Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: At this point I wish to make a motion o) which I gave notice on Thursday last and which appeared in the votes and proceedings of this house. In doing so may I be permitted to say that the incident which has given rise to this motion occurred a short time ago in the city of Hamilton.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I do not wish
to interrupt my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) but I suggest to him that, as no intimation was given that this matter would be discussed this afternoon, customary procedure would not be violated if he permitted the debate on the address to proceed until His Excellency had been thanked for his address and then took up other matters. That is the correct procedure and I hope my hon. friend will follow it.


Hugh Guthrie: I believe I am following
correct procedure. The orders of the day

announced that at a certain juncture motions would be called, and in the regular way I am introducing a motion of which regular notice has been given. The matter is of sufficient consequence to engage the attention of the house for a few minutes. I do not anticipate prolonged discussion; personally I intend to offer very few remarks.
The incident to which I refer occurred at the city of Hamilton a few weeks ago, and as it involves a very dark reflection upon a man who is Prime Minister of Canada and the chief adviser of His Excellency the Governor General, and pertains to matters of public concern, and as the allegation is said to come from a man who served as a member in this house and was at one time a member of the government of this country and is yet one of the king's privy councillors for Canada, the matter is of added importance. To my mind it is of sufficient concern and consequence to be brought to the attention of the house at the earliest possible moment. An opportunity will be afforded to the Hon. Mr. Gordon to state whether in fact he did make the statements as set out in the newspapers and as quoted in the notice of motion, and he will be given an opportunity to state what if any foundation he had for making such statements. This matter concerns the honour of the first citizen of Canada, a member of this house, and 'Concerns also the dignity of the House of Commons. For that reason it is of the utmost importance to proceed at once.
When a matter such as this reaches the press it is looked upon by newspapers throughout the whole length and breadth of Canada as front page material, and for that reason receives wide publicity. Many of us have waited from day to day and from week to week to see if there would be any explanation or withdrawal of the statement. I understand that at a meeting held in the city of Cobourg about the middle of January the Hon. Mr. Gordon made a statement which might be regarded as a somewhat belated explanation of or apology for his remarks pertaining to Mr. Herridge. The present motion does not complain about anything said with respect to Mr. Herridge; it seeks only to investigate the remarks made by Mr. Gordon concerning the Prime Minister of Canada. Mr. Gordon has been singularly silent in regard to any explanation or apology on that branch of the subject.
I beg therefore to move seconded by Mr. Stevens:
That a special committee consisting of seven members of this house to be named hereafter be appointed to enquire into certain charges

