent? Could it be invested in farming? Could it be invested in mining? Could it be invested in manufacturing?


An hon. MEMBER:: I would not invest it in Beauharnois.


Charles A. Stewart: May I say to my hon. friend that if this government persists in helping Beauharnois as it has done, that would be a pretty safe investment, just about as good as anyone would want. We will have more to say about Beauharnois one of these days, and I am thankful to my hon. friend for raising the question because it is something in which I am vitally interested. I am quite prepared to discuss Beauharnois and intend at a later stage to do so.
Where could this money be invested? Is this the condition to which agriculture, manufacturing, mining and lumbering has come? It is not credit we want, it is a different policy and a different attitude on the part of the government. That is why I am speaking this afternoon; I hope to speak on the budget and urge again this point upon hon. gentlemen opposite. They do not want advice. We were told this afternoon that minorities do not count for anything in this parliament. We knew that before, but. we want to point out clearly and distinctly that unless there is a change of attitude on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and his ministers to the imperial delegates when they meet in conference in Ottawa from that exhibited at the last conference, then our last hope is gone for a revival of trade in Canada and for the cure of unemployment.
The government is asking for a blank cheque. To do what? For the purpose of spending money to buy grain and fodder, the amount to be required having been stated in the house a few days ago. They have had ten months' experience in dealing with unemployment and they know exactly, or should know, how much money is required. I am not going to be critical of the ability of hon. gentlemen opposite. They do know, and why do they persist in flaunting in the face of the opposition, in the face of parliament itself, the statement that they are going to have a blank cheque, irrespective of traditions, irrespective 41761-86
of the rights of a free parliament, in order that they may do just as they please with it? Then, forsooth, we are told that while we are in session, the day after they pass any order in council, they will table it in order that we may know what they have been doing. It is a complete reversal of the system of parliamentary government that they should take upon themselves the responsibility first of making expenditures and then of telling us all about them after the expenditures are made.
May I reiterate: never before have the traditions of a free parliament been trampled upon to the extent to which that is being attempted by the government on this occasion. Hon. gentlemen may say that the situation is serious. If so, why in the name of common sense did they not introduce this measure over a month ago, the first day that we met?	They knew they were going
to be out of money at the end of February; they knew the appropriations expired then. I sometimes wonder why they dc not take the responsibility in their own hands, and, quite irrespective of the fact that parliament is in session, continue passing orders in council and spending money. They might just as well do that as do what they are proposing now-to take that responsibility given to them by a majority of their own followers who trust in them. By the way, sometimes I wonder whether they really do, or whether they are overawed by the superiority of intellect behind which they are sitting. To me the proposal is unthinkable. For twenty-five years I have been in a legislature and in this parliament and I thought one question that was settled for time and eternity, so far as British institutions were concerned, was that parliament should control the expenditure of money, and of its own volition should make, amend or repeal laws. But I have come to regard the government who sit opposite me in another light. They are blazing new trails, I confess most dangerous trails. For that reason I am opposing this legislation and I intend to oppose it as vigorously as I can. Indeed, I intend to oppose it so vigorously that no more will any hon. gentleman opposite rise in his place and say that I have been a party to establishing a principle of this kind.


John Vallance: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this discussion this afternoon, but after listening to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), naturally I could not keep my seat. The minister had to make his



Unemployment Continuance Act
speech in order to try to excuse the action of the government in holding up the distribution of this much-needed seed.
I should like to refer to the text of the resolution before the house. It reads:
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.
The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke) this afternoon read a telegram received from Premier Anderson who, like the Minister of Agriculture and the rest of us, is naturally interested in seeing to it that those farmers who need seed, receive it. But in view of the attitude that has been taken by the opposition, in the beginning by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), in pointing out to the government that the resolution suggesting an extension from March to May would not meet the situation, I should like to read to the house a clipping from the Ottawa Citizen of March 22, which I hold in my hand, and I take it as authentic. I want the house to listen very carefully to what Premier Anderson has to say. Those of us who come from the province of Saskatchewan, in common with the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Humboldt, each received a telegram from that gentleman. It reads as follows:
In interests of thousands of Saskatchewan farmers, victims of national disaster through drought, respectfully urge your sanction of the relief bill before Easter recess as indications are for early spring and provision of seed dependent upon passing of bill.
The Citizen comments as follows:
The above telegram was sent to-day by Premier J. T. M. Anderson to Right Hon. Mackenzie King, leader of the opposition at Ottawa. In addition to indicating his effort to have the seed grain distributed as early as possible, Doctor Anderson gave out the following statement in part.
I should like the members from Saskatchewan, including the Minister of Agriculture, to listen to what Premier Anderson had to say:
During the past year Saskatchewan suffered what has been termed by people generally throughout the Dominion as a "national disaster." This came as a result of three successive crop failures, the failure of 1931 affecting directly one-third of Saskatchewan's population. In order to meet this situation, a provincial relief commission was set up and it has been serving the needs of 50,000 families throughout Saskatchewan.
I want to point out to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the government that if this resolution were adopted, it would not fulfil the needs of the province of Saskatche-

wan. It would last merely until the first day of May, and then we would find the government in a position where of necessity they would have to accept the suggestion of the opposition. I make that point just in passing and I leave it for the consideration of the house.
I was rather amused, shall I say, by some of the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture. He referred to those of my friends on this side who had already taken part in the debate, as back benchers. Might I say to him that one of the most colossal mistakes the Prime Minister ever made was in the appointment of the present member for Melfort to the very dignified and high position of Minister of Agriculture in the federal administration. I think he would have filled with some dignity and probably with some success a back bench in this house, but I think I may say, speaking for the farmer, that as Minister of Agriculture he has been an utter failure. What has he tried? There is not a policy he has evolved since coming into office that has not been a colossal error. Take his sow policy; he can go into his own constituency and he will find that just about the time the house was meeting, those farmers who accepted his suggestion and went into the hog business, when they sold the hogs that came from the sows, found there was not enough to pay for the sows they took from the Minister of Agriculture.
I was rather amused to hear the minister pointing out that the reason those eight Conservatives were elected from Saskatchewan was that the leader of the opposition had said at one time that he would not give one cent to that province. Let me point out to the minister -and he well knows it-that the only reason why the hon. member for Regina .(Mr. Turnbull), the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan), the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Loucks), the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Swanston), and the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Beynon), the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan) and the other two were elected was simply because of the promises made by the present Prime Minister of Canada. I do not have to reiterate those promises, but he told the farmers that they were lacking in markets for their excess farm products, and he promised that he would blast his way into new markets; that he would resurrect old markets, and so on. That promise, as I say, was responsible for the election of those eight Conservative members from Saskatchewan now sitting behind the government. What did he do? At the very first opportunity, which was in

Unemployment Continuance Act
the session of 1931, he moved an order of reference to the agriculture committee whereby he proposed to throw on that committee the responsibility of a pledge which he had given to the farmers of Canada. Those members on this side of the house who come from the west immediately rose and objected that the Prime Minister was throwing on to a committee of this house the responsibility that he had undertaken towards the farmers of Canada. What happened? The committee sat day in and day out and listened to many experts in various branches of the government, to Mr. W. A. Brown, chief of the poultry division, Mr. A. W. Ault, egg and poultry division, Mr. W. L. Brown, member of the firm of William Brown Company, cattle importers, Manchester, England, Mr. A. A. MacMillan, chief of sheep and swine division, and many others. What was the finding of that committee? I defy those members from the province of Saskatchewan who are to-day siting behind the government opposite to refute the statement that they are sitting there to-day, not because, as the Minister of Agriculture said, of the statement made by the present leader of the opposition in reference to not giving a five cent piece, but because of the promises that were made by the Prime Minister as to what he would do if returned to power. Here is the finding of that committee :
In view of the situation as it presented itself to the committee it is not considered advisable to make any recommendation. Your committee, however, submit that the evidence submitted to it might be usefully studied by members of the house.
Was that any solution of the great marketing problem? I do not see the chairman of the agriculture committee in his place, but I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that concurrence in the report of that committee was never moved. Those of us from western Canada sitting on the committee moved amendment after amendment which was voted down by those sitting behind the government, and we stated that whenever concurrence in the committee's report was moved in the house we proposed to stage a full dress debate; and concurrence in that report, Mr. Speaker, has never been moved. So the Prime Minister was elected, I say, not for the reasons given by the Minister of Agriculture, but for the reasons that I have indicated.
The Minister of Agriculture before the election-he did the same thing after the election-went throughout his constituency and advised some of his followers to hold on to their surplus products because he said prices would soar if the 'Conservative govern-41761-86i
ment were returned to power. What are the facts? On July 26, 1930, two days before this government came into power, No. 1 northern wheat was selling at Winnipeg for 96-02, and in December of that year the price had dropped to 57-07. Did the Prime Minister solve our marketing problem? Has he done so even yet? Do the eight members from Saskatchewan who sit behind the government feel that they are in a position to go back to their electorate and prove to them that their election was justified?


Mr. BEYNON:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Has the export of agricultural products increased in the last year?


John Vallance: So far as the exports
are concerned, it does not amount to a snap of the finger.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Vallance: If I had time to go into the marketing of Canada's wheat crop, I could place this government in a very precarious position. Now that the subject has been introduced I would like to take hon. gentlemen back to the Imperial conference of 1930. Whom did the Prime Minister take with him to the conference as his wheat expert? It was John I. McFarland. Where is he to-day? He is the manager of the central selling agency of the greatest cooperative organization that has ever existed in Canada. What was the first thing he did? He accepted the position only on the understanding that he would be given full control regarding the marketing policy of that great organization, and the first thing he did was to close all the European offices which served as contacts between the buyers in Europe and the pool and the farmers of western Canada. The result is that to-day those people in Europe who may be in a position to buy our wheat have nowhere to go, outside probably of the representatives of the Department of Trade and Commerce, but as long as those offices existed in Europe which had been established by the pool we could maintain close contact with the European buyer. John I. McFarland is the man who was appointed by this government, and it was upon the understanding that the Prime Minister would come to the assistance of the pools when they were in difficulty. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) the other night pointed out that an order in council went through guaranteeing the pools. But did the government guarantee the pools? No, they guaranteed the banks. The Minister of Trade and Commerce claimed that the government had kept the market up. If that is so; it is

Unemployment Continuance Act
rather peculiar that at no time in any of the export markets of the world do you find the price of wheat lower than it is in Winnipeg. So if this government is going to claim credit for keeping up our wheat price level, they must also claim credit for maintaining the world price level. But I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows well enough that the portion of wheat supplied by Canada which goes into the export market is merely sixteen per cent, and how could it be expected that this government could maintain the price of the other eighty-four per cent that finds its way to the markets of the world?
I could go on talking at great length, Mr. Speaker, of the other promises which this government made, but it would only be reiterating. I say that what Premier Anderson is looking for is for legislation to be brought down to supply the needs of these fifty thousand people that we are interested in, not merely until the first of May next, but until another crop is harvested or until one is visible. I appeal to the eight Conservative members from Saskatchewan sitting behind the government to say just how soon a crop is visible in western Canada. They know' well that it cannot be counted on until probably the 15th of August, because up until that time the crop has to combat all the vicissitudes of drought and all the other things that go to spoil a crop.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think the members on this side have fully vindicated our position that the government should have brought down a supply bill to look after farm and unemployment relief, and not simply until the first of May, but to take care of all the needs and not only of the province of Saskatchewan but of all the people of Canada who find themselves in a similarly precarious position.
Mr. CHARLES B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke): In rising to make a few remarks on the resolution before the house I should like to say first, Mr. Speaker, that members on this side have fully vindicated our position that we are not in any way obstructing the legislation that the government proposes to bring down dealing with unemployment and farm relief. We have assured the government repeatedly that if they will only follow the constitutional practice and bring down a supply bill, we will support it unanimously. Had the government done that, this debate would have been entirely avoided. The government knows that perfectly well, and it knows more. It knows that the rights which were fought for by the people at the French

revolution, the rights and privileges which were secured for the British people at the signing of Magna Charta, and the rights which we have won in this country over a long period of years, stood at their very peak two years ago, but since then we have been backsliding from the rights that up to that time the country had gained. This government know that when they say we are holding them up so that seed wheat cannot be supplied in the west, they are not stating the facts, because if they wanted to they could put the legislation through. Furthermore they know that the government in this house today and not the opposition is responsible for legislation.
Let us go back for a moment to one of the outstanding periods in the history of this parliament, namely, the election of 1930. We must remember the undertakings that were made by hon. members opposite. Hon. members who have preceded me have outlined the promises which were responsible for the change of government in Canada. Chief among the statements by hon. members opposite were those concerning the relief of the unemployed. During a period of two years since their election to office practically no criticism has been made against the government; they have been given a free hand to do as they saw fit in the best interests of Canada. We remember that at the special session of parliament which lasted only about ten days, we were asked to vote the fixed amount of $20,000,000 to be used for the curing of unemployment, and to give the government an opportunity to carry out one of its election promises. The $20,000,000 voted at that time was to fulfil election promises; but what happened after that? The situation became worse and worse, and at the last session of parliament we were faced with the legislation which to-day we are asked to renew, owing to the fact that it expired on March 1.
hirst we voted $20,000,000, and the government spent it as they saw fit. Then we voted a blank cheque, and up to the present session they have been spending that money as they wished. Now they come back and ask for a renewal of that legislation. Never in the history of Canada did a government in power have the backing of provincial governments that this government enjoys. We must remember that this government has one provincial government favourable to it and eight legislatures of the same political feeling as are hon. members opposite. Only in the province of Quebec is there a Liberal legislature. and at this point may I say there

Unemployment Continuance Act
never was any government which gave better cooperation to a federal administration than did the Taschereau government in the province of Quebec.
This government has received from banking and financial institutions in Canada support the like of which was never before experienced by any federal administration. Banks have gone the limit in offering them support. They have followed the advice of the Prime Minister. They have done everything he has asked them to do; they have been one hundred per cent with the government in an attempt to solve the present difficulties. The credit of the country has been used; people have subscribed for loans floated by the present government, and subscriptions have been promoted without extraordinary effort, regardless of what the rates of interest might be. Never was there a time when general public opinion was so solidly behind a government. The people are saying, "We want to give this government a fair chance to make good the promises they made to the people. We want to give them a trial." Public opinion has backed the government during the past two years.
What is the situation now? The government have expended the S20,000,000 granted for unemployment relief. They have used the blank cheque as they saw fit, and have loaded extraordinary debts on the provinces. The western provinces have found that they cannot carry out their share of the bargain. The municipalities in the province of Quebec have become indebted so that they might supplement the efforts of this government to carry out the promises made during the election campaign and which up to the present time they have not carried out. In spite of that, the government accuses the opposition of obstruction. What do they say?-"Well, we have not succeeded, but give the boys another chance."


