1. Were there any overages of grain accumulated in the Montreal harbour commission elevators during the years 1922 to 1930?

2. If so, what were the overages in each of these years?

3. To whom were such overages sold?

4. What money was realized by the sale of overages ?

5. What disposition was made of the proceeds?

1. What was the rental named in the lease from the Montreal Board of Harbour Commissioners to the Canadian Import Coal Company?

2. Were any special privileges allowed in this lease that did not apply to the leases granted to the other coal dealers?

3. Was the entire Biekerdike pier leased?

4. If not, what portion was leased?

5. Were there any other tenants on this pier?

6. Was lease approved by order in council?

7. If not, why?

8. If lease was for an annual rental that was not adequate and not approved by order in council, will lessee be called upon to pay a further amount to make up the deficiency?

9. What coal was purchased from the Canadian Import Company by the Montreal harbour commission ?

10. Was a proper check made to see that full weight was received?

11. What were the prices paid by the Montreal harbour commission to the Canadian Import Coal Company for the different grades and varieties of coal?

PRIVILEGE - Mr. MACKENZIE - (VANCOUVER CENTRE)

On the orders of the day:

Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, arising out of an article in the Ottawa Journal of to-day dealing with a debate which took place in another place yesterday, and in which the following words are used:

The committee-[DOT]

It is referring to the Beauharnois committee of last year:

-representing three political persuasions, heard the evidence and adjudicated thereon. It was a fact beyond controversy that the report was adopted unanimously by the committee.

I wish, sir, to state again as I stated last year on the thirtieth day of July, 1931, as will be seen by page 4373 of Hansard of that dhte, that that statement is entirely incorrect. I so. informed the chairman of the committee at the final sitting of the committee on July 28, 1931. I so informed my right hon. leader and my colleagues on this side of the house, and my right hon. leader so informed the Prime Minister last year before the debate of July 30, 1931.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that this resolution is very similar to the resolution that preceded the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act which was introduced last session, and the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act which was introduced at an earlier stage of the present session. There is, however, one feature of the present resolution which makes it markedly different from the previous ones. The previous resolutions proposed to give to the governor in council power to pass orders in council with respect to peace, order and good government. That particular power is fortunately conspicuous by its absence from the present resolution, and I would like to say to the government how glad I am that they have seen the force of the objections which have been made from this side of the house to the governor in council taking to himself the power to legislate with respect to peace, order and good govemnment. With that objectionable feature removed, the resolution in its present form is infinitely less objectionable than the previous resolution.

However, the present resolution still contains the objectionable feature of allowing the governor in council at his discretion to take moneys from the consolidated revenue fund for the purposes which are stated, and only in a general way, in the terms of the resolution. I do not believe it would be possible to add anything to what has already been said from this side of the house with respect to the wrongfulness of that method of proceeding. It has been asserted over and over again that the supreme obligation of the House of Commons is to maintain unrestricted control over the destination of all grants, .and to that end it is essential that any grants of public money from the consolidated revenue fund should be made for specific objects designated, and the amounts required therefor should also be specifically named. I would like it to be understood that we on this side oppose as strenuously as we did, heretofore, in the last session and in the earlier part of this session, the feature of this resolution which leaves it to the discretion of the governor in council to take from the consolidated revenue fund whatever amounts of 41701-154J

money he may wish to take for the purposes named in the resolution. It is another blank cheque which the administration is asking for itself, notwithstanding the obvious objections to that course which have been made only too plain in the course of debate in this house.

There is a feature of the present resolution that I would like to draw to the attention of the Prime Minister. It seems to me that in its terms the resolution is ambiguous, the extent to which criticism may be directed against the resolution and the bill itself will depend upon its exact terms when that ambiguity is removed. As the resolution reads, it would appear at first sight that it had relation to agreements to be made between the dominion and the provinces, and that all the moneys that were to be taken from the consolidated revenue fund would be taken solely in connection with those agreements under the terms thereof. On the other hand, the resolution read in a different way would appear to give the governor in council power to take money from the consolidated revenue fund not only for the purposes named in the agreements with the provinces but also, for other purposes which may not relate to. any agreements with the provinces at all.

Moreover, there is a further ambiguity in that it does not appear whether this resolution relates exclusively to what may be required for the purposes of unemployment and farm relief. I should like the Prime Minister to indicate before we go into committee whether the resolution is intended to be restricted to unemployment and farm relief or whether it goes further than that. Let me make clear by illustration the meaning of what I have just said. The resolution reads:

That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the governor in council to enter into agreements with all or any of the provinces respecting relief measures in such province or provinces; and to pay out of the consolidated revenue fund such sums as in his discretion may be required to meet the obligations created by such agreements.