Charges by Hon. G. N. Gordon
and allegations made by the Honourable George N. Gordon, K.C., a member of the King's Privy Council for Canada, upon a public occasion in the city of Hamilton, on the 6th day of January, 1932, as reported in the Globe newspaper published at the city of Toronto on the 7th day of January, 1932, and also in respect of a further statement made by the said George N. Gordon at Lindsay on the 8th of January, 1932, and published in the said Globe newspaper on the 9th day of January, 1932, and also published in other newspapers throughout Canada, reflecting upon the Right Honourable R. B. Bennett. Prime Minister of Canada and a member of this house, in regard to matters of public concern; and which said charges and allegations published in the said Globe newspaper are in the following terms and were published on the following respective dates-
January 7, 1932.-"The bald charge that Premier Bennett had financed the honeymoon trip of his sister to Europe out of the Canadian treasury, and that he had obtained a new private railway car for his own use at a cost to Canada of $125,000, was made to local Liberals to-night by Hon. G. N. Gordon, K.C., who was deputy speaker in the federal house under the King government."
"He criticized Premier Bennett for having appointed his brother-in-law as Canada's envoy at Washington, and then charged that the cost of Mrs. Herridge's honeymoon trip to Europe had been paid for by Premier Bennett out of the Canadian treasury."
January 9, 1932.-"I have been too long in the public eye to make statements that are not based on facts," Mr. Gordon said, adding that only a small section of his reference to Mr. Herridge appeared correctly in The Globe. A large audience in Hamilton heard every word he said, and he followed his notes very closely, Mr. Gordon continued.
"Major Herridge was Mr. Bennett's brother-in-law. and this was his honeymoon trip," said Mr. Gordon. "He also went to London to argue an appeal before the Privy Council, so if he was a full-time Canadian legal adviser he should not have taken the full time preparing and arguing the appeal before the Privy Council and thus neglecting his duty as the Premier s legal adviser, which Mr. Bennett permitted him
to do.	.
"Mr. Herridge. according to Mr. Gordon, remained a long time in London as a Canadian official, and was in the pay of the Dominion government during the time of his honeymoon trip."	,	,
With power to call for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses upon oath and to report from time to time to this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the
motion is carried I should like to repeat my former remarks concerning what is due His Excellency in the matter of the speech which he has presented to parliament and for which we were expecting to express our thanks this afternoon. I believe, were one to search the records of British parliamentary institutions the world over, one would not find a case, where, at the instance of the Prime Minister, through one of his colleagues, a matter of this particular character would be interjected as a subject of debate before His Majesty or
His Majesty's representative had been thanked for the speech from the throne delivered to parliament with a view to opening its deliberations. I am not surprised that the Prime Minister has absented himself from the house at this time. Quite evidently he knew this matter was to come up, and for reasons best known to himself is not present. However, there is a custom followed in matters of debate and other business in parliament, and we might as well understand at once whether that custom is going to be observed or not. That custom is that each side of the house should receive some due notice and warning of matters which are to come up for public discussion. If this question is of the great importance the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has just said it is, it was certainly due to myself as leader of the opposition that I should have had some notice that it was to be brought before the house to-day, and it was due to every hon. member on this side that that notice should have been given in the regular manner in which notice is generally given with regard to other motions. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice who has just made the motion has been in parliament for many, many years. I do not hesitate to say to him that never in his parliamentary experience has he known anything of this kind, and that if our positions were reversed and he were standing where I am on this side of the house to-day he would be most eloquent and emphatic in the exception which he would be taking to this method of procedure.
As to the motion itself, may I say. Mr. Speaker, that personally I felt more or less shocked when I saw the notice which had been placed on the order paper and realized that it had come from the Prime Minister himself. The Minister of Justice says he is not so much concerned with Mr. Herridge-and I presume that includes Mrs. Herridge-but that with regard to something which has been said about the Prime Minister it is all important that we should have this investigation. May I say that if the Prime Minister had been as considerate of his sister and of his brother-in-law as he has been of himself, he would have been very careful to avoid bringing their names into public discussion in the manner in which he has. This is a means on the part of the Prime Minister to satisfy his self-will and wounded pride of his own. No man in Canada has less reason to take umbrage at what political opponents say about him than has the right hon. Prime Minister. If I had wished to seek revenge

Alberta-British Columbia Boundary
for some of the things the Prime Minister has said about me at one time or another, I should not have taken advantage of my position of power and authority in parliament to serve this end; I would have brought action against him for criminal libel; for he has used expressions which I consider of that character. People who live in glass houses ought to be very careful how and where they throw stones.
I am not going to take up any time at the moment in discussing the merits of the motion. If the Prime Minister wishes to have the kind of notoriety for himself and others who are related to him which an inquiry of this kind is certain to give not only in Canada but throughout the world, he is certainly welcome to it; but I think he would be well advised -and well advised by his Minister of Justice -to have this motion withdrawn instead of having it proceeded with. As a matter of fact I think there was a general sentiment throughout this house-and I need not go further than the Conservative organ in this city to express the view of many Conservatives in the country as well as in parliament as they have been expressed since the motion was put on the order paper-that this whole business is a "tempest in a teapot," and that it is not befitting the dignity of parliament that its time should be wasted in matters of this sort. If the time of parliament is to be taken up and the money of the people used for furthering inquiries into matters which affect the vanity or the susceptibilities of the Prime Minister, a lot of public money will be wasted to no good purpose, and I do not believe the people will endorse for one minute the object of this particular investigation.
May I add, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Gordon, who is mentioned in this motion as having made the statements referred to, did make a public retraction and apology in respect to them. The Minister of Justice says the apology was not sufficient. If it was not sufficient, and something more was required, surely there were other means of obtaining it than by asking this house, before it has begun the business of the session at all, to start an elaborate inquiry by a special committee. This thirst on the part of the Prime Minister for personal vengeance in so many directions is something that the people of this country are beginning to find very difficult to understand. It is perhaps well we should at once realize that something in the nature of a reign of terror is to be started at this session, and that we are to experience in the parliamentary sense of the term as much in the way of "frightfulness" as possible. Well, if that 
is the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite as dictated by their leader, they must take the consequences that will inevitably follow from such a course.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, respecting the boundary between the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CAHAN:: 