Mr. POULIOT:: But they pretend they have succeeded.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Loud
applause.


Mr. HOWARD:: What are the results, after two years of administration? I am not going to give figures to show the number of unemployed. I do not care to what section of the country you go-you may go to any point between the Atlantic and the Pacific, or you may visit the town of Sherbrooke- you will find conditions are serious. I believe, further, that they will become more serious. Payments from the city treasury of the city of Sherbrooke are increasing every week so
that direct relief may be carried on. In the debate on the budget I shall give exact figures.
I am not in the least pessimistic, but I do say that the present government have no right to come back and ask for an extension of the blank cheque, without telling us what they are going to do.
What is the industrial situation in Canada? With the exception of the silk industry, to which the Prime Minister referred, practically all industries are in a serious condition. They do not know what way to turn.


Mr. DUFF:: What does the Prime Minister know about silk?


Charles Benjamin Howard: At a later time I shall
give figures to the house concerning trade. I must say, however, that for the last two years, or from the time this government took office, trade in Canada has been decreasing. I might be willing, at this stage of the game, to give this government a blank cheque, but I would certainly want them to put the legislation through in a constitutional way. There is something in the proposed legislation, however, which is more important than would appear on the surface. Let us not be fooled. The mere matter of changing dates from one time of the year to another looks very simple, and there would seem to be nothing extraordinary in such a change. If, however, hon. members examine what has been done under the legislation of last session, and if they will look forward to the next twelve months, they will begin to realize how serious the proposed measure really is. They will realize that the liberals and Progressives in this house are justified in the stand they have taken.
Let us see what has happened under this legislation. We find that under it the government has guaranteed advances to the Beau-harnois interests, a private corporation in Canada.	.


William Duff: Hear, hear.


Charles Benjamin Howard: On any previous occasion
has a government guaranteed a private corporation? I can think of only one occasion, namely when the Taschereau government backed the Banque Canadienne Nationale. Outside of that I do not think any guarantee has ever been given. It would seem, therefore, by guaranteeing advances to the Beau-harnois company they are creating precedents. Without consulting the elected members of the people this government changed the Bank Aot. This is getting more serious, though I want to say that I am not criticizing the change they made in the Bank Act; I am one hundred per cent in favour of what they did.

Unemployment Continuance Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: They did right.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Yes, they did absolutely
right; there is no question about that, but what right had the government to amend the Bank Act without submitting that question to this House of Commons, the elected representatives of the people? The government undertook to fix the prices of stocks in order to prevent tremendous losses to the public, and they did right, but let me ask this: Did they fix the prices of agricultural products? A man who was carrying wheat with his banker at 60 cents a bushel got into difficulties when the price dropped 20 cents; and his banker said to him, "My dear boy, we cannot carry your wheat because tlie price has dropped 20 cents a bushel. You will have to increase your margin." That was the position in which the other fellow found himself, but did this government guarantee the price of wheat? They did not, but they guaranteed the prices of stocks; they took one stock which was worth only $10 and set the price at $25. They did not have the courage to say to the farmer: "Your wheat will be worth so much," although the man with wheat had just as much right to have prices fixed for him as the man carrying stocks in the province of Quebec.


Mr. BOWMAN:: Would the hon. gentleman mind telling me to what stock he is referring, which had its price fixed at $25?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I could give a list as
long as your arm, but I will just mention one. There was the Detroit International Bridge bond, which to-day is worth only $3, but which was valued at $25 by the insurance department.


James Langstaff Bowman: What did the government
have to do with fixing that price?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I will only refer my hon. friend to the remarks of the Prime Minister the other day; those are his own words, as my hon. friend will find on looking up Hansard.


James Langstaff Bowman: I heard the Prime Minister's speech but I did not hear him say anything about fixing the prices of stocks.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Further, Mr. Speaker, I
claim that it was not necessary for the government to take that action, that the superintendent of insurance could have placed a valuation on those stocks without any necessity for an order in council being passed.
I am only stating these things to show the seriousness of this legislation that is before us. and now we are accused of holding up the

business of the house and delaying the giving of relief, because we will not open up and pass this extraordinary measure. A discussion took place in this house with regard to insurance securities. I say again I am one hundred per cent in favour of what was done by the government; in our present situation extreme measures are necessary, but who put us in these difficulties? Of course, now hon. gentlemen opposite will blame them on world conditions, but I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that before 1930 they did not say anything about world conditions; it was all the fault of the previous government.
As six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Benjamin Howard: When the house rose at
six o'clock I was discussing the fixing of prices under the blank cheque legislation, so far as it affected the chartered banks of Canada and bank stocks and securities. As I said then, I am absolutely one hundred per cent in favour of the fixing of prices, as has been done. But I am directing the attention of the house to this matter to-night because, in my opinion, this legislation has not gone far enough and because, further, I wish to show the dangerous features of legislation of this sort when such an enactment is not submitted to the House of Commons. Furthermore, I do not think that the parliament of Canada should legislate with respect to certain classes and not extend benefits to all other classes.
As regards the securities held by the banks, I have here a copy of the order in council that was passed making that legislation possible. In my section of the country as well as in other parts of Canada the prices of farm products have not been fixed. Take, for example, the butter situation in the eastern townships; take the prices of cream and milk in those townships, and the prices of all kinds of dairy products. At the present time the farmers in the townships produce hogs which they ship to Montreal, selling them at from 4^ to 5 cents per pound live weight, so that it can be seen that they do not secure actual cost of production at that figure. Yet in face of such a situation, prices of agricultural products have not been supported, but the government is singling out collateral held in the banks, as pointed out this afternoon, and a price is fixed to prevent any reduction.
I am going to offer a word of criticism which possibly will bring out later on some

Unemployment Continuance Act
explanation in regard to the handling of the monetary system, the gold standard, during the past four months. Under this very same legislation which we are being asked to-night to extend from March 1 to May 1, Canada virtually went off the gold standard. The Prime Minister said time and again, in interviews throughout the country, that we were not off the gold standard nor would we go off it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker. No such statement was ever made.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Well, I have not the
right-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly; no such statement was ever made.


Charles Benjamin Howard: That we were not off the gold standard?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We were off the gold
standard, as hon. gentlemen understand it, since 1929, when the former Minister of Finance shipped S4O,0O0,COO of gold to New York.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I was going to make the
observation-I am glad of the correction that that has been published in the newspapers throughout Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I will produce the clipping. At any rate we have been off the gold standard because only a few weeks ago we came back on it, as many newspapers broadcast the fact that we had done so. And we came back on the gold standard in this way. A clause was inserted by the government allowing the exportation of gold only by a permit system; and under this system the payment of the difference on American exchange was practically putting us off the gold standard. What did that situation create in Canada? If we wish to develop this country we are not so keenly interested in what we have to buy from other people, as the government says, but we are keenly interested in what we are going to sell; and if we are going to maintain the price of money in Canada it means that we are not going to be able to sell in the markets of the world where they have depreciated currencies. As a matter of fact,, the sales of our merchandise in England fell off very considerably during that time.
I do not like the suggestion that if this legislation is held up seed grain cannot be issued and that the people in that section of the country will suffer because of the opposition that has been put up so far. I hesitate to endorse this legislation for this reason.
Considering what has been done in the past, if we renew this mandate and pass the legislation now before us, what can we expect to happen in regard to any legislation that comes down in the near future? Let us take one piece of legislation. A committee has been investigating one of the greatest problems that Canada faces to-day, namely, the railway situation. That report probably will not be brought in in time to be dealt with at the present session of parliament. Suppose it did not come in. Under the legislation we are asked to grant to-night this government would have the power to do with that report whatever it might see fit and to act upon it in whatever way it might wish. I submit, therefore, that it is not fair to ask the house to pass this legislation in the form in which we have it before us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the hon. gentleman must know better than that. This legislation
expires on the first of May.


Charles Benjamin Howard: That is exactly the point. This legislation will expire on the first of May, and the Prime Minister probably figures that this parliament will be dissolved and the house will not be in session on the first of May, and consequently this legislation will continue and allow the government to do as they please.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will expire whether the house is in session or not.


Charles Benjamin Howard: But after that you can do what you like.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, because the legislation will have lapsed.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Let me say this and see whether it will be contradicted. The House of Commons is in session to-night, and the members are ready to deal with all questions and bills on their merits. But instead of that the government wants power, while we are sitting here, to handle the situation by orders in council as it may see fit. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is behind this legislation something which we do not see on the surface. If there is some legislation which the Prime Minister does not want to submit to the house we should be informed of it now, as I certainly am suspicious. I do not think we know the whole story when we are asked to grant this blank cheque legislation in its present form.
I am now going to offer a few words of criticism of the administration in the past few months, and I wish to say something first in connection with the national service loan. The national service loan was floated in Can-
Unemployment Continuance Act

ada and the Canadian public handed over its money to the government to be used for the benefit of the country. But the loan was floated at five per cent, which I regard as too high an interest rate for Canadian financing in these times. I believe that the committee in charge of the national sendee loan could have had the money subscribed just as well at a lower rate of interest than five per cent. Let me point out as emphatically as I can where this has brought us. The city of Montreal, whose credit is as high as any city in Canada, had to float its loan at 97. The interest rate was six per cent but the return to the purchaser was more than that, and the cost to Montreal nearly 6J per cent. The province of Ontario, whose credit has been excellent not only throughout Canada but throughout the world, had to float its bond issue at 97. The interest rate was six per cent and the return to the purchaser was above that figure.
Labouring men are working for less than 82 per day and the price of farm products is at a very low level. The discrepancy between these high interest rates and wages paid is too great. This discrepancy is unnecessary and, to a large extent, has been created by the flotation of the national service loan at a high rate of interest. The bonds converted by the conversion loan were selling at above par, but after this loan came out at five per cent interest it was natural that the old bonds would decrease in price. To-day they are selling at 91, so those who were good enough to convert their bonds have suffered a monetary loss. I do not think that that is fair treatment.
Up to the present time the Quebec government has not floated a loan; it is still waiting and intends to wait until the other loans floated in Canada at high interest rates have been taken up and the banks are satisfied to carry the account of the provincial government. When this occurs a Quebec loan will be floated and I am sure it will be at a much lower rate of interest. If these rates continue it will mean that money for legitimate business, and that is what we need most in Canada, will be charged such a high premium that no business can succeed. Present rates of interest are too high especially when compared to the wages of labour.
Since speaking this afternoon I have obtained a pamphlet which shows the percentage of unemployment increase during the last twelve months in the different countries of the world. New Zealand is at the top of the list and Canada stands fifth. That country which was in such dire straits some time ago, England, has the honour of being second from

the bottom-her increase in unemployment has been only 12 per cent while Canada's has been over 80 per cent.
The people of Canada are looking forward to the Imperial conference with a great deal of optimism. I hope that great things will come from that conference and that the government will be able to complete negotiations with the countries within the empire with beneficial results not only to Canada but to all the empire. I want to go on record as saying that if the present government makes a success of the Imperial conference it will be because it adopts the principles for which the Liberal party has been fighting since 1896. We hope to sell wheat, we hope to sell lumber and we hope to sell a lot of things to Great Britain, but I ask hon. members opposite to think over what we can purchase from England, because, after all, you cannot make a one-sided bargain.
I hold in my hand the report of the dominion director of unemployment relief. I think the relief in my constituency has been handled in an excellent manner. This has been done through the provincial government, as provided for by the legislation, and through the municipal councils. The relief in the city of Sherbrooke has been extremely well handled. On pages 13, 14 and 15 of this report will be found the allotments for the provinces of Quebec, giving the percentages paid by the municipalities, the province and the dominion. I knew that certain works had been authorized in the section of the country from which I come. I looked for these in this tabulation but I lpoked in vain. On turning to page 65 I found that money had been expended under the act directed by this government, without passing through the provincial government's hands. I know that has been provided for in the act, but I do not think it is a fair way of handling the money nor do I think it is the way it should be done.
I have many other matters which I should like to discuss, but I shall make but one more comment before I finish. This government has been in power two years but I cannot see that the province of Quebec has benefited in the least. I should like to mention one matter to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). A farmer in Sherbrooke county, a man who has been in business for a considerable time, went out west last year to purchase fattening steers. He shipped them from the central west to Waterville, Quebec. He fed the steers throughout the winter and when he decided to export some of them he found to his suprise that although he had paid the freight rate from the west, he would have

Unemployment Continuance Act
to pay the export rate from Waterville to Montreal, which rate happens to be higher than the domestic rate. This means that the people in my section of the country will be penalized if they want to purchase stock in the west to fatten in the east for export purposes. If the government is going to make it easier to agriculture in my section of the country it should look into just such matters as this. The Minister of Agriculture should make it easier to have more western cattle shipped into the east for fattening purposes, which would be of great benefit to this section of the country.