The first sentence, that is to say that comprised in the five lines from " that it is expedient " down to " agreements," is quite complete in itself. It makes it apparent that the governor in council is asking for powers to make agreements with the provinces and to take from the consolidated revenue fund moneys for the purpose set out. The resolution goes on, however, to name other purposes, and it is not clear from the resolution whether these purposes are such as must in some way be related to the agree-

2444 COMMONS

Unemployment-Agreements. with Provinces *

ments made with the provinces. The resolution reads:

To provide for special requirements in the national parks and in the drought stricken areas of the province of Saskatchewan;

That one provision is ambiguous in itself. It is not clear from the reading of it whether it relates to special requirements for national parks, generally-parks in British Columbia and Manitoba, as well as in Saskatchewan- or whether it relates solely to national parks in Saskatchewan. As I read it, the English would relate exclusively to parks in the province of Saskatchewan.

Mr. BENNETT:

I think there is only

one park in Saskatchewan.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Yes.

Mr. BENNETT:

The plural form is used in this instance.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Then it is

intended to go beyond the one province, although the terms used do not make that clear. It reads:

To provide for special requirements in the national parks and in the drought stricken areas of the province of Saskatchewan;

The Prime Minister has cleared up that point, and has indicated that there are two separate purposes, namely, to provide for special requirements in the national parks, and for special requirements in the drought-stricken areas of the province of Saskatchewan. Then another purpose is:

To assist in defraying the cost of the sale and distribution of products of field, farm, sea, river and mine;

That may be an entirely separate matter from anything relating to unemployment relief.

Mr. BENNETT:

That was in the bill of

last session.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

In the bill of last session that power was given, but it was given only for unemployment relief purposes. The bill of last session was designated as one dealing with unemployment and farm relief, and I should like to know whether this particular provision is intended to be restricted in the same manner. If it were given another interpretation it would of course permit the government to bonus the products of field, farm, sea, river and mine for any purpose and in any connection. If such is the case it ought to have its place among some of the resolutions which have been brought down by the Minister of Finance in connection with the budget, rather than to form part of a

resolution concerning unemployment and farm relief.

The next group of subjects mentioned relates more specifically to the loaning of money. There again it is not apparent whether the loans must appear first in some agreement, or whether this is a separate power which the administration is seeking to take to itself. The resolution reads:

To loan money to any province on such terms as may be agreed upon and to guarantee the repayment of moneys borrowed by such province and to assist any province in any way that may be deemed necessary or advisable to provide for the relief of distress and the support and maintenance of those requiring assistance,

Then, finally-

And to loan money to and guarantee the payment of money by any public corporation or undertaking.

That last clause is very wide, indeed. If it has no relation to the agreements that will be drawn between the federal government and the provinces, it is simply a request for authority from this house to enable the government to loan money to and guarantee the payment of money by any corporation or undertaking. Whether or not that has to do with the emergent condition existing at the present time, and is a part of unemployment and farm relief legislation, is not made clear. From the wording no one can say whether or not it is simply a provision to help any particular corporation or undertaking the administration may wish to help.

I do not desire to be critical of the resolution until I understand its terms perfectly, and see the bill that is based upon it. There will then be time to bring its features further to the attention of the house and the country. I ask the Prime Minister first to make clear whether or not the resolution is intended as an unemployment relief resolution, and whether all that is in it is to be construed as relating to the problem of unemployment and farm relief, or whether it is in the nature of a series of separate measures, one relating to unemployment and farm relief, and another relating to the powers of the government to loan moneys and to guarantee moneys loaned to provinces and corporations, and to make grants of public moneys to public corporations and undertakings. Further, is it also a measure to give the government power to assist in defraying the cost of the sale and distribution of products of the field, farm, sea, river and mine, wholly independent of the degree to which the actions of the government in that regard may be related to unemployment and farm relief.

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces

When the bill is introduced hon. members on this side of the house will wish to discuss the matter at greater length. At the present time, however, so far as the principle of discretionary power is concerned, I should like to emphasize again that we protest as strongly as ever against the government being granted powers to take at its discretion from the consolidated revenue fund of the country, without limitation and with but little in the way of designation of the uses to which they are to be put, whatever moneys are required for the several purposes herein mentioned.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :

Mr. Speaker, the resolution stands in

the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) who will be prepared to answer the questions asked when the resolution is in committee. However in the light of the statements just made by the leader of the opposition it seems fitting that I should make a few observations.

At the meeting of the representatives of all the provinces of Canada held in this city a few days ago we discussed fully the question as to how they considered it would be best to deal with the future. They were most emphatic in their expression of the opinion that no good purpose would be served by stating an amount in any bill of this character. One premier said that he objected strenuously to that being done, because it would place him in the embarrassing position of endeavouring always to have it said that he had obtained his full share of the money. Other representatives expressed similar opinions.