BOARDS OF TRADE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3 to amend the Boards of Trade Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4 to amend the Patent Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 5 respecting unfair competition in trade and commerce.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We would like to know what is meant by unfair competition.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Probably the minister will explain when he moves the first reading of the bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, an international convention for the protection of industrial property was signed at Paris on March 20, 1883, and this convention constituted an international union for the protection of industrial property. This convention was subsequently revised at Brussels on December 14, 1900, and again at Washington on June 2, 1911. On September 1, 1923, Canada adhered to the convention which had been so revised, and thereby became a member of the union for the protection of industrial property. A fourth assembly was held at The Hague on November 6, 1925, at which the government of Canada was represented by Mr. Frederick Herbert Palmer, M.C., a Canadian government trade commissioner who was duly authorized in that behalf. This assembly again proposed certain important amendments to the convention which was then in force.
Subsequently, by order in council passed by the government of my right hon. friend, P.C. 648, dated April 19, 1928, ratification of The Hague convention of 1925 was authorized on behalf of Canada, and the ratification on behalf of Canada was deposited at The Hague on May 1, 1928, from which date The Hague convention became binding upon Canada.
It appeared to me that The Hague convention of 1925 was one of those conventions coming within the resolution adopted by the House of Commons on June 21, 1926, to the effect that before His Majesty's Canadian ministers should advise ratification of any treaty, convention or agreement affecting
Industrial Property

Canada, the approval of the parliament of Canada should be first obtained. It would appear, nevertheless, that through inadvertence or otherwise this international convention for the protection of industrial property which was signed on behalf of Canada on November 6, 1925, and which was formally ratified on behalf of Canada on May 1, 1928, was not laid upon the table of the house until I did so on Friday last. In the meantime representations have been made to the government with regard to carrying out the terms of that convention which really, so far as this bill is concerned, largely affect trade marks.
In order that this convention may be carried into effect I have introduced this bill respecting unfair competition in trade and commerce, which in turn necessitates many amendments to the existing Trade Marks and Designs Aot, which is chapter 201 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927. In case this bill passes a second reading I shall ask the favourable consideration of the house to a motion to refer it to a select special committee before which those who are interested in the question of trade marks may appear and present their views for the information of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has dealt at some length with the international convention and the labyrinth of stages through which it has passed over a period of years, but he has not yet answered the question as to what constitutes the element of unfair competition.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The element of unfair competition dealt with has to do with the use of trade marks and industrial designs which affect international trade, and it is that phase of unfair competition with which this bill is concerned. I will be prepared at a later time to enter upon a discussion of the terms of the bill which deal particularly with trade marks. My right hon. friend is well aware that for some time past there have been grave doubts cast upon the constitutional validity of our present Trade Marks Act, but I suggest that the bill is so framed that it will be valid under our constitution, particularly as it, in terms, expressly states that it is for the enforcement of an international convention to which the empire, including Canada, was a party, and which this parliament is called upon to enforce.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. 
CANADIAN DESTROYERS On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTII (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a
question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland). On January 26 an American despatch from Washington, D. C. announced that two Canadian ships were guarding the port of Acajutla, Salvador. The despatch reads:
Washington, D.C., Jan. 26-The two Canadian destroyers, Skeena and Vancouver, are standing by alone to-day off the Salvador port of Acajutla. The two United States destroyers have moved to La Libertad.
May I ask under whose authority our fleet is in these foreign waters?


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: The two destroyers in
question were on their usual winter cruise which this year was taking them down past Central America through the canal to the West Indies. At the time that they were practically passing this place Acajutla in the republic of Salvador, these troubles broke out. There were a number of British citizens there and it was thought advisable that the ships put in at that port and be available for the protection of British subjects should it become necessary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister assure the house that this incident has nothing to do with any attempt to blast a way into the markets of South America?
SURVEY OF NATIONAL PORTS On the orders of the day:


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: May I ask the Minister of Marine
(Mr. Duranleau) when he expects to be able to present to parliament the report of Sir Alexander Gibb.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: We shall have to have the
report before it can be tabled. It has not yet been received but we hope to have it within ten or fifteen days.