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, as one who desires to see the business of parliament conducted in as reasonably expeditious and efficient a manner as possible, I hesitate to prolong a debate which has gone already to a considerable length. However, my opposition to the principle involved in this resolution is so strong that I feel it becomes mj' duty to register a protest.
In my opinion, this question resolves itself into three primary features. First, it proposes to give authority to the cabinet to spend an unlimited sum of money without reference to parliament. Second, it proposes to give to the cabinet the power to make or change laws already made by parliament. Third, and the most extraordinary, it proposes to delegate these powers to the cabinet at a time when parliament itself is in session.
It is not denied by anyone that it is not only the inherent right but the responsibility of parliament to exercise control over expenditures. Parliament has an equally inherent right to make the laws of the country. It is also true, and I think my hon. friends opposite, members of the government, will admit, that such undoubtedly primary rights of parliament should never be surrendered by it except for the very strongest reasons and when any other course might result in disaster to the nation. If I were convinced that the method proposed by the government were the only one possible in order that they might properly cope with the difficulties with which they are contending, I should raise no opposition to the resolution. I listened with interest to the speeches made by the members of the government, in an attempt to give reasons why this was the only method which they could logically adopt. I listened perhaps with greater interest to the speech which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) delivered some time ago. He usually argues in a very logical and convincing manner, and although he does not always convince me, I give him credit for a method
of debate and argument which is impressive and convincing in most instances. But it seems to me on that occasion he laboured to prove himself wrong. He laboured to prove that the resolution was wrong in principle.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was sorry for my hon.
friend.


William Daum Euler: It was not necessary. Under
that portion of the legislation which gives the government power to do by order in council anything that parliament would otherwise do, he attempted to justify the orders in council which were passed during the recess by saying in one instance-and I am speaking now from memory-"What else could we do while parliament was not in session?" Thereby he gave the reason why this resolution should not pass, namely, that parliament is in session and could itself deal with the questions which otherwise the government alone could deal with. During the next month and a half can anything happen with which parliament itself might not reasonably expect to be able to cope? If there is anything the cabinet can do better than parliament, that might be regarded as a reason for parliament handing over to them the power to do it. But here we are, ready at a moment's notice to pass any legislation which they might consider necessary.
I listened very attentively to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), his colleagues in the cabinet and other hon. members opposite for a convincing reason why we should so alter the regular procedure of parliament as to divest ourselves of all our powers in order to hand them over to some sixteen or seventeen gentlemen of the cabinet who, supermen as they may be, are after all not superior in their collective wisdom to all the members of the House of Commons. But I have heard nothing. We are told that the blank cheque that is being asked for is required for the purposes of farm relief and in connection with the relief of the unemployment generally. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) this afternoon, probably quite in good faith, made an effort to give to the country the impression that unless this resolution were passed, the farmers of western Canada would not receive relief by way of money for the purchase of seed grain and so forth. That impression, if it went abroad, would be incorrect, because, as has been reiterated time and again during the course of this debate, if the government asks the house for any reasonable sum for the relief of the unemployed or of the farmers in the west or elsewhere, this side of the house -and I think I may speak for all of it-is

Unemployment Continuance Act
prepared immediately to grant it that sum of money. I think the people of Canada should understand that clearly. There may be a danger of the impression going abroad that the opposition in parliament is deliberately attempting to withhold from those who need the money that which is necessary for them to carry on. Such is not the fact. There is not on this side of the house a man who will not do all he can to relieve distress throughout the dominion, whether it be on the farm or in the towns and cities. But we are not ready to give away to sixteen or seventeen estimable gentlemen the powers of parliament, nor have we any right to give away the authority we received from the electors who sent us here.
I should like again to ask of the government: Why do you seek thiis power? Why is it necessary? Why depart from the regular procedure of parliament and take a step which is unprecedented in any democratic country? The Prime Minister has been called by some of my friends on this side an autocrat, a despot and a dictator. I am not going so to designate him. I believe he is sincere in that which he is attempting to do. Naturally those who in past years have not had what I might call the experience which makes it necessary to yield sometimes to the opinions of others, to compromise a bit now and again, and who, I was going to say, have more or less of a superiority complex-I am not saying that in a derogatory way-find it just a little difficult to act under restraint. They like freedom of action. Perhaps I might use a slang phrase and say that it cramps their style if they are not absolutely free to do what they please. But, after all, the Prime Minister and his colleagues of the cabinet should realize that so long as we have a semblance of democratic government this administration must submit itself to the very restrictions upon which democratic government is based.
I am usually fairly temperate in my language, but it is an astonishing demand that for a period of two months-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: One month.


William Daum Euler: -well, now a month and a
half-just precisely during the period that parliament may be expected to be in session, they propose to take from the house the authority which properly belongs to it and to it alone. Last year the Prime Minister still had a reasonable amount of respect for parliament. When the legislation was passed at that time he provided that it should expire at the end of February, the assumption being that by the first of March parliament would

be in session and could itself deal with those questions as they arose. But this year, rather than take similar action, he almost deliberately, one would think, fixes the period during which this new legislation shall be in force as that during which parliament may be expected to be in session.


Robert James Manion: Does my hon. friend prefer that he make it six months instead of two?


William Daum Euler: Not at all. I would object
just as strongly to that. My hon. friend is usually fair-minded. I would ask him: Is it only a coincidence that this legislation is to expire on the first of May, w'hich is about the time when most of us were hoping we might be relieved of our duties in the house? This seems to me almost like a challenge to the supremacy of parliament.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It is.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps it is an effort to establish a new principle in government; I do not know. We have had examples of it in other countries. Perhaps the Prime Minister is now attempting to establish, as my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce said was established last session, although I do not agree with him, that the creature is greater than its creator.


Robert James Manion: Would my hon. friend permit me a question? How does he claim that this is a challenge to the supremacy of parliament if the majority in parliament supports the government in its action?


William Daum Euler: In answer to that, if we followed out my hon. friend's interpretation of what parliament may mean, there would be no such thing as democracy. After all a minority has some rights.


Ernest Lapointe: The majority might decide to abolish parliament. Would the Minister of Railways say that that was right?


George Gordon: The minority does not rule.


William Daum Euler: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) has just raised a point upon which I was going to comment. The Prime Minister this afternoon, perhaps in an aside, intimated that a minority never rules. If my hon. friend wants to carry that to its logical conclusion he might just as well say to us on this side of the house that we might as well stay at home. But my conception, Mr. Speaker, although I am in the minority, although I am not a supporter of the government, is that I am sent here, as is every other member of this house whether on the government side or

Unemployment Continuance Act
on this, to represent his constituents, and he may hope, although perhaps unreasonably so, that occasionally some suggestions of his may influence those who sit in the seats of the mighty on the other side.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But the minority should determine what should be done; that is your position.


William Daum Euler: Not at all, but I would remind my hon. friend of an old saying, that minorities are usually right, and I would commend that to his consideration. That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker, with regard to what is sometimes called the constitutional aspect of this question. I am not an authority on constitutional government, but it does seem to me eminently reasonable that this parliament ought to keep its power within itself, especially at a time when it is in. session. I could make some excuse for the government if they said that during the recess an emergency might arise in which they Should have extraordinary powers. That is debatable, and the government might make out a good case, but for the life of me I cannot see tvhy they should ask for this authority when parliament is here assembled ready to act at any time.
I will say this further. This discussion has been carried on at great length. I think sometimes the time of parliament is wasted, and we on this side are as much to blame as those on the other side, sometimes perhaps more. But I do not believe that .this discussion has been a waste of time. I believe that the people of Canada, when they are thoroughly seized of the importance of this particular resolution and of the bill to be founded upon it, will justify us in what we are doing. I would say this further, and I am speaking for myself alone: I would invite the government," if it feels that we are blocking legislation deliberately and not with the interests of the country at heart, to apply the closure, and we are quite willing to abide by the decision with regard to it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is that all you want? That is what the opposition is for.


William Daum Euler: I am speaking for myself alone.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That let the cat out of the bag all right. All you want is closure.


William Daum Euler: If my hon. friend will allow me to proceed, I should like to say a few words with regard to unemployment itself.
A good deal has been said with regard to the promises made by the Prime Minister. I am not going to refer to them. They have
not been kept. It was not possible to keep them, and the only comment I would make with regard to them is that intelligent and capable a man as the Prime Minister is, I can hardly conceive that he himself did not know when he made the promises that it was not possible to keep them. But what is more important is that a remedy should, if possible, be found for the condition in which this country finds itself. I am frank to say that I do not know what the remedy is. I have heard a good many suggestions made. Some think that our currency is at fault. Some think that the restoration of the balance of trade is a tremendous accomplishment and must result in great good. Others say that the war debts must be wiped out. Others think that we should have shorter hours of labour. Some even believe that we should introduce the era of socialism. But the only definite remedy which the government has advanced and applied has been an increase in the tariff to unheard-of heights. I think it is fairly well known that I am more or less a believer in reasonable tariffs, although I have never been what my hon. friends might call a high protectionist. I have never believed and do not believe now that a country can live to itself alone.


Robert James Manion: A tariff of 42 per cent on furniture was pretty good.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend speaks of furniture. I am not personally interested in it, but the people of my city are very much interested in that industry. I would point out that despite the fact that the government have put the tariff on furniture up to 40 or even 45 per cent, together with the increased valuation which the Minister of National Revenue is empowered to fix, there are to-day more furniture mechanics walking the streets of Kitchener than eveT before. In fact, some of the factories are closed down entirely.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend put a 42 per cent tariff on furniture himself.


William Daum Euler: Yes. I was proceeding to say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe in that kind of a tariff which absolutely excludes the importation of goods from other countries. I could read, if I cared to, from a speech made not long ago by one of the greatest industrialists in Canada, but I have not the time. He condemns extremely high tariffs because he says they must necessarily lead to reprisals, and that has already taken place. Take my own city of Kitchener. I did not intend to refer to this, but my hon. friend has mentioned it. The market in New Zealand for rubber products has been entirely destroyed because
Unemployment Continuance Act

of the action of this government in imposing a iprohibitive duty against New Zealand butter. I have been hoping day after day that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce wouild come along with his treaty, which perhaps would give some encouragement to the people of my town in particular, that they might have their trade with New Zealand restored. That is not an isolated case, but I have not time to go into the matter further at this time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was the government of which my hon. friend was a minister that abrogated the New Zealand treaty.


William Daum Euler: The government of which I
was a minister did not put a tariff of eight cents a pound on butter. I am not going to deal any further with the tariff because a discussion of that would perhaps be more fitting when the budget is brought down.
If I were to give one cause for the depression which now exists, and I recognize as factors in the situation the causes which I have already recited, I would say that perhaps the system under which we are working-cal it the capitalistic system if you will-our economic system has been outgrown by the necessities of the case. We have developed and grown industrially in such a way that the system under which we are now working needs either to be scrapped or very substantially modified.
I presume that some of my friends will say that I am practically talking socialism. I am not, but I do believe this, and perhaps this is a pretty drastic statement, that either capitalism as we have it to-day will break down altogether or we must modify it in such a way that it will meet the needs of existing conditions. There is a lack of confidence m the country. In years gone by, during previous elections, we used to hear what we called blue ruin talk. It destroyed confidence. We have plenty of blue ruin talk just now, and perhaps there is plenty of justification for it. It is true that there is a lack of confidence.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention one matter which I think is regrettable. Perhaps the circumstances to which I am about to refer were unavoidable, but they have led to a loss of confidence in Canadian public men and public institutions. I refer to scandals like the Beauharnois, and some others I might mention. I am not going into the Beauharnois transaction in detail. For my purpose it is sufficient to say that the Beauharnois matters are most regrettable. I am making no excuse for anybody or for any practices which may have developed, but state merely it does not look to me fitting that, in street parlance, the (Mr. Euler.]
pot should be calling the kettle black. I am afraid the people of this country have come to the conclusion, unjustly, that all political parties-I am saying all political parties- are corrupt, through and through. The people have lost confidence in them. I say that loss of confidence is unjust because I believe the proportion of honesty and sense of duty is just as great among members of parliament as among any other classes. I suggest that when history is written the greatest crime of all recorded in connection with Beauharnois and some other enterprises will be the fact that these great natural resources which ought to have been preserved for the welfare of the people of Canada have passed over to private interests.
A minute ago I mentioned socialism. Remaining an individualist I am not particularly afraid of the word "socialism." For a good many years Canadians have in many ways been socialists, and perhaps to some extent communists. W e live in communities; we have community schools; we have community enterprises of various kinds In some of our towns and cities, and especially throughout the province of Ontario, we find all our public utilities under public ownership. As I have said, however, I am still an individualist, but go so far as to say I believe the great public services of the country, upon which the prosperity, convenience and happiness of nearly all the people depend, should be under the control of the public.
As I said a moment ago, we must make changes, adaptations, qualifications or modifications in our present system. I was pleased to note that the resolution offered some time ago by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) was accepted, and that arising therefrom we may expect an intelligent study of a tremendous world problem so that proper action may be the result. Such a study cannot be earned out in a day. As a matter of fact I am not convinced as to just what should be done. I do believe, however, that unless we modify our system and gradually bring about some changes, we stand in danger of changes coming through violent means and in ways we would not desire. I would say that in a land of plenty such as Canada there should be no want and no distress. If it be true-and no doubt it is-that there is plenty for everyone, yet some are suffering want and privation, it must follow that some people have more than they ought to have, while others have less than they need. I am led to repeat what my hon. friends in the corner of the house have said, and with which I absolutely agree, that there is not a proper dis-

