[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East) r I rise to a question of privilege. I see in a report in the Montreal Gazette of this morning the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), speaking in that city, is reported as having said:
There was no difference between Liberal and Conservative in any case, he explained. Both Liberals and Conservatives for instance, have'
Criminal Code-Libel
[Stage Direction]
joined forces and voted solidly against letting the dominion mayors present their case in parliament, and that was typical of any important question aired in the house. An amendment to the budget asking for a public works program had been ganged up on in the same manner.
First, I never voted against hearing the mayors of the dominion; I voted to sustain the ruling of the chair that the motion of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) was not in order and could not come under standing order 31 of the rules of the house. Second, I never voted against an amendment asking for a public works program. Third, if the records of the house are looked into for the last three or four sessions, it will be found that the hon. gentleman voted with the government a good deal oftener than I did. Apart from that, the statement may be correct.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 51, to amend the criminal code (Libel).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: The purpose of this bill is to prevent the uncalled for defamation of persons or groups on account of race, colour or religion. I would not have brought this matter up, sir, if it had not touched on a very vital and fundamental principle of national life because such defamation, cannot have any other effect than to set up race against race, religious groups against religious groups, and cause unnecessary dissension among the people of this country. This amendment to the criminal code is intended to stop and prevent offences of this nature. My plea is on behalf of all aliens, or citizens of foreign origin, no matter from what country they may have come, and generally speaking all citizens who happen to be victims of this kind of defamation, to the end that the unity of the country may be preserved and the disruption thereof prevented.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	Were repairs or construction completed on the Rideau canal at Brass' Point bridge?
2.	What was the nature of the work and the
total cost?	... Ilf* |

3.	What was the amount used and cost of each of the following: (a) lumber; (b) cement;
(c)	stone; (d) clay; (e) gravel.; (f) hauling stone, clay, gravel?
4.	What was the total amount paid in wages and to whom paid?
5.	Who selected the men for this work?
6.	Were any precautions taken to see that these men were taken from those on relief?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The work consisted of: (a) jacking up the swing bridge clear of the pivot pier; (b) enclosing the pivot pier (including the north rest pier) within a coffer dam banked with clay; (c) pumping the water out of the enclosed piers (stone-filled timber cribs) and removing the stone and timber of the old pivot pier crib down to clean bed rock;
(d)	placing 12 large rock-bolt-anchors and rebuilding the pivot pier in conorete; (e) replacing the pivot and swing circle, and lowering the bridge into place. The total cost of the above was $4,612.44.
3.	Amount used and cost of: (a) lumber, 14,078 ft. b.m., $644.29; (b) cement, 750 bags, $418.13; (c) stone, 24 cubic yards, $6; (d) clay, 264 cubic yards, $132; (e) gravel, 100 cubic yards, $140; (f) cost of hauling stone, clay and gravel, $408.48.
4.	Total amount of wages exclusive of teamwork was $2,387.88, paid as follows: N. R. Walsh, $190.08; N. Eastman, $193.60; A. Harris, $191.40; F. C. Ball, $171.20; J. Todd, $142.40; D. Kish, $105.60; H. Wise, $139.20; W. 8. Hogan, $139.20; H. Baker, $140.80; J. Donaldson, $104.80; H. Ducette, $102.40; R. Hagerty, $99.20; N. Veal, $100.80; G. Martin, $134; J. Seabrooke, $116; H. C. Peck, $107.60; J. Duffe, $48; W. McKane, $62.40; E. Martin, $49.60; J. Murphy, $49.60.
5.	The extra men required were selected in accordance with long established departmental practice.
6.	No information.


SENATE VACANCIES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Were there any vacancies in the Senate on February 7, 1933?
2.	If so, how many, what were they and on what date did each of those seats become vacant?
3.	Since then, were there any other vacancies in the Senate?
4.	If so, how many, what were they and on what date did each of those seats become vacant?
5.	Was each of the above mentioned vacancies filled?
6.	If so, when?
7.	If not, what are the seats which are still vacant?

Questions
8.	Did the government save any money by delaying the appointments to any such
vacancies?
9.	If so, how much?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Mr. A. E. Blount,
Clerk of the Senate, has submitted an answer to this question in a memorandum based on unofficial records of the Senate. Mr. Blount states that the Senate have no means of knowing the exact date when a vacancy occurs and that the dates given are based on personal knowledge and newspaper reports. The answer submitted is as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Eight vacancies: 1 in Nova Scotia, May 8, 1932; 2 in New Brunswick, December 27, 1932, January 11, 1933; 1 in Quebec, January 23, 1933; 2 in Ontario, August 8, 1932, November 10, 1932; 2 in Saskatchewan, August 1, 1932, December 14, 1932.
3.	Yes.
4.	Eleven vacancies: 2 in Nova Scotia, January 22, 1934, January 28, 1935; 1 in New Brunswick, September 25, 1933; 4 in Quebec. June 20, 1933, September 12, 1933, January 6, 1934, March 3, 1934 ; 3 in Ontario, August 25, 1933, December 1, 1933, June 25, 1934; 1 in Manitoba, February 2, 1934.
5.	No.
6.	Appointments were .made as follows: 2 for Quebec, December 30, 1933; 3 for Ontario, December 30, 1933 ; 2 for Saskatchewan December 30, 1933.
7.	3 in. Nova Scotia; 3 in New Brunwick; 3 in Quebec; 2 in Ontario; 1 in Manitoba.
8.	Yes.
9.	Such sums, based on attendance, as would be payable under the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act.
Note: The vacancies in Quebec are De la Durantaye, Shawinigan and Rigaud.
There are no specific divisions for senators in the other provinces.


LEO F. CAIN
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Has Leo F. Cain, barrister, at Fredericton, New Brunswick, been employed by the government or any department of the government in any capacity, since September 1, 1930?
2.	If so, in what capacity and what amount was he paid for his services?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Yes. August 14, 1933.
2.	Representing the Department of Pensions and National Health legally in the case of a prosecution. $65.


MONTREAL POST OFFICE-TRUCKS AND MOTOR CYCLE.
Mr. POULIOT:: Regarding the statement of the Hon. Postmaster General, on March 26. 1935, Debates, page 2265, what became of the eight trucks and the motorcycle mentioned by the hon. minister, since May 1, 1932?


Mr. SAUVE:: The eight trucks were sold to contractor J. E. Laurent.
The motor cycle was transferred from Montreal to Ottawa postal district.


EMERGENCY TREATMENT FOR VETERANS
Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	In cases of great emergency occurring when government offices are closed, are there any special arrangements made by the Department of Pensions and National Health to provide veterans entitled to treatment through the department with the hospital and surgical attendance required?
2.	If so, what are those special arrangements?
3.	Have pensioned veterans been informed as to whom they should call at night in cases of emergency, so as to receive the prompt hospital and surgical attendance required?
4.	Is there any special indication amongst the government's list of telephones in the Ottawa telephone directory with reference to that special official on duty from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m., if any?
5.	If, from lack of information, a veteran entitled to treatment through the department and requiring an immediate operation is rushed to a near hospital and is operated upon by a surgeon not on the official list of the department. will he have to bear all expenses incident to his hospitalization, or will the department accept the responsibility of such expenses at the pro rata of what would have been paid, had the patient been treated through the department?
6.	What is the hospital in Ottawa exclusively recognized by the department?
7.	What are the names of the surgeons in Ottawa exclusively recognized by the department for treatment of veterans?
8.	Have veterans of Ottawa been informed of the existence of such preference, if any, and how?
9.	Has a list of medical and surgical men on the official list, if any. been supplied to all pensioned veterans of the Ottawa district?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Medical officers are detailed for duty when government offices are closed.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes. Name, residence and telephone number of chief medical officer and of assistant district administrator are listed in Ottawa telephone directory.
Questions

5.	The department may occasionally accept responsibility for privately incurred expenses if the circumstances warrant such action. Each individual case is dealt with on its merits.
6.	The department has a contract with the Ottawa Civic hospital, but cases have occasionally been treated in the Ottawa General hospital.
7.	Dr. C. A. Young, a member of the Ottawa Civic hospital and the Ottawa General hospital, is the part-time salaried surgeon appointed by the civil service commission for general surgery and Dr. H. D. Courtenay for special surgery. Dr. William Hutchinson and other surgeons are paid a consultation fee if and when necessary.
8.	Pensioners in Ottawa have been informed of their entitlement to treatment through the department and have been notified that applications for treatment or other inquiries should be made to the district office.
9.	Pensioned veterans of the Ottawa district have been notified to apply to the Chief Medical Officer, District Office, Ottawa, Ontario.


BONAVENTURE COUNTY, QUE., WORK BY DAY LABOUR
Mr. MARCIL:: What works have been authorized to be done by day labour in Bonaventure county, from the 1st of January, 1935, up to date?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Gascons-Repairs to south and north
wharves	$4,700
Gascons West-(Anse a la Banbe)-
Repairs to both jetties	 1,087


GEORGES DUCASSE
Mr. FONTAINE:: 1.	Is Mr. Georges Ducasse, of Val Brillajit, in the employ of the government?
2.	If so, since when, what position does he occupy, and what salary does he receive?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	October 4, 1934. Official receiver under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. $150 a month.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT

Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	When will the farm loan scheme provided for in the. new act be put into operation?
2.	Where and to whom should interested parties apply in order to secure a loan?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	The act will come into operation when passed and assented to.
2.	Canadian Farm Loan Board, Ottawa, or its provincial officers.
IMr. Sutherland.]



TAX FREE BONDS

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What was the total amount of dominion tax free bonds in circulation on May 2, 1933?
2.	What was the total annual interest of those bonds during the twelve months preceding May 1, 1933?
3.	Was there any conversion of the said tax free bonds since May 2, 1933?
4.	If so, when and for what amount?
5.	Are there still unredeemed dominion tax free bonds?
6.	If so, for what amount and what is the annual interest of same?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Amount outstanding, $773,620,350.
2.	$42,095,764.48.
3 and 4. $169,971,850 of tax-free bonds matured November, 1933, and were replaced by a taxable issue. $276,687,600 of tax-free bonds became taxable on the same date by the terms of issue.
5.	Yes.
6.	Amount outstanding, $326,960,900.
Annual interest thereon, $17,529,544.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TIES

Mr. FONTAINE:: 1.	Has Mr. Georges Ducasse, of Val Brillant, sold' ties to the Canadian National Railways since 1930?
2.	If so, how much was he paid for them, where were they shipped to, and what was the cost of freight?


Mr. MANION:: There have been a number of other questions on the order paper this year in regard to this same matter. I have explained a number of times that I have no information and can get no information regarding it. The matter is one concerning which the railway take the attitude that they should not give out information. I have no objection to the hon. member writing to them directly, and if they give him the information I am content, but I have no power to get it.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Question dropped.



TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH JAPAN

Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Has the Japanese government approached the dominion government for an agreement or guarantee to increase the purchase of Japanese products?
2.	If so, on what lines of Japanese produce was it suggested that there should be an agreement or guarantee by Canada to increase the purchase ?
3.	What method of preference was proposed to be employed?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1. No. Some informal discussions regarding trade relations between Japan and Canada have taken place.
2	and 3. Answered by No. 1.



SEPT-ILES, QUE., WHARF

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the government aware that the public wharf at Sept-Iles was destroyed and carried away by a storm last autumn?
2.	Does the government intend to undertake the building of a new wharf this year?
3.	If so, what location has been selected' at Sept-Iles for the construction of such wharf?
4.	Will the money required for such an undertaking be voted at the present session?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	It is reported that the wharf was badly damaged and part of the outer end carried away.
2.	Matter under consideration.
3	and 4. Answered by No. 2.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. JEAN:: 1.	Do the specifications for the new post office building at Montreal call for any particular kind of stone?
2.	What is the kind of stone specified and what is the clause of the specifications respecting stone?
3.	To whom was the contract for the supply of stone originally awarded, and on what terms?
4.	Who is at present supplying the stone, and what are the terms of the contract?
5.	Is the stone being supplied at present and to be supplied in future, the one specified and from what quarry does it come?
6.	If the contract for the supply of stone has been let to another party, why has such a change been made?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Return tabled
herewith.


CURRENCY IN CIRCULATION, AND AUTHORIZED
Mr. DORION:: 1.	What was the total amount of paper currency chartered banks were authorized to have in circulation (a) at March 31, 1921;
(b)	at March 31, 1930;	(c) at March 31,
1935, the Bank of Canada being included in the figures at the last date indicated?
2.	What was the total amount of coins of all denominations whose circulation was authorized (a) at March 31, 1921; (b) at March 31, 1930;
(c)	at March 31, 1935?
3. What was the value of gold coin and bullion held by the different banks (a) at March 3,1, 1921J (b) at March 31, 1930; (c) f i March 31, 1935, the Bank of Canada being included in the figures at the last date indicated?
4. What was the value of gold coin and bullion held by the Department of Finance (a) at March 31, 1921; (b) at March 31, 1930; (c) at March 31, 1935?
Questions as Orders for Returns



DU CHENE RIVER AT THE MILLE ILES, QUEBEC

Jean-François Pouliot: Referring to the statement made by the Hon. Minister of Public Works on April 3rd, with regard to the digging and filling at the outlet of the du Chene river at the place called Les Mille lies, in the county of Laval-Two Mountains,-
1.	What was the depth of the du Chene river at that place (a) before and after such digging, and (b) before and after such filling?
2.	On whose property was put the soil, sand, rock or stone coming from the boulder shoal area mentioned by the Hon. Minister of Public Works in the statement referred to?
3.	Is the du Chene river navigable or not?
4.	If so, was (a) such digging and (b) such filling approved by order in council and, if such was the case, on what date?
5.	If not, did the bottom of the river in which and on which such digging and filling were made belong to the province of Quebec or to any private individual or individuals?
6.	If such is the case, did the government secure the authorization of the province concerned or of the said individuals before undertaking (a) such digging, and (b) such filling?
7.	On what precise date and from whom?
Referring to the statement made by the Hon.
Minister of Public Works on April 3rd, with regard to the digging and filling at the outlet of the du Chene river at the place called Les Mille lies, in the county of Laval-Two Mountains,

1.	Who recommended (a) such digging, and (b) such filling to the Department of Public Works with dates of the day, month and year?
2.	In what year were (a) such digging, and (b) such filling made, and how much time was spent: (a) for such digging, and' (b) for such filling?
3.	Was that work done by contract or by day labour?
4.	In the former case, were tenders asked for?
5.	If so, what was the name of each tenderer and the amount of each tender: (a) for such digging, and (b) for such filling?
6.	In the latter case, how many men were employed: (a) for such digging, and (b) for such filling?
7.	What total amount was paid:	(a) for
such digging, and (b) for such filling?
8.	From what precise date to what precise date (indicating day, month and year) were (a) such digging, and (b) such filling completed?
9.	On what length, width and depth was the said du Chene river (a) so dug, and (b) so filled?
10.	From time immemorial, was there any other (a) such digging, and (b) such filling undertaken at that place by the government?



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF STATISTICS

Mr. CHURCH:: What was the total spent annually on unemployment relief and direct aid to the provinces and' municipalities therefor during the years (a) 1921 to 1930; (b) 1931 to end of 1934?


Mr. CAHAN:: Return tabled herewith
Hon. Warren Delano Robbins



NOTRE-DAME DE L'lSLE-VERTE, QUE., PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Was any expenditure made by the Department of Public Works at Notre-Dame de l'lsle-Verte, Quebec, under Public Works Construction Act or otherwise, since 1930?
2.	If so (a) what was the total expenditure each year; (b) what amount was paid each year to each man for material and for labour?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Return tabled herewith.
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS woodman's beach, bonaventure, que.
Mr. MARCIL;
For a copy of all accounts for materials and paylists in connection with work done at Woodman's Beach, Bomaventure county, in 1934.



DU CHENE RIVER AT THE MILLE Sx.ES, QUEBEC

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all plans, sketches and profile plans in the possession of the Department of Public Works, showing any digging and filling at the outlet of the du Chene river, at the place called Lee Mille lies, in the county ot Laval-Two Mountains, since 1930.
For a copy of all reports, telegrams, resolutions, and petitions in the possession of the government, respecting any digging and filling at the outlet of the du Chene river, at the place called Les Mille lies, in the county ot Laval-Two Mountains, since 1930.
farmers' creditors arrangement act


Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of rules and regulations passed under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934. including scales of salaries.



UNITED STATES MINISTER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I am sure
that this house will consider it fitting that reference should be made to-day to a very unfortunate occurrence, the sudden and untimely death in New York yesterday of the Hon. Warren D. Robbins who was United States Minister to Canada. Mr. Robbins was appointed to this office about two years ago. He had then been a member of the diplomatic service of the United States for some twenty years or more, and had held posts in many places as representative of his country, among others Portugal, France, Berlin and Rome, also Argentina, Chile and Central America. Besides that he had at intervals served the State Department as advisor and delegate at various

international conferences. Mr. Robbins therefore brought to Canada an unusually wide experience of world affairs. He established very friendly relations here, officially and socially, with the people of Ottawa, and he and his wife made for themselves a distinctive place in the life of this country. During these two short years we have reason to appreciate not only his skill and fairness but also the able way in which he put forward the views of his own government, and helped to interpret his country to Canada and also our Canadian views to his own country. He was ill in New York for about a week; this was not supposed to be very serious until Friday or Saturday, and on Saturday night he passed away. He was only in his fiftieth year and therefore might have looked forward to many more years in the service of his country in the career in which he had so distinguished himself.
This government has already sent messages of sympathy to Mrs. Robbins and also to the government of the United States, but as I have said, it seems to me only fitting that we should make reference in this house to-day to this very sad occurrence, and should express our regrets at Mr. Robbins' most untimely and sudden death, and our sympathy with Mrs. Robbins and family. I would therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house to convey to Mrs. Robbins our feelings in that regard.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker,
may I say that I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. acting leader of the government in regarding it as most fitting that this house should express its feeling with respect to the untimely and sudden death of Mr. Warren Robbins, the late Minister for the United States at Ottawa. Mr. Robbins' passing constitutes the first break which has been occasioned by death in the diplomatic corps in Ottawa during the eight years of its existence. Although Mr. Robbins had been resident in Ottawa only for .two years, his kindly personality was such that he had come to be known by most of the citizens of the capital, and certainly by all of us who have to do with public affairs, and I am sure his death will be deeply felt very much beyond official circles. I had expected that my right hon. friend would make the felicitous reference he did to the appreciation which the government felt of the manner in which the late minister's official duties were performed. Personally, I, naturally, did not have any official relations with Mr. Robbins, but I was privileged to enjoy a

Reciprocity Negotiations
rather intimate friendship with him, and he always impressed me as a man who had uppermost in his mind the thought of furthering the best of friendly relations between the country which he represented and the country to which he came. He was by no means exclusive in his friendships and sought to have men, to whatever political party they might belong, feel that he was concerned above all else with what might best serve the common interest. As the acting leader of the government has just said, Mr. Robbins might well have looked forward to many years of useful public service. His death will be the more keenly felt not only in that it was so unexpected but because his own country as well as other countries have been robbed of his large experience and helpful spirit in matters pertaining to international affairs.
Personally and on behalf of all hon. members on this side of the house may I say that we would wish to join with hon. gentlemen opposite in having an expression of sympathy of the entire house conveyed to Mrs. Robbins and to the members of the family of the late minister, as well as to his mother, all of whom have been so greatly bereaved. Might I add that I think it would be equally appropriate to extend our expression of sympathy to the President of the United States in the loss he has sustained not only through the death of his representative in this country but in being bereaved of one who was also a relative.


George Halsey Perley: I may say, Mr. Speaker, that a message of sympathy is being sent the President of the United States by the King, through the Governor General and the minister at Washington.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, it was with deep regret that we learned of the untimely death of the Hon. Warren Delano Robbins, diplomatic representative of the United States to Canada. His death was wholly unexpected. The acting leader of the government (Sir George Perley) and the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) have already paid fitting tribute to his memory. May we in this corner of the house be associated with that tribute, and may we join with other members in expressing to Mrs. Robbins and her family our deep sympathy.



SESSIONAL EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. F. GARLAND (Carleton):: I
should like to ask if it is the intention of the government to retain and pay the sessional employees now employed, during the Easter adjournment.


Right Hon.   S@: The Speaker of the
house consulted with the internal economy commission, and it was considered that although this Easter recess is longer than usual, the staff should be treated in the same way they always have been treated at the Easter recess.