REPORT ON MARITIME FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: I might ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) as Acting Minister of Fisheries whether the report of Cockfield, Brown & Company with regard to the fisheries of the maritime provinces has been received, and, if so, when he expects to be able to lay it on the table of the house.

The Address-Mr. Bourgeois


Alfred Duranleau: The report in question has been received but I am informed that it is so very voluminous, covering nearly two hundred pages and containing plans, sketches and so forth, that the printing of it would be out of all proportion. However, there is being prepared a complete digest of the whole report which I think we shall be able to submit probably at the end of this week.


James Layton Ralston: I understand that the
report itself will be laid on the table; it is only a question of printing.


Alfred Duranleau: It will not be printed, nor do I know whether the report itself will be tabled. We will table a complete digest of it. Of course the report will be available at the department to any member of the house who wishes to consult it.



PURCHASE OF LABRADOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: Will the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) be good enough at his convenience to lay on the table of the house any correspondence between the members of the Newfoundland government and the members of his own government relevant to the negotiations regarding the sale or purchase of what is commonly known as Newfoundland Labrador. If there is no such correspondence will the Prime Minister at some future date kindly give a resume of any conversations between members of the Newfoundland government and members of his own government with respect to the matter.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: There is a question on the order
paper dealing with this matter. When that question is answered the information sought will be given.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of the speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session.
Mr. CHARLES BOURGEOIS (Three Rivers-St. Maurice) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour fraught with danger for one inexperienced as I am to ask this house to approve the speech from the throne, since, from times immemorial, hon. members
who constitute His Majesty's loyal opposition, invariably find matter in it for criticism. I do not deceive myself to the extent of hoping that on this occasion the opposition will be so gracious as to admit that the government to which I adhere has well administered the country's affairs and that Canada once for all, has again entered the path which leads to progress and prosperity.
However, there is an event over which there can exist no discrepancy of views and feeling in this assembly, an event which has given us great joy: it is the birth last August, of a child who is entitled to the affection of all Canadians, I refer to the birth of the Hon. George St. Lawrence Neuflize Ponsonby. With regard to this happy event, all the members of this hon. house, I feel certain, associate themselves with my humble person in expressing to His Excellency the Right Hon. the Earl of Bess-borough and to his gracious spouse, the Baroness of Neuflize, our sincerest congratulations and in formulating for their son, the Hon. George St. Lawrence Neuflize Ponsonby, our best and most sincere wishes of happiness. May they rest assured that all Canadians whatever may be their country of origin and French Canadians in particular, have been deeply moved by the thoughtfulness of Their Excellencies in giving to this noble descendant of two glorious families, from France and England, immediately after the name of His British Majesty, that of St. Lawrence the name of our river which, owing to its beauty and immense flow of water, its resources and the variety of the landscape* of its shores, the innumerable and great acts of heroism it has witnessed, is really worthy of being designated as royal and deserves to be truly associated with the name of His British Majesty whose empire is so vast that the sun never sets over it. This name can only be a good omen, because the St. Lawrence has been the channel over which floated the flag of Montcalm and Wolfe, it was the course followed by our heroic missionaries and our bold explorers. Who can foretell, in the course of his life, what the future has in store for this young Canadian, may he not some day be called upon by the Canadians, his fellow-countrymen-in keeping with the treaty of Westminster-to preside over the destinies of the country of his birth and become one of the successors, at Rideau Hall, to His Excellency the present Governor General, thus fulfilling the sincerest wish of all.
Such thoughts lead to others with reference to Her Excellency Lady Bessborough, the Baroness Roberte de Neuflize. It is, I believe, the first time, since new France has become a possession of Great Britain, that a
The Address-Mr. Bourgeois