Unemployment Continuance Act
tribution of wealth, and that workmen are not getting the full share to which as a result of their labours they are entitled.
From time to time we have heard that machinery has been the cause of unemployment. Some people have suggested that at least to some extent we should do away with the operation of machinery. I do not believe in that policy; on the contrary I believe in the full development of machinery so that it may be a real labour saving factor. Let labour receive fair advantage from the inventions of labour saving machinery. There are people who believe that men should work for the sake of working, because Satan finds mischief for idle hands to do. I do not believe that. If machinery can produce cheaply and plentifully it might very well be used to the advantage of labour, so that men would not have to work from early morning until late at night and would be afforded an opportunity to enjoy the pleasures and blessings of life.
There has been no basic remedy for conditions as we see them to-day. The only one which has been tested, and announced as a remedy, is the increase of tariffs. If we cannot find an immediate and complete remedy -and I know we cannot-then we must take steps to relieve those who are in want. Hon. members on the government side have lodged the criticism that we have made no practical suggestions. I am loath to make suggestions, and yet I would agree with those who have recommended some form of unemployment insurance. Just what the form should be I am not prepared to say. I advance the more or less practical suggestion, for the consideration of the government, that labour is entitled to just as much consideration as is capital. In the conduct of a well organized business, whether it be a bank or an industrial concern, a reserve fund out of profits is laid by against a time when business may not be so profitable. Hon. members will find that such concerns usually maintain the same rate of dividend in years m?t so prosperous as in years when business is good. In that way capital gets its return every year out of profits. If that is true why should not the same action be taken so far as labour is concerned ?
A few days ago my attention was directed to an illustration which at this time I might very well describe. Let us suppose a machine cost $1,000. From year to year that machine is wearing out and we may suppose that its life would be only ten years. A prudent business man will set aside a reserve of ten per cent per year against the depreciation of that machine. At the end of ten years it
would be paid for. Then, let us imagine that that machine is a black slave. From year to year the energies of that slave would deteriorate, and after a period of ten years he might not be able to labour for his master. If the master is wise he will set aside an amount for depreciation so that at the end of a ten year period the slave is paid for. Then the rather striking interrogation presents itself: If that can be done for a black slave, why should it not be done for a white working man? Is that not a fair question? I advance the suggestion that from the profits of industry made during prosperous years there should be set aside a reserve from surplus gains against a time when there may be unemployment. Such a fund might well be used for the relief of the unemployed. I fully expect the criticism that business cannot stand an extra charge when it is in competition with other countries. As a partial answer I submit that it would be no harder for business concerns to lay aside a certain amount in prosperous years than to contribute heavy taxes for the relief of unemployed.
I have spoken longer than I had intended, and it may be that I have not made any constructive suggestions. I rose with the intention of registering my protest against the provisions contained in the resolution before us. I realize that the questions the government has to solve are very difficult. Quite sincerely I want to assure them that so far as I am concerned-and I think I speak for all hon. members on this side of the house-I am perfectly willing to cooperate, where cooperation is possible. Though things are difficult it seems to me it is only a challenge to intelligent men to go forward. The race has progressed and surmounted difficulties in the past that seemed insurmountable, and it will continue to do so. So it seems to me that it should be possible, with men of intelligence and good will, gradually to develop our institutions so that in this land of plenty every man may be rid of this fear of the future, which is with all of us, and be assured that if he is willing to work, provision will be made for himself and his family.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, I have remained
quietly in my seat for the last fourteen days and listened to the hon. members of this house, on all sides, debate the resolution now before us. Unlike some of the hon. gentlemen who preceded me, I felt it was not my place to criticize any of the remarks which hon. gentlemen have made. We are here, sir, representing people in all parts of Canada;
Unemployment Continuance Act

we are sent here by our constituents to voice their opinions, and consequently as I sat in my place and listened to the various speeches, I felt that hon. members were presenting the views of their constituents and had a perfect right to do so without criticism from me. However, after the hon. member for Melfort, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) spoke this afternoon, I thought perhaps it might be well if I said something with regard to this resolution.
I have had the honour, sir, of sitting in this house for some seventeen sessions. I came here in the session of 1918, but even when I was a back bencher and a green youngster from the county of Lunenburg I never had the gall to get up in my place in parliament and refer to other members of this house as back benchers.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: Too bad.


William Duff: Yes, it is too bad that, after
this government has done honour to the hon. member for Melfort by making him a cabinet minister and a privy councillor, he should come to parliament and insult members on both sides of the house who do not happen to sit in the seats of the mighty as members of the cabinet.
We have been here discussing this resolution for fourteen days, Mr. Speaker, and what is it we are discussing? The resolution suggests that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8 and substituting the word "May'' therefor. This resolution appeared on the order paper, if I remember correctly, about February 25, four or five days before the act expired. In this parliament during the session of 1931, we passed an act which is known as chapter 58 of the statutes of 1931. That act was brought in during the dying days of the session, and was assented to on August 3, giving certain powers to the government of this country in the interests of the people of Canada who were unemployed and the farmers who needed relief. When the act was introduced in parliament, on both sides of the house it was thought necessary to give the government certain extraordinary powers, and we of the opposition were very glad indeed to join with the government in passing that act.
We have been told by the Minister of Agriculture,-this back bench minister,-and we have been told by other speakers on the other side of the house that we are obstructing this legislation. It is amusing to me, sir. as a fairly old member of this parliament, to

hear hon. members who have not been here so long as I have, hurl across the floor of this house the charge that we are obstructing this bill and obstructing the legislation of the government. I have not quite as short a memory as other people have. I sat on the government side of the house for nine years, from 1922 to 1930, and I never objected if during that period my hon. friends the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), or the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart), thought it was their duty to get up and not obstruct but discuss the legislation before the house so far as they felt it should be discussed. Then why, sir, should we independent members of this parliament, who have been sent here by our constituents, have the accusation hurled across at us that we are obstructing this particular legislation? I say, sir, it is an insult to all the hon. members who are sent here by their constituents and told to go into all the phases of legislation and do their duty as they see it. I say it is an insult to the members on this side of the house and, as well, to any member who felt it necessary to get up and express his views on the floor of this free and independent parliament.
Now, what about this legislation? We passed this act in 1931 for a special purpose, and section 8 of the act stated that it was to expire on March 1, 1932. I think the opposition were very generous to the government in the first days of this session, Mr. Speaker. We met here on the fourth day of February, and certainly then the government knew it would be necessary to introduce some legislation with regard to the unemployment and farm relief problem. In order to show our good will towards the government, inside of a week we passed the speech from the throne, and left the door wide open for the government to introduce any legislation it saw fit. If the government had been seized of its duty to the people of this country who were told during the election of 1930 that this government would end unemployment, the first legislation they would have introduced, immediately the speech from the throne was passed, would have been a bill with regard to unemployment and farm relief. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice is a good speaker; during the campaign of 1930 he told the people of this country that if they would turn out the Grit government and put in the Tory government, the Tories would end unemployment in three days.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: That is not right.


William Duff: Does my hon. friend deny
that?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


William Duff: Then I take his denial, but
I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is very strange that no matter what we on this side of the house see in the newspapers of this country-and I have a great respect for newspaper correspondents-and no matter what we quote from the newspapers, every time we make such a quotation hon. members sitting on the treasury benches get up and say they have been misreported. While I must accept my hon. friend's denial, I am rather surprised to hear it. I did see a report of his speech in a newspaper of that time, in which he was reported to have said that this government would end unemployment in three days. Now he says he did not make that statement, and I must accept his denial.


Hugh Guthrie: I have explained it three or four times.


William Duff: My hon. friend's explanation has always been a denial, but his leader also made a similar statement. I remember listening, with a great deal of interest, to a speech made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), who was then the leader of the opposition, in the town of Antigonish in my constituency. The leader of the opposition of that day, the gentleman who is now Prime Minister of this country, in my hearing made the statement that he was going to end unemployment, and I thought perhaps he knew more about it than the then prime minister or the members of his cabinet surrounding him at that time. That was in June, 1930. Almost two years have passed since the Prime Minister made that statement, and while it is true that at that time in Nova Scotia and in other provinces there was some unemployment, what is the condition to-day? The condition to-day is at least four times worse than it was then. Yet the government of this country in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, after we have given them every opportunity to introduce their policy in regard to unemployment, have come down eight days after the expiration of the act which we passed in 1931 and have asked us to resurrect that dead statute, a statute which expired on March 1. I want to say to you, sir, that I am rather surprised that with your knowledge of parliamentary procedure you have allowed this debate to go on.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does the hon. member
suggest that it should stop now?
Unemployment Continuance Act


William Duff: In answer to your question,
sir, I would say this, I should have been very glad indeed if this debate had stopped fourteen days ago. If the ministers surrounding the Prime Minister-I will leave the Prime Minister out-from the Minister of Justice down to the back bencher who is occupying the position of Minister of Agriculture, had said to the right hon. gentleman, "Your action in this matter is all wrong. There is necessity in this country with respect to unemployment; there is need to vote money for the relief of unemployment, for seed for farm relief, and we ask you to drop this resolution, which is illegal and out of order,"-if they had said this to the Prime Minister and he had come to parliament and said, "We want $50,000,000 or $100,000,000 or $150,000,000", I should have been glad to vote for it so long as the government told us what it was for. In further answer to your question, sir, may I say this. If the Prime Minister will walk in now-or, if he feels embarrassed, he can get the Minister of Justice to do it-and will drop this resolution and bring in a supply bill, or if he will get the Minister of Finance to bring in a supply bill for whatever amount may be required, we on this side of the house will gladly join with him and pass that supply bill within the next half hour.
An attempt is being made to place upon the members sitting on this side of the house the responsibility for the delay in the passing of this legislation. But that will not go down with the people of this country. We fought the constitutional question in Canada in 1926 and we are going out now and will fight it again. We who are sent here to represent the constituencies in Canada, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, are going to see that constitutional practices are observed in this country. There is no excuse for this government to say to us now that we must resurrect a dead bill, a bill which cannot be resurrected under the rules of parliament. I have no hesitation in saying that in view of the fact that this bill expired on March 1 this resolution is out of order, and consequently this discussion is also out of order, and I feel that you, Mr. Speaker, should not allow the discussion to proceed.
Why did not the government introduce this legislation in a regular manner? In the dying days of the session of 1931 the government introduced a certain resolution, not a resolution to try to revive something dead and buried, because if we can resurrect this act of 1931 we can revive it ten years hence. It makes no difference whether the act is dead one day or ten years; if it is true, as we are

Unemployment Continuance Act
told by hon. members on the other side of the house, that we can pass this legislation to revive this dead act, to give the government power whilst parliament is in session to do as they please, then in ten years' time this government, if it were in power, could come to parliament and ask to have the act revived. That, I say, is unconstitutional, and notwithstanding what has been said on the other side, we on this side of the house, standing on constitutional doctrine, will not allow such a resolution as this to go through except by closure.
What have we done? We allowed the government to put through the address in reply to the speech from the throne in a week, and for three weeks the government hesitated; it did nothing with regard to unemployment or farm relief. I do not think that this act is necessary, as I will show in a moment or two. After two years of experience the government, I submit, should have a definite policy with regard to unemployment, and I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that we can come to no other conclusion than that hon. gentlemen opposite have no definite policy in this matter. They are admitting that they have fallen down on the job. If, however, as I contend, they have no definite policy, and therefore wish to renew the act, then I say they should have come to parliament and introduced the same resolution they brought down a year ago. How did that resolution read? On July 24, 1931 the Prime Minister gave this notice of motion:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to confer certain powers upon the governor in council in respect to employment and farm relief; and for the maintenance of peace, order and good government in all parts of Canada; and to authorize the governor in council to expend for the said purposes out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums as may from time to time be necessary.
I respectfully submit that if the government had been seized of their proper duty with respect to unemployment, and if they felt that the proper legislation on the question was to revive the act that was passed then, instead of introducing this resolution which we are now discussing for the purpose of resurrecting a dead statute, the Prime Minister or one of his ministers should have introduced the resolution which I have just read. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that this house has no right to discuss this present resolution, and that is proved in the fact that within two days of the placing upon the order paper of the resolution now under discussion there was notice of the introduction of a bill with regard to unemployment-the strangest proce-
dure that has ever taken place in this house. The government, I presume, realized that the 1931 act was nearing its natural conclusion, and, in order to rush matters, in addition to putting upon the order paper this resolution we are now discussing they put on the order paper a bill to amend the same act-a most unusual procedure. You, Mr. Speaker, saw it yourself, because for two days, realizing the position the government had placed itself in, with your usual courtesy you did not proceed to read that bill, which should have been read every day. I say, sir, that there is no excuse for the position the house finds itself in at this moment. The government and no one else is to blame for the present impasse with regard to unemployment. It is quite possible that if the government had introduced a measure similar to the one passed in 1931 it would have been opposed on this side of the house, because there is no reason, when parliament is sitting, when the people's representatives are here to do the business of the country, why the government should introduce a bill asking for a blank cheque under which they can do whatever they deem necessary.
This government stands condemned before the people of the country so far as unemployment is concerned. Almost two years have passed since the Prime Minister and other members of his cabinet criticized the Liberal party for its attitude with regard to unemployment. Shortly after the elections a special session of parliament was called. We came down here in the month of September, 1930, and one of the first things we did was to vote a sum of $20,000,000 for the relief of unemployment. This was done with very little criticism of the government because we realized that it had not then had sufficient time to work out a policy in regard to this great question. We realized that the government had made certain promises and we wanted to give it enough rope to hang itself.
Another thing we did at that special session was to allow the government to raise the tariff. The government had two ideas in its mind, to vote money for unemployment and to raise the tariff to stop unemployment, and we agreed to both measures with very little criticism. I am sure that no hon. member within sound of my voice or no hon. member of the house can say that the opposition did anything at that time to keep the government from carrying out its policy-we gave it a free hand.
I was rather interested the other evening to hear the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald), in his usual calm,