DISTURB AN CE AT PROJECT NO. 42

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. A. CAMPBELL (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: I wish to direct a question to the
Minister of National Defence (Mr. Stirling). I am sorry I was not able to do so before the house opened, but I have only just returned to Ottawa after spending the week end at my home, I understand that at project No. 42, which is under the Department of National Defence, there has been some considerable disturbance during the past week. It has not amounted to a riot or anything like that, but considerable amounts of goods were missing. I understand that the mounted police have discovered these goods but that no arrests have been made. Rumours are flying around-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Colin Alexander Campbell: My question is whether the government have been advised of this matter and, if so, whether they are taking any action. I mention it because the men in charge of the project-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
asked his question.


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Minister of ^National Defence):: I did not clearly catch
the remarks of my hon. friend, but I shall be glad to read them in Hansard and give him an answer to-morrow.



RECIPROCITY NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: The leader of the government was kind enough to promise me an answer to-day to a question I asked on Friday in connection with the progress of the reciprocity arrangements.


Right Hon.   S@: In reply I would say
that it is too early to make any definite statement as to the progress of trade negotiations with the United States. The authorities of that country have only now completed the public hearings required under their trade agreements act. No reciprocity negotiations are under way with Japan.

Long Adjournment-Mr. Lapointe



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon.E.N. RHODES (Minister of Finance moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I desire to make a few remarks concerning a matter which I believe to be of great importance to this house and to the country, and I intend to conclude with an amendment to the motion. I desire to speak-and I hope it is not too late-on the intimated intention of the government to ask this house to adjourn for the protracted period of five weeks. I believe this suspension is not in the public interest or in the interests of the country, and I wish to give a few reasons for my conviction in that regard.
Everyone will agree, Mr. Speaker, that when parliament is summoned for the dispatch of business it must be kept in session from day to day in a continuous way. I remember having heard! the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) quote Sir Wilfrid Laurier to that effect. A few years ago, the last time a motion of this character was before the house, this question was discussed and I well remember what was then stated by leading members of the house, some of whom are now members of the government and others of whom are still members of the house. I should like to take the liberty of quoting some of the expressions of view then given. There are many members of this house who were also members in 1926, when conditions were of an unusual character. The generai election of 1925 had been inconclusive, due to the fact that the verdict had not been decisive. Neither of the two great parties in Canada had received a majority of the votes, and the balance of power was obviously in the hands of a certain group of independent gentlemen who had been elected either as Progressives, as United Farmers or as Labour members. The government took the only course which was logical and constitutional under the circumstances, and summoned parliament to meet at the earliest possible date after the last writs of the elections had been received.

the same had happened to Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Robert Borden -indeed, to all the great statesmen of Canada.
However, the fact was that he was not in the house. The first business was to decide which party was to form the government of Canada for the period of that parliament. Immediately upon the opening of parliament the question of confidence was put before the House of Commons, the then leader of the ppposition, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, mentioning the fact that nine ministers including the Prime Minister had been defeated. A debate on the subject ensued in an endeavour to ascertain who had the confidence of the majority in the house, and the final division which took place on January 14 revealed by a vote of 123 to 120 that the then government should continue until the end of that parliament.
The following Monday, namely on January 18, the first business which must always be considered, namely the address in reply to the speech from the throne, was moved. The debate on this motion continued until February 1, at which time a division was taken on an amendment moved by the right hon. leader of the opposition. The address was not voted. I notice some hon. members smiling; undoubtedly they will remember the circumstances. On February 2, I moved:
That when this house adjourns immediately after the conclusion of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, it stand adjourned until March 15, 1926.
I must remind the house that at that time the Prime Minister was in the midst of an election campaign in the constituency of Prince Albert, that there was no minister elected for the province of Ontario, that other ministers had been defeated and that there was a very urgent need and necessity for a reorganization of the government, something which could not be done in the absence of the Prime Minister, or at a time when he was fighting an election in the constituency of Prince Albert. As hon. members will recall, the motion was strenuously opposed. I am not complaining; I am simply relating the facts, and laying before this chamber the doctrine expounded by hon. members then sitting in the house. I have many quotations, but shall refer to only a few of them.
At page 633 of Hansard for 1926, Sir Henry Drayton is reported as follows:
But there are other considerations, Mr. Speaker. The whole machinery of parliament, such as it is, is running. I wonder if hon. gentlemen ever stop to think what that means. It means that we have upwards of three

Long Adjournment-Mr. Lapointe
hundred employees, if not more-I do not pretend to give a definite figure, but I know my figure is approximately correct-at work in connection with this machine. Parliament was called, and they are all here. Commitments have been made, and everything is now to stop simply because a moribund government is to try to resuscitate itself.
I shall not quote the observations of the late member for East Algoma, Mr. Nicholson. At page 639 of Hansard the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) is reported as follows:
Now I say again that this government has not the slightest right to ask parliament for an adjournment for even one hour. The business of this country must be looked after. We have a great army of unemployed workingmen who hardly know where they are going to get their daily bread, and if this government remains in power much longer the people will be coming here and praying, not to heaven but to the government: Give us this day our daily bread. I say that the business of the country must go on; this government or some government must function. This government has proved itself absolutely incapable of carrying on, and' some other government must be put in its place.	_
Then, the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) the present Prime Minister is reported:
Now, look at another part of the speech from the throne. 1 observe, for instance, that they say certain of the departments of the public service will be consolidated with others, and government services more effectively coordinated.
Just as in this year.
There is a statement of a fact, or of an intention, at least, to implement a promise by legislation. I submit that this legislation must be known to this government; they must know now, they must have known when they asked His Excellency to meet this house; they must have known at that moment what departments were to be wiped out, and what departments were to be coordinated. Therefore that legislation must be ready for this house to consider. Is it right, or just or fair; is it consonant with sound and decent principles of integrity that they should ask this house to adjourn now in the face of that direct promise with respect to legislation? I ask my hon. friend then what departments of the public service will be consolidated, and if the legislation is ready. If he cannot answer that question he should not have put those words in the mouth of His Excellency when he met this parliament. They either know or they do not know. If they do konw we should be told: if they do not know they have deceived parliament and the people of this country.
Then at page 640 the same hon. member is again reported:
I name these things for this reason, because they indicate clearly that if this government was sincere-and I use that word not offensively-if it meant what it said by the language put in the mouth of His Excellency when it
met this parliament, then they have a legislative program ready for this house to consider. If they have no legislative program ready, they should have said so; but if in saying they have a legislative program ready they have deceived us, then I submit they are not entitled to an adjournment under any conditions.
And again at page 642:
That is a matter which doubtless they can settle with their constituents, but I know mine did not send me here to sit, then to adjourn for six weeks, and come back when the spring is here and the summer months coming on, when men grow listless in the discharge of their duties; but rather they sent me here at the season and time parliament is called upon to function to discharge my duties to the best of my ability.
At page 642 Mr. Bennett says:
If a program is ready-you cannot deny it, because if you do, you have put something in the month of His Excellency that was not true and have deceived the people-if you have the program ready, proceed with it. There is business enough to engage the time of this parliament till the Prime Minister comes back. There are trade treaties to consider, the reorganization of departments, and surely we do not require his massive eloquence for the purpose of enabling us to pass this legislation.
At page 643 he said:
I ask them (the government) to consider this: In all seriousness do they for a moment think that to ask this house to adjourn for six weeks for the reasons given, under the circumstances stated, is to do other than to bring into still greater contempt than they are now held,_ the institutions under which democracy flourishes in Canada.
My hon,. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) made quite a number of remarks, but I shall give only a few quotations. At page 644 he said:
It raises a very practical issue -with each hon. member in this house. We have come from various parts of Canada, and some of us from very distant parts. We have made our arrangements to remain here during the session of parliament to continue our residence in Ottawa until our parliamentary duties have been performed. Now the government proposes to put us in such a position that we shall have to disrupt these arrangements, make new arrangements at great personal inconvenience, and in many cases at great personal loss.
Then at page 645 of Hansard he said:
Have we not an interest in the matter? I submit wre have. The whole country is watching us to-day; the whole country expects us to continue to perform our duties, to advance and to pass the legislation which the government says it has ready and which it has promised; to bring down to the house.
I have so many quotations here, Mr. Speaker-. I have one from my friend from Mount Royal (Mr. White), a very witty one, but I will pass it over. There are many from
2506	COMMONS
Long Adjournment-Mr. Lapointe
the new member from East Toronto (Mr. Church), then the member for Toronto Northwest Centre, and he spoke with great eloquence. Others who spoke against the adjournment were Mr. Ladner, who is no longer here, Mr. Hocken, Mr. Bristol, Hon. J. W. Edwards, and I must say that some of them were rather vituperative in their language. Here is one from my horn, friend from Marquette (Mr. Mullins) at page 673 of Hansard. He was rather mild. He said:
I know my constituency and western Canada very well, and I know that those who sent us here to carry on the business of this country, and legislate, and legislate quickly, will resent any adjournment of this house.
Then the leader of the opposition of that day, Mr. Meighen, said at page 676 of Hansard:
What is the situation of hon. members here? They have come here and some of them have taken up their abodes for the session. Some have given up their homes. Their families are here. They are to be asked to sit for six weeks in idleness, or to spend it in practically worthless visits to their constituencies. They are asked to do so for no good reason, and for no reason imaginable, except to meet the inconveniences of the 'members1 of the administration brought upon themselves by their own folly. But what are the other reasons? What are the reasons against the adjournment which go deeper than the convenience of hon. members of this house? Is this session a necessary session? Is this country in need' of a lead from the government? Is this dominion in need of a solution of imperative and pressing problems? Hon. members of the administration themselves have never tired of thundering this in our ears.
The then hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) said at page 680 of Hansard:
But the government ask for a blank cheque.
That was a crime then. He went on:
They ask for blind authority from this parliament, without reason, without excuse, to agree to a lengthy adjournment.
Then my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), who is always very nice in his expression, said at page 728, quoting the English Liberals:
Mr. Gladstone said something along the same lines in -an 'article which he wrote in 1887. He said:	''Individuals may recover from even
serious sickness. It does not appear to be the way with governments/5 It is the opinion of all those whose writings I have had the pleasure of reading that once a government is ill it rarely recovers. This government is seriously ill. It has no more chance of recovery than if it were already dead and buried. In fact, I believe burying is about the only thing that has not been done to it so far.


Robert James Manion: Better than I thought.
[Mr. Lapointe.)


Ernest Lapointe: I am going to give a still better one. My hon. friend (Mr. Manion) went on to say:
I have another quotation which I ran across, also by a politician and a Liberal1-Mr. Spender was a Liberal!; Mr. Gladstone was a Liberal and Lord Rosebery was a Liberal. Lord Rosebery said: "Inevitable political catastrophe only becomes more overwhelming by delay."
And my hon. friend added, at page 731:
And if the members of this house are to go home for six weeks and ministers of the crown wander about the country to the four points of the compass, there will be less chance still of anything being done to stabilize matters in Canada. What we ought to do is to put out, bag and baggage, this government so-called which is in power to-day.


Mr. SMITH (Victoria-Carieton):: Past
history.


Ernest Lapointe: What does my hon.
friend say? Is he sick? The present Prime Minister at page 734 of Hansard said:
The truth is that the government of this country say, "We want an adjournment of this parliament because we want it." That is all- "because we want it." Not because there is any reason; not because there is any reason of economy that you can name. Here are a large number of civil servants brought together for the purpose of maintaining this House of Commons in session. They are to go back to their respective homes and a quarteT of a million dollars is to be lost-because it means that at least so far as service is concerned.
The Right Hon. Mr. Meighen said at page 676 of Hansard:
We are asked to go home for six weeks and do nothing more, and all this when the occasion is so critical, as described by members of the government themselves...
All these solutions which demanded attention at the hands of parliament can wait, in order that the government may take a varying and nebulous attitude before the constituencies in Canada and help repair their own fortunes.
I come to the last quotation, which to me is a very important one. It is one from my very good and right hon. friend, the acting leader of the house (Sir George Perley), who at page 785 of Hansard said:
Then I come to some other reasons why we object to this adjournment. The least important consideration is the convenience to members of this house, and I mention this fact as one of those to whom it would be 'least inconvenient, inasmuch as I live in the city of Ottawa. But it appeals to me strongly as most unfair and unreasonable to bring members from all parts of Canada to this city and send them away after a session of two or three weeks. . . . Then there are public reasons. There are many urgent problems to be discussed and settled, problems which I need not recount here. Other members who have spoken in the debate have referred to these matters, some of which are to be found in the speech from the throne while others have been discussed by members on both

Long Adjournment

Mr. Lapointe
sides of the house both in parliament and on the platform in the last election. The people of the country feel that these questions ought to be dealt with with a firm hand as soon as possible and I do not believe that they will be satisfied to have this government force an adjournment of six weeks.


George Halsey Perley: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Was the adjournment for six weeks at that time?


Ernest Lapointe: I am going to give all the details to my right hon. friend, and they are of a certain interest.


Mr. HANSON (Yorlc-Sunbury):: It's a great sham fight, isn't it?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend may talk about sham fights but if he is inviting me, I shall talk about him.
Those were the views expressed at a time when the Prime Minister was unavoidably absent and when many of the ministers could not be present before the reorganization of the cabinet. I call the attention of the house to the fact that at that time there was no legislation which exempted a newly appointed cabinet minister from appearing before his electors for reelection. An appointment of a minister meant a vacancy in the house and I must confess that the majority at that time was not sufficient to permit of many additional vacancies. These reasons were given day in and day out before the vote was taken. An amendment was moved by the then member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), seconded by the present acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley) and reading as follows:
This house having been called in session at the instance of the present government, and a number of legislative and other proposals submitted for its consideration by said government in the form of a speech from the throne, it is the duty of the house, should the address in reply to the speech from the throne be adopted, to proceed with the public business until same is disposed of

The vote was taken on February 5 and the motion to adjourn was carried by a vote of 120 to 112, a majority of eight. Immediately afterwards, on February 8, the debate on the address resumed. Other amendments were moved because the adjournment was to take place only after the address had been debated. The debate continued until February 16, when the then hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) moved the previous question in order to preclude more amendments being moved to the address. The address continued until March 1 when I was compelled to give notice that on the following date the debate would not be further adjourned. On March 2 the motion of the then hon. member for Nelson was voted
upon and the address in reply was also voted upon. This meant that the house would adjourn until March 15 but this vote took place exactly one month after the motion for adjournment had carried. The adjournment was only for thirteen days because of these tactics. During all this time the house was not transacting necessary business, all that occurred was a discussion of futile political matters to prevent the adjournment of the house. The will of the majority of this house was thwarted because there had been a majority vote on March 2 for adjournment. On March 15 the house resumed its work and my right hon. friend took his seat. That was one of the best times in my life because I was only too glad to hand over to him the work I had had to do during those hectic times. He then began the reorganization of the cabinet.
How can those hon. gentlemen who took such a firm stand at that time against adjournment ask us to vote at the present time for an adjournment of five weeks? This is the sixth session of this parliament and ordinarly it should have ended last year. Only twice has a Canadian parliament gone the full limit of its time. We were told the other day that the life of this parliament will end on August 18 but as a matter of fact it has already gone beyond the time normally given to parliaments.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: No.


Ernest Lapointe: It would be useless to
discuss this with my hon. friend.
Not only have we reached the limit of the life of this parliament but the people of the country have expressed in an emphatic way a lack of confidence in the present government. It is a well known maxim of representative government under British rules that the government must possess the confidence of the country as well as of parliament. I quoted authorities to that effect. I should like to refer to the expressions of opinion which have been given by the people of Canada during the last two years. There was a by-election in South Huron on September 26, 1932, and the Liberal majority was increased from 349 to 1989. There was a byelection in Yamaska, on October 23, 1933, when the old Liberal majority of one was increased to 84. This is not a large increase but the present majority is 84 times that of the old majority. At the by-election held in Mackenzie, on October 23, 1933, the previous Independent majority of 3,076 was changed to a Liberal majority of, 1,614. In the byelection held in Restigouche-Madawaska on

Long Adjournment-Mr. Lapointe
the same date, the previous Conservative majority of 548 was changed to a Liberal majority of 6,472. In the by-election held in South Oxford on April 16, 1934, the previous Liberal majority of 55 was increased to 1,493. In the by-election held on September 24, 1934 in West Elgin the previous Liberal majority of 1,437 was increased to 2,493. In the by-election held in Frontenac-Addington on the same date the previous Conservative majority of 3,371 was changed to a Liberal majority of 2,651. In Kenora-Rainy River cm the same day the Liberal majority was increased from 502 to 6,165. In North York a Conservative majority of 298 was changed into a Liberal majority of 3,687. In East Toronto the Conservative majority at the last election was 7,075. The present member won a personal victory, but he had 2,143 fewer votes than the Liberal and Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidates combined.
In every provincial election which has taken place during those two years the Liberal party has been returned to power, winning a decisive victoiy, and in every one of those provincial campaigns federal issues were generously discussed. Indeed I heard at eleven or twelve o'clock in the evening on the eve of the general election in Ontario the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in a slumber hour address to the electors of that province asking them to elect Mr. Henry. It is impossible to deny the fact that the Conservative party-and I am .sorry for many of my hon. friends opposite-has been shattered and has suffered the most humiliating defeat in its history. Popular discontent has started to grow into a blizzard. They have decided-and of course that was their business -to remain in office in the hope of some miracle happening before the end of their term to prevent their complete destruction. That is a policy of fear and distrust of the people. It looks as if my hon. friends opposite were shivering on the brink.
In this parliament vacancies have occurred which have not been filled. This session is supposed 'to be a most important one when a whole new program of social reform is to be put into effect and the necessary legislation enacted. Have the electors in those constituencies not a right to be represented in this house while this program is being discussed? In Halifax and Long Lake notice of the vacancies were signed on October 9, 1934; if I mistake not, that will be six months tomorrow. In St. Denis the notice was signed on October 30, 1934, and in East Algoma notice was signed on January 4 of this year.

I shall not refer to the vacancy which occurred recently in Montmagny. There is a vacancy also in Saint John, but it happened during this session, but the first three vacancies I mentioned occurred in the course of last autumn. Surely in an ordinary parliament, a government administering the affairs of the country in normal circumstances and not afraid of going before its judges, could have issued the writs and permitted those constituencies to be represented. Under such conditions I claim that this parliament has no moral jurisdiction for legislating.
This so-called social reform program has been propounded in the shadow of an impending election. The old order has gone, as we were told over the air and in the house. I admit the old order has gone as far as parliamentary government and constitutional practice are concerned. We had the speech from the throne on January 17, and I shall now refer to the program placed before the house in that speech and ask hon'. members how that program has been fulfilled, and whether we have a right to go home for five weeks when the greater part of this program has not even been considered. I read this in the speech from the throne;
Reform measures will therefore be submitted to you as part of a comprehensive plan designed to remedy the social and economic injustices now prevailing, and to ensure to all classes and to all parts of the country a greater degree of equality in the distribution of the benefits of the capitalist system.
How this has been done., I fail to see. Second:
Better provision will be made for the security of the worker during unemployment, in sickness, and in old age.
What has been done under this plan? We have had a bill to provide for unemployment insurance. This bill is still before the Senate and important witnesses are being heard before its committee on banking and commerce. We do not know whether the bill will bo changed there and whether we shall not have to work on it again when it oomes back from the other house. That is for unemployment insurance, but has anything been done for the security of the worker in sickness, as was stated in the speech from the throne would be done? Nothing at all, except the commissioners for unemployment insurance will have a right to inquire into the conditions of public health in Canada. As regards old age, nothing at all has come before us. Surely if the government is going to proceed with legislation affecting these various subjects, we

______ Long Adjournment-Mr. Lapointe
should have such measures before us and consider them instead of going home for five weeks.
Again I quote from the speech from the throne:
Action will be taken to ameliorate the conditions of labour, to provide a better and more assured standard of living for the worker, to secure minimum wages and a maximum working week, and to alter the incidence of taxation so that it will more directly conform to capacity to pay.
With regard to ameliorating the conditions *of labour, what has been done? The eight hour day bill is I understand also before the Senate and they are hearing witnesses before one of their committees. Even this eight hour day bill is not I think very satisfactory to labour in Canada. The bill to secure minimum wages and a maximum working hour is still on the order paper for second reading. Why should it niot be moved in the house so as to let us deal with this matter instead of adjourning for five weeks?
As regards the phrase:
_ To alter the incidence of taxation so that it will more directly conform to the capacity to pay.
What does that mean? The changes in the budget? I fail to see that they are altering the incidence of taxation in order to help those who cannot pay. However those changes are before the house and they have not yet been touched. We have not so far considered them and before we are asked to study the various changes of taxation, we are asked to go home for five weeks.
Again, the speech from the throne states:
You will be invited to enact measures designed to safeguard the consumer and primary producer against unfair trading practices and to regulate, in the public interest, concentrations in production and distribution.
That no doubt refers to the price spreads committee, and I do not see why the house should adjourn in order that legislation may be prepared resulting from the work of that committee. Every session we have important committees sitting on important matters, and legislation is prepared during the session while other business is before the house and while members of parliament are proceeding with their work.
The speech from the throne continues:
You will be invited also to enact measures to provide the investing public with means to protect itself against exploitation.
Well, we have been told that there would be a bill to make unlawful the issue of no par shares, but this has not been done so far. If the government is going to do it why not do it? Why not introduce legislation to that 92582-160
effect and let the members of parliament work on that legislation instead of going home for five weeks?
The speech from the throne proceeds:
My government has under consideration the adoption, throughout the penitentiaries of Canada, of a system similar to that which is known in England as the Borstal system, and is making investigations as to its operation.
My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) said when his estimates were before the committee last Thursday that he has that in mind, that it is his intention to establish this system, but that there are technical matters to consider and that he is going to send the superintendent of penitentiaries to the old country for the purpose of making inquiry as to how the system works there, which means further delay. Why not proceed with this thing, or why not have proceeded earlier? The chances are that even with the adjournment of five weeks it will not be ready until the next session.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: There is no legislation
required for this.