French lady happens to be "Our Dame" at Rideau Hall. Is that not a reason for us to marvel in seeing how history repeats itself? We know that in the Ursulines' chapel in Quebec, where a cannon ball dug the grave of the Marquis de Montcalm, there stands in front of the statute of the Virgin a lamp which for ever bums. Must not the flame of this lamp of remembrance, kept up by pious hands, have burned more brilliantly when there arrived amongst us this noble French lady, born of the same race as the glorious vanquished of 1759, and whom destiny has chosen to be Vice-Queen of the country ruled in the past by those great patriots. I am led to believe that if this proud but dauntless Louis de Buade, Count de Frontenac, returned to this soil of ours, he would unfurl over the Quebec citadel the old fleur-de-lis flag and once more would welcome through the mouthpiece of his canons the Baroness Roberte de Neuflize and the Earl of Bessborough, his successor as Governor of New France, now the Dominion of Canada.
While this world-wide economic crisis through which we are passing lasts, it is my earnest belief that we should appreciate the serious and effective endeavours put forth by the government which presides to-day over the destinies of the country, endeavours which have already given precious results and which give rise for the future to greater hopes. It is this reassuring situation that the. speech from the throne justly points out with reason, and it is also thg unequivocal message which I bring to the government on behalf of the people of Three Rivers-St. Maurice.
I have the honour, sir, of representing, I am proud to say, one of the most important ridings which appears on the electoral map; important owing to its history which dates back to the glorious outset of the colony, important owing to the large number of its present rural and city population, in majority French Canadians, however, there is also a large number of English, Irish and Scandinavians; equally important also is the county of Three Rivers-St. Maurice owing to its vast natural resources, especially its forests and water powers, as well as its numerous industries that have been established there. One can easily understand what interest would be taken in the by-election, last summer, under such conditions and circumstances. Besides, the government having been in power for hardly a year, had to deal with problems and difficulties almost insurmountable. In the course of the special session, in September,
1930,	as well as during the regular session of
1931,	which was then on the eve of closing,

our opponents had been relentless in their criticism, contending that the government had sadly failed to redeem its pledges, that the alarming state of the country far from improving, had on the contrary grown worse. I well remember, at that time, having read with much interest, the speeches of those who later on were to become my colleagues on the opposite benches. "You have betrayed," they said, "the trust which the people of this country reposed in you, especially that of the electors of Quebec." If we could have foreseen then, they further added, what is taking place to-day, if you had brought forth on the public hustings the budget which was adopted at that session of 1931, if the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) had stated that his intention was to increase the sales tax, to put a further duty on imports, raise the rate of postage, etc., etc., it is with stones that he would have been chased from public meetings.
The opportunity was given to our opponents to come forward and repeat on the public hustings, before the electorate of Three Rivers, what they had stated with so much apparent conviction on the floor of this house. During three weeks we had to undergo a formidable assault by our friends in the opposition, and this, in a Liberal riding, in a Liberal stronghold considered to be impregnable, in a county which twelve months previous had renewed its trust in favour of a Liberal candidate by giving him a majority of almost 4,000 votes, a constituency which had not once elected a Conservative representative since 1896, when Sir Adolph P. Caron was elected to succeed Sir Hector Langevin, two men who have left lasting names in Canadian politics. The people of the county of Three Rivers-St. Maurice turned a deaf ear to the appeals, prejudices and untimely criticisms of our friends in the opposition. They reposed their trust in a government of worthy men who, having solely the best interests of this country at heart and simply wishing to relieve the anxiety of the people in the economic crisis which is persisting, made a supreme effort so as to strengthen our finances through a tariff policy truly Canadian and thereby reestablish the administration of the affairs of Canada on a solid foundation.
The constituency of Three Rivers-St. Maurice forewarned by the result of the general election, understood the importance of a loyal and generous cooperation with the new leaders that the country had chosen. Yielding to the pressing appeals of the hon. Minister of Marine, my friend the hon. Mr. Duranleau, to whom I wish to publicly acknowledge here my gratitude and appreciation,