Unemployment Continuance Act
deliberate and decent way, try to blame the Liberal party and the opposition because the city of Sydney had not received certain moneys for unemployment relief. The hon. member for Cape Breton South, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), as well as the back bench minister with the portfolio of Agriculture,, challenged us on this side by saying that everything had gone well with the expenditure of this money. If there is one thing of which the Liberal party should be proud with regard to the present situation of unemployment, it is the fact that there do not seem to be any Liberals out of work, at least as far as the expenditure of unemployment relief is concerned. I have no hesitation in saying that 95 per cent of the money spent by this government for unemployment has gone into the hands of Tories. That is why Liberals, according to what has transpired, are not out of work while Tories are. What happened to this $20,000,000 which we gave to the government to expend? It seems to me that when the money was to be spent for unemployment, everyone should have been treated alike. I can understand in the ordinary distribution of patronage and the construction of public works that to the victors should belong the spoils; I believe that when a party is in power its representatives and its friends should be 'treated right, but this money was voted for unemployment, not for Tories or Grits but for everyone.
What did hon. members opposite proceed to do with the $20,000,000 voted for unemployment in the year 1930? Some $700,000 was spent in the province of Nova Scotia in the fall of I960. During the course of my business, and sometimes for pleasure, I drive over the roads of Nova Scotia as well as in some parts of New Brunswick. I am rather curious at times and during my drives I have noticed men employed on the roads. I would stop to talk to the different foremen, and I admit, in order to get the information I wanted, once in a while I would pretend to be something different from what I was; I even went as far as to say that once in a while I voted Tory. I found out that the men who had spent provincial money during the spring and summer of 1930 on the highways of Nova Scotia were the same men driving the same trucks and the same teams who were spending the unemployment money in the fall of 1980.
We come now to 1931. When the government brought down the estimates at that session the newspapers contained headlines stating how the government had economized by cutting down the expenditures of this 41761-87
country by some $27,000,000. In looking over the estimates I noticed that a considerable reduction had taken place in the votes for the Department of Public Works. Knowing the coast of Nova Scotia as well as I do, I realized that this was a penny wise but pound foolish policy; the government in its attempt to retrench and economize had put the blue pencil through the votes for certain works in the province which were absolutely necessary. We have now the report of the director of unemployment relief and we find that although the government tried to make the country believe that it was economizing in public works' expenditures, in fact it was spending part of the blank cheque voted in 1930 for unemployment for the construction of public works throughout Canada. I think the house will agree with my contention that these expenditures should have appeared in the main and supplementary estimates. Instead of doing that, and in order to cover up, the government took some of the unemployment relief money and spent it on public works. I notice that this department was given $1,593,000 to spend from this fund on the construction of about two hundred works throughout Canada. In Nova Scotia alone some $537,000 was expended, which amount should have appeared in the main and supplementary estimates. This parliament voted this money for a particular purpose, and this is how it was spent.
I noticed the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) in his place a few moments ago when he was interrupting the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), but I am sorry he is not present now as I wanted to refer to one item which appears in this blue book in connection with his own constituency. I understand that charity begins at home, and the Minister of Labour evidently believes in that proverb. An item appears in this blue book covering a vote of $67,000 for a breakwater and harbour for seaplanes at Hailey-bury, to be carried out under the supervision of the Department of Public Works. During 1931 some $17,809.84 of this amount was spent. I do not object to this money being spent in Haileybury if it is necessary, but I do object to the way in which it was spent. If there are any in this parliament who should see that money is spent according to the constitution and law it is those gentlemen who think that because they are privy councillors they are more superior than the ordinary members of parliament. During the past few days we have heard a good deal about the position of privy councillors and I contend that the Minister of Labour who


Robert James Manion: I know that my hon. friend does not wish to give any wrong information. The government had nothing whatever to do with cancelling any contract with the railway because the contract was with the Canadian National Railways. The government does not make the contract, and it did not break the contract.


William Duff: I am very sorry indeed that my good friend the Minister of Railways made that statement, because if what he said is true we do not need a Minister of Railways in this house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member's time
has expired.


Mr. EUSERE ROBERGE (Megantic) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the present resolution, its purpose being to hand over a blank cheque to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). I have followed closely the debate on this motion
1380	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
and I am somewhat amazed at seeing Ministers of the Crown and members opposite contend that if the funds to relieve unemployment and agriculture are not yet voted, the Liberals are to blame. The people of Canada are better informed than these hon. gentlemen imagine. The former are Sully aware that the. Bennett government is not, since Confederation, the only one that has been at the helm of affairs in Ottawa, and at all times, regardless whether these governments were conservative, liberal or unionist, when the Prime Minister required an appropriation, he had it inscribed in the yearly estimates or voted by special legislation; on each occasion, however, the amount was specified. Let the government ask for a stated sum in the supplementary estimates, and it can rest assured that, we liberals, will immediately grant their request, because we have always been prone to assist the workman and farmer. But to hand over a blank signature to the Prime Minister, never shall I consent.
Both on behalf of the people of Megantic, whom I represent in the house, and myself, I strongly protest against the authority which the government wishes to assume in order to amend our constitution without appealing to the people.
The lack of competency, sir, which the government has displayed within the last twenty months in the administration of the affairs of this country,, and which has resulted in a complete failure, gives us greater cause to protest. When this government stood before the electorate of Canada, seeking a mandate to govern the country, there was no mention of altering the constitution. This government, however, were elected through pledges which they knew beforehand they would not keep or never intended to fulfil.
The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) endeavoured to prove the other day, in his speech, that the Prime Minister had fulfilled his pledges made during the last election. If the hon. Minister obtained for his county some favours to relieve the condition of the farmer and unemployed, since 1030, he has been shown partiality.
May I, sir, commit to Hansard a few of these pledges made by the Prime Minister and repeated in my county by the Conservative candidate and his followers. Mr. Bennett stated at Winnipeg, on June 8, 1930:
Listen you agriculturists from the west and all other parts of Canada, you have been taught to mock at tariffs and applaud free trade. Tell me, when did free trade fight for you? You say tariffs are only for manufacturers. I will make them fight for you as well. I will use them to blast a way into the markets that have been closed to you.

Then at Vancouver, June 17, 1930, he stated:
If Mr. King thinks that I will not #o build up our agricultural and industrial life that its strength will drive our products into the markets of the world, then he is wrong. For that I will do. If he thinks I will not establish new markets for those products, strive with all my heart to retain them, drive our products with all my power into new markets, into old markets, into reluctant markets, he is wrong. For that I will do.
What benefit did the farming class receive from all these pledges? Since this government has been in power, the price of farm products has decreased from 40 to SO per cent, and the farmers are experiencing a crisis unknown under the Liberal regime.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


Eusèbe Roberge: As this
question was discussed at length by my hon. friend, the member for Nicolet (Mr. Dubois), I shall not deal with it. I shall refer to the pledges made to the workmen and commit to Hansard a few of them. I shall afterward quote some figures to prove that far from decreasing the number of unemployed in my county, the government were responsible for its increase and that they even refused to help these unemployed when the money was available. As my county comprises industrial and mining centres, I Shall begin by referring to some of the promises made, during the last election, in connection with the assistance to workmen and by which he was to end unempl oyment.
The following is a statement made by the Prime Minister at Calgary, on June 12, 1930:
This is a new country and there is no excuse for unemployment in Canada if a government does its duty.
According to this statement this government is far from having done its duty. On June 17, 1930, he is quoted as saying:
Governments can regulate policies of the country so that facilities may be provided to give employment and not make it necessary for thousands to leave home and go elsewhere to get jobs to make a living.
At Sarnia, on July 16, 1930:
Someone, he said, is responsible for unemployment; not individuals but governments. Governments by their majorities in parliament are responsible for enacting all legislation.
The same day, he stated at Moncton:
Mr. King promises consideration of the problem of unemployment. I promise to end unemployment. Which plan do you like best?
I now wish, sir, to explain how he settled the unemployment question in the county of

Unemployment Continuance Act
Megantic. At Plessisville, a town of 3,000 inhabitants, on January 15, 1932, there were 230 more unemployed than on July 30, 1930.
At Black Lake, a mining centre with a population of 4,000, there were 500 to 600 people employed in July, 1930. The Conservatives had promised that if they were elected every body would have work. What happened at Black Lake? Four months after the Conservative party had assumed power, all the mines were closed, and nobody has worked in those mines since. If the government had had at heart the relief of unemployment, it would have improved the situation at Black Lake, however the contrary happened.
Under the Liberal regime I had obtained that an amount of $26,000 be included in the 1930 estimates, so as to build a post office. When the Conservatives assumed power, the plans and specifications of this building had been approved by the engineer, it was to be erected at Black Lake. Tenders had been asked and received; an order in council had been passed by this government on August 5, 1930, authorizing the construction of this post office. It was, sir, an excellent opportunity to help the unemployed. What happened? Rather than put up this post office because the money had been voted under the Liberal regime, at the request of the representative of the county, the government preferred not to carry out the construction of this post office and in that way deprived the people of work. That is the kind of help the workmen of Black Lake obtained from this government, notwithstanding all the pledges given during the 1930 election.
At Thetford mines, another mining centre with a population of 12,000, there are, to-day, 500 to 600 more people unemployed than in July, 1930. So that in Megantic county alone, this government, far from having ended unemployment as promised, has increased it by 1,200 to 1,400 men more than it was under the Liberal administration. That is how the government has settled the unemployment question.
As regards the farming class, as I stated at the outset, the price of their products has decreased 40 to 50 per cent. One thing, however, has increased in Megantic, namely taxation. The people may be deceived once but not twice. I think this is an excellent opportunity to repeat the words which the right hon. Prime Minister stated at North Vancouver, on June 18, 1930:
After I am Prime Minister on July 28, I will see that my promises are carried out or the government will go out of power trying to do so.
Well, sir, I can assure you that tire people throughout the country are waiting for that opportunity to put him out of power.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly the effect of the motion made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) on behalf of the government this afternoon, it is to reopen a debate which had virtually drawn to a close at the time the minister spoke. The motion of the minister was that the question be now put. According to the rules of the house, the motion itself is among the number of those which are debatable, and, therefore, I conclude that all hon. members who have already spoken on the resolution before the house may speak again.
In order that there may be no mistake, I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to standing order No. 38 under the heading "Debatable Motions":
38 (1) The following motions are debatable:
Every motion,-
(a)	standing on the order of proceedings for the day (except government notices of motion for the house to go into committee at a later date);
(b)	for the concurrence in a report of a standing special committee;
(c)	for the previous question;
It is on the motion for the previous question that I am now speaking. As I have just, said, the effect of the motion of the Minister of Agriculture has been to enable every hon. member on this side of the house, or on the opposite side, who so desires, to speak again for a period of forty minutes or his allotted, time on this particular subject. I have found difficulty in understanding the reason the administration must have had for bringing forward this particular motion, and especially at this stage of the debate. As I looked through the evening papers I thought I discovered it. I may be wrong, but sometimes one gets a clue in that way. The evening papers seem to regard the motion as an application by the government of the closure rule. Evidently they are conveying to the country, no doubt from an inspired source, the information that in order to bring this debate to a close the administration has introduced closure. If I am correct in my interpretation of the rules, the effect of the motion, which the government must have brought in with full knowledge of its significance, is exactly the reverse. It has the effect of reopening the debate, and reopening it extensively.
Standing order No. 39 deals with closure. In order that there may be no mistake, and that the suggestion may not be made that
1382	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
the motion introduced by the government is one of closure, I shall read the first portion of this standing order. It is as follows:
Immediately before the order of the day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the house be in committee of the whole, or of supply, or of ways and means, any minister of the crown who, standing in his place, shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his intention so to do, may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned, or that the further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, shall be the first business of the committee, and shall not further be postponed; and in either case such question shall be decided without debate or amendment; and if the same shall be resolved in the affirmative, no member shall thereafter speak more than once, or longer than twenty minutes in any such adjourned debate.
I need not read the rest of it; I believe that is sufficient. The point I wish to make clear, Mr. Speaker, to members of this house, and through the house to the country, is that the government has not introduced any motion of closure. What has been done by the motion introduced this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture is to extend to all members of this house the privilege of speaking a second time, at a time when the debate, in regard to the first stage at least, had practically drawn to a close. As I say, what may have been the motive of the government, I leave to my hon. friends themselves to explain; and, as for the country, it may judge for itself.
This evening, I wish to deal briefly with one or two of the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon made at the time of introducing his motion. In the first place, the minister said-I think I understood him correctly-that the reason the government had been late in bringing down this measure, which is now on the order paper and which we have been discussing for a couple of weeks, was that the former Minister of Labour, Senator Robertson, had been ill, and that, as a consequence of Senator Robertson's illness, the government had not found it possible to bring in the report of the Department of Labour with regard to the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act as early as had been hoped. It is rather extraordinary, to say the least, that we have had to wait until to-day to hear a single word of the kind expressed in the house. We have not been told before that the reason there was any delay was due to Senator Robertson's illness. This is the first intimation we have had of anything of the kind. But may I ask, Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, whether anyone for a moment assumes that such is the reason why the government has delayed until this time to bring

in a measure which has to do with unemployment relief-the most important of all the matters 'which will have to be taken up this session?
The speech from the throne, which outlined the important business of parliament, did not contain a single word with reference to unemployment and farm relief. Surely that was not because of Senator Robertson's illness. The right hon. Prime Minister made an address of considerable length in the course of that debate. He made no reference to any policy of the government with respect to unemployment or farm relief; he made no statement with regard to any intention to bring in, at any time this session, any measure in regard to unemployment relief. Surely that was not due to Senator Robertson's illness. A little later the Minister of Labour himself (Mr. Gordon), the successor to Senator Robertson, made a speech, but it contained no reference to any policy which the government had with respect to unemployment relief. He did not say they did not have a policy because Senator Robertson had been ill; he simply made no reference to any policy.
Speakers on this side directed the attention of the house to the fact that it was a rather extraordinary thing that we had heard no statement of policy from hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to unemployment relief or with regard to the intentions of the government in that connection. I drew the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that, unemployment relief being the most important matter which this house would be called upon to consider, it was extraordinary that he had found it necessary to appoint a special committee of parliament to consider a personal matter in which he was interested, before we had any committee to discuss the question of unemployment relief or before we were told what measure of relief would be given the farmers of Saskatchewan and the other people who were suffering in the west. From this side of the house it was made clear that we were filled with amazement that the government had brought down no legislation and had indicated no policy with regard to unemployment relief in reference to Saskatchewan or any other part of Canada.
Then what happened? The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan), the former Minister of Labour, brought in an amendment on going into supply, complaining that the government had not carried out its promises with respect to unemployment relief. That amendment concluded with the statement that the government had announced no policy which was at all adequate to deal