Ernest Lapointe: Then why not establish it?


Hugh Guthrie: Because we do not know enough about it.


Ernest Lapointe: But the minister stated
that in the speech from the throne.


Hugh Guthrie: But not as a matter for
legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: Parliament has nothing
to do with it then?


Hugh Guthrie: No, the Penitentiaries
Act would provide the authority to establish that system in the penitentiaries.


Ernest Lapointe: Then it was hardly
worth while putting it in the speech from the throne.


Hugh Guthrie: I thought it was an
important announcement.


Ernest Lapointe: The speech from the
throne continues:
My ministers have under consideration a plan for the reorganization of the government services so that they may be better equipped to discharge the onerous duties which devolve upon them. You will be invited to consider measures, the purpose of which will be to authorize the first stage in this plan of reorganization.
Well, nothing has been done so far as this new coordination of departments is concerned. If it is to be done, surely in the language of the Prime Minister when he was member

2510	COMMONS
Long Adjournment-Mr. Lapointe
for Calgary in 1926, why put it in the mouth of His Excellency if it is not to be done, and if it is to be done, why not do it instead of sending us home for five weeks?
As to the economic council, there was legislation as far as that goes.
Then we have other legislation on the order paper. There is one very important piece of legislation:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to establish a board to be known as the Canadian grain board with power to purchase, receive and take delivery of wheat, oats, barley, rye and flax-seed, or any one or more of such grains for marketing and to sell, store, transport and market such grains, and to provide for the appointment of such clerks, employees and assistants as may be necessary, and to provide for their remuneration and for the expenses of, and arising out of, the operations of the board.
This notice was given a long time ago, why has nothing been done in that respect? The grain producers and the grain trade are all anxious to know what is going to happen. The taxpayers of Canada, not only in the west but in the east also, are anxious to know the results of the operations of this mystery man, Mr. McFarland. I find it rather queer that while this thing is not discussed in parliament, when you open the morning papers, as we did this morning, we read an interview with this Mr. McFarland saying what he is doing and what he is going to do with the wheat of the west. I think that should be said in the parliament of Canada; it should be discussed here instead of in the newspapers. There is also the Canadian farm loan bill which is still in the Senate, where they hear witnesses in regard to it, and we do not know in what shape or form it will come back when it does come back.
I have related the work that has been done, or rather the work that has not been done. I claim, sir, that it is an extraordinary presumption on the part of the government to ask for an adjournment of this house under those conditions, and it would be extreme simplicity on our part to agree to an adjournment under these conditions. In the country there is anger and impatience; unemployment is raging. Is it fair to ask us to suspend the work of parliament for five weeks while there is such distress in Canada, and without any definite program of public works or of unemployment relief proposed for the consideration of parliament? If the government has a plan let them give it to this house. We are not living in an age in which mystery men can long hide their trick boxes. All we have had is a patchwork quilt of paternalistic proposals and a conglomeration of half-baked

measures. Our attitude the government surely cannot complain of, we on this side have exercised great restaint even under provocation. Nothing has stood in the way of the government's measures except the uncertain and doubtful validity of their methods.
Take the budget debate; my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has delivered his budget. There has been a discussion on it in which twenty-two Conservative speakers were heard besides the Minister of Finance, and they used fourteen hours and forty minutes of the time of parliament. The hon. gentlemen to my left had five speakers who used three hours and ten minutes. The Liberals had two speakers besides my hon. friend from Shel-burne-Yarmoutih (Mr. Ralston) and they were heard for an hour and twenty minutes-


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the hon. member for Temiscouata?


Ernest Lapointe: -and while this was going on every one knows the lack of interest there was in the proceedings of the house. Hon. gentlemen opposite were not even staying to listen to their own friends. So much so that the leading newspaper in this city had an editorial entitled "Parliament is Through." Well, I agree with it. This parliament is suffering from senility, and the government which is in control seems to be afflicted with paralysis. An adjournment of five weeks would be only soporific, it would be only a sleeping dose given to a dying subject.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are supplying the dose.


Ernest Lapointe: No, I am very much
alive, I shall prove it when the time comes. I am pleased that the acting leader of the house did not give as a justification for this adjournment the trip of the Prime Minister. We all regret his illness, and we hope that this trip will help him to recover fully. But that is no reason why the house could not and should not proceed. I am pleased also that the presence of the Prime Minister in London is to be rather a social function and that there will be no formal conference as in 1911 and 1917, when the Prime Minister had to go as an ex-officio member of the imperial conference, which has become a permanent institution. We were told by the acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley) that nothing would take place except informal conversations. I was glad to hear that statement, because there have been rather alarming reports to the contrary. The Round Table, which as everyone knows is a leading, well informed periodical in connection with imperial matters, in its

Long Adjournment-Mr. Lapointe
issue of March, 1935, at page 217 in an article headed The Commonwealth and the World, had this to say:
The _ gathering of empire prime ministers which is to take place this spring in connection with the jubilee of the Kings accession to the throne will be the most important imperial conference since 1926. That conference laid down the principles upon which the British commonwealth itself was to rest. The forthcoming meeting, though not technically an imperial conference, will be called upon to lay down the basis for the future foreign policy of the commonwealth in the very changed conditions that have come into being in the last nine years.
Further it says:
It is quite clear that decisions of the utmost gravity, affecting the policy to which both Great Britain and the dominions are to commit themselves in Europe, in the Pacific, and towards the collective system generally, will have to be taken in the near future. More than ever the British commonwealth is the chief unifying and stabilizing factor in the world. But it will only maintain that position if its members are agreed among themselves both about the facts with which they have to deal and the policy which they will jointly pursue.
Obviously those gentlemen were wrong, and I am very glad to accept the statement of my right hon. friend that nothing of the kind will happen. It would not be fair, especially to Canada under the present circumstances, because we on this side of the house and many people throughout the country believe the present government have not the right to speak for Canada on matters of such importance.
I have another question on which I should like to say a word, in connection with this celebration. There has been a report which has come to my ears, at all events, to the effect that advantage will be taken of this celebration to distribute many new titles of honour to Canadian citizens. I hope that will not be the case. Last year the house divided on this question and the Liberal party unanimously, the independents and even some of the Conservative members voted against this institution of titles in Canada. I claim that under the circumstances a title is only a Conservative badge, because the Liberals and other parties are opposed to them. It is not fair to the crown to advise the continuation of an institution which is obnoxious and abhorrent to a large majority of the Canadian people, especially when it is supported by a government which no longer has the right to speak for the Canadian people. Only last week we saw the effect of titles on the mentality of a man. After the name of the new governor general was announced, a gentleman who was on the last 92582-1604
list of honours gave an interview to the Toronto newspapers in which he said he had never heard of the man, and apart from that he was in favour of members of the nobility being appointed governors general of Canada. I am sure this gentleman was bom an ordinary Canadian citizen with a sound mind, but I am afraid the fact that he has been given a title has brought chaos to his brain and mentality. We do not want that sort of thing, and the sooner it is done away with the better.
In that connection I should like to make a suggestion. It is sometimes said that we who take this stand on this question perhaps do not represent the majority of the people, and that we have not the right to say that the people think as we do. There is a very easy way to consult the people and find out for all time what Canadians want in that regard. We are going to have a general election this summer. Why not take a referendum at the same time and ask every voter in Canada whether or not he is in favour of titles? That will not cost anything and it will decide the matter.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I claim that this parliament should be sitting during the jubilee festivities, as the imperial parliament will be sitting. His Majesty will even go to the imperial parliament to receive the address which will be voted by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Could we not have the same celebration here, with an address to the crown, with parliament sitting? The place of members of parliament during this celebration is in Ottawa. Every member of parliament should take part in the official functions which will take place in Ottawa on May 6, and parliament should be sitting here at that time. Last week a leading newspaper, and a Conservative newspaper at that, discussing this proposed adjournment said that public interest must be the only consideration for parliament in the decision of this matter. It is this consideration of public interest that actuates me m moving, seconded by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff).
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be omitted, and the following substituted therefor:
Whereas this seventeenth parliament has held five sessions -and is now concluding a sixth session;
And whereas the limit of five years fixed by the constitution as that beyond which a parliament cannot legally continue in existence will very shortly be reached, and parliament itself will be legally dissolved by constitutional limitation of time;
And whereas certain measures suggested iD the speech from the throne at the opening of parliament on January 17 have not yet been considered or introduced;

Long Adjournment-Mr. Guthrie
. And whereas it is obviously desirable that the time of the general elections should not be delayed beyond that which will permit of parliament duly concluding its sessional program;
Therefore be it resolved that this house is 'of the opinion that a period of adjournment at the Easter season beyond one week is not desirable, and that save for such brief and customary adjournment the public interest will be best served by parliament continuing in session until it has completed:
(1)	the consideration of those measures mentioned in the speech from the throne and not yet introduced;
(2)	the completion of the discussion of the measures already before the house and not yet passed;
(3)	the consideration of such legislative proposals as may be rendered necessary or advisable by the report of the price spreads commission :and the report of the special committee on housing.
. Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :	Mr. Speaker, we have just listened
with pleasure to a very long and interesting -discussion of a great variety of matters by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). Many of the matters upon which he touched were entirely apart from the motion he has seen fit to move. Certainly the hon. member has given us an historical resume of political events in this chamber during the rather hectic session of 1926.
Many will remember that nine years ago a rather odd situation developed in our parliamentary history, but I assert that that situation affords a very slight parallel, if any, to the situation now existing in this chamber. The session of 1926 opened under a government which had been practically slaught-. ered at the polls, and but for a crooked count : and also some ballot box manipulations in the northwestern part of Canada the government would have come to parliament in an gctual minority. The Prime Minister had been defeated by the constituents in his own riding, nine of his ministers had gone down -to defeat, and the great province of Ontario .was not represented in the House of Com, mons by a single minister. Under those circumstances any self-respecting government-.would have taken the course the people of Canada desired it to take, but the then government did not see fit to follow that course. They realized after the first vote in this house which indicated a majority of only two-
,[DOT] Mr. LAPOINTE: Three.


Hugh Guthrie: -a majority of three, that they were practically defeated. They -could not elect new ministers, they had only the tag end of a government in the chamber and had no Prime Minister entitled to . take his seat. Still they persisted in holding on and continuing in office. What did they suggest? Under conditions such as I

have just pictured they solemnly moved in this chamber that the house stand adjourned for six weeks merely for their own convenience. Now hon. members opposite strenuously object to a proposal to adjourn the House of Commons four or five weeks, despite the fact that the government can give good and substantial reasons for its request.
All the quotations made by my hon. friend this afternoon from speeches made in parliament nine years ago, while perhaps interesting as political history, have no application whatsoever to the situation with which we are confronted to-day. Let us take a practical view of what the situation really is at the present time. My hon. friend suggests, and correctly so, that in the speech from the throne certain legislation was forecast for the present session. The most important legislation forecast was of a remedial or reform order, and largely dependent upon the report of a single commission known as the price spreads commission, previously a committee of this house. Hon. members opposite state that in former years committees of the house have sat for long periods, have reported and that during the same session legislation has been framed following their reports. I say to hon. members opposite that never in the history of the parliament of Canada have we had a commission which sat practically throughout the whole of the last session and which has continued as a royal commission to sit from the end of last session to the present moment and as yet has not reported. The commission has heard thousands and thousands of pages of evidence and, according to the newspapers, has produced a report about 250 pages in length, which report discusses some of the most important problems before the people of Canada to-day, and makes some of the most important suggestions for the most difficult and involved legislation which has in the past been or will in the future be placed before the parliament of Canada..
This is the eighth day of April. Ordinarily when Easter has intervened there has been a parliamentary recess varying from one week to two weeks; that has been my experience throughout many sessions. So that under ordinary circumstances, with no abnormal conditions, on the 18th or 19th of April next we might expect an adjournment of a week, ten days or two weeks. That would have been the case, even if there had been no report from the price spreads commission.
Having regard to the situation actually confronting us the government proposes an adjournment two or two and one-half weeks longer than the usual Easter recess. As a

Long Adjournment-Mr. Guthrie
ground for our request we ask the house seriously to consider the legislation we have yet to prepare and pass through the house.
I submit that legislation could not fairly be drafted and considered under two or three weeks. I know something whereof I speak, so far as the preparation of involved and intricate bills is concerned, because I am sorry to say many difficult bills have to be prepared in the Department of Justice. Two or three weeks time would be required to prepare the necessary legislation, and the work of drafting cannot be begun until the report, which up to the present time is not before us, has been thoroughly considered. If that alone were the reason for asking the adjournment I submit our grounds would be sufficient to warrant an adjournment to May 20.
But there are additional reasons, as every person knows, for asking a longer adjournment at this time. One reason is that the head of this government, the Prime Minister of Canada, the minister who has taken the most active interest- in the whole sessional program thus far presented and who will be mainly responsible for the program afterwards to be presented, will be absent from Canada until May 18 or 20. He is the head of the government; he is the first minister of the crown; he is the leader of the House of Commons, and I submit it is not only7 essential but absolutely necessary that he be present in this chamber to guide our deliberations when these important measures are introduced and carried through the house. Would any person suggest for one moment that the Prime Minister should continue his duties here rather than attend the silver jubilee in England? I submit any proposal of that kind would receive absolutely no support either in this chamber or throughout the country. He is bound to go to England; it is his duty to go; it is his privilege to go, and it would be a tremendous disappointment to the Canadian people were he not present on that wonderful occasion. If I am correctly informed-and I believe I am -the hon. member for Quebec East need not worry about imperial conferences which are going to take place in London or which would bind Canada in the future. My hon. friend need not pay much attention to the Round Table article which he read to the house. It has been stated in this chamber by the acting Prime Minister that there will only be informal conversations between the Prime Ministers of the self-governing dominions and the members of the British government. It is very fitting and proper that these conversations should take place, and it would be better in my judgment if they took place more frequently than they do.
In our parliamentary history there is an exact parallel for the present situation, an-excellent parallel but one that my hon. friend-hardly mentioned in his remarks this afternoon. He was a member in this chamber in the year 1911, so was I. There was a corona-' tion ceremony to take place in London in 1911.	The	coronation	was to	take place inGreat	Britain in the	month	of June, andhis present	Majesty	was to	be crowned.There was also preliminary and concurrent with that event an imperial conference. The' Prime Minister of Canada was not only-invited to the conference but invited also to the coronation. I had the honour of being present at the coronation as one of the delegates	from	Canada.	I think	that SenatorBeland and Senator Casgrain of the upper house and mj'self are probably the only ones of that delegation still remaining in public life, although I am not quite sure. I remember the pride we felt as the Prime Minister of Canada walked down the aisle of Westminster Abbey, the great representative of-this country on that important occasion, and I rejoice to know that our present Prime Minister will be present on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the reign of that same monarch. When the question was raised in parliament in the session of 1911, Sir Robert Borden, then Mr. Robert Borden, was the leader of the opposition, and what was his attitude in regard to the matter? What did Sir Wilfred Laurier request? An adjournment of four or five weeks? No, an adjournment of two months in the middle of the session. The adjournment was granted, on the nineteenth of May, and ex-, tended to the eighteenth of July. Was there any question of not granting one or, two month's supply on that occasion? No,, supply was readily voted. The way was-cleared, and the Prime Minister of Canada attended the conference and attended the coronation, and parliament stood adjourned for two straight months save one day. Such was the attitude of the leader of the opposition in the then House of Commons. Mr. Robert Borden on that occasion expressed his pleasure and delight to concur in the proposal to grant Sir Wilfred Laurier the adjournment of two months which he requested. I have his language on that occasion before me now. Mr. Robert Borden, on the motion to adjourn, said at page 8712 of the Hansard of 1911:	'
In conclusion I can only say that I am very-happy indeed that the Prime Minister will he able to attend, both the imperial conference and the coronation.

Long Adjournment-Mr. Guthrie
And he did not divide the house upon the motion to grant a two months' adjournment. My hon. friend has endeavoured to cite precedents. This parliament by law certainly continues until the eighteenth of August. I know that there is a rather nice legal question whether it does not perhaps continue for a longer period until the date the last of the election writs was returned, but I can only repeat what I answered to my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition a day or two ago in reply to his question, that it has been the invariable practice to treat the date mentioned in the proclamation of the election for the return of the writs as the actual expiring date of that parliament. Parliament can legally exist certainly until the eighteenth of August. Oh but, my hon. friend from Quebec says, that such has not been the custom in the past. Well, it has been merely a question of the whim of the then government or of the then Prime Minister. I remember a very prominent Liberal chieftain in this country who said to me one day, "Guthrie, the time to go to the country is when you can win." That I think has been the guiding principle at every dissolution, and it is because we think we can win, that we are going in due time to the electors.


Mr. HANBURY:: You will never have an
election in that case.