As to the soundness of the view of the leader of the opposition to the effect that a blank cheque is undesirable I have nothing to add to what I have said on previous occasions. It is not the general principle upon which parliaments or legislatures proceed. However in the cases to which I referred some time ago, without going over them again, parliament has found it necessary at times to do 3o. That is, the limitation must be one which in times of emergency is imposed by reason of the financial condition of the country itself. No government will undertake financial obligations that it cannot for the moment meet, and the experience we have had during the past year makes it abundantly clear that the powers sought must in some way be provided to enable the situation which has developed in some of the provinces to be met. The provinces in the west believe they will be able to meet their ordinary expenditures during the present year. They have endeavoured to adjust their budgets to meet

their necessities, and have done that by increasing taxation and reducing appropriations.

The considered opinion expressed the other day at the conference was that while in some instances they might fall short of the full realization of their hopes, they expected they would balance their budgets. In the meantime, however, for reasons I shall not again state, it is desirable that the credit of the dominion should be sustained and protected by protecting and sustaining the credit of the provinces. During the progress of the discussion on this measure, when it becomes a bill in committee, full information will be given as to the amount of money we have had to advance to the provinces.

I am not unmindful that the leader of the opposition has suggested that a conference might have been held between the dominion and the provinces dealing with these financial problems. But the provinces affected have at the moment expressed the view that they are not in a position to readjust their whole field of taxation, and we certainly are not in a position to contemplate the changes that some of them would like us to make. But one fact is apparent, that the financial burden of most of the provincial legislatures has become well-nigh intolerable on their respective populations. For instance, you have now in some parts of this country two income taxes, provincial and federal; you have two income taxes in some provinces by reason of cities imposing income tax. It is not calculated to improve our position abroad by having such a burden of taxation. imposed upon the people of the country. Protests, of course, have been made on the theory that the income tax should be a tax collected by only one government in the state-whether it be federal or provincial is a matter that has not yet been determined. For instance, on one occasion at a conference here it was urged by the provinces that they should be left free to collect taxes from individuals, and that the dominion should collect taxes from corporations. As the greater part of the income tax is paid by corporations and the portion of it paid by individuals is relatively small, these provinces thought that they might adjust the burden against individuals in such a way as to enable it to be more equitably borne than if there were an income tax against individuals by the dominion and also another by the provinces.

These are questions which I do not think any member of the house will conclude that We are in a very good position carefully to discuss and determine at this time. The provinces have had a very, very difficult ex-

2446 COMMONS

bnemployment-Agreements with Provinces

perience, especially the newer provinces with a scattered population and large areas, and they felt that it was undesirable to place in a measure of this kind a sum of money that might be available for the purposes indicated in the resolution. I was not averse to it on general principles, but I do believe that they are sound in the objections which they take, and it is for that reason that this measure appears in the form in which it is.

The minister himself will explain to the committee the view of the provinces as to the undesirability of making contracts for public works on a large scale, or by municipalities rather than by the provinces themselves. Their financial situation that showed some sign of improvement, as I have indicated already, has not responded as was expected by reason of events in 1931, to which I have already referred. And so we are asking for power to advance money, if need be, to the provinces, by loans or guarantees, and it is not to be limited to purely unemployment purposes. It was not intended, at least in the bill, so to limit it. Some of the provinces expressed the view that while they do not expect to call upon us to any great extent, they may be compelled to do so. For instance, since we extended the operations of last year's act we have had to make substantial advances to some of the provinces to meet the difficulties of their financial situation. The minister will explain that when the house is considering the details of the bill.

With respect to the two matters mentioned by the leader of the opposition, namely, work in the national parks and relief in the province of Saskatchewan, I have only to observe that several of the western provinces are of the opinion that within the national parks there are opportunities for work to be done that might take from the cities and towns a substantial number of single men who would do some work for subsistence, plus an allowance that the provinces propose to make to them, and that that being a work which under our constitutional division of power devolves upon the federal government, we should be in a position to make a somewhat different agreement with respect to that than we would with respect to ordinary matters within provincial jurisdiction. I may illustrate it by pointing out that a highway is under construction from Jasper through to Banff. It is a purely scenic or tourist undertaking. Doubtless it will attract when it is finished within four or five years hence large numbers of people to this country, and will assist very materially, I believe, in adjusting the adverse

balance of trade. The experience has been that the tourist trade is the largest invisible item that we have. To that extent we are doing some productive work when we undertake such a construction program. But in that matter the provinces would feel that their contribution is somewhat different from what it would be under normal conditions.