Unemployment Continuance Act
with this particular and all-important subject. Parliament opened on Thursday, February 4, and on Tuesday, February 23, the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) introduced his amendment on the motion to go into supply. Was it due to Senator Robertson's illness that we had no mention of any policy, and no statement of the intentions of the government, from February 4 to February 23? Was that the reason? If it was not, why does the Minister of Agriculture with reference to the present resolution put forward a reason of that kind in the house at this stage of the debate? But what happened when the exMinister of Labour drew the attention of the house and the country to the fact that there was no statement of policy from the government, and that there was nothing anywhere on the order paper or anywhere else dealing with the subject of unemployment relief? After all this had been drawn to the attention of the government in the amendment proposed by the former Minister of Labour, on the day following, Wednesday, February 24, for the first time, there appeared in the votes and proceedings of parliament, under the name of the Prime Minister, the following notice:
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.
In other words, until the government was confronted with a motion of want of confidence from this side of the house on the score that they had no policy whatever to deal with the question of unemployment, we had not so much as a sign of a resolution of any character dealing with the subject. Then we had hurriedly placed upon the order paper by the ministry a motion to extend until May 1 the present measure, or the measure that was to expire on March 1. That was all.
But how did the government proceed thereafter? Did the government the next day anxiously come to the house and say "It is getting near the end of the month and we must take up at once this resolution which appears on the order paper"? Remember, Mr. Speaker, the government has, subject to the rules of the house, the arranging of the business of the house from day to day, and the government designates the night before what particular business is to be taken up the following day. Now I want to direct your attention to the proceedings of the next few days, because I was watching, in the interests of Saskatchewan and other parts of the country, what the government were going to do in this matter of unemployment relief.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I shall be able to show by the records of the house, from which I am about to quote, just how carefully I was watching. On Friday, February 26, the notice appeared on the orders of the day for the first time; under government notices of motion the following resolution appeared:
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.
On the same day the Prime Minister gave notice of his intention to proceed with the resolution at the next sitting. On Monday, February 29, nothing was done; that was private members' day, but I ask you now, Mr. Speaker, and those who were jeering a moment ago-including the Prime Minister himself-to look at the records of the debates in the house, as they appear in Hansard, and see what was done. I find the following at the close of the evening of Monday, February 29:
Mr. Mackenzie King: Will the Prime Minister kindly indicate the order in which government orders will be taken up to-morrow?
Mr. Bennett: Second readings first, and then supply, Departments of Agriculture and National Defence.
No word appears there with respect to this resolution concerning unemployment relief; no mention was made that the next day would be the first of March, and that chapter 58 would then expire. The Prime Minister said:
Second readings first, and then supply, Departments of Agriculture and National Defence.
Then I said:
Mr. Mackenzie King: That means the motion of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) ?
Mr. Bennett: The motion to which an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.
Mr. Mackenzie King: Is it intended to take up item 10, with respect to amending chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931?
That is, this resolution.
Mr. Bennett: I intended to take that up if we reached it, but the Senate does not meet until Wednesday. There is no point in taking it up before Tuesday.
Mr. Mackenzie King: That would be after supply, anyway?
Mr. Bennett:	Yes.
Mr. Mackenzie King:	Thank you.
I think I made it clear that evening that I was watching closely to see when the government would proceed with this measure.
1384	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
The time was getting very short. If the government had intended to deal in time with unemployment under the resolution which was on the order paper, if they were genuine and bona fide in their intention, they would have proceeded immediately the opportunity was provided. What about the next day? Tuesday, March 1, was a government day, and there was no rule of the house against the measure being gone on with on that day. Moreover, the Prime Minister knew that the act would expire on March 1. If he wanted to avail himself of a technicality in order to save the situation, he could at least have made a statement the night before of his intention to deal with the matter the next day, in view of the fact that the act was expiring on the 1st of March.
But on March 1, what happened? At the very outset, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) moved the adjournment of the house to discuss seed and farm relief as matters of urgent public importance. You, Mr. Speaker, remember what happened to my hon. friend's motion. He was denied that right. He was told that he could not discuss that matter- that it was not a matter of urgent public importance at that time. Yet the act was expiring that very day, and no relief could be given thereafter until another bill went through. The hon. member rose to express that point of view but he was told by the Speaker, in the best of good faith and in accordance with what His Honour believed to be correct procedure in the house, that he could not go on. Then the debate was continued on the amendment of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, and in the course of that debate, I, myself, spoke, pointing out that on that day chapter 58 would expire. I directed the attention of parliament very pointedy to that fact.
Now, if there was great anxiety on the part of the government to deal with the question of unemployment relief under chapter 58, surely on the next day they would have made some effort to take it up without further delay. Private members' day, I hear someone say- the Prime Minister, I think. Well, at the time of adjournment on Wednesday, I called the attention of the government to the fact that the alternative for Thursday, March 3, lay between order No. 10 on the order paper, which was chapter 58, and the motion with respect to civil service salary deductions, which stood as order No. 9. I drew this to the attention of the minister who was leading the government at the time, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). As Hansard 
will show, the hon. gentleman was speaking for the government:
Mr. Stevens: We can proceed with No. 9.
Order No. 9, for Thursday, another government day, was the question of civil service salary deductions-not this resolution which is now pressed as all-impontant; not at all, but civil service salary deductions. This was extraordinary if the ministry had been intent on proceeding with chapter 58 having regard to the situation in Saskatchewan. On Thursday the question of civil service salary deductions was taken up and there was no discussion of, nor was there any mention of chapter 58. At the time of adjournment I inquired what the business for the next day would be:
Adjournment-Business of the House
Mr. Mackenzie King: What business will be taken up to-morrow?
What was the Prime Minister's reply?
Mr. Bennett: We will proceed with this debate,-
That is to say, the debate on civil service salaries.
-after which we will consider item No. 9 on the order paper.
Now, item No. 9 on the order paper of March 3 was the Heenan amendment on going into supply and not chapter 58. Did that look as though the Prime Minister was much concerned about when chapter 58 would be taken up, though we were getting further away from the date of expiry of the act? The act had expired several days before. What happened on Friday? Nothing was done with regard to chapter 58 on that day; instead, the day was taken up with the discussion of civil service salary deductions. At the adjournment I again inquired with respect to the next day's business:
Adjournment-Business of the House
Mr. Guthrie moved the adjournment of the house.
Mr. Mackenzie King: I suppose on Monday we shall have private members' resolutions?
Mr. Guthrie: I think they will take the whole day.
Mr. Mackenzie King: In the event of the private members' resolutions not taking the entire day, will my hon. friend indicate the measures that will be dealt with?
Mr. Guthrie: In that event we will take up second reading of the bill to amend the Judges' Act, third reading of the bill to amend the Criminal Code, the bill in respect to railways- I think it is ready, and then we will go into supply.
That was for the following Tuesday. Again, nothing was said in regard to chapter 58.


Hugh Guthrie: That was for Monday.

Unemployment Continuance Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Monday, yes .-I beg your pardon. That was for Monday, if we got through with private members' resolutions. That is right. But in regard to Tuesday, what happened? On Monday inquiry was again made with respect to the matter. On the order for motions on Monday afternoon, March 7, I directed the attention of the Prime Minister to the urgency of the question of unemployment and farm relief. An entire week had gone by; I had given the government, at the close of each day, an opportunity in so many ways to disclose when chapter 58, which was the measure we were concerned about, would be proceeded with. A whole week having gone by without anything having been done, in order that the government might not take a course of procedure which would be certain to precipitate a lengthy debate, and so that they might know fully in advance that we were prepared to vote any supply they wanted for relief, but that we should necessarily have to oppose, on principle, any effort that might be made to put through a bill similar to the one passed at the previous session, requiring us to give a blank cheque to the government, or requiring us to delegate to the governor in council power to legislate on peace, order and good government while parliament was in session, I drew attention to the fact that the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act had lapsed, and offered on behalf of the opposition to facilitate the passing of an interim supply bill at that time if the government would bring in a measure. Then for the first time the Prime Minister indicated that it was the intention of the government the next day to take up the resolution with respect to chapter 58.
In the meantime the government had had on the order paper notice of a bill to amend chapter 58. That notice remained on the order paper at least two or three days. You will know, Mr. Speaker, better than anyone else, the reason you did n-ot call that bill on two occasions; I think you were asked by the administration not to call it. At any rate, it stood on the order paper for some days. We on this side were asking ourselves, "What is the bill to amend chapter 58?" In all innocence, we came to the conclusion that the government, realizing that parliament would never wish to pass a bill that would give to the government power to legislate on peace, order and good government while parliament was in session, intended to wipe out that obnoxious clause and thereby seek to strengthen its position with regard to the supplying of relief under chapter 58, which
gave the governor in council a free hand to deal with the question. But to our amazement notice of this bill was subsequently dropped. What its provisions were, I do not know. Why it was not called on two or three occasions when it appeared on the order paper, though other bills were called, the Speaker and the Prime Minister I presume alone can declare. But there are the facts; the records speak for themselves.
What was the position on Monday? In order that there might be no mistake about our position and point of view as well as intention, I made the following statement, as appears at page 921 of Hansard of Monday, March 7-and this is March 22-speaking before any debate at all had commenced in relation to the question of unemployment relief :
Mr. Speaker, as we do not reach the orders of the day until late in the day, if at all to-day, there is a matter which I would like to mention to the Prime Minister on the order for motions which is of importance at the moment, and which may not have occurred to him.
There appears to be an obvious necessity for the voting of money for unemployment relief, and particularly for supplying seed grain and other forms of farm relief to those who are in need in the west. What I wish to say to my right hon. friend is that if he will bring into the house a supply bill asking for the amount that he may regard as necessary and wish to have for this month, so far as the opposition is concerned we will be prepared to do what we can to facilitate its passage rapidly through the house. We recognize that it is a week since the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act lapsed and that my right hon. friend will certainly be coming to parliament for some moneys,' for this purpose. If a supply bill is brought in at any time to provide what may be necessary for the balance of this present fiscal year, so far as the opposition is concerned we shall be prepared to agree to any suspension of the rules which will allow- the bill to go through this house with as little in the way of criticism or delay as possible.
What was the Prime Minister's reply?
Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Prime Minister): I assure the right hon. gentleman that I appreciate his observations, but the government has not overlooked the fact that it is necessary to provide money for seed and feed. But it is not its direct responsibility; that rests with the provinces.
That was the statement made that day. The Prime Minister said further:
I thank the right hon. gentleman for his offer of assistance so far as the dealing with this emergent situation is concerned.
I then said:
I would like to make clear to my right hon. friend that one reason I mention the matter immediately is that if it is proceeded with by means of a supply bill I believe there will be no question as to the rapidity with which the bill would pass, but if my right hon. friend
1386	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
lias in mind proceeding with a bill such as the one passed at last session, which was intended to meet a situation while parliament was not in session, I may say that we on this side would have to take very strong exception to proceeding in that way.
As I said, that was before any discussion had taken place on this resolution, and it was at a time when the government knew that the previous act had expired. They knew what our position was with respect to seeking to amend a statute which was dead. They knew of our willingness to give them whatever they needed in the way of supply for relief purposes. Notwithstanding that, the Prime Minister, for reasons best known to himself, proceeded to deal with this particular resolution.
That we are here, Mr. Speaker, with the Easter recess about to begin, still discussing this question, is not the fault of the opposition. It is the fault of the government in having had no policy to announce in the speech from the throne, in having had no policy announced as to the intentions towards Saskatchewan or any part of the country when the Prime Minister spoke on the address, and in having had no statement made by the Minister of Labour on the subject of unemployment relief. For more than an entire week, after notice had been given of the intention to proceed with the resolution, parliament devoted itself to other questions, notwithstanding the fact that, night after night, during the interval, the ministry was asked what business would be taken up the following day. After it had announced its intention the ministry had the freest opportunity to proceed with this measure for more than a week before the time it was proceeded with.
Under these circumstances, I do not think there can be any question as to who is responsible for the delay that has occurred up to the present time. Before I conclude my remarks this evening, I intend to indicate pretty clearly who will be responsible for any further delay. I do not think there will be much doubt as to where the opposition stands when I restate our position; indeed, there never has been. We shall soon discover what motive is underlying the tactics of the administration in this matter.
This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture gave what he termed the reason for the action of the opposition. What did he say? I confess that, if I had not heard his speech last year, I would have been amazed. However, after listening to that speech, I shall never be surprised at anything from him. In his maiden speech, the minister told the house that he

was such an innocent in the matter of politics that he did not really know the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative, that he was not interested one way or another in party politics, and he then went on to make one of the most partisan, bitterest and nastiest speeches that has ever been made by any public man in this country. What did the minister say this afternoon? He said the reason why this opposition was taking place at the present time was that the leader of the opposition was filled with revenge against Saskatchewan for having returned to this parliament himself and a few other Tories. We are discussing an unemployment relief measure which, as the Prime Minister would say, deals with the lives of men and women, with hungry and starving people, and the Minister of Agriculture talks about playing politics! I wonder what significance is to be attached to the statement that the leader of the opposition is filled with revenge against Saskatchewan? If that is not playing politics, the most diabolical politics which can be conceived of, I should like to know what is. What revenge would I have against Saskatchewan? Was not Saskatchewan the province which gave such splendid support to the Liberal party as to ensure its continuance in office from 1925 to 1930? Am I unmindful of the fact that I stand to-night in this house honoured with the representation of a constituency in the province of Saskatchewan, and that, taking byelections into account, Prince Albert in Saskatchewan has on four different occasions returned me to this parliament? I speak as a representative of the province of Saskatchewan, and I intend to speak more particularly from that point of view during the concluding part of my remarks.
I challenge the Minister of Agriculture to point in the course of my entire public career to one single act of mine which has been inspired by the spirit of revenge. Only those who are themselves capable of that kind of thing would think of imputing that sort of action to others. As for the remarks of the minister, I am prepared to treat them as being beneath contempt. When the people of Saskatchewan read what the minister said in this house this afternoon in regard to this measure, when they learn what he has had to offer as a reason for not giving them relief and giving them the seed and feed that they need, their appreciation of the minister, if it ever amounted to anything, will cease to be of much account.
Why has the opposition taken the course it has with regard to the resolution before us? We took this course for one reason, and one