Hugh Guthrie: Oh yes, we will have an
election and we will be on this side of the house when the election is over.
What I submit, Mr. Speaker, is that we have made a reasonable and a proper request for an adjournment. I am not going to deal with many of the questions mentioned by my hon. friend from Quebec East. He mentioned the budget and the time it occupied in this house. We are all glad that the budget did not occupy much time but the budget did not lend itself to adverse criticism.
I notice that my hon. friend also touched upon the Borstal system and some other matters mentioned in the speech from the throne. But the real ground for this adjournment, Mr. Speaker, is the preparation of necessary legislation as a consequence of the report of the price spreads commission, expected this week. Any man that says he can deal within two or three weeks with the price spreads report, and the important questions which the commission has considered and developed, does not know the task he has ahead of him. We expect when we come back in May that all such legislation will be

ready, and what is more, we feel confident that the Prime Minister will be in his place to direct the proceedings of the house.
I am very glad to conclude these remarks by quoting the support of the Toronto Globe for this proposal as it appears in an editorial in the issue of to-day. The Globe says:
Liberals and independent members have protested against the long suspension of the sittings, and in some of their contentions there is much logic. Nevertheless, the unusual length of the recess will not be without its all-round advantages. Most Canadians will feel that it is eminently desirable that the dominion shall be represented by its Prime Minister at the Ring s jubilee ceremonies in London on May 6. There will be general rejoicing at the news conveyed by Sir George Perley that the improvement m Mr. Bennett's condition justifies every hope that he will be well enough to make the overseas journey and take his part in the festivities.
True, it might have been possible, as the opposition leader suggested, to proceed with business in the Prime Minister's absence under arrangements which would permit Mr. Bennett to be present before prorogation. But, as the acting Prime Minister intimated, there is much to be done in the preparation of legislation, especially that proceeding from the price spreads and housing reports.
Time and thought will be required in the framing of legislation which seeks to set right the many economic and social injustices revealed in the voluminous reports. It will be in the public interest that action shall not be hasty and ill considered, but rather that it shail represent judgments reached after earnest study and proper correlation of details.
These are very sound reasons for granting this adjournment, supported by the leading Liberal organ in the province of Ontario and probably in the whole dominion. Such is the case which I have been endeavouring to make, made probably far better by the Globe than any language of mine could make it. I appeal to hon. members in every part of the house that the proposal to adjourn is reasonable, it is practical, it is businesslike. It is what any government, I care not what government might be in power, would offer under similar circumstances.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guysborough):: Mr. Speaker, to my mind the amendment moved by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) is the most important which has been moved in this house during the twenty sessions I have had the honour of attending this parliament. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) was able to accept the present position *which he occupies without appealing to his constituents. He has referred to this amendment as a sham but let me say to him that there are hon. members in this house and

Long Adjournment-Mr. Duff
people in this country who have just as good an idea of the conditions in this country as he has. I do not think it becomes one of His Majesty's privy councillors to make such a remark. If we are going to talk about shams we do not need to look to this side of the house or to hon. members on this side who feel that they should either move such an amendment or do as I have done, second it. Let me say to my hon. friend that when the people of this country read of this amendment in tomorrow's papers they will not consider it a sham. Many of these people have already come to the conclusion that this is a government of sham and camouflage and they will consider a motion to adjourn this house for six weeks as nothing more than a sham. I intend to try to show that there is no necessity for such an adjournment.
Because the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) wants to attend the jubilee celebration is no reason why this house should be adjourned. We all sincerely regret that because of hard work the Prime Minister has been laid up on a sick bed for a number of weeks, but we have not been going around the country, as was done last year, to tell of the terrible physical condition of certain public men. I believe I voice the sentiment of all hon. members when I say I regret exceedingly that the Prime Minister has been ill. We on this side of the house want him to get well; the people of the country want him to get well. We want the Prime Minister to be able to lead his party whether it appeals to the country tomorrow or at the eleventh hour of the last day they can hold on to office. That is our position with regard to the Prime Minister.
I believe I have some idea of what the business people of this country are thinking. They want this government to go on with the business of parliament so that the session can be concluded as quickly as possible. My hon. friend read an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Globe. That newspaper is generally considered as being a Liberal newspaper but my opinion gained from a reading of it for a number of years is that it is independent. I should like to quote from an interview given by the gentleman who owns the Truro News, a Conservative paper.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Duff: I do not know why my hon.
friends should laugh because there is no question but that the proprietor of this newspaper is a Conservative. The article reads:
A. R. Coffin returned to Truro Friday from a two weeks' business trip to Montreal, New York and Philadelphia.
It concludes:
Speaking with the editor Mr. Coffin expressed the opinion that business in Canada shows an indication to slow up until after the general election and until the question of governmental policy is definitely settled so that industrialists in particular can feel safe to take the road forward.
The business people of this country want us to stay here until the business is completed, no matter how long or short a period it may take. Let me tell the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) that we are not acting as the opposition did in 1926 and at other sessions. We realize that the quicker this legislation is passed the better it will be. The legislation suggested by the bedtime stories the Prime Minister told in January should be brought down and passed so that this government may have the full responsibility of such legislation. They can then appeal to the country and let the people decide whether or not they are in favour of returning this government to power.
The proposal for this adjournment has given us an opportunity to judge just what kind of a government we have on the treasury benches. They came to us a few days ago and suggested an adjournment but they did not know the exact date on which the adjournment was to commence. The acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley) has said that he is willing to leave it to us to decide when we shall go home before Easter. He has not named the exact date for the adjournment as has always been done. This shows that the government does not know what they should do. As I said a moment ago, we all regret the illness of the Prime Minister but is it fair that 244 members of this House of Commons and 86 members of the Senate should have to leave here with our business incomplete to go home for six weeks and then return on the 20th May because of that illness? We will all be put to great expense and inconvenience. The public affairs of the country should not be treated in that way. Apparently there has been considerable criticism of this proposed long adjournment and the other day my right hon. friend threw out a sop to the members of parliament when he said that they would receive their travelling expenses to and from their homes. I say to him that that should not be necessary. After all, the taxpayers of this country will have to pay this money. Because one man is not able to attend to his parliamentary duties, the taxpayers of the country must pay the travelling expenses of 244 members of the House of Commons and 86 senators
Long Adjournment-Mr. Duff

The announcement is made to-day by the acting Prime Minister that the employees attached to the House of Commons and the Senate will be paid their salaries during this six weeks adjournment. I am in favour of paying good wages as I believe the labourer is worthy of his hire but I say to the acting Prime Minister and the ministers who sit behind him that they have no right to take the people's money to pay these employees for six weeks. These employees will not be doing anything and it is not necessary. The fact that this statement has been made is not going to settle this matter in the minds of the electors of the country.


Mr. MACOOUGALL:: It is the fair thing to do.


William Duff: Yes, it is the fair thing to do; but if anybody is going to pay those sessional employees, it is the members in the house who will vote against the amendment and the members of the government which is asking for this adjournment, who should pay, and not the taxpayers, 700,000 of whom are out of employment while the rest are struggling along the best way they can. If my hon. friend) and his colleagues want to pay those employees, well and good; I have no objection to that, but the government has no right to take the taxpayers' money in order to pay the stenographers, sessional clerks and everybody else for the next six weeks while this adjournment is in progress.
We had a very interesting discussion of this matter by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). He rather laughingly suggested that we should not go back to the days of 1926 and read in the house statements made by him and others during that period. However history has a way of repeating itself, and sometimes we cannot do better than go back in history in order to discuss certain matters in connection with public affairs or anything else. He said that there was no parallel between what is happening to-day and the reason for asking this adjournment and the situation in 1926. The Minister of Justice is quite correct and I agree with him, but the situation to-day is greately exaggerated in comparison with what it was in 1926. It is true that in that year we had a certain political issue that was not settled perhaps as well as it might have been, but the economic condition then was entirely different from what it is to-day. People throughout this country, men in employment, men in business are anxious that this government should bring down all its legislation and should appeal to the electorate at the earliest possible moment. (Mr. Duff.]
So I say to the Minister of Justice that there is no parallel between financial and economic conditions in 1926 and to-day.
My hon. friend also referred to the fact that in 1926 the then government did not have very many ministems elected, and he told us that in Ontario no ministers were elected. As I said a moment ago, the only way in which this government can appoint ministers is by act of parliament; now that the act has been changed, they do not have to go to the country. But even in the constituency of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson), if he had had to appeal to his constituents for reeleetion, I have no hesitation in saying that there would be a great difference between the vote he received in 1930 and the one he is likely to get in the next general election. Therefore, while those ministers were defeated at that time, I have no doubt the same fate will overtake many ministers of *this government. We must not forget also that the Canadian people have spoken in every by-election. They did not have a chance in connection with ministers, but whenever they had a chance, they voted against the government with very large majorities.
I do not know whether the Minister of Justice or I should discuss the matter of the price spreads commission, but perhaps I may say just a word. I agree with him that this commission has laboured strenuously for more than a year, and I understand it has cost the country some $560,000. I have not seen the report and I do not know who is giving out the information. The ex-Miaister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) has of course on platforms and in pulpits been giving out information as to what the commission should or should not do and so forth. As to whether this was -the proper way to proceed or not I have no hesitation in saying it was against all parliamentary usage. This is the first time in the history of the country that the report of a commission before being brought down, has been made the subject of broadcasts throughout the dominion and speculation as to what it is likely to contain. The newspapers must have got their information somewhere, and from press reports it looks to me, if I may say so without offence, that the mountain has laboured and brought forth a mouse. After spending $560,000; after bringing auditors from all over Canada to go into the books of different concerns; after bringing witnesses from all parts of the dominion and after paying special investigators huge sums of money, what does this report in the newspapers tell us? Practically all this commission asks the government or parliament to do is

Long Adjournment-Mr. Duff
to appoint seven or eight other commissions. In other words, we are to appoint seven or eight other commissions to look into the business of the Canadian people. We are going to have, I suppose, doctors, lawyers, professors and everybody else trying to run the business of the country by different commissions as is being done under the so-called Marketing Act instead of men trained in various industries. If that is the only suggestion this commission can make, then they have not dealt properly with the price spreads investigation. However I am willing to wait for the report; perhaps after all there may be something good in it. But I do not agree with the government that it is necessary to have a six weeks' adjournment m order to give them time to consider the report of the price spreads commission. Of course in this country under our democratic system there are certain things which are kept secret. For instance the meetings of the cabinet are not supposed to go out to the public; meetings of commissions in camera are not supposed to be made public; but you, sir, will agree with me when I say that t-he government, not to-day, not last week but for perhaps weeks or months have known from time to time what this commission had in their minds and what they were going to report. So there was no difficulty in my hon. friends, who sit on the treasury benches, the members of the government, drafting certain legislation with regard to the report which the price spreads commission will make. If I am not mistaken, the Prime Minister in those wonderful fairy tales which he gave us over the radio in January referred to the legislation which would be brought down in connection with the price spreads investigation. He had advance information, and if he knew practically what should be done, why should we wait not only from January to April before the government is ready with its legislation but for another six weeks?
While we regret the Prime Minister's absence, I think I may say without offence that we have no guarantee that he will be able to return to parliament by May 20 even after a long adjournment, although of course we all hope he will get back. I want to say this to the acting leader of the government, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Postmaster General and other members of this government: Under the circumstances you are not doing so badly. We have treated you pretty decently and fairly; we have helped you with the legislation; we have not held up any. If we had held up legislation; if we had fought every item introduced by the government for a week or ten days or longer as my hon. friends across the floor did in 1926,
there might be some cause for complaint. But we have helped the acting leader of the government, and in the interests of the country, seeing that he has done fairly well under the circumstances, he should carry on, bring down the legislation and deal with it. If we are to adjourn, we should adjourn from Thursday of holy week until the following Tuesday when we should proceed to deal with the public business no matter how long or short a time this may take. But it is not in the interests of the taxpayers and the business men who are waiting for some lead from somebody, from either this government or a new one, that we should have this long adjournment at this time. If there is anything in my hon. friend's argument that the reason for this adjournment is that they want the Prime Minister to go to the jubilee celebrations and also that they are embarrassed by his absence, as I assume they are to a certain extent, why did not my right hon, friend ask for an adjournment some eight weeks ago? From the bulletins which were being issued and the statements of the doctor regarding the Prime Minister's health the acting Prime Minister several weeks ago, must have known that the Prime Minister could not come back to this house for six or eight or ben weeks. That was the time to ask for an adjournment, if he and his colleagues could not get along without the Prime Minister. But why ask for it now, when the Prime Minister is getting better and the government is getting along fairly well with its legislation? Why send 244 members of parliament and 84 senators back to their homes and disrupt the whole business of parliament and of people who have business to do in this country?
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) made another excuse for the long adjournment. He said: If we adjourn now we would get through the business of the house and there would likely be very great criticism in the country because the government would not appeal to the people within a short time after the house prorogued. He said that the time to go to the country is when you can win. Well, that is an intimation to the people of the country that the Minister of Justice and bis colleagues-because I assume he was speaking for them-realize that they dare not face the people now. They have to wait until the last minute of the eleventh hour, but they will find it will make no difference no matter when they dissolve this house. It is most unfair. We shall find that the writs will be issued at the very last minute, and the people will be given a chance to defeat this government only at the very last day that the election can possibly be held.

Long Adjournment-Mr. Duff
The Minister of Justice also said that the reason that we on this side did not criticize the budget or speak against it was that it was not open to criticism. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think everyone will admit that there was not much in the budget except the figures, and the financial statement gives perhaps the correct figures of the financial standing of the country but even then it is nothing to write home about. We did not criticize the budget-why? Because it is a diabetic budget. We had a diabetic budget two years ago when there was a tax of two cents a pound put on the poor people's sugar, and this year they bring in another diabetic budget. Last year they reduced the special tax on sugar to one cent a pound, this year they did not take off that one cent, but they took the duty off biscuits which are used for people who have Bright's disease. That is the kind of budget they give us.
It seems to me, sir, that the government of this country is not treating this house right or treating the people of this country as they should be treated. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) read a number of quotations from what some hon. members of parliament said with regard to the adjournment in 1926. They show conclusively that the present Prime Minister, who no doubt is more responsible for asking for this long adjournment than anyone, in 1926 fought with all the vigour he could against a long adjournment. It does not make any difference what the reason was, the fact is that the present Prime Minister fought against it. Not only did he, but Sir Henry Drayton had this to say:
Certainly before this motion should ever pass, the house ought to know what this government intends to do in the vacation.
Now we would like to know what this government intends to do in this vacation. It is not enough for them to say that the Prime Minister is going to the jubilee and they want to wait until he comes back. It is not enough to say, as the Minister of Justice said, that they want to bring in legislation following the report of the price spreads commission, because that legislation could have been ready long before this. Sir Henry Drayton said about the government of that day, we should know how this broken-up, broken-down government is to be reconstructed. I say that the reason for this adjournment is to try by some sleight-of-hand method to reconstruct this government and its policy before they go to the country. They realize that the radio addresses of the Prime Minister of January last fell flat; in my opinion and in the

opinion of many the Prime Minister is a poor politician-he should have held these speeches back until he was ready to come to parliament with some question on which he could force dissolution so that he could go to the country on it. But instead of doing that he gave himself away in these speeches which he made over the radio, with the result that the people of the country do not take any stock either in his promises or his dealt-bed performances.


Mr. LOUCKS:: He does not believe in
playing party politics.


William Duff: The hon. member was nominated as a Tory a few days ago, was he not? The Prime Minister can play party politics just as well as you or I. Anyone who says the Prime Minister does not play party politics is not fair to him. If there is anything at which the Prime Minister is adept it is that.
Sir Henry Drayton also said:
We have wasted, if this adjournment is to take place, practically a month's time discussing an issue [DOT]which my hon. friends opposite now say they are incompetent to handle, and they must have six week's' time with a view to seeing whether the dead bones can again be made to function.
That is certainly very applicable to this government, because if ever there was a government of dead bones, this government, members of which made all the promises they did in 1930 and did not carry them out, is dead from the heels up.
The government should not ask us to vote for this adjournment. The government should carry on and get through with its business. I have no hesitation in saying that all over the country the expectation was that we should of course adjourn for a day or two at Easter, but we should not have to adjourn for six weeks. Is it fair to you and to me, Mr. Speaker, who came here in January thinking of course that with the "ability" of the Prime Minister and his colleagues they would go on with the business and get through the session at the earliest possible moment? We never anticipated any such proposals as this. We rented apartments, agreeing to pay a large sum of money per month to the end of the session; now if this adjournment takes place it means that scores of members of this house have to pay rent for their apartments and for electric light and telephones during the six weeks' adjournment. I say that is not fair to members of this house. The government have no right to ask the house to await the drafting of legislation arising out of the report of the price spreads commission, because my hon.

Long Adjournment-Mr. Blair
friends could have it ready to-morrow morning; anyway when the bill does come down it will be found that there is not a great deal in it. My hon. friends are certainly not going to the country with a lot of legislation about price spreads which is going to lose them more votes than they are going to lose anyway.
This country is in such a condition that there should not be an adjournment. I have word from different parts of the country that they want the business of the government carried on. The trouble is that we are not only sick in the body politic but the country is sick economically. My hon. friends made certain promises to this country. There is a man named Heinz who makes pickles of 57 different varieties, and they are mostly good, but the same cannot be said of the 68 different variety of promises made by the Prime Minister in the election of 1930, and which he has not endeavoured to carry out The people have waited for five years and they now demand that the government go to the country in order that business may be stabilized and that they may know what government they are going to have for the next five years.
I said a moment ago that this country is sick in the body politic and the body economic. We heard something about bulletins. I am going to refer to a bulletin which has come to me recently in regard to the health of this country. It says that the country is in very bad shape, it is in a neurotic condition, it has paralysis of peristalsis-


An hon. MEMBER:: What is that? It
sounds like Beauharnois.


William Duff: My hon. friend should not
talk about Beauharnois after the government handing it over to Sir Herbert Holt and the friends of the Prime Minister. If he wants to hear about Beauharnois I might tell him something he does not like. It is de-watered enough.
Not only has this country paralysis of peristalsis; it also has cataleptic paraplegia, due to promises made by the Prime Minister which were never carried out.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is that?


William Duff: It means that the country's trade is paralyzed. When this government took charge in 1930 we had 82,500,000,000 worth of foreign trade. Under this Tory government in the last four years that has decreased to 8800.000,000. That is paraplegia, if my hon. friend the doctor from North Renfrew does not know what it means. This country has lost most of its trade, and this bulletin,
which I am going to give the acting Prime Minister so that he can consult his colleagues about it, says the country also has coronary thrombosis. The trade of the nation has gone down so far that the blood of the nation is not flowing freely, and it is suffering from stagnation due to the policies of this government. The bulletin also says the country has icterus.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is that?


William Duff: The country suffers from stagnation due to the policies of the Tory party, the high tariffs with consequent loss of trade. But, sir, this bulletin says that in spite of the dangerous condition of the patient, this great country of Canada, if an operation is performed-in other and more simple words, an election-a cholecystectomy, with proper care and a blood transfusion, and an election followed by a new government, the patient will recover. This bulletin is signed by Doctor Vox Populi.
Now, sir, I leave this bulletin with the acting Prime Minister in order that he may refer it to his colleagues as soon as possible. In the last four or five years under this government conditions in this country have reached a very deplorable state. In seconding this amendment, therefore, I say we should adjourn only from about the 17th or 18th until the following Tuesday. Let us go on with the business of this country; let us stay here, whether it takes a week, a fortnight or a month. It is not fair to the members of this house, to business men or to the taxpayers of this country that we should have to go home for six weeks and then come back and stay here for perhaps half the summer.


Mr. J. K. BLAIR (North Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) said the adjournment was made necessary by the fact that legislation was not ready. If that is the reason I think the house should have been adjourned some time ago, because it seems to me that the members opposite have been holding up their own government day by day to enable them to prepare legislation.
The Minister of Justice said we had not discussed the budget. During this session there has been a tendency on this side of the house to keep rather quiet. There was perhaps a little touch of sympathy over here for a dying party, and it would not become a doctor to lay before a dying patient all his sins and transgressions. But the leader of the government has asked us to enumerate some of those sins and transgressions for the benefit of the people, and we think perhaps it might be well to comply with his request. It is not
Long Adjournment-Mr. Blair

customary for a person at the wheel of a car to ask a person in the back seat what should be done. If the person in the back seat wants to tell the driver what to do the natural thing is for that person to want to take the wheel. There are, however, a few things which I think should be drawn to the attention of the government, which we hoped would be adjusted without delay. First I would refer to the unfair taxes which have been placed on the poor classes. Some sessions ago taxes were placed on children's clothing, on overalls, on workingmen's shoes and on other similar articles. Taxes should never fall on any man who is near the border line of relief. Why tax him into relief and then support him, thus destroying much of the morale of our people? Why not keep the taxes low on the few simple things he has to buy so that he may get them as cheaply as possible; then give him a little profit on what he has to sell and he will be a help to our country rather than a burden. If we overload these people they become liabilities rather than assets.
The government did one thing, however; they raised the prices of the things the poorer people had to buy, and they gave them cheaper liquor. Perhaps they thought that would be compensation.
I would mention briefly the trade and commerce of the country. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) made a comparison, by which he sought to prove that trade was improving. At the time, however, I thought there was one great error in his computations; that was that while he measured the trade of the country in dollars he did not state that the dollar of today is not equal to the dollar of three or four years ago. Our dollar of to-day is worth only sixty cents as compared with the dollar of a few years ago, so the figures given by the minister should have been reduced by forty per cent. If that had been done we would have seen that practically speaking this country is in a worse condition financially than it ever has been.
This government have destroyed the old highways of trade and commerce that were opened by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). They dismissed trade commissioners. The government maintained that they could find new avenues of trade; then they proceeded to offend many of our best friends; they slapped New Zealand on the face and changed the method of friendly negotiation to one of blasting. That was too overbearing, however, and we lost much of our trade. During the last five years

our trade has been only half what it was under the last five years of Liberal administration. Hon. gentlemen opposite say other countries raised their tariffs against Canada under Liberal administration, and that is true; still the Liberal party did not raise our tariffs, and as a consequence the trade of Canada was maintained very well.
The Liberal policy seems entirely different from the Conservative policy. In Canada we have three live stock markets, namely those in Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg. If the trading conditions in those markets reach a point where over a week end they have a surplus in all three, the results are catastrophic, so far as the farmer is concerned, because the prices drop. The late Liberal government watched the market very closely. In those days one or even two markets might block up at one time, but they were very careful to see that the three markets never blocked at one time. At the present time we have an unfortunate spectacle in our live stock markets. Thousands of cattle are held over from one week to the other, and the farmers of Ontario have to sell their pigs at $2.75 per hundred weight and their cattle at $3 per hundred weight. I am describing the condition in Ontario, with which I am more familiar; although I cannot speak for the west I have no doubt the conditions out there are even worse. Instead of the present government stating they will open up our markets and attend to the unloading to a point where farmers may bring their cattle for sale, they say they will protect the markets by a process of curtailment. In other words, they will limit the number of cattle or the number of pigs a farmer may bring to market.
Hon. members on this side of the house object strongly to a policy of curtailment. We want the markets kept open. Let our people work as much as they wish. Let them use their brains for their guidance; let us advise and direct, but do not let us coerce them. Our avenues of trade must not be beset with exploiters. Consumers and producers cannot meet the operations of these extortionists, with the result that at one end we have a surplus and at the other a scarcity. This condition arises because of the great spread existing between the functions of producing and consuming.
I say the farmers are to be pitied. They work harder and longer hours than most other workmen. They spend less, but at the same time they have greater ambitions for their children than obtains in some other classes of society. Farmers have been in distressed circumstances. About 3,500 of them came to Ottawa and asked an opportunity to speak to