The question of assisting to defray the cost of the sale and distribution of the products of field, farm, sea, river and mine was in last year's legislation. It might or might not technically be regarded as a relief provision. I say frankly to the right hon. gentleman that last year I had not so regarded it. Primarily it was intended to enable us to deal with financial difficulties that might be experienced with the pools in obtaining from the banks adequate credit if they had the large crop that they expected, and inasmuch as their physical assets of elevators and terminals had been mortgaged, we took that power last session ; we exercised it also because the crop was somewhat larger than expected. Had that power not been there we would have been placed in a difficulty by reason of the circumstances which I have already explained to the house. When the provision was made last session, we made it large enough to meet a situation that might conceivably develop in respect to matters other than those covered by the operations of the pools.

The next items, particularly the last two, deal with the question generally of providing credit facilities if they become necessary. I can only say this to the house at the moment. It is perhaps known to every one that in the United States it became necessary to create a credit corporation for the purpose of meeting a situation which happily has not reached anything like the proportions in this country that it has there. I endeavoured the other evening to point out to this house-I am afraid I did not succeed as I should have liked-the seriousness of the situation that immediately confronts the people of the North American continent, arising not from lack of wealth, but from conditions to which I alluded, because there has been such a tremendous shrinkage in values-the assets of the financial institutions having been to no inconsiderable extent, especially in the great republic, loaned on securities that are no longer active, but are now of the category, of what might be called frozen assets-that any government seized with a sense of responsibility must, I think, anticipate the possibility of having to deal with a situation in which the same attitude of mind may be taken as was taken in the United States. The min-

Unemployment-Agreements with Provinces

ister has in his hand a report foT the first three months of this year, January, February and March, of the operations of that corporation, and it is rather an illuminating document. He will make reference to it as the discussion in committee proceeds, if the questions necessitate it being done. I thought-at least, it is the view that the government has-that it would best conduce to the satisfactory disposition of the situation, having regard to the immediate demands of the moment and what we conceive may be the possible demands of the future-and which we hope will not be made upon us-if we place upon the statute books legislation that will enable the government to meet the difficulties which may arise. That is the purpose at least of the provisions at the end of the resolution.

The minister is precluded by the rules from speaking again at the moment, but what he had in his mind-if I might so state from what he said to me before we came into the chamber-was that if the house went into committee of the whole on this resolution a very frank and full discussion in the way of constructive suggestions on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite might take place, and that the resolution would not be moved out of committee to-day, but after discussion had taken place for some little time the minister would move that the committee rise, and the bill will be predicated upon what is believed to be the general view of the house as to the measure that will meet the exceptional and emergent conditions under which we are gathered together at this moment.

While I do not desire to be regarded as an alarmist in any sense, I am one who tries to measure as best I may the play of forces that have to do with conditions in a country-such as this, and the influence of the conditions prevailing over one-half of this continent is unhappily too frequently reflected in our own country. If conditions which now exist should work in a way which is conceivable a very great strain would be placed upon our whole financial structure, and we only seek -from the house authority to meet that emergent condition. If on the other hand conditions operate as we hope, and as many of us believe that they will, then we do not desire to exercise that -power. But we believe it would not be the wish of any member of this house, or of the people of Canada, that if these -conditions should arise, in the interval of time before the house could be called to meet that emergency we should not be able to take some measures to alleviate conditions and support the financial structure of the country.

I am not going to -dwell upon the difficulties. I only say again to the members of this house that if they had had the experience that unhappily has been mine from September, 1930, to the present moment in connection with the whole financial operations of this country, with falling revenues-perhaps attributable to the fact that the customs revenues are lower, though there is a difference of opinion as to that-I know they would realize that the gravity of the situation is not wholly reflected by the figures, but that conditions are now operating in this -country the ultimate direction of which we are not able to control. Subject as we are to the currents and influences of -world conditions, we can only ask that the house should frankly express its opinion when this measure is in committee of the whole, and if I might venture to do so I would suggest that this be done in no narrow party sense -but rather in the larger sense of doing what is purely an emergency act. We do not ask this in order to have powers conferred upon the executive, but merely to enable your country and mine, at a moment of stress and strain, to function if that stress and strain becomes so exceptional as to demand the exercise of these powers. If, without prejudice to any rights, the house might go into committee, the minister could deal with every phase of this matter as freely as possible, as I have said it is not the intention to submit the bill to the house until after the discussion has taken place on the resolution standing in the name of the minister.

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

I should like to ask the Prime Minister one question. What is meant by the words "public corporation" in this resolution?

Mr. BENNETT:

They mean just what the words "public corporation" mean in law, a corporation in which the public is interested, as distinguished from a private corporation.

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

Such as an insurance company?

Mr. BENNETT:

I suppose there are some insurance companies which are family corporations; I do not know, but the use of the word "public" broadly and generally with respect to a corporation means one whose shares and ownership are in the hands of the public, as distinguished from private individuals.