Unemployment Continuance Act
reason only. It was a very simple reason but a very powerful one-it was the right course to take, that is all. It was not from any political motive, it was not from any desire-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen opposite cannot understand that. They are so accustomed to every move being actuated by some political partisan motive that they are unable to appreciate a contrary course though it be the obvious truth. What are the rules of this house governing supply? One has only to look at the rules to discover how the administration is supposed to go about getting supply for any purpose. Did we say: "If you bring in supply for unemployment relief we will oppose it"? Did we say: "If you make your measure broad we will oppose it; if you make your measure narrow we will oppose it; if you make it this way or that way we will oppose it"? Had we done that, there would have been some ground for saying that we had offered opposition. But we did the very reverse; we left it to hon. gentlemen opposite to make whatever motion they liked, so long as it was in accordance with the rules and procedure of this parliament, the rules and procedure which govern not only the parliament of Canada, but the parliament of every self-governing country under the British flag. We have endeavoured, as representatives of the people, to secure to them their rights and liberties, and preserve so far as we are able to, the control of taxation, a very important matter in times like this. We said: It is our duty, if we have any duty at all, to see that the government acts in accordance with the rules and procedure which are the known practices, traditions and customs of the House of Commons and of parliament. That is all we sought, that is all we ever asked. But we have at this time emphasized the reason for so doing.
We have pointed out that whatever the government may have done under pressure pressure upon themselves, pressure which they have exerted upon us, pressure for any reason that you like, leaving aside altogether the motive-whatever they may have done for those reasons and whatever, under pressure, may have gone through the house in the form of a statute giving them power, while parliament was not in session, to deal, without reference to parliament, with matters which should be the subject of legislation by parliament only, we could not undertake to give them those powers while parliament itself was in session. That has been the point, and that
is the whole point to-day. Whatever, for any reason, may have been necessary to deal with an emergency when parliament was not in session, whatever may have been necessary to deal with an Unknown condition when parliament might not be in session, cannot possibly apply when the king's representative in this country is surrounded, not only by his ministers but by the members of parliament whom he has summoned from all parts of Canada to deal with great questions of this kind. That is the position.
How can it be contended that it is not making a mockery of parliament for His Majesty's representative to cause to assemble members from all parts of the country to deal with a great question, only to have them told that they are to be deprived of their rights of dealing with such matters; that they must delegate those rights to the ministry of the day, in order to permit the ministry to enact by order in council whatever they wish? The Prime Minister says: in consideration of all this, we, the ministry, will reward you. the representatives of the people, by presenting you on the day following with copies of the orders in council which we have passed. I ask: Could a greater indignity to a parliament be conceived of than an action of the kind?
It is for reasons like this and for that alone, we have taken the position we have. AVe shall continue, and we must continue to take it, unless we are going to abandon for all time in this country, the authority, the supremacy, the rights of parliament and all that is associated therewith. AVhy have a parliament at all, if the executive alone is to deal in secret council with all such questions, pass laws, fix fines, establish penalties, award contracts running into a million dollars at a time, without any reference to the people's representatives who are assembled in this house? Does the government think, that, because there are men and women anxious for food, clothing and work, they are going to be so blind politically they will not recognize that there is a responsibility upon parliament to proceed in the right way to do the right thing? Nobody is asking the ministry to do the wrong thing. A\7e all agree that relief should be given. AVe all agree that, whatever amount the ministry says they need, we will give them, if only they ask for it in the right way.
What is left then? One of two motives alone can account for the attitude of the ministry. One is that the ministry must intend to do something which will not bear the light of day. There must be something they are determined to do which would not be
r	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
done by the members of parliament here assembled. I cannot conceive that such is their motive. What then is the only other motive? The only other motive can be that the Prime Minister of the day has said: I am going to take a certain course, and I shall not change from it whether it be right or wrong; I am going to be a dictator; I am going to do as I please with parliament, and this might as well be conceded first as last. That is the only reason parliament is being forced to proceed in this way. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada are not prepared, as has been said time and again here, to trust any government with powers of dictatorship as long as we have a constitutional parliament assembled in this country. Least of all will they be prepared to trust my right hon. friend with any such powers. He has been in office now long enough, not only for the House of Commons, but for the country to know what his tendencies, bis methods, his principles are in the matter of government. And I say, if for no other reason than, as shown here the other evening in the most conclusive language, because of the stand which he himself has taken in dealing with the House of Commons in many matters, this house will never surrender to him rights which have been won for the people through their representatives.
May I point out something else? I said that we were taking the course we were because it was the right course. As is well known, if you start on a right course and follow it, you never have to change. It is equally true, if you start on a wrong course and keep following it, you do not know where it is going to lead. It is certainly not going to lead to anything better; it is bound to lead steadily to something worse. At the outset, in regard to this measure, we pointed out to the ministry that, by taking a wrong course they would get into deeper and deeper water all the time. We wish to avoid :hat.
I should like to point out why the ministry, even now, should correct its course as speedily as possible. Assuming the motion brought forward this afternoon had not been moved, and this debate had terminated this evening, as would probably have been the case, with a decision that we would go into committee on the resolution. What would then have been the next step? We would have gone into committee on the resolution. What is the first question that would have come up? Assume that is the stage we had now reached. The chairman of committees would read the resolution, and, as leader of the opposition, I would be obliged to ask whether

it was within the competence of parliament to entertain a resolution of the kind. To what does the resolution relate? It relates to a dead act. It reads:
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.
Chapter 58 of the statutes of 1931 expired on March 1. This is March 22, so that the statute has been a dead letter for three weeks. It is a dead statute. Is parliament to be subjected to the further indignity of having to consider something that is dead, to amend something that has no life, something that no longer exists? The Prime Minister the other day, when we were discussing the salaries of civil servants, gave parliament the assurance that this cut in the salaries would end on March 31 of next year; that the act would expire at that time. What did he say about the expiry, so that all would be doubly sure, the civil servants after March 31, 1933, need have no fear about that act ever troubling them again? I have under my hand my right hon. friend's words as they appear on page 564 of Hansard of February 26. He said:
As the resolution itself indicates, the bill will expire on the 31st day of March, 1933. It has no vigour or life beyond that date.
He says that act will expire on March 31, 1933. The act it is proposed to amend says in its context that it will expire on March 1 of this year. If the Prime Minister's words are to apply in one case as in the other- and I do not think anyone can dispute that they are equally applicable-then this statute which expired on March 1 has had no vigour or life beyond that date. Are we, the people's representatives here assembled, to be asked to consider this dead thing, and to spend our time, in the name of affording unemployment relief, in seeing what we can do about amending something that doesn't exist?
Assume that it is ruled, dead or not, we must consider it. What is the next step? The Prime Minister comes forward with a motion to amend this wretched resolution that relates to this dead object. What happens then? Immediately the committee is confronted with the rules on which the chairman of committees will have to base a decision. He is faced with this: It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which it is proposed. This amendment is relevant to what? to a dead thing. Is the chairman of committees to place on record, for the guidance of subsequent parliaments, a decision that, simply because

Unemployment Continuance Act
one ministry has started on a wrong course, hereafter any government may amend a statute that has ceased to exist, and that it shall be the serious business of parliament to consider matters of the kind? I say that it is that kind of thing which we wanted to spare the ministry, which we wanted to spare the Commons, which we wanted to spare the country. I say that, if this resolution passes, that will have to be the first question which will have to be raised, and I submit in all seriousness again, Mr. . Speaker, that, in the interests of this parliament, and of the parliamentary institutions and rules and practices of this house which we value so highly, great care should be taken not to run the risk of having decisions given for any immediate purpose which may be of embarrassment to all parliaments of Canada for all time to come.
But more than that. Suppose the chairman of the committee rules that it is in order to amend this dead statute, and the amendment would be that we revive this dead thing, that parliament resurrect statute 58 and give it life. Parliament can do that, not by amending a statute that does not exist, but by introducing a new bill. The ministry can bring in a bill to-morrow saying, "By this measure the provisions of what was chapter 58 1931 are hereby re-enacted." That in all probability would be the equivalent of the terms of the new statute. That is a perfectly proper way to proceed. If they were determined to deal with the matter by chapter 58, that is the way the ministry should have proceeded, instead of proceeding by way of a resolution that seeks to amend something that has long ceased to exist and has gone into oblivion.
But supposing it has been ruled that the amendment is in order, and assume that after discussing it the amendment carries and the amended resolution carries. What question is raised then? Immediately you are face to face with other rules of this house, rules, again, which have been enacted by the wisdom of preceding parliaments to safeguard the public treasury, because all parliaments in past generations have felt that the most sacred of all their duties was the safeguarding of the public treasury. It is for that reason that the measures by which a ministry draws money from the public treasury are surrounded with more in the way of caution and safeguards than any other class of measures that can be conceived of and which may be brought into a. deliberative assembly.
What are the rules of the house in regard to measures which purport to draw money from the treasury? They must, first of all,
receive the approval of His Excellency the Governor General. We sometimes smile when we hear hon. gentlemen opposite repeat in parrotlike fashion that His Excellency the Governor General has been apprised of the subject matter of the resolution and commends it to the favourable consideration of the house. A great many think that is a mere form of words, but I hope I may assume that my right hon. friend has taken the same course as I did when Prime Minister, which was to obtain from His Excellency the Governor General a standing permission to make that announcement to the house in his name upon one consideration, that I, as Prime Minister, would take care to see that, if there was the slightest doubt about any resolution not being entirely in accordance with the general rules and practices of the house, such a resolution would be presented to him in advance so that His Excellency might have the opportunity to pass upon it. That is the only course a constitutional Prime Minister can take. The Crown, Mr. Speaker, still has some responsibility. It might not seem so in view of some of the things that have already happened in this session of parliament. It might seem that the Crown does not count, for anything, except to be swept to one side, but the Crown does count for something even in the affairs of this parliament of Canada; and the rule applies here.
Xow may I draw your attention to this, Mr. Speaker? The first question that must be asked of the ministry when they have chapter 58 in resurrected form before the committee for consideration is this: Has the consent of His Excellency the Governor General been obtained? We all know that His Excellency's consent has not yet been obtained. I put that question now to the ministry: Have you obtained the consent of His Excellency the Governor General to whatever bill is going to be brought in here later, following this resolution? You know you have not. It is not sufficient to say that His Excellency the Governor General gave his consent to the resolution now on the order paper in the month of February when statute 58 was still alive. Certainly His Excellency may be assumed to have given consent to the introduction of a resolution which related to chapter 58 while chapter 58 was still in existence, because His Excellency would then be -consenting to a course with respect to something that was vital, something that had a future. Had the proper course been followed, and that resolution been gone on with before the statute expired, certainly His
1390	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
Excellency's consent to the introduction of the resolution would have continued with respect to any bill based upon it.
But I submit that all that can be said with respect to His Excellency's consent is that it is applicable, unless expressly provided otherwise, to moneys that may be paid out after the bill relating thereto has received royal assent; it does not, except with expressed provision, apply to retroactive payments. A resurrected measure of the kind being thought of before becoming law would have to pass the Commons and the Senate and receive the assent of His Excellency. Until His Excellency's assent-not consent-has been given, expenditure of moneys under that act could not be made. When assent is given, it is for expenditures of money to be made under its provisions from the time it is passed; it is not an assent to retroactive payments unless consent to a resolution expressly mentioning retroactive payments has been given before the bill itself was introduced. The ministry cannot so construe it. They cannot put the crown in the embarrassing position of being a party to voting the moneys of the people for the purpose of meeting payments that have become due before the measure itself under which they are to be made is law. There must be some special authority in advance so to do. So I say to the ministry, even now, before you begin to bring the Crown into this position of embarrassment-the Prime Minister laughs. That appears to be the Prime Minister's chief role in this parliament, to laugh, to laugh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He remembers 1926.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And the more
we deal with seed relief for the farmers, and poor relief, and the like, the more the Prime Minister laughs. That is his chief contribution.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a shame, I admit, with hon. gentlemen opposite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The valley of the shadow.