. P; P .
Long Adjournment-Mr. Blair
the government, but upon that occasion they received only a very cold reception. They had heard the promises made by the Prime Minister over the radio and in the newspapers, and had heard his speeches before the election. They brought with them the Prime Minister's promises, but the action taken by the government was far from what it should have been. Even to-day our Prime Minister states that it is the right of every man to be heard. Yet when 3,500 farmers spent thousands of dollars to come to Ottawa he showed no willingness to hear them.
We remember that he said the tariff would fight for the farmers-but on the other hand we find him taking the tax off oil pipe and placing an additional tax of ten per cent on farmers' fences. Nearly every tariff change made by the present government has imposed an extra load on our farmers, and I believe the farmers have stood about all they can stand. People in the rural communities should consider tariff legislation from several angles, namely: What are the benefits? Who receives them? What are the sacrifices? Who pays them? The farmer must learn the answers to these four questions.
At the present time many of our poor people are in distress, and have developed a sense of fear. Those people ask simply justice. I am wondering if it is just to have workmen performing their daily task at starvation wages for large companies which, due to tariff protection, are charging high prices. Let us give justice to the poor; that is all they need. All schemes of charity and philanthropy are abhorrent in the absence of justice. A government should be just before it attempts to be generous. High tariffs have raised prices to the consumers and lowered wages to the employees.
To-day people are deprived of many facilities they used to enjoy. They are forced to live without the advantages of telephones, motor cars and radios, and in addition they are deprived of many of the necessities of life. The government has advertised the fact that it will open up new waterways. I can see no reason for such action when they are throwing tariff sand bags in the old channels. They talk about building highways, but I believe our railways would be able to look after the traffic. By means of tariffs on the one hand and sales taxes on the other the government are blocking the railways. Further, their gambling on the wheat market has been detrimental to the railways, operations. Upon many occasions I have heard of subsidies being given to help the movement of certain commodities. Suggestions have been made for subsidies on Alberta coal, and so on. However I have never heard of a subsidy being given on a product which remained stationary. Such a subsidy would not be an advantage to trade and commerce.
The Minister of Railways and Canals has laughed at the book Industry and Humanity written by my right hon. leader, and has made references to what would or would not go down in history. Well, in my view the minister will go down in history as the man to a great extent responsible for the number of men dismissed from railway operations in the last three years. About 60,000 men have lost their positions, and when we consider their wives and children we find about 240,000 are affected. In Toronto these unfortunate people are described as having been decapitated. Perhaps in the minister we have the greatest decanitator of the industrial world. When we speak about certain events going down in history we must remember that in one day to advance the cause of Christianity King Richard cut the heads off 5,000 Saracen prisoners. So we find advances in humanity and in Christianity made at different times. I am not stating that the policies of the present government are responsible for all dismissals but I will state that they are responsible for many of them.
Mr. E. W. Beatty, K.C., president of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the present Prime Minister's right-hand man in the last election campaign stated that our tariff policy should be one which would keep internal and external trade at a maximum. We will recall that the Prime Minister was determined to remain on the gold standard. Great Britain went off the gold standard soon after the imperial agreements were formed. In this connection our government crucified the farmers, because when those farmers sold beef, wheat or pork to the old land for $100 they found their sale price equalled only $70 in Canada. This condition remained true in regard to everything we had to sell, and when we recall that because of the agreements our sales were to a great extent confined to Great Britain we will realize the seriousness of the situation. I believe I have not spoken too strongly when I stated that the government crucified beyond endurance the interests of the farmers. This government kept us to that rate of exchange for the benefit of the wealthy until the people almost went bankrupt. They kept our dollar on a parity with the United States dollar, but the poorer classes suffered. Even to-day, when we are competing in the old land with Australia and the Argentine, the Australian currency is something like twenty per cent below ours, yet our farmers have to compete in the old country market against
Long Adjournment-Mr. Blair

Australia. We should do one of two things, put our dollar on a parity either with the Australian currency or with the Argentine currency so that we could have fair competition with them.
In the last election the great cry was that this government if elected was going to end unemployment. But at present the number on relief is 1,207,345, and the latest report on unemployment is that there are between
700,000	and 800,000 unemployed. This government called a special session to end unemployment. The cry during the election was that if elected they would look after the poor, but once they were elected their support went to the rich. They raised the tariff and kept up the prices of the necessities of the poor. This government increased the tariffs four times, and each time 100,000 more people went into the ranks of the unemployed. The poor who could maintain themselves had to pay dearly for these tariff measures, and those who could not endure fell upon relief.
After five sessions, with things constantly getting worse, when we ask this government what is its policy with regard to unemployment and relief the answer of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) is in effect that they had no policy, that they were thinking it over. After five years in power, can you imagine such a declaration of incompetence -that the government really had no policy?
The country as a whole is showing some signs of discontent under the policies of this government. Since the last imperial conference we have had eight Liberal members elected with large majorities. In the byelection in South Huron a Liberal was returned by a majority of 1,989; in the Yamaska by-election the Liberal majority was S4; in the Mackenzie by-election, where there was a Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidate, the Liberal majority was 1,614; in the Restigouche-Madawaska by-election a Conservative majority in the general election of 548 was converted into a Liberal majority of 6,472; in South Oxford the Liberal was elected by a majority of 1,493; in West Elgin the Liberal majority was 2,893; in Frontenac-Addington, which at the general election returned a Conservative with a majority of 3,371, a Liberal was returned with a majority of 2,651; in Kenora the Liberal candidate was returned with a majority of 6;165, and in North York a Conservative majority of'298 at the general election was converted into a Liberal majority of 3,687. In East Toronto the Conservative candidate was elected by a minority vote, but he had not declared himself a true Conserva-
tive, and was a sort of discard from the Conservative party.
The people are afraid of this government; notwithstanding all the taxation to which we are subjected we are going into debt, and our debt has increased by $800,000,000 under this government. That national debt, added to the provincial and general debt, not including mortgages, means a debt on top of every' home in Canada of $3,357. Then ask yourselves, do you want a high or a low rate of interest? Do you want the moneyed interests running this country any longer, or do we need a change of government? The members on the other side of the house the other day were calling us on this side Conservatives. We do not like the name. There was a time in this country when in the rural districts, and in the towns and villages, a Conservative could feel some pride in himself, but that time has largely passed. We do not think that the Conservative partv will ever improve very much until they clean out the moneyed interests that are running their party at the present time, and we do not believe that this country can be relieved of the depression until practically all of these friends of the government are removed.
With Mr. Bennett we have had nothing but conferences and no action, and the only thing we got out of the conferences was a chance to pay the expenses. He went to the old country and came back to Canada and travelled from coast to coast, and we thought he was engaged upon a study of the industries of Canada, and the unemployment situation, and how to relieve the distress. The papers of this country proclaimed the great things that he would do, but to our surprise we found when he made an announcement that he was searching for a few lords and ladies on whom to bestow titles. That just goes to show how far removed he is from the actual condition of affairs, how entirely he is out of sympathy with our people.
I must again apologize for criticizing a dying government, but the government has asked us to place our objections on record, and I think we are justified in doing so. The Prime Minister is very eloquent, and certainly he is a great speaker, but the greatest eloquence after all is that which gets things done.
Well might the Prime Minister laugh when he saw the title of the book, Industry and Humanity. I have no doubt that he thought the two things were absolutely incompatible and that the association of those two ideas was absurd. That book was written many years ago, and I am going forward to my

Long Adjournment-Mr. Reid
election proclaiming every idea in that book, but I can assure the Prime Minister that he will have to change many of the ideas he has proclaimed in the last five years before he will be ready to meet the people in our towns and villages; and he is already renouncing many of them. But we on this side feel perfectly safe in proclaiming the fundamental ideas expounded in that book. We preached them in the last election and we shall do so in the next.
The people of this country are beginning to learn the lesson, and it has been a very serious one for them, that when a country starts a tariff war, the first casualty in that war is home industry.
In conclusion, may I say that the great thing that any government has to consider is what it can do for the youth of the country and the coming generation, because the only undebatable everlasting life that any of us have is what we have in future generations. The young people of this country have a right to a fair deal, and we have no right to pass on to them our debts any more than an individual has a right to pass on to his children the debts that he has incurred himself. Every man should be responsible for the debts he incurs and every generation should be responsible for the debt it incurs. If I have nothing to leave to my children, I hope to heaven I shall not leave them with a lot of debts to pay on my behalf after I am dead. That is not fair to the future generation. But what is this government doing? We are handing down to future generations the debt that we have incurred in the last five years, a debt of some $800,000,000, without assets to balance it. I feel that it is extremely unjust, and the people of this country too are beginning to feel that this continuous increase in debt and this continuous oppression of the poorer classes must cease. Because of its incompetency, I feel sure that the people will decide against this government.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I desire to make a few remarks regarding the motion now before the house and to protest against the long adjournment which is being proposed by the administration. It may well be that the Liberal party is somewhat to blame for the fact that we are going to have a long adjournment. When I make that
statement, I refer to the fact that we have not opposed any legislation which has been brought down this session; if we had opposed the social and other legislation, we might be now in the midst of an election.
This afternoon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) in his speech said that the budget brought down this year was not criticized and he suggested that it could not be. Well, if the attitude of the Liberal opposition towards the budget was apathetic, so was that of the Conservative members themselves, because although a young member of this house I am of opinion that the budget brought down not long ago evoked less applause from members on the government side than has any other budget introduced since 1930. I noticed that in their budget speeches quite a number of hon. members opposite, in referring to the chief Liberal critic, the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), linked his name up with St. James street. I am surprised that that attitude is being adopted toward him, and I would just remind the house that the present leader of the government (Mr. Bennett), who is now unfortunately ill, was long connected with men like Holt and with the Canadian Pacific Railway, yet nothing is said against the right hon. gentleman or his long connection with those men. But my view is that the criticism levelled against the financial critic of the Liberal party is being levelled at him for a specific purpose. Might I say in regard to the Prime Minister's illness-and I say this in all kindness-the attitude of the Liberal party toward his illness has been, far more sympathetic than that exhibited by Conservative members especially last fall toward the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), because many hon. members opposite one spoke to were saying "Pity poor Billy King; he's through." Even cabinet ministers were heard to say: " Oh, it's a pity about poor Billy King; he is 'done for' " I am quite correct in saying that the attitude adopted by us on this side toward the illness of the Prime Minister has been eminently fair and far more so than that adopted last fall by the Conservatives, when some campaign seemed to be under way to make out that the present leader of the opposition was ill if he was not actually so. I am sure every hon. member sincerely hopes that the present leader of the government will recover, but perhaps we on this side, besides hoping for his own personal sake that he will recover, would like to see him in the position of leader of his party during the forthcoming election. We certainly would like to see him in that position,

Long Adjournment-Mr. Reid

year, however, I noticed on the subamendment he spoke about a just price, a dividend, taking some of the inheritance and distributing it among the people of the country, and so on. If that is not closely following the Douglas system I should like to know what it is. Certainly the Douglas system is not socialism; it is a readjustment of capitalism, of dividends. I should like to see dividends distributed, but it amuses me very much to see the scramble that is taking place now and which seems to be similar to Douglas. If these hon. gentlemen are not Douglasites or followers of Aberhart certainly they are very close to it. In my opinion some of them are endeavouring to scramble on to the band wagon before the election takes place, and I think the change in their attitude will take some explaining. Certainly it is very different from the theory advanced that we should work for use instead of for profit. They may be able to answer this statement; it may be that my interpretation is not exactly correct, but at least that is the view I take of their actions this year. Then I noticed that when the six hour day was under discussion the old trouble between labour and the farmer cropped up again. There were not enough supporters of labour to have a vote called, and the farmer members of that group remained in their seats.
But when the hon. member introduced that resolution in connection with the six hour day I wondered if he had given it very much thought, or if he had tried to consider it in the practical light. I am afraid he did not do so; I am afraid it was just one of those gestures that are sometimes made. The other evening I took a few moments to work out what would happen if this country adopted the six hour day, and it may sur-price many hon. members, as I am sure it will surprise the hon. gentleman who introduced the motion, to learn that we would have a great boom so far as labour is concerned if it were possible to put the six hour day into operation. I worked it out in this way:	We will say the average man works
two hundred days per year, eight hours per day, and we will say we have three million persons employed. The averaged hours worked per person per year would be 1,600, which would mean a total of 4,800,000,000 hours yearly. If these persons were employed only six hours daily it would mean that each person would work an average of 1,200 hours per year, which would mean a total reduction of 1,200,000,000 hours. So in order to make up the difference it would take exactly one million employees more than are employed at the present time. I think we fMr. Reid.]
should devote our attention to the enforcement of the eight hour day throughout Canada before making even a gesture toward dropping the hours to six. So far as I am concerned I will lend my support in any endeavour to have the eight hour day enforced throughout Canada, and then it will be time enough to try out the six hour day.


An hon. MEMBER:: It may be weary waiting.


Thomas Reid: Yes, that may be so, but I hope not. I thought I would work that out in its practical application. If we had to employ an additional million men I am afraid we would have to open the immigration doors and bring in many more people, because I do not believe we have a million people idle in Canada at the moment
Now, Mr. Speaker, this house is going to adjourn while cities and municipalities go bankrupt and the whole credit of Canada is in jeopardy. The dominion government may take the attitude that they can sit back and see municipality after municipality and city after city go bankrupt, but I maintain that it will not be long until there will be very little credit abroad for this country. I am of the opinion that the situation is so serious that we should have been attempting to devise ways and means to meet it. The loan council proposed by the government may come too late. Great Britain has put her house in order and told the United States they would have to wait a -while before any further payments were made, but we hear members of the government and others say that wre must pay our interest charges no matter what it costs this country. Would any hon. member rise in his place and say that the credit of Great Britain has been injured because she told the United States they would have to wait for their money? I do not think so. So far as I am concerned, just in connection with this question of debt cutting, I cannot see very much difference in principle between forcing the bondholders to compromise and the provisions of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act under which farmers are to be allowed to tell their bondholders that they may have to accept half the amount due. In my opinion there is no difference in principle between our saying to the man who holds a mortgage on a farm, "You will have to take fifty per cent less" and saying to the bondholders of this or any other country, "You will have to take a lower rate of interest." If that is not done I am afraid they will be faced with something even more serious.

Long Adjournment-Mr. Reid
Let me point out something that happened in a municipality in my own constituency, the municipality of Burnaby, a word which I can say perhaps better than most members. I well remember that in 1931 some hon. members laughed when I uttered that word. I warned the house then that the municipality was going bankrupt, and that has actually happened; it is in liquidation today. Last year they told the bondholders they were not going to pay the stipulated interest; they also sent out notices to the bondholders, some of whom were located in almost every country of the world, and placed the situation fairly before them. In the letters sent out they said, "We are willing to pay one per cent for four years and after that we will pay three per cent. Will you take that or shall we repudiate?" It may surprise this house to learn of the number of letters that came back saying, yes-and I am proud to say the first letter came from bondholders in my own country of Scotland-saying that the one per cent would be accepted so long as the principal was intact. I believe if some strong leadership were given this country the bondholders could be called together and I think they would be found willing to accept a lower rate of interest so long as they knew their principal would be kept intact. This government has been standing by allowing city after city to go bankrupt. That municipality has gone to the wall; they cannot pay and they are not going to pay. I believe, however, that if we had been given strong leadership; if the provinces had been called together and this loan council formed in 1030, instead of waiting for five years to put our house in order, instead of going deeper into the hole and passing acts permitting farmers to go deeper into debt, we would have been in a far better position to-day and would have been much further on the upgrade than we find ourselves at the present time; at least confidence would have been restored.
If there is any one thing I hold against the government more than another it is the fact that this is a government of high salaries, in these days of distress. What have we witnessed in the last few months? High salaries have been further increased; we have the head of the Bank of Canada receiving $30,000 a year and his deputy $20,000 a year, or a total of $50.000; and many others as well. Is it right to give such high salaries, or to raise them to such heights when thousands of our citizens do not know where their next meals may come from, unless they come from the state? I say if we placed our house in 92582-1611
order, started after the high salaries cut our interest charges and kept from further wild borrowings, the confidence within the country would be greater, and without confidence we can get nowhere.
It is all right to say we are not interested. After five years I hear hon. members saying,
" Why does the opposition say it is our responsibility?" Their attitude now is that first it is a municipal problem, then a provincial problem and lastly the problem of the federal government. In 1930 an election was fought, and I repeat this is one of the reasons which helped to defeat the Liberal administration in that year. This government will have quite a task to explain its stand during the coming election campaign. We adjourn, Mr. Speaker, not for the benefit of the country; we adjourn, in the words of the Minister of Justice, so that they may pick the best time to go to the people. He gave it away when he said that. We knew it before, but to-day we have it spoken. The adjournment is not then for the benefit of the country, at all, but so that "They will pick a proper time." As I said a few moments ago, if we had opposed the so-called social legislation we would now be in the midst of an election campaign, and would not be asked to agree to a long adjournment or not to come back until the government has had time to think up something new before making a final appeal to the electorate.
I should like to make a suggestion in connection with salaries along the lines of one which has been made in Great Britain. We have heard many suggestions regarding Senate reform. Many people in this house and elsewhere have given willingly of their services on school boards and other public bodies, without locking for or receiving any remuneration therefor. In my opinion one way t& reform the Senate would be to have its members give their services without indemnity. I make the suggestion in all seriousness, although I notice it has caused some laughter in the chamber. I say in all seriousness that there are not three per cent of the men in the Senate chamber who are not coupon clippers and rich enough, and do not require it.


Mr. WILLIS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Reid: Yes, and the men who get'
up to oppose the cutting of bonds should be asked either in this house or out of it how many bonds they hold. I see the Speaker rising to object. I make this statement because I speak feelingly on the matter. I do hear some hon. members say, "We could'
Long Adjournment

Mr. Reid

never cut bonds." Why? Because in many instances that action might affect themselves. I say these things can and should be done- and would be done if someone had guts enough to go out and do them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I believe that
language is hardly parliamentary.


Thomas Reid: Well, there is the expression
" intestinal fortitude," which might be more parliamentary. I shall use that word instead.


Errick French Willis: What about "sityation"?


Thomas Reid: There will be lots of bad
"sityations" before we get through. I know what the hon. member has referred to. You just try to say " Bur-r-r-naby."
I protest very seriously against the proposed long adjournment, because there are many things we could and should be doing. Even without the leader of the government being present we have progressed very well. Due to the seriousness of the unemployment situation the mayors of the different cities held a meeting in this city only a short time ago. May I point out to hon. members who have not served on municipal councils that in my view the reeves, mayors and councils are in the front line of this depression because they are meeting the people every minute of the day and so are in the very best position to understand conditions. Members of the government are in a different position, because they are further removed and people wishing to see them have to pass secretaries before an interview is possible. I for one am very sorry they were not allowed to address hon. members in this chamber. May I close my observations by repeating that I strenuously protest against and oppose any adjournment for four, five or six weeks.


