what my right hon. friend has said. I wish to repeat that the understanding between the Prime Minister and myself had relation to the taking up of an item of External Affairs. That was the understanding, at least when the right hon. gentleman spoke to me over here. When he crossed the floor again he made an announcement to the house in the words I am about to quote. He said:
Mr. Chairman, by consent of the house I purpose to take an item in the Department of Trade and Commerce and also an item in the Department of External Affairs.
and so on. I replied:
I can see no objection to expediting matters by taking an item in any single department, but to take two departments is perhaps going a little further than is usual.
I would not have made that observation had I had an understanding with my right hon. friend that two departments should be proceeded with. My right hon. friend replied:
The right hon. gentleman is quite correct. I remember that last year the estimates for the Department of External Affairs were put through very expeditiouslyand so on. Then:
Mr. Mackenzie King: If I understand the Prime Minister correctly, he does not intend
Soldier Settlement Board
to take up different items in the department, but rather to consider at this time only one item. *
Mr. Bennett: Yes. We shall go on with the Department of Trade and Commerce, taking an item at this time so that it may come before the house to-morrow, thereby affording the hon. member an opportunity to speak.
The house went into supply immediately, and before I had a chance to say a further word, I took advantage of the first favourable moment thereafter to point out to the Prime Minister wherein I considered he had misstated the arrangement between us. And I asked, before the adjournment of the house-
real point, let me answer it in this way. That item was dealt with by consent of the house to take it up yesterday and not to-day. Consent was given to take up Trade and Commerce yesterday, and to take up, as well, one item of External Affairs. But that consent applied only to Thursday, May 7, and not to Friday, May 8. That is the difference between my right hon. friend and myself. If the Prime Minister wished to have the consent of the house to go into supply on Friday, the 8th, on items other than those of the Department of Public Works he should have got specific consent for that purpose. But he must not assume that consent as having been given in virtue of a rule having been suspended to oblige an hon. member.
might have wished to get through certain supply in Trade and Commerce, and as a matter of fact the house did vote an item for salaries covering the entire civil government in connection with that department. The point is this, however. The business so transacted yesterday was done in virtue of the suspension of a rule by unanimous consent, which gave the government an opportunity to disregard the ordinary procedure for that day but that day alone. The motion passed on May 6 was:
That the debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance that "Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself again into committee of supply" and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Brown, be 22110-SOI
resumed on Thursday. May 7th instant, and that standing order 28 be suspended on that clay in relation thereto.
The Prime Minister has not read that motion to-day and it is the one in virtue of which we proceeded as we did yesterday.
I am not going to argue the matter further. I should assume the Prime Minister is as anxious as anyone else to maintain the privileges of the house in these matters. I still contend that the understanding with respect to yesterday's proceedings had relation only to that day, and that so far as to-day's proceedings are concerned we are governed by standing order 28. We intend to proceed on that assumption.
would remind the Prime Minister that yesterday I asked him whether he would be good enough to give instructions to the officials of the soldier settlement board to go easy on evicting soldiers under the present financial depression. He was kind enough to promise a reply to-day.
was unable to get in touch with the minister this morning; he was engaged in some other work. But he will prepare a statement for Monday. I do not think there is any such thing as eviction being carried on.
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):
I may tell my
hon. friend that the soldier settlement board is not adopting any attitude such as is suggested. I am sure that the board and the officials employed by them realize very well that this is no time to take any severe or drastic action with respect to any soldier or settler who is making an honest effort to remain on his farm.
given to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Beauhamois (Mr. Raymond) as regards the French version of the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the year 1929-1930.
The hon. member for Beauhamois complained that he was unable to obtain the French version of the report in question. I must state that yesterday in leaving the house, I sent for the French version of this report and it was brought to me. The French version, therefore, is out and I even have a copy here at the disposal of the hon. member for Beauhamois.
Topic: DEPARTMENT OF MARINE
Subtopic: FRENCH VERSION OF REPORT