Mr. ERNST:: The Prime Minister was
thinking of 1926.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say again,
Mr. Speaker, that the people of this country, and particularly the people of Saskatchewan, have a right to know the situation before they are again hoaxed in a matter of this kind by the present administration.
If a bill is to be passed, and something will have to be passed to make good payments which have been made or may have become

due since the first of March and up to now for unemployment and farm relief. There is existing at present no legal authority for any such payments; everything done in that matter since the first of March, if anything has been done, is illegal. The only way whatever has been done can be legalized is by this parliament at some stage legalizing it-in that event, a bill will have to be brought in sufficiently broad to legalize what has already been done illegally, and a bill to that effect will have to be preceded by a resolution which will have received de novo the consent of His Excellency the Governor General. The process will have to be started all over again from the very beginning before payments can be made in respect to all obligations undertaken in regard to farm and unemployment, relief between March 1 up to the present time. So I say that if we have been contending, as we have, for the right course to be pursued, it has been, amongst other things, to avoid all these pitfalls, to preserve the practices and the traditions of parliament, and to see that matters were expedited in the right way.
Let me say this: The ministry itself is not in ignorance of the correct way to go about obtaining money from parliament. During the course of this very debate, our proceedings were halted one day to receive a message from His Excellency the Governor General signed by his own hand, and there was presented to this House of Commons by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) further supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1932, totalling $1,059,474.33, and there was another supplementary estimate for 1931-1932 in regard to the Canadian National Steamships. Why was there no supplementary estimate, I ask, for seed and feed relief for Saskatchewan? Was that not needed just as much as any of the things mentioned in the particular estimates which were brought down the other day? Let me mention a few of the items in those estimates. Here is an item for External Affairs, Paris; something for Geneva; here is something for the Montreal harbour commission; here is something with regard to governor general's warrants; here is something for public printing and stationery; something for contingencies, expenses of committees and clerical assistance in the House of Commons; here is something for the Yukon territory. Is this question of unemployment and farm relief not as important as any of the matters mentioned in these supplementary estimates? Why, them, did not the ministry include in these supplementary estimates an estimate for the relief of distress in Saskatchewan? They

Unemployment Continuance Act
know as well as we do that an estimate of that kind might have been included in a single line on this sheet. All hon. members on this side of the house would have agreed to pass it, and it would have been thoroughly in order and regular. Therefore, hon. gentlemen opposite cannot say we have been blocking them in any matter of mere procedure. If they had taken the same procedure in regard to the relief of the unemployed and the relief of distress in Saskatchewan, as they have adopted in connection with matters of very secondary importance, they would have long ago brought in a supply bill and already had the moneys required.
Now .may I add these fui'ther remarks: I do not think the followers of the right hon. gentleman opposite have even yet a correct idea of what the ministry has in mind, or what its intentions may be. Last week, during the course of this debate, we listened to the remarks of the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald). What did he say? He said that the government is simply asking parliament for an extension of two months to carry out commitments already made. Throughout the country, the press has been repeating that statement; it has been saying that all the government is asking is to make good the commitments they have already made. I made it very clear that if such were the case we would end our oppostion at once. When the hon. member for Cape Breton was speaking I asked him, as recorded at page 1206 of Hansard, the following question:
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?
In reply to that the hon. member said:
That is the intention and justification for this resolution.
Then I made the further statement:
May I tell him that if the Prime Minister is prepared to introduce a hill based on the hon. member's interpretation given a moment ago, that is, a bill containing power only to meet the commitments that already have been made, we on this side will stop our opposition at once.
That was an assurance from this side of the house that, if all the government was seeking was to make good in the next two months commitments already made, we would stop our opposition at once. I say the mere fact that an hon. member of this house, a supporter of the administration, made the statement to which I have referred, and made it seriously, shows that hon. gentlemen opposite
do not understand even yet the intentions of the government.
May I outline the present position. So that there may be no mistake, let me repeat what I said before the debate commenced, and what hon. members on this side of the house have said over and over again. At the same time let it be remembered, we are on the eve of an Easter recess. Tomorrow evening at six o'clock parliament will adjourn until the following Tuesday. I desire to make it perfectly clear that, between now and that time, if the government wishes to proceed with regard to unemployment relief as they have proceeded with these other matters which they brought in in the supplementary estimates, we will do all in our power to see that the rules of this house are suspended to permit a supply bill being put through tomorrow afternoon and the necessary supply for relief voted before adjournment at six o'clock. I want the people of Saskatchewan to know tomorrow night, beyond all possibility of mistake, if they have to go through this Easter period without relief, who is responsible for the fact. They will know where the responsibility lies if the course I have suggested is not taken. I am making my speech this evening in order that the ministry, which has the forenoon to arrange such matters, may present an estimate and draft a supply bill in the same form as they have always done on other occasions. If they will do that, we will do all in our power to expedite its passage through all its stages.
We rwill go a step farther. There is on the order paper at the moment a motion to go into committee of supply, and an amendment thereto standing in the name of Mr. Heenan. Until that motion is disposed of, the house cannot go into committee of supply. If the government will bring down a supply bill, stating their requirements for purposes of relief, we will be prepared to vote on Mr. Heenan's amendment at once, and get rid of it so that it will be out of the way, in order that the house may immediately go into committee to consider the necessary supply for unemployed and farm relief. We would not press the debate on the Heenan amendment any further; we are perfectly willing to get it out of the way, provided that is in order to have the decks perfectly clear to proceed in supply with unemployment relief. There can be no mistake about our position in this respect.
At this point I wish to direct my remarks more particularly in relation to the province of Saskatchewan. Within the last day or two communications from Premier Anderson have
1392	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act
been quoted in the .press, and to-day a reference to them was made in the house by an hon. member from this side. In addition to the telegrams Premier Anderson sent out, he made a statement last night which at this time I should like to read. It is as follows:
During the past year Saskatchewan suffered what has been termed by people generally throughout the Dominion as a "national disaster." This came as a result of three successive crop failures, the failure of 1931 affecting directly one-third of Saskatchewan's population. In order to meet this situation, a provincial relief commission was set up and it has been serving the needs of 50,000 families throughout Saskatchewan.
These people will have to be looked after until another crop is reaped or at least until one is assured.
That is the statement by the Premier of Saskatchewan. He says those people will have to be looked after until another crop is reaped, or at least until one is assured. Any legislation based upon the measure the government are now asking us to consider cannot extend beyond the first of May. But the Premier of Saskatchewan states that that province must have assistance until another crop is assured, in other words, until, say, the 1st of September. Supposing we were to consent to the passage of the proposed measure, would it meet the situation in Saskatchewan? Certainly not, according to the statement of the premier of that province. He says the farmers of Saskatchewan will have to have sufficient supply voted to help them until they are assured of their crop.
Speaking to the people of Saskatchewan, as a representative of the province of Saskatchewan, as well as leader of my party, may I say what the Liberal party in Canada is prepared to do for that province. If to-morrow, Wednesday, before this house adjourns, the Prime Minister, or any member of his government, brings in a bill stating how much money the government requires in the way of supply, to care for the unemployed and for the relief of distress in Saskatchewan-in fact, for relief in all parts of Canada-not merely until the first of May, but until the first of September, we will, so far as it lies within our power so to do, put that bill through the house before Easter adjournment.
We will go even a step farther, so that there may be no mistake about our position. The Imperial conference is to be held next summer; quite certainly the government will want time to consider matters in connection with it. Once the Easter recess is over, there will be great anxiety to deal with fiscal problems and to get away from those which have to do with unemployment and relief. If to-morrow, 
the government will say how much they need by -way of unemployment and farm relief funds, not merely until the first of May, not merely until the first of September, but until March 31, 1933, and on their responsibility as a ministry will state the amount, I say that all hon. members in this Liberal opposition will do their utmost to see that the necessary supply required is voted to-morrow. In order that the people of this country, whether they be men or women out of work in our cities, or men and women in circumstances of distress in rural areas, whether they be grown-ups or children, whoever they are, may have the relief they require without delay, I now repeat that if this government will undertake to state its policy to-morrow, bring in a supply bill indicating what they need, place the amount at whatever figure they wish to put it, we, as members of this House of Commons belonging to the Liberal party, will do all in our power to secure the passage of the measure through this house before we adjourn for the Easter recess.
I should like to know if it is possible to go farther than that-but I am prepared to go farther. Rather than leave these people who are suffering in the different parts of this country-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I hope Hansard will record the jeers of hon. members opposite the moment the word "suffering" is mentioned. The moment that word is mentioned hon. members opposite begin to jeer. I hope the records of Hansard will show where they stand in this matter.
I wish to make our position clear; we recognize that the government is in difficulty, and that they have got into the difficulty they have through their own fault. We recognize that it is hard for a man with the temperament of the Prime Minister to retreat from any position, however wrong, once it is taken, but we on this side have no desire to occasion him further embarrassment than he is prepared to bring on himself. Our position is related solely to the rights of the people through their representatives in parliament, and to the dignity and powers of parliament. If a way can be found to uphold the latter and at the same time relieve the Prime Minister and his colleagues of further embarrassment we are prepared to join in taking it.
May I say this: In this parliament we are all agreed that relief is necessary; there is no question of that. There is no doubt a certain amount of money is needed. The only point of difference is this: Hon. gentlemen opposite

Unemployment Continuance Act
say, "We insist on proceeding under chapter 58, if we cannot so proceed, we will not proceed at all." We say, "Proceed under the regular rules of the house and we will give you whatever you want." But they insist, "Chapter 58 is something under which we have been acting for a good many months. We have become used to it, and we have made commitments under it." This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture told us that the government were anxious to continue under chapter 58 because-I have forgotten his exact words, but they were to the effect that it was less cumbersome, or something of the kind, than any other way. I took down his words, but I have forgotten them for the moment. Here they are; he said that it would mean less in the way of disruption with the provinces. I think the Prime Minister said it was a more expeditious way of dealing with things. Of course it is; the way of the Prussian autocrat is the most expeditious method on earth, but it is not the best method to be adopted.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking of methods; I am not referring to anyone in particular. I say the methods of the Prussian autocrat, or the Russian autocrat, or any other autocrat, are not the correct methods of procedure. We do not want these military methods brought into this House of Commons and put into practice by any political autocrat. I hope my hon. friend understands the meaning of what I have said. Autocracy is not the way to proceed where there is a democratic form of government.
The Minister of Agriculture says it would mean less disturbance if we could deal with this matter by an act under which the government have been acting already. The Prime Minister said it will be more expeditious and efficient. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said the trouble with dealing with this matter in the ordinary way in which the government does things is that the Auditor General checks up the accounts, whereas by this method the government can get away from the Auditor General. We have seen how the Governor General has been side tracked, and how parliament has been side tracked. Now the suggestion is that the we should side track the Auditor General. With his colleagues side tracked, who is left? We have no one left but the Prime Minister.
At any rate, these are the reasons brought forward as to why this measure should be passed. If this measure is so dear to the hearts of hon. gentlemen opposite, if that is 41701-88
the whole excuse and reason for it being brought in, I say take out these few words which constitute the blank cheque provision and substitute any specific amount you wish; make it any amount you deem to be necessary, $10,000,000, $50,000,000, $100,000,000, or as many millions as you like to move, and introduce the bill in that form, with but one other change: take out the words that give to the ministry itself, while this parliament i3 in session, the power to legislate by order in council in connection with peace, order and good government: make those two changes in chapter 58, bring in a resolution to revive the provisions of chapter 58 changed only in these two particulars, and I do not hesitate to say that hon. gentlemen on this side will help to put even that measure through this house. I venture that statement at the moment on my own responsibility, but I will say to the Prime Minister now, in the presence of all hon. members of this house, that I am prepared to discuss that question with the members of my party at to-morrow morning's caucus, and I will be able to tell him by twelve o'clock whether we will be prepared to help put the measure through in that form if it is brought in.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Tell him now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hear the members behind me say "Tell him now." I will tell him. I say to my right hon. friend that if he is so very fond of this particular measure, if he has entered into commitments under it, if he is so used to the language of it or if the provinces are so used to the language of it, that there is nothing-


Mr. RYCKMAN:: The hon. gentleman said it was dead, so how can it be dealt with?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad to see my hon. friend is not dead; I really am glad to see him looking so well, but may I say this to him-


Edmond Baird Ryckman: You said it was dead and could not be dealt with.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But I am trying to show my hon. friend how it can be resurrected; this is something he may be glad to know. Now may I say to the Prime Minister and the members of the government that, if they are determined to have this measure, because of its phraseology or for any other reason, if they will take out the blank cheque provision and the power to legislate by order in council with respect to peace, order and good government inserting whatever amount they deem necessary to meet all obligations; if they will to-morrow introduce a resolution to the effect that they intend to

1394	COMMONS
Unemployment Continuance Act-Closure
introduce such a bill, a measure similar to chapter 58, one which will revive the provisions of that chapter, one which will give it life-my hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue will be interested in this- a bill which will serve to revive the provisions of chapter 58 with only these two changes, that when that is done, if the government will move to suspend all further business of the house until the measure is put through this house, we of the official opposition will undertake to support such a measure, and to see if it cannot be passed through this house before the Easter recess.
Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, with this word: It is a very serious business for the people of this country who are in distress to be kept waiting for a period of weeks-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -because of the autocratic attitude of my hon. friends opposite, when, by following the ordinary rules of this parliament, and the known practices, customs and traditions of British parliaments everywhere, relief might readily be given before the Easter vacation takes place. I wish to repeat that having this in mind my purpose in speaking to-night was that the ministry may have to-morrow morning, and before this house meets in the afternoon, to prepare whatever measure may be necessary along the lines indicated; and in order that they may come here and present their measure to parliament, with the pledge- that on our part we will do all we can to expedite its successful passage through this house. I do this in order that at this Easter season there may no longer be doubt in the mind of any man, woman or child in this country as to the measure of unemployment relief and of relief of the distressed wherever they are to be found which the government is prepared to provide.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
. Wednesday, March 23, 1932