Mr. W. P. MULOCK (North York):: Mr. Speaker, as a newly elected member of this house I welcome the opportunity briefly to discuss the question of the proposed adjournment until May 20. For nearly three months parliament has been in session, and during that period we have dealt with unemployment insurance, the eight hour day and the weekly day of rest. I believe the government would be prepared to admit that upon the introduction of those measures they received the cooperation of hon. members on this side of the house. Certainly no undue delay was caused by the opposition when these matters were placed before parliament. Still left for consideration are Nos. 26 and 27 on- the order paper, namely a measure to establish a grain

board and another to provide for minimum wages. Undoubtedly we would be well occupied if we were to proceed with the consideration of these measures, the introduction of either or both of which could be left to the acting leader of the government (Sir George Perley).
To-day we are faced with a condition whereby out of a population of about 10,-
500,000	we have -about 1,207,000 on relief. After five sessions of parliament since the elections of 1930-this is the sixth-no constructive measures have been introduced which would have the effect either of improving the conditions or of providing work for the unemployed. Unfortunately the relief problem does not appear to be lessening. We have the evidence of the mayors from the Canadian cities who came to the city of Ottawa to state their difficulties, -and who say that they are unable longer to carry the burden of relief, that they have not the money necessary for that purpose. Those municipal officials have asked for guidance and leadership from the federal authorities.
Throughout the country in the face of very trying conditions we find our farmers striving to retain	their farms.	Hon. members	whohave travelled through that section of Ontario which I have the honour to represent will know that within the last few years many farm buildings have had to go without needed improvements.	Many	houses, barns	andfences are not being kept in a proper state of repair, despite the desire of the farmer to prevent deterioration. Certainly there is no desire on	the	part of	farmers to let	theirbuildings go to ruin, but the fact is many have been unable -to obtain enough money from the sale of their produce to purchase the necessary materials -and to prevent this condition from arising. On- the other hand when the farmer goes out	to	buy he	finds that due to
tariffs, the prices of the necessities of life and implements of production have been artificially kept at -an unreasonable -height. It may be true that the prices of many articles have decreased, but certainly not to the same extent that farm produce has come down. The unreasonable tariffs imposed by the present government have had the effect of depriving the farmer of a great part of his purchasing power. From year to year the standard of living formerly enjoyed by the people in the rural communities has been forced down. Until the farmer receives his fair share of purchasing power, there can be no real or lasting prosperity in Canada.
Some considerable time has been taken in this house in a discussion of the Ottawa agreements which we made over two years ago, and

Long Adjournment-Mr. Mulock
since that time have been put into effect. Day after day the matter was discussed-[DOT] something that happened two years ago, not something that was to be done now to help the farmers or the unemployed. Regardless of what the decision of this house on that subject might be, it was not going to help the people of Canada one iota, not to mention the expense that the prolonged debate entailed.
May I remind this house that we are going into debt in this country at a tremendous pace. According to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) the debt of this country since this government took office has been increased by $812,000,000. The situation is one that calls for immediate action. We cannot go on borrowing principal to pay interest. The facts must be faced, and the sooner we face them the sooner shall we get out of our difficulties; but if we do not face them we shall sink further and further into debt with each day.
This government has been in office now for nearly five years, and with all due respect to my hon. friends opposite I would say that to many it seems more like ten years. This is their sixth session. I understand that the report of the price spreads commission is to be signed to-morrow, and I understood the minister to say this afternoon that it would take from two to three weeks to prepare the legislation based on that report. But if the report is signed to-morrow it will be immediately available to the government, and if an adjournment were obtained until the twenty-ninth of April, that would give the government three weeks all but one day in which to prepare that legislation. So it does not help the government's position very much for the minister to say that this long adjournment is necessary to prepare that legislation.
There is another point of view, and that is that having regard to the financial position of this country at the present time the long adjournment which the government suggests is going to cost the taxpayers of Canada a very large sum of money. The Minister of Finance will no doubt be able1 to give to the house particulars of that expense when the accounts have been paid, if the government proceeds with this lopg adjournment.
I do not wish to deal with the budget at any length because it has already been dealt with so ably by the financial critic of the opposition, the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) but there is one thing I should like to point out in view of the reference of the Minister of Justice this afternoon to this budget being a popular budget. May I say that in my opinion the
sugar tax is one of the most unpopular taxes that was ever placed on the statute books of Canada. It is an absolutely unjust tax because it bears hardest on those least able to pay. The larger a man's family the more he has to pay in that form of taxation. It is not a fair principle of taxation, and I submit that sugar tax should be removed just as soon as possible even if its removal necessitates more taxation being placed on those who are better able to bear it.
The Minister of Justice also said that the government would go to the country when it thought it could win the election. The first inference was that if they went to the country now they knew they would be defeated, and they were hoping that something would turn up in the meantime. But I hope that the constitution of this country will not bp wrecked to such an extent that this government will refrain from going to the country until they believe they can win, because if they carry out that threat I believe a good many members of this house are here for life.
The Minister of Justice also stated this afternoon that the conditions in 1926 in regard to an adjournment could not reasonably be compared with the present conditions because in 1926 the Liberals had been slaughtered at the polls. May I remind my hon. friends opposite that there was a miniature general election in this country last September, during *which a by-election was held in the riding of North York. This constituency I now have the honour to represent in this house by virtue of having the support not only of the Liberals of North York but of the people of the riding as a whole, who have come to the conclusion that this government has failed in its duty and has not carried out in any substantial particular the promises it made in 1930; and the people of that riding at least want a general election at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. COTNAM:: They do not need it. They have got you.


William Pate Mulock: You should know. A number of the members of the government came into the riding of North York and spoke in that by-election: the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), and the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), who delivered several speeches; the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton), and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews) were amongst the most prominent. I should like to refer to one statement which the Minister of National Revenue made during that

Long Adjournment-Mr. Mulock
by-election in North York as reported in the Mail and Empire of September 17 last. He spoke in part as follows:
Non-partisan statistics .showed that Canada led the United States in recovery because Bennett had sought markets in empire countries .after world markets had been closed to Canadians during the King regime. He urged the *electors to not believe in the "trash" which they read in the newspapers and heard from Liberal platforms-
And this is the part I want hon. gentlemen to listen to:
-and1 to not slap the Bennett government in the face after a successful administration.
The people of North York, perhaps as a Tesult of that appeal to some extent, decided in no uncertain .terms by giving a member of the present opposition a majority three and a half times the record majority for that riding, and defeating the government in 110 polls out of 117. If that is not a slaughter, I do not know to what the Minister of Justice was .referring this afternoon.
The people consider that this government has failed. They have lost confidence in the government. They want a general election at the earliest possible moment, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this adjournment is asked for the purpose of delaying an appeal to the people. For these reasons I shall protest against the long adjournment being granted at this time, when there are so many urgent problems facing this parliament.


Colin Alexander Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to join with other members, particularly my roommate, the hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulock) who has just taken his seat, in protesting against this proposed long adjournment. Like my colleague I also entered this house in the miniature general election last fall. I am sorry there are not more western members and eastern members on the other side at the moment to hear what happened in my riding on that occasion. I want to remind them that that riding had never returned a Liberal until September 24 last since 1791. It was not so much a vote for me personally or a vote for the Liberal party, because in June of last year, when there was a Liberal landslide in the province, I was defeated by the very same electors who elected me on September 24. But the fact is that the people voted against the Bennett policies, and especially against the most autocratic government we have had in Canada for a long time. The people of the riding of Fronfenac-Addington are mostly United Empire Loyalist stock, as

the bon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Loucks) well knows. He however left there before the people saw the light politically.
I would remind the house that one of the planks in our platform during the contest last fall was the fact that responsible government in Canada was endangered as long as the present government held office. The people of Frontenac-Addington considered this plank very seriously and I am glad to say the result is that I now represent that riding behind the leader of a party which supports the principles we feel will soon restore responsible government to Canada.
I should like to say something further about my riding but I do not want to trespass too long upon the good graces of the house. I would remind the house that the government of the day thought nothing about reforms until after the miniature general election of last fall. This is not the first time the people in this section of the country have started a move for reform. Back in the days of 1827 a very small portion of my riding and a portion of the riding now represented by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Weese) elected a reformer in the person of Marshall Bidwell to the Upper Canada legislature. Certain Tories then held power in Ontario and this gentleman was not allowed to take his seat. Elections were held on different occasions for the next few months and eventually his son was elected along with a man by the name of Peter Perry. The leadership and fighting qualities of these men, coupled with those of the grandfather of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) brought about responsible government in Ontario which we have preserved to the present time.
During the by-election in Frontenac-Addington the policies of the government were placed fairly before the people. I remember that these policies were enunciated by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart), the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) and the Minister of National Health (Mr. Sutherland). The former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) appeared in the riding on two occasions, and then we had the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam), the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Mac-Nicol), the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney), the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross), the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Shaver), the hon. member [DOT] for Lanark (Mr. Thompson), the hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon), the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox and the

___________Long Adjournment-Mr, Campbell
hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman). These were the forces arrayed against the forces of Liberalism, but the people of Frontenac-Addington said that this government must change.
We have been hearing a lot about the former Minister of Trade and Commerce as a spellbinder. I do not want to take up much time but I would remind hon. members that the hon. gentleman was brought back to try to save the riding for the government. At that time he was a minister, and as he has done on many other occasions, he did not stick to the ethics of parliament. He spoke of those things which he thought ought to be done when he knew evidence was still being called before the price spreads commission and about which we in this parliament will not be told officially until after we have reassembled on May 20. During the last provincial election I lost by thirty-five votes the polling division of Harrowsmith, in which the minister spoke and the former minister was brought back to try to save the situation. I had no occasion to visit this division but I lost it by only six votes in the by-election. I should like to quote some of the arguments put forward by members of the government. During the joint nomination debate on the official nomination day at Sydenham, the Minister of Railways and Canals had this to say:
The by-elections have a double purpose in all of these constituencies. It is the day for voters to choose their representative, whom they believe would serve them the best. You have the opportunity of culling out some of the people. In other words, you have the opportunity of either preventing the Bennett government from continuing their policy and voting against the government and against what they have been doing.
The bon. member for Toronto Northwest had this to say a few nights afterwards at Newburgh:
The issue in this campaign is the Bennett tariff policy, and as a business man, interested in business for 25 years, I will try to prove to you that the tariff policy of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett is infinitely better than the freer trade policy of the old government of Mackenzie King.
A few nights later the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe said at Odessa:
Ask yourself, why has Canada secured better prices for her commodities? Ask yourself if our credit is better than other countries in the world, as against those who have preached inflation and reciprocity. I urge upon you to support the government that is steadily returning the country to normal and prosperity.
I would remind hon. members, especially those who come from the west, that I was criticized during the campaign because I
spoke in favour of freer trade arrangements with the United States. Members of the government came down to my constituency to try to keep me from being elected to this house, and, as indicated by the quotations I have just given, the people were led to believe the government of the day was not in favour of reciprocity with the United States. Therefore the people of Frontenac-Addington and of the other three constituencies which sent Liberal members to this house on September 24 take the credit for forcing this government to seek better trade arrangements with the United States.
The first thing I know I will be making a speech, and I did not intend to do that tonight. I should like to refer to some of the statements made this afternoon by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). I have often wondered why a general election was not held last fall, because I know it has always been felt in the country that there should bo an election every four years, and this is the feeling of hon. gentlemen opposite. I should like to quote from a letter written by the former Conservative organizer, and chief whip, Senator A. D. McRae. This letter is dated April 17, 1930, and the first paragraph reads as follows:
We are now in the fourth session of the sixteenth parliament. Only twice since Confederation has any government had the temerity to stay five full sessions and in both cases they were decisively defeated on appeal to the country. Mr. Mackenzie King, a very shrewd politician, will not voluntarily repeat this experiment.
And a few sentences further on he said:
Although unemployment is very serious in Canada our government has taken no action.
And again:
The Canadian people have every reason to feel "it is time for a change."
Everything there stated still holds good to-day. Until the Minister of Justice told us this afternoon I did not know why the government had not gone to the country. He said that the governments of which he had been a member had gone to the country only when they felt that they could win. Perhaps we should thank God for the constitution which provides that we shall eventually have an election whether or not the government is going to win.
The Minister also referred to what he regarded as the parallel of 1911 with the present day. I want to remind the house that in 1911 the then government had been in power for only three years. The present government have been in power five years. It is tme they have not gone the full limit to which they are legally entitled, but, as
2532	COMMONS
Long Adjournment-Mr. Campbell
pointed out by their organizer in 1930, they have outrun the length of parliament to which by practice they are entitled, namely, four sessions, and now are on the sixth. We on this side of the house and I think everyone in the dominion feel that Canada should certainly be represented by the Prime Minister at the silver jubilee of the king's coronation, but I do not believe we should at this time have a parallel drawn between conditions in Canada in 1911 and those of the present day. As I pointed out, the government of that day had two years to run, and moreover it had no unemployment problem such as exists at present. It had no financial crisis to face in the municipalities or the provinces or the dominion, and to-day we find that we have to face all these conditions, yet by the adjournment now proposed we in this parliament who were elected to represent the Canadian people admit that we cannot carry on because one man has to leave Canada. We wish the Prime Minister to go to Great Britain, but he has ministers here quite capable of carrying on the business of the country while he is away, and as other hon. members have stated, I fail to see why we should agree to anything more than the usual adjournment over what we may call Holy Week or the Holy Sabbath.
I want to add this to what the hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulock) has just stated: we are not at the point where we are waiting for legislation, but we have some already on the order paper and there are still some fifty-three items of supply to be called. According to the order paper, a grain board is to be set up; some amendments have been sent back to us from the Senate in connection with the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, as well as other matters. All these matters have to come before us. Why then are we asked to pass these over, to take an adjournment for a long period at considerable cost to the people of Canada, and above all to refuse to try to solve the worst problem we have confronting us, that of unemployment?
I should like now to remind members of the government what they stood for in 1930. On June 26 of that year the Ottawa Journal printed an editorial which was put into pamphlet form, sent out all over Canada and used b3' the speakers of the then opposition and its canvassers as the principle on which the opposition of that day, now the government then stood. This pamphlet is very interesting to read five years later, and I should like to read a few parts of it, as follows:

Mr. Bennett At Cobourg
Back in Ontario after his trip to the Pacific coast, Mr. Bennett on Tuesday night at Cobourg spoke with a power and a conviction that must have profoundly impressed countless thousands who heard him. Always a power on the hustings, Mr. Bennett in his first Ontario speech reached an extraordinary high degree of platform eloquence, an eloquence which, reinforced by vital truths, cannot be without effect throughout the country.
The opposition leader was at his best when dealing with the issue of unemployment. Moved by the spectacle of thousands of workless men tramping the streets of western cities, he was desolating in his criticism of the Prime Minister's extraordinary incapacity to grasp the meaning of such things. What, he asked, was the policy of Canada's Prime Minister, when tens of thousands of Canadians were in distress? His policy rvas that he would call-a conference. Men and women might be craving work, children might be hungry, cities might be setting up_ soup kitchens; Mr. King's answer to all of this was: "Vote me back to office, and some time next fall I will call a meeting to see what can be done." This from the sometime great crusader for labour, the author of Industry and Humanity!
Why, as Mr. Bennett well asked1-why a conference? What is it that a conference would find out? Does it require a conference to discover that men are unemployed? That there is distress? That cities like Winnipeg are spending $3,000 a week to feed workless workers? The proposition is simply a fraud. It is subterfuge to enable Mr. King to dodge his responsibility.
Mr. Bennett's policy-an honest, humane policy-is to meet parliament, to cut through red-tape and legalisms and constitutional hairsplitting, to take prompt and vigorous measures to see to it that in this country people do not starve. That is not merely the policy of a statesman; it is the policy of a human being; the policy of a man who has some sympathy with the masses, who is big enough and honest enough not to let petty politics and pettier legalisms stand in the way when Canadians are in want.
What sense, what humanity, in claiming that unemployment is not a federal responsibility? If the lawyers and the constitutional pundits want to argue about that, let them argue. What is true, and what everybody knows, is that if unemployment is not a dominion legal responsibility, it is a dominion moral responsibility. There can be no argument about that
And so the people throughout Canada, who knew what unemployment relief was costing each individual taxpayer when he paid his tax bill in the fall or at some other period in the year to the township or village or town or city, believed they were going to be relieved of that direct tax if only they voted for the then opposition, the present government. But at the present time we find it is not a matter merely of Winnipeg paying S3,000 a week, which at that time was, according to the present Prime Minister himself, a staggering figure, but small cities like St. Thomas, with

Long Adjournment-Mr. Campbell
only about 14,000 people, paying $4,500 a week last year for unemployment relief. Kingston, which boasts the highest record for any city in the dominion for paid up taxes, last year paid over $3,000 a week for unemployment relief, yet it is a city a little less than one-tenth the size of Winnipeg. Moreover we have witnessed this government passing on to the provinces and they in turn being forced to pass on to the municipalities more of the cost of unemployment relief on account of men being compelled to go on relief because of the policies of the present administration.


An hon. MEMBER:: No; you do not believe that.


Colin Alexander Campbell: Well, the only branch of industry that could have benefited by the high tariffs about which the hon. member for Northwest Toronto (Mr. MacNicol) spoke in the by-election of September 24, must have been the manufacturing industry. In 1930 in the manufacturing industry alone there were about 644,000 employees who were drawing $738,000,000 in wages and salaries and producing about $3,500,000,000 worth of commodities. But in 1933, the last year for which there are any figures-and these are from the bureau of statistics-there were less than 500,000 emploj'ees who were drawing $465,000,000 in wages and salaries and producing just a little over $2,000,000,000 worth of goods. Therefore by the policies of the present government, the manufacturing industry, the only branch of industry which could benefit thereby, lost $1,500,000,000 worth of business and about 150,000 employees were thrown out of work on account of voting as they did in 1930 for what they thought was going to be a benefit to themselves. And now we have been forced to receive from the present government through the Minister of Labour an admission that they have no policy regarding unemployment relief, that their policy is going to depend upon what requests they get from the provinces. And I know they must receive many. Representing a riding which is fairly close to Ottawa I am able to journey there every week-end, and I can assure the house that although the Prime Minister in 1930 said it was going to be his duty to see that no one should starve, there are many men in this country who are wondering where or how they are going to get food or clothing or fuel to keep their children and themselves from starving.
I have spoken longer than I felt I should but I want to remind the house that last fall the people of Frontenac-Addington, as
well as of other ridings in Ontario, in a campaign in which one of the main points was that the people of those ridings were given a chance, as the Minister of Railways intimated at Sydenham, to vote against the policies of the Bennett government, intimated to the government that they no longer felt that it had the right to govern, that they did not agree with its policies or the way it was governing. Yet now we have the spectacle of this government trying to carry on even until the last. Representing this old United Empire Loyalist constituency many of the people of which have been Conservatives since they were born, I respectfully say that I feel sorry for these farmers on account of the policies of this government.


William John Loucks: Were you born in Frontenac?


Colin Alexander Campbell: No, I was not fortunate enough to have that privilege. But the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Loucks) had the privilege of being born in the village of Battersea, which is in a fine part of the county of Frontenac, a very good farming section; and that fine village, although it has been Conservative on many occasions, gave me a majority of 127. Let me tell the hon. member why they did that. I have before me the returns showing the price of milk each year since 1929 at the cheese factory at Battersea, in the month of July, which we take as the average month for the year in the cheese business. In 1929 they received $1.26 per hundred pounds; in 1930, $1.17; in 1931, 83-1 cents; and in 1932, 60-3 cents. In 1933, even with the depreciated currency they received only 71" 3 cents and last year they received 70-4 cents, or one cent less than 1933, notwithstanding the empire agreements and trade policies of which this government boasts. That shows why the people of Frontenac decided that this government had outlived its usefulness.
I therefore join at this time with my colleagues in saying that the people of Canada do not wish a long adjournment of the house. They want an election, so that regardless of who is elected they may know that the government is to be stable for the next five years, and so that exporters and importers will be able to buy and sell goods and make contracts for more than a few days ahead. Not only that; we all know that in an election year in the United States business falls off almost to the stagnation point, and much of our business follows theirs. The government are forcing us to go at slow speed in business for all this year, and next

Long Adjournment-Mr. Elliott
year we will have to slow up along with the United States for their election year; so I say the actions of this government are forcing the business and working people of this country to face two hard years. I agree with my colleagues that we should have an election at the earliest possible time, and in order to do that we should stay here and finish the business and then bring on the election without delay.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex):: My hon. friends opposite premised their speeches on the budget, by saying that they would not have taken part in the debate had it not been for something said by someone else. I wish for a few minutes to refer to some things mentioned by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) in his address this afternoon.
We are now in the sixth session of the seventeenth parliament. As has already been said, in only one other parliament besides this, except the war parliament, have six sessions been held. That occasion was the memorable session which ended on June 23, 1896. I say to my hon. friends, and I think this argument ought to appeal to them as much as any argument that can be made, that conditions now and with this government are very similar to what they were with that parliament and that government prior to 1896. Times were bad then. The government had lost the confidence of the people, and the members of the government had lost confidence in one another. They carried on until the legitimate life of parliament expired by effluxion of time and they were swept out of office. They were followed by a great Liberal government under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who for fifteen years gave to this country the greatest era of prosperity it had ever had until my leader came into power in 1921.
I think the last two hon. gentlemen who have spoken are the best evidence that this government could have of how completely they have lost the confidence of the people of this country. The hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulock) was elected in a riding which had become almost a Conservative stronghold. The hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Campbell), who was defeated by a majority of over a thousand when he was a candidate against the Henry government in June last, was elected by a majority of about three thousand. I want to say in all kindness to this government that that shows how much more unpopular this government is than the Henry government was last June.

He was a pretty good organizer who wrote that letter read by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington. I think he was much more successful than his successor is going to be in the present campaign. He was absolutely right when he referred to the fact that a government that had stayed in power for four years, even if they had not had the intimations and suggestions and kicks from the electors that this government have had, should know that they should not cling to power any longer. Why is it done? Why did the Henry government remain in power in Ontario as long as it did? Of course it is true that there was a very close alliance between the Henry administration and this administration; there is no question about that. The best evidence that the leader of this government did not very well sense public opinion last June was the fact that just a couple of nights before the election he recommended the Henry government to the people of Ontario and predicted their return on election day. He practically made it a federal issue. As a matter of fact for some time there was a very close working arrangement between the federal government and the various provincial governments. That I think was one of the greatest reasons for these provincial governments faring as badly as they did. Perhaps you can think feelingly in that regard, Mr. Speaker, coming from the province from which you do come; I believe one of the greatest obstacles that confronted them was the fact that they were known to be in very close alignment with this government, which has outworn its welcome more rapidly, if I may say so, than any other government that has ever been in power in Canada. Consider the government that was turned out in 1896. It had not had the intimations of how it stood with the people to the extent that this government have had them. I wonder now if the government-would do the same if they had it all to do over again, with these six by-elections facing them, forced upon them by members of the opposition, because none of them was held until it had to be held. This government have shown less appetite for by-elections than any other government in this country. They do not seem even very enthusiastic about filling any of the vacancies that exist at the present time. Would it not have been better to carry that miniature election last September a little farther and make it a general election and have their troubles over with? Would it not have been better to let the people know just what were the policies of

Long Adjournment-Mr. Elliott
the government that was to administer the affairs of this country for the next few years?
I was very greatly interested in the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) this afternoon. As usual he made the very best out of a very bad case, and I do not think I ever heard him with a worse case than he had this afternoon. However, he pointed out that this case was similar to the situation that existed in 1926. I should like to know the similarity. The Minister of Justice said the situation in 1926 affords only a very slight parallel to the present situation, and I quite agree. As has been stated so well already by my hon. friend the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in 1926 there was a vote of the elected representatives of the people in this house as to whom they wanted to carry on the government of this country, and they decided in favour of the party led by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King). True, they decided that only by the very small majority of three, but I want to point out to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that a majority of three is a great deal better than a minority of three, and that was just the difference between the two parties at that time.
That having taken place, what was the situation which confronted this house? The leader of the party did not have a seat in the house and there were no ministers from Ontario, the province from which the very best ministers come. It was necessary first of all to have the Prime Minister elected and to elect some other ministers. One would have thought that with a house fresh from the country-there could be no question of its having i-ost any of its popularity between the time of the election and the time of this vote-this government which speaks of -chivalry, generosity and good sportsmanship would have said, "Follow the practice that is followed in England; go ahead and complete the government, organize it and carry on the work of the house." They did mot do that; they objected, and right here I want to read a statement that was not read this afternoon by my hon- friend from Quebec East. I think perhaps it describes the situation at -the present time better than any of the other remarks made on that occasion. I refer to the remarks made by my revered friend the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White). Of course the statement was not applicable to the facts as they existed at that time but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree that it is very applicable to conditions as they exist, at the present time. If I may say so with the greatest respect for my hon. friends opposite, though I do think they
are trying to hang on after they have been invited to get out, I think it accurately describes the situation as it exists to-day. The statement is to be found at page 653 of Hansard for 1926, and is as follows:
I am opposed to the motion for a long adjournment for this reason-and I endeavour to voice so far as I can the feeling of the man on the street, the outside public-
That is the man whose feeling I am trying to voice now.
-that parliament was called for the dispatch of business, not for ah adjournment of six weeks. I venture to state that no more shocking spectacle has ever been presented in connection with parliamentary government than that which we have witnessed recently in this very country. It recalls to my mind a gibe of Disraeli under somewhat similar circumstances, when he pictured the government of that day in this way.
I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to pay particular attention to this because I think it is a very accurate description of the present government.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Go on.


John Campbell Elliott: I will go on; my hon. friend need not worry.
He said that from a certain point along the shores of South America you can see a range of extinct volcanoes, from which not one flame flickers from a single pallid crest. So the government sit to-day.
That w-as the unkind expression used by the hon. member for Mount Royal in regard t-o a freshly elected government which enjoyed the confidence of the people at that time. What would he have said if he were attempting to describe this government to-day? Then he goes on, and I think this is also very eloquent in regard to the present situation:
I believe rightly or wrongly that the nerves of the people of Canada are in a state of tension. I believe that the business of this country is being halted for lack of confidence in the stability of government, and the longer we delay getting on with business and determining who are to form the government and manage the affairs of Canada for some years to come, the longer will business be in a state of uncertainty, and the longer will capital hesitate to invest.
If in 1926 the nerves of the people of Canada were in a state of tension, I wonder what state they would be in to-day, after all they have gone through in the last four and a half years. He follows up with a delightful peroration, as follows:
Is there anyone in this house who does not know the purpose of the adjournment? It is to endeavour to reanimate a moribund government, and for no other purpose, and if that be so, and this is a point I would like to stress-[DOT]

Long Adjournment-Mr. Elliott
And I, too, would like to stress it-
-why is it that this so-called' government has met parliament?
It would have been- so easy before the byelections last fall for this government to fulfil its constitutional duty. They knew the feelings .of the people, and instead of having by-elections they should have had the general elections. However, we know they decided not to do so, and chose rather to meet parliament. Before calling parliament it would seem the government felt some work was necessary to make parliament receptive to the great reform measures to be introduced. These measures were not forecast in the ordinary manner in which measures are made known, namely, in the speech from the throne. In this instance they were heralded and broadcast throughout the land by radio. We were told of the great reforms contemplated and the great change of heart which had been experienced by people whose hearts prior to that time had not shown any pronounced reform tendencies.
Well, the house met and the speech from the throne was delivered. We heard1 more about the legislation to be brought before parliament. The indications both in the radio addresses and in the speech from the throne were that for over a year these matters had been in the hearts and minds of hon. members of the government and their followers. We understood the government had given the measures serious consideration, and my recollection is that the suggestion was made that some of the legislation had been ready for a year. Following the delivery of the speech from the throne my right hon. leader suggested that if, as was claimed, the reforms were ready, if such reforms were to be of such great benefit to the Canadian people, in view of the fact that undoubtedly reforms were needed, we should have such measures placed before us as rapidly as possible. But, following the adoption of the address we witnessed the remarkable spectacle of a supporter of the government, instead of introducing new legislation, moving a resolution in. an attempt to prove that some previous legislation, namely empire agreements which had been passed1 years before, was good legislation. The government seemed to have some doubt about the matter, with the result that my good farmer friend from Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) moved the resolution, and in his observations indicated the great benefits accruing to the farmers of Toronto-Searborough and the rest of Canada, from the trade agreements. Hours-yes, days-were taken up in an argument about legislation which had been passed, and the resolution, strange to say, has not yet been voted upon. At that time it did not appear 
as though the government was at all enthusiastic about its reform program or that it was ready to proceed with the legislation about which the Prime Minister had spoken.
As the Minister of Railways and Canale (Mr. Manion) is in his seat I should like to describe that which appeared to me as the next most interesting and ingenious method of killing time which has been adopted since the beginning of the session. As the first item to be considered in the estimates for the Department of Railways and 'Canals we had for discussion an item respecting tourist traffic. Apparently realizing that all the people in the various countries of the world who contemplated travelling were constant readers of Canadian- Hansard, the minister evidently concluded that in order to be successful in the development of touriisti trade he must place on Hansard the great advantages offered to tourists visiting 'Canada. He did it spendidly, and so inspired his followers that nearly every hon. member who had a stream running through his riding or a small clump of trees situated thereon felt constrained to rise in his place and state that, he, too, knew of a wonderful place for the tourist to visit.


Robert James Manion: Quite a few hon. members opposite spoke, too.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, but not as many as my hon. friend would have wished.


Robert James Manion: They do not come from as fine parts of the country.


John Campbell Elliott: Well, may I say to the minister, who undoubtedly knows the county of Middlesex, that if he came from a county like Middlesex he would not need to tell the the world about the beauties of his constituency; they would know. That debate continued for some time.
I believe you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, due to the expense and to the fact that you have work to do at home, that it would be well as soon as possible to terminate the present session. When estimates were offered for consideration my right hon. leader agreed to their passage so that ample opportunity would be afforded to proceed with the reform legislation. Despite that fact, however, hon. members on the government benches proceeded to discuss their own estimates in a manner whidi to my mind appeared quite novel. When on a former occasion I was charged with the passage of estimates I did not occupy any more of the time of the house than was necessary, a practice which I believe is followed in every well regulated government.

Long Adjournment*-Mr. Elliott
Undoubtedly every hon. member of every shade of political thought deeply regrets the illness which has overtaken the Prime Minister. We are all of one mind in giving sincere thanks for the fact that he is recovering and, according to present indications, will be in fit physical condition to attend the jubilee ceremonies to be held in London in the month of May. May I point out however that there are sixteen other ministers in the government. No person has stressed to a greater degree than has the Prime Minister the necessity fol reasonable economies in the transaction of the country's business. All members of this house will join in an expression of thankfulness for his recovery and will share the hope of seeing him in the house before the end of the session.
May I just point out what this adjournment means?
The Prime Minister, speaking in this house on November 10, 1932, as reported at page 1065 of Hansard, said:
Why waste $15,000 per day of the taxpayers money, $100,000 a week, in reiterating statements not one word of which adds any new information ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Who was it
said that?
Mr. 'ELLIOTT:	The present Prime Minister. He said:
Why waste $15,000 per day of the taxpayers' money, $100,000 a week?
After all, Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers of this country have come through just about all that they can bear. I wonder if this government has considered what it is going to mean to have this house adjourn for four or five extra weeks. I am not now referring to the legislation with respect to the price spreads commission, because I understand that their report is ready to table at the present time. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) assumed that after that report was tabled it would take two or three weeks to prepare the necessary legislation. That seems a long time, but it is important legislation. That would bring us to the Tuesday after Easter Monday. We could then resume and go on with that business, and that I submit to this house with very great earnestness is what I believe we should do.
The Minister of Justice quoted the precedent of 1911 when Sir Robert Borden, then Mr. Borden, moved that a two months' adjournment should take place so as to enable the Prime Minister to attend, as he said, the coronation. But I want to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that it was not the coronation alone, but the coronation and the imperial conference that was
taking place at the same time, and which it was necessary for the Prime Minister of Canada to attend, and it was the unanimous opinion of members of this house that he should go. The Minister of Justice has referred to the great chivalry displayed in that motion being made by a member of the opposition, a gentleman for whom we all have the greatest respect. But I should call attention to this fact, that while the Prime Minister was away in London, those who before his leaving had spoken in favour of a reciprocity arrangement started a campaign against it and enunciated the policy of "no truck or trade with the Yankees." Those who now profess to be so much in favour of reciprocity left no stone unturned at that time to defeat what would have been one of the greatest blessings ever offered to this country, and which the present government have not been very successful in getting if their efforts have been just as diligent as this house has been led to believe they have been in recent years.
It is interesting to recall that during that campaign-of course I was very young at the time, but I remember the speeches made by the present Minister of Justice in favour of reciprocity and I remember his denunciation of the noble eighteen who opposed it and of all the rest who talked this silly nonsense, as he described it, of having no truck or trade with the Yankees.
I think perhaps I have overstepped the time I intended to take up, but I do wish to urge upon the government that they reconsider their decision with regard to the proposed adjournment. After all every member of this house has duties and responsibilities and obligations at the present time, and every member of this house knows perfectly well that if we adjourn until the twentieth of May, thus getting into a season when this chamber becomes at times almost unbearable, business that we could now dispose of in an extra week or ten days will occupy the time of the house for three weeks or more. Many members of the house will have an election campaign to fight, and the demands upon them are pretty strenuous financially and physically at the' present time. I do hope that the government will reconsider their decision. If it is going to take two weeks to prepare the price spreads legislation-I know it is an important matter and should receive all the attention it demands-it could be ready for the house to proceed with on the Tuesday after Easter Monday. We could then get through with the work of the house in a very short time, and the members could

Long Adjournment[DOT]-Mr. Brown
go to their homes and look after the good of the country by trying to get reelected in the best way they could.
There is not much more that I have to say. No business institution in Canada would make a suggestion of the kind now put forward by the government. I regret that the acting iPrime Minister is not in his seat at the moment, but I do ask his colleagues who are here to reconsider the decision at which apparently they have arrived to have this long adjournment. Let us come back after the ordinary Easter recess, conclude the business of the session, and thereby save the very serious drain upon the taxpayers of this country of the S15,000 a day to which the Prime Minister referred, and which undoubtedly is a very serious matter at the present time.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisga.r):: Mr. Speaker, there are many things that have been suggested by the various debates that have taken place during the session that might call for remarks, font it is not my intention to discuss the past debates at any length. Rather would I confine myself to giving a few reasons why it would seem inadvisable that a long adjournment of the house should be taken.
There is one thing, however, to which I should like to refer, and that was suggested by the number of references that have been made this evening to reciprocity. I met a friend, a personal friend but a political opponent with whom I have had political controversies in the past, and I told him that the best joke of the session was that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) had said that the Conservative party had never been opposed to reciprocity. I said to him, "How would you have liked to go back home during the controversy we had in 1911 and tell the people that the Conservative party had never been opposed to reciprocity?" He said, "I thought we were." That reminded me of a story told of an adherent to a certain sect which does not believe in, the realities of evil or sin. This man once met a little girl and he asked her how her father was. She replied, "Oh, he is very sick." He said, "He only thinks he is sack." A few weeks later he met the little girl again, and inquired as to her fathers' health. She said, "He thinks he is dead and the neighbours thought so too for they came and took him away to bury him." It is evident that the Conservatives only thought they were opposed to reciprocity. It would be interesting to know whether they were really opposed to it, whether they only thought they were or just what their real attitude was. However, this gentleman said to me, "We

thought we were opposed to reciprocity." We certainly thought they were, and I still think there is abundant evidence that the Conservatives were opposed to reciprocity in 1911.
In connection with the proposed adjournment, personally I have no objection to it as it meets my own plans fairly well. However, it does place an undue burden upon hon. members who come from distant places and who have taken up residences in Ottawa for a definite time. This objection has been urged quite strongly. The request for a long adjournment is quite in harmony with the attitude of this government throughout this session. It has been evident on more than one occasion that the government was stalling for time. I would refer to the instance 'when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) moved a vote of want of confidence in the government. After hon. members on this side had finished the debate, it was continued by hon. members apposite far a full day, indicating that they were stalling for time.
One reason why I would protest against a long adjournment is illustrated by a matter which I brought to the notice of the government. I pointed out that a motion for a return asking for the increases and decreases made in duties during the sessions of 1929 and 1930 was passed but the return had not been made. I pointed out that the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt) had asked for a return giving only the increases, and that this had been tabled. I think it desirable, before hon. members are allowed to go into the west to spread these stories about the number of increases in the tariff made in those particular sessions, that the full facts be placed before the house. Evidently the government does not want to give these full facts; it wants to lay stress upon the increases made in the tariff. This is quite in harmony with the practices of the past. I doubt if the government will say anything more about the decreases which were made in the tariff during the sessions of 1929 and 1930 than the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) said the other day when he referred to the reductions in the British preference on hay, straw and such things. The Minister of Railways said that this was one of the things out of which he got a good laugh-the loud laugh that speaks the vacant mind. Hon. members opposite like to refer to the putting of hay and straw on the free list, but I think we should discuss this matter sanely and intelligently. When the Minister of Finance of that day, Hon. Charles Dunning, presented his budget, it

Long Adjournment-Mr. Brown
was stated quite plainly that about fifty articles had been put on the free list because under no circumstances would any of them be imported from Great Britain. This fact was made abundantly clear. Is it any more foolish to put these articles on the free list than to continue them as dutiable under the British preference? Is it any more foolish to put hay and straw on the free list than to keep them on the tariff schedule with a duty of about SI .60? That is all that was done, yet hon. gentlemen went through the country and tried to create a great laugh because of this.
One of the greatest offenders in this respect was the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), the gentleman who has been talking so much about ethics in business. He forgot there was such a thing as ethics in political controversy. At a meeting in my constituency he referred to the sinister joke and gesture of the so-called Dunning budget, whereas if the facts had been stated properly the explanation would have been that the sheets had been wiped clear of fifty articles which under no circumstances would be imported from Great Britain. It was more sensible to put them on the free list than to allow them to remain in the tariff schedules. I would like to have this return showing the decreases made in the tariff during those sessions before hon. members go out through the country to make their tariff speeches and repeat the misrepresentations they have made in the past. However, I am afraid I will not get this before adjournment.
There is a stronger reason why we should not have this long adjournment. The farm loan bill is now before the senate, and I should like to know if it will come back to us, with possible senate amendments, before *we adjourn at Easter. It is of the greatest importance that this bill should be passed and placed upon the statute books at the earliest possible date. The farmers all through the country are waiting for this legislation in order that they may receive its benefits. All the legislation to be offered at this session should be completed as speedily as possible. Any relief measures which this government proposes to bring down should receive immediate sanction. What happened last year? We passed a works program of $40,000,000, but this could not be passed before the end of June, at which time over half the season for the carrying on of public works had passed. We had been told since that only $8,000,000 of this amount was spent. It seems absurd to allow half the summer season
to pass, the season for the construction of public works, before passing such legislation. However, that was the situation that prevailed last year and it will prevail again this year if these measures are not presented immediately. What was the use of providing for $40,000,000 to relieve unemployment and then spending only about $8,000,000? I contend it is absolutely necessary that the business of this parliament should be concluded as speedily as possible in order that these very important measures may be placed on the statute books and that the people of Canada who are dependent upon relief may know just what relief it will be possible for them to obtain. This cannot be done until these measures are finally given effect to according to the rules of procedure.
It has been contended that there is no demand for an immediate election. I had a letter from one of my constituents to-day in which he says: "Is there no way by which the Liberals can force an immediate election?" He pointed to the rumours that were reported in the newspapers that an election was not likely to be held until (September, and said that the Conservatives always liked to choose for an election the time when the producers, the farmers, would not be able to attend to it, being engaged with their farm work. Perhaps that is the thought that was in the mind of the Minister of Justice when he said that the government would choose the time when they thought they could win. Undoubtedly the month of September is about the poorest time it is possible to choose for an election in the prairie provinces. The farmers are busily engaged with their harvests, and in many cases it is not possible for them to get help to carry on their work. The threshing machines are all running, and in order to get men out to the polls it is necessary for the party workers on both sides to provide extra men to keep the gangs working while the other men are away at the polls. It is about the worst month possible for holding an election in the west. The proper time to hold an election in the prairie provinces is the month of June.


Mr. A. S. RENNIE (South Oxford):: I
have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made in the debate on the amendment; I have enjoyed them very much, and in my rambling observations I may possibly cover some of the ground that has been traversed by previous speakers. Let me say first that to my mind three important factors stand out very strongly as to why at this time there should not be a long adjournment of the house. Those three factors are: first, the
2540	COMMONS
Long Adjournment-Mr. Rennie
cost involved; second, the inconvenience to the members and those interested in the government of the country, and, third, the demoralizing effect upon the trade of the dominion. We are all interested in present economic conditions in Canada, and we on this side of the house all feel that those who are bearing the burden of taxation to-day should not be asked to bear any more. The cost involved in a long adjournment will mean that the farmers especially and the taxpayers generally will be again burdened with unnecessary taxes. That is one reason why a long adjournment should not be considered at this time. .Another reason is, as I have said, the inconvenience and expense which will be occasioned to members from the west or other points a long distance from Ottawa through their having to go home for a five weeks vacation and afterwards return for the remaining period of the session.
There is another reason, and possibly one of the most important that we as members of the House of Commons should consider. I recall in days gone by in the mercantile business in Ontario the stagnant condition which prevailed during the period before a presidential election in the United States, and I believe in this province to-day a pending election has a great tendency to demoralize the mercantile business. Therefore I think a long adjournment will give the people the idea that the time elapsing before the election is to be prolonged, and such a condition will demoralize trade. That to my mind is a very bad situation for the country to be in.
In my short experience in the House of Commons there has been introduced a resolution which in my opinion is an absurd one. I refer to a motion moved last February by my good friend the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) in connection with the Ottawa trade agreements. May I just retrace my steps to my constituency for a moment? It is my pleasure and privilege to represent South Oxford, which in days gone by has sent to this house such men as Sir Richard Cartwright, the late Malcolm Schell, the late Thomas Cayley, and my good friend Hon. Donald Sutherland, who was of the same political views as those of my hon. friends opposite. Those were citizens from the good old constituency of Oxford who had the respect of everyone in the riding and who were men of high ideals. Coming from that riding, which is practically a farming one, where there has never been any failure of crops and where we find a very fine type of farmers, may I say that during the last couple of years those farmers who were prosperous in
fMr. Rennie.]
days gone by are experiencing most difficult conditions under the policies of the present government. They find they cannot sell their products for the price they should get for them. I was quite interested last year at tax paying time when one of the good farmers in my constituency, one who happens to be a Conservative in politics, said to me: "Rennie, this is the first time in the thirty years that I have been farming that I have found it difficult- to pay my taxes. I have the grain in the barn, but it seems almost impossible to sell it." If the Ottawa agreements appealed to the farmers in the days when they were first introduced, I think they would have appealed to the farming people of my constituency. But the people of South Oxford have at least a couple of grievances with regard to the present government. Possibly the house will recall that in 1932 a certain resident of South Oxford was selected by 'the government to make an investigation into the tobacco situation. I make bold to say that had that report been brought down in the House of Commons long before it was, the tobacco people in the southern part of Ontario would have benefited a great deal thereby. So I say that in that particular case the present government is not one of action, but I believe we might well call it a government of delays.
I should like briefly to outline conditions in my constituency. My predecessor, Mr. Cayley, who was a fine type of gentleman, was elected in South Oxford in the election of 1920. He died in May 1933, and I appreciate the remarks made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) as recorded in Hansard of January 25, 1934, when in paying tribute to Mr. Cayley, he said:
He was a representative of the very finest type of citizenship of the old province of Ontario.
South Oxford had no representation in this house from May, 1933, until May, 1934. If the fine type of citizenship about which the Prime Minister was speaking came from that constituency, why was South Oxford so disfranchised? I think the principal reason was that the government of the day had not enough confidence in their policies to give the farmers of South Oxford an opportunity to express their opinion at the polls. However, an election was brought on in April, 1'934. Why do I bring this up? Simply because if there is any evidence from the farmers of what they think of the Ottawa agreements you have it -from the farmers of South Oxford. Remember that in that campaign the policies of the present administration were very well expounded. I remember my genial friend the hon. member for

Long Adjournment-Mr. Rennie
Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) going up and down the highways and byways of South Oxford telling the people of the great good that the Ottawa agreements were going to be to them. After all this, and after several of the cabinet ministers had come into the constituency, what was the result of the byelection in 1934? It gave the Liberal candidate and the policies of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King the largest majority ever accorded to any candidate there since confederation. I leave it to the house, therefore, to draw a conclusion as to the views of the farmers of that great constituency with respect to the Ottawa agreements and what benefit those agreements have been to them.
Last February the hon. member for Toron-to-Scarborough introduced in the house a resolution which it is not necessary for me to repeat. I know what the South Oxford farmers did in 1934, but in order to be perfectly fair I thought it desirable to ascertain what the farmers there think of the situation to-day, so I took the opportunity of writing to a couple of men and I have here telegrams from them. They are men of that standard of citizenship that most counties admire, men who are above reproach; one of them happens to be an ex-warden of the county. I asked him to give me his candid opinion of the Ottawa agreements, and this is what Harry II. Scott, ex-warden of Oxford, said regarding the Ottawa agreements:
Re Ottawa agreements, my candid opinion is we have benefited some by our bacon quota with Great Britain. Our cattle, wheat and dairy products have suffered by the Ottawa agreements.
I also wrote to one who is a large producer of milk in another part of the riding and asked his candid opinion. This is what Mr. Colin A. Hawkins, one of the fine farmers of South Oxford, said:
The dairy industry has been practically ruined; dairy products of all kinds are being sold far below cost of production; hence the longer the dairy farmers follow their occupation the further they are becoming in debt.
So that reveals the situation as far as the general farmer in South Oxford is concerned.
I have been looking into the statistics to find what benefit the Ottawa agreements have been to the Canadian farmer. We are thinking now pretty much of wheat, and on checking up the record I find that in 1932, for the twelve months ended November, which covers pretty closely the year before the agreements went into effect, the total export of wheat from Canada was 222,000,000 bushels. In 1933 it had dropped to 202,000,000 bushels, and by 1934 it had fallen to 108,000,000 bushels. I am dealing here with exports to 92582-162
all countries. After all, what the farmer wants is a market for his product; he is not very particular as to the destination of his grain once it leaves his hands. If however we turn to the exports to the United Kingdom we find this situation:
Exports of Wheat to the United Kingdom (Twelve months ending in November in each year)
Bushels
1932		 135,500,000
1933		 124,800,000
1934		 118,614,000
It is interesting to compare these exports with our exports to the United States during the same period:
Exports of Wheat to the United States (Twelve months ending in November in each year)
Bushels
1932		 1,080,000
1933		 374,000
1934		 6,181,000
So it would seem that the more the present government tries to direct trade in one direction the more it goes in another.
It was supposed that when we adopted the empire trade agreements our imports from the United Kingdom would increase and our imports from the United States would fall off. But the fact has been quite the opposite.
I have here a table showing the imports of dutiable goods from the United Kingdom and from the United States which I would like to [DOT] put on Hansard. The facts tell the story.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Will the hon. gentleman try to keep somewhere near the amendment? These are all budget speeches that we have had.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Remarks similar to these made by the hon. member (Mr. Rennie) were allowed by the Speaker in 1926 on a similar motion.


Almon Secord Rennie: This table is in millions of dollars:
Dutiable Imports (In millions of dollars)
Year	United Kingdom United States
1932	
65.5	168.21933	
52.3	128.61934	
61.0	107.3
It is clear that our imports of dutiable goods from the United Kingdom are still below the level reached in 1932. That is all I wish to say at the moment in regard' to the Ottawa agreements. The figures speak for themselves.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) referred the other night to the lack of discipline among the youth of the


WISED EDITION
[Stage Direction]
Long Adjournment-Mr. Rennie
country, lb has been my pleasure and privilege for a number of years to be interested in boy scout work and the rover scout movement. I think it is quite uncalled for that we should take the stand to-day that the youth of our country are not up to the standard of those in days gone by. I take great exception to that statement. I think we are turning out of our colleges and universities to-day young men and women with high ideals who are a credit to this country. What I think we need so far as our youth are concerned is perhaps a little more leadership on the part of the present government so that when these young men and women pass their examinations and leave college they may have an opportunity to get a start in life, which at the present time under the policies of this government they cannot find.
These have been rather rambling remarks, Mr. Speaker, but I do think the proposed long adjournment is entirely uncalled for. I believe the great task of the government is to restore confidence on the part of the people of this dominion. Instead of adjourning for six weeks the government should be more active in helping the great mass of farmers who are finding these the most trying times they have experienced in many years. I urge the government not to delay in bringing in some measures of reform which will help the farmers, because after all the farmers constitute the back-bone of this great country * which we all love so much.
Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am the representative in this house of the St. Henri division of Montreal. In that constituency we have what we call a temple of eloquence, a magnificent hall, where we had the pleasure of receiving two outstanding Canadian statesmen. In the middle of November we had the pleasure and1 honour of hearing the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens), who came to our district to tell the people of Montreal of the settlement in the near future of all the grievances he had and they had in regard to trade and industry. Then during the month of January last, a few weeks before this session opened, we had the pleasure of hearing, not only in that magnificent hall but all over Canada by means of the radio, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), who announced reforms which were to be brought about during the present session, and some of which were set out in the speech from the throne. Contained in that speech are references to many matters, some of which have been dealt with and others of which as yet have not come before us. I should like to read one 
paragraph, which eulogizes Canada and her inhabitants, but if you read that paragraph to-day you read it with sorrow. The paragraph is as follows:
The four hundredth anniversary of the landing of Jacques Cartier was fittingly commemorated in the chief centres connected with his voyages of discovery. Representatives of the governments of the United Kingdom, France, and the United States, took part. The celebration and the visit of a large and distinguished mission from France knit new bonds of understanding.
May I make a reference, sir to the untimely passing of the United States Minister to Canada, Hon. Warren Delano Robbins, who died yesterday. He served the people of his country well. He took part in all the celebrations connected with the Jacques Cartier festival. He was extremely kind to French Canadians, speaking all the time in the French language in order to show that he was bilingual and that, while living in Canada under the British flag, he had sympathy with the people who carry on the traditions of old France in this country. I wish to pay a tribute to Mr. Robbins, who served the United States so well in Canada and who has departed to the great beyond. I hope that God will give him a very happy eternal life.
In the speech from the throne I find mention of many matters that have been presented to this house in the form of legislation. Some of these have been passed; some have not yet received the royal assent, while others have not been even considered. I humbly submit that it is very difficult for us to adjourn at this time. I do not make this reference as a political move on my own behalf; I make it as a matter of business. Those engaged in commercial undertakings, in farming or in professional life, know that to be crowned with success any work must be carried on with continuity of purpose. The people of Canada have sent us here to look after the business of the country and to safeguard their rights, and this adjournment will be a disappointment not only to us as members but to the people generally. We come here from distant provinces, from the Atlantic to the Pacific; we are called together by a proclamation appearing in the Canada Gazette, and we expect to deliberate here until the session is ended. Many of the matters dealt with in the speech from the throne 'have been discussed and passed by this house; many have not yet been presented. The people are watching these days to see if their representatives are performing their duties and assisting in the passage of the reforms which were announced and which are to be placed before parliament. All people,

Long Adjournment-Mr. Mercier (St. Henri)
irrespective of their political leanings, will admit that the people are suffering. Industrialists are discouraged. The farmers have been expecting better prices for their products, but have not received those prices. The professional man is dreaming of better days, and the small real estate owner looks towards better times.
Hon. members who have preceded me in this debate have outlined the case for the farmer, and I believe I would do well to place before hon. members the case for the real estate owner. In my view this is a matter which in the very near future will demand careful consideration. Only a few days ago I read in Montreal newspapers about an answer which had been given by the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) to a delegation which had to come to Ottawa and appeared before him asking for remedies for their grievances. It was announced that in the near future a law might be introduced which would have the effect of meeting those grievances. It is known that not only in the city of Montreal but in the city of Quebec and, in fact, throughout Canada the small real estate owner cannot make both ends' meet. He cannot pay the interest on his loans nor can he make his payments of taxes at the city hall. On the other hand the farmer cannot make his payments to the county treasurer or to the local municipal council.
I believe all hon. members are anxious to see legislation along these lines put into effect right away, and we are of the opinion that such action should not have to wait until after an election is held. Interest is not being paid to creditors. Municipalities are looking everywhere in an effort to collect their taxes. Bills may be sent but no cheques or answers are received. The last session of the Quebec legislature authorized the city of Montreal to tax its citizens to the extent of nearly $8,500,000. These moneys are not to be collected for the purpose of paying for work, but are merely to balance the budget. Out of that enormous sum no moneys will be paid for future work; their only use will be that of meeting the deficit.
The real estate owner is not paid by the unemployment commission in the city of Montreal even for his rent. The commission is short of money and for that reason cannot hand it out. All the people are hoping that legislation may be introduced which will have the effect of helping the small real estate owner, who after all is a man who is most useful to the country; his prosperity means 92582-1624
an encouragement to many lines of endeavour, such as carpentry, plumbing, bricklaying, electrical work, roofing, painting, stone cutting and so on. Of course we agree that our farmer friends from the west need help, due to the fact that they are in distressed circumstances, but we must remember that to some extent they have received relief. I urge now that the urban dweller, the small real estate owner, must be helped. He must receive consideration from provincial and federal authorities so that he may be given a chance to free himself from bankruptcy. These people, through their savings, or through sums inherited, have built homes, but they are obliged to pay taxes which in the city of Montreal are as constant as a summer rain. Because of his heavy burdens he is suffering most severely. The real estate owner has no income and no work, and because of these facts I say a measure should be presented which will extend to him the help which the farmers and the wheat producers have enjoyed.
It is most interesting to note the absence of speakers on the government side. I do not offer any words of reproach to the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Duguay), because he is not often heard in this chamber. He can be as silent as a squirrel, but he should be careful when the hunter is about.


Mr. DUGUAY:: But as a squirrel I may be prepared to whistle.


Paul Mercier: You will
whistle soon enough. Hon. members on this side of the house have not spoken at length because we have been accused of opposing everything. It has been said that it has been the policy of the opposition "to oppose, to oppose, to oppose." We do not oppose what the government has stolen from us in the formation of its political program. When they go before the people of Canada dressed in our clothes and in our colours they will not be disguised sufficiently to prevent the people from voting against them.
The suggestion for the long adjournment astonishes me. We see in the government men who are good lawyers and good politicians. No man under the sun is indispensable. Sir Wilfred Laurier departed prematurely to the great beyond. His life has been told in the words of many authors, and his qualities as a statesman will live in the memories of Canadians of all generations. To-day we have as leader of the opposition a man who with the wind in his favour will be returned as Prime Minister of Canada.
2544	COMMONS
Long Adjournment-Mr. Mercier (St. Henri)
The trouble with this adjournment is that it is too long. We are obliged to go back to our homes, to our farms and to our business, leaving something undone, something on which we have been spending our time since January 17 for the benefit of the nation. We have been here since the opening of the session assimilating the legislation which has been introduced becoming familiar with it; and now it is proposed that we should suspend our deliberations and return after five or six weeks and take up again the legislation we have left unfinished. What would be said of one who started painting a picture on January 17, and then when the painting was still unfinished left off work on April 12 or 13 and did not come back to it until May 20? Of course the picture would not look well; some of the paint would be fainter than the rest, and the picture would lack that which continuity of effort would ordinarily bring to it. It is about the same with this legislation that we are asked to leave unfinished. We have a big task before us. Here is legislation for the benefit of Canada, and it will be bad for the people if we go home and leave it unfinished. Let us put all these reforms through as soon as possible. They are not valentines that we are sending out to the people; they are not simply good wishes; they are laws that we are enacting to help the people, laws that were conceived by the Liberal party but have been put into Conservative shape and are being brought down by the Conservative government. How could we oppose these measures that we ourselves have conceived? It is like bringing up a child that we had cherished; when he is compelled to go elsewhere for a time and meets with other companions, we do not on that account reject him.
What can we say to the people if we go home without passing these social reforms? Everybody welcomed them in my district. One of the listeners-in to the Prime Minister's addresses would not move on when somebody told him the radio address was finished. He said that he was waiting for a souvenir which he thought was going to be distributed with the reforms. But there are no souvenirs accompanying them, and I believe that the reforms themselves are inadequate. I believe that the wind is in our favour and that we shall come back to power, and I am afraid that then we shall find these reforms on our doorstep, which will be a nasty position for the next administration.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We shall have to nurse them.


Paul Mercier: I come now to the three propositions contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). First he states that the public interest will best be served by parliament continuing in session until it has completed the consideration of those measures mentioned in the speech from the throne and not yet introduced. That is quite true. We have only to read the speech from the throne to see that it promises many things for the people of Canada, for the working man, for the farmer, for the merchant, for industry, and that legislation should be brought down as soon as possible. The speech from the throne is a. sort of agenda which says to the people of Canada: Here is what we are going to give you this session. This is the last chance of this government to bring about prosperity. I do not say that the government should be forced to bring down to the very letter everything that is mentioned in the speech from the throne, but the principles that are there enunciated should be put into force, and the speech from the throne does mention many measures for the welfare of Canada. As far as I am concerned, as a representative of the people, if I see the people happy I am happy. I would like to see prosperity return again. I am not narrow-minded enough not to want to see prosperity return under this government simply because we are now in opposition. No, I should like to see prosperity return, and I should like to see this legislation that was promised in the speech from the throne brought down. The speech from the throne was the most glowing rainbow I have ever seen in the political skies for the benefit of the people of Canada. Let us get on with the legislation and finish our work. We can adjourn for a week at Easter, and then come back and finish up the work of the session as soon as possible, to the satisfaction of the people and our own satisfaction, and then we shall be free to go home and organize our battalions and get ready for the fray.
Secondly, the amendment urges that the discussion of the measures already before the house and not yet passed should be completed. The people of Canada are eagerly awaiting the legislation based on the report of the price spreads commission and the report of the housing committee. If we leave those reports in abeyance for five weeks, what will the people say? Why not take a week to study them, from April 12 until after the Easter holiday, and then come back and try to put the recommendations of those committees into legislative form to help consumer and producer?-because we must work for both

Long Adjournment-Mr. Boulanger
to bring about prosperity. One must not be so much strengthened that he will strangle the other.
The amendment calls for the consideration of such legislative proposals as may be rendered necessary or advisable by the report of the price spreads commission and the report of the special committee on housing. The people are expecting this legislation to be brought down in the near future. The acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley) is a very refined and able man. He has made a good leader since he has been in charge, but he should not ask that the house be adjourned for twenty days or five weeks. I do not pay him this compliment in order to get something, as I have been elected to oppose the government. I and the people of my constituency think that such an adjournment is not in the interests of the house or the country. We do not want to appear ungrateful; there is so much ungratefulness in the world to-day. If you cannot take care of yourself you do not find many people ready to nurse you. The only castle we have in sight just now is the poor house. I think a vote against this adjournment would be approved by the country. The full program of legislation should be placed before us in order that we may study it, and the house should then proceed with its business without interruption.
Mr. OSCAR. L. BOULANGER (Belle-chasse): Mr. Speaker, if personal reasons were being considered this evening I could offer a good one against a prolonged adjournment. In company with ten other hon. members of the royal commission on price spreads, I have been here in Ottawa since the latter part of October. Although this city is a pleasant, agreeable and hospitable place, we are all anxious to get home. However, I submit that personal reasons should not be taken into account. The convenience or inconvenience of hon. members is no reason why they should be either for or against the adjournment of the house. The only reason which should be considered is the interest and advantage of the nation. I submit that the interest and advantage of the nation demand that the house continue in session, after the usual short adjournment for Easter, and finish the business of the house in order to give the people a chance to make known their opinion on the way the affairs of this country have been administered during the last five years.
The government have asked for a long adjournment for two reasons. The first is the unfortunate illness of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), and the other, as they allege,
is the necessity for considering legislation to be brought down to implement the recommendations of the royal commission on price spreads and mass buying. In connection with the first reason I submit, as I submitted a moment ago, that personal reasons should not be taken into account. We are all sorry that the Prime Minister has been ill and our sincere hope is that he may have a prompt and complete recovery. But I submit in all humility that the interests of the nation are superior to the convenience of the Prime Minister or of the government or of the Conservative party. After all, Canada is not the Prime Minister's kingdom or seigniory. It is too bad that he has been ill, but that is not the fault of Canada. There should be some good man in the ranks of the Conservative party ready to carry on during the time necessary for the recovery of the Prime Minister. When a king dies, we say, " The king is dead, long live the king." A new king is always selected immediately to replace the one who has died, and the same thing should be true of prime ministers, leaders of parties or leaders of governments; if for some reason the recognized leader is unable to continue, he should pass the helm of the state over to the second in command. I agree entirely with the previous speaker (Mr. Mercier, St. Henri) *ho stated that the Prime Minister was lucky in having a second in command in the person of the acting Prime Minister, (Sir George Perley). The right hon. gentleman has done exceedingly well during the absence of the Prime Minister, and he deserves the congratulations of every hon. member.


George Halsey Perley: What can I do for the hon. member?


Mr. BOULANGER:: I am not asking for
anything. The second reason advanced by the government for a long adjournment is the necessity of studying the legislation-necessary to implement the recommendations of the price spreads commission. If the government do not know what that commission is going to recommend to-morrow morning, they are the only ones who do not know.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, April 9, 1935