The Address-Mr. Bourgeois
convinced, I say, of the earnestness of such men and their ability to restore prosperity to this country, within a reasonable delay and with the full cooperation of all citizens, the constituency of Three Rivers-St. Maurice placed their entire trust in the Bennett government and have sent me here to fully express their entire confidence. It is a duty, sir, which I consider among the most outstanding of those covered by my mandate.
The county of Three Rivers-St. Maurice did not allow itself to be deceived by the sophistry of those opposed to the government. It realized that the enormous work already accomplished, although very effective, could not yield full results immediately, and, as the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) so very sensibly stated in a speech which he delivered in Three Rivers, on August the second:
Would not the farmer be looked upon as senseless who, having just completed his seeding, returned to his fields to cut his crop? Can we expect a manufacturer, who is promoting an industry, to realize immediately large returns? He invests not with the hope of immediate results, but because he is convinced that, once well organized both as regards production and sales, he will gradually increase his output and profits. Such is the case with a new government.
The people whom I represent in the house have clearly stated that they are satisfied with the activities and endeavours of this government. They have come to the conclusion that the past is a guarantee for the future. The speech from the throne which was read at the opening of the session affords us, a proof that they were right.
In fact, we are made aware that the government intends to follow up its sound national policy of protection, by efficiently protecting our industries, by encouraging the building of new factories, and this is a very wise step. This policy has already produced marvellous results and the speech from the throne indicates a number of them of great importance: the changing of an unfavourable trade balance to a favourable one in the last months of the present fiscal year, the success obtained by the last national loan; and if we add further the statement which the right hon. Prime Minister recently made of the establishment of about one hundred new factories, we must conclude that these are achievements which prove that the country is in an excellent financial state and that we have reason to have faith in the future.
In my own county, we were given an opportunity of benefiting by the government's policies:	a cellophane paper factory was
built at Shawinigan Falls; and according to
the statement given out by Mr. Purvies, president of the Canadian Industries, which are the owners of the factory mentioned, the establishment of this new industry was made possible owing to the fact that a tariff of 10 per cent was placed on cellophane paper. This applies to other cities throughout the country, and also in the province of Quebec, especially in Sherbrooke, St. Lambert, Scottstown and Montreal, as the Gazette pointed out last week; moreover quite recently in Ste-Therese a new factory has opened its doors, known as the Zonite Products Corporation, with an output of $2,000,000 per year. Referring to a news item which appeared in the La Patrie on Feb. 2, the building of this factory was decided immediately after the tariff increase was adopted by the Conservative government. The article further adds that it was the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Parent) who welcomed the company's officials "on behalf of the Canadian government," the hon. member for Terrebonne with whom I have the honour of being personally acquainted, having met him in the course of my last election, when he came forward to preach the Liberal doctrine to crowds of unbelievers in my county. There is no doubt that the statement was incomplete and that the hon. member for Terrebonne- "speaking on behalf of the Canadian government"-did not let this opportunity slip by of praising the new policy which conferred on his beautiful constituency, and especially on the lovely town of Ste-Therese, the privilege of possessing a factory of such importance.
Nobody will withhold from the present government his congratulations for having generously helped the various provinces to weather the unemployment crisis through which Canada is passing. It was a very urgent duty. I am unaware whether, in its grants to help the provinces to stem unemployment, the dominion government reserved the right to indicate how the money it supplied was to be spent or whether it intends to do so in the future, through the grants that it may allow them for such a purpose.
Although my knowledge of the economic situation of the country is rather limited and that I do not feel qualified to suggest a specific solution, a sovereign and infallible remedy, I may state that in the province of Quebec and probably also in all the other provinces, though in an unequal measure, the solution of the serious problems of unemployment rests mostly in the return to the farm. I am convinced that our country is still first of all a farming one and that it is

The Address-Mr. Bourgeois
by encouraging our farmers that we must begin our economic restoration. As Theodore Roosevelt stated:
The only effective way to help any man is to help him to help himself and the worst lessen to teach him is that he can be permanently helped at the expense of someone else.
In a splendid novel which had a remarkable success in France and which was exceptionally well translated in English by our fellow-citizen, Sir Andrew MacPhail-I refer to "Maria Chapdelaine"-Louis Hemon drew the exquisite portrait of the young French Canadian girl, daughter of pioneers and future mother of forest settlers, an ever present picture, but, in many ways, this portrait is also that of many other young Canadian girls, whether they be from English, Scotch or Irish descent. However, "Maria Chapdelaine" must, to preserve her high ideals and physical beauty, her charm and smile, remain in the country and continue to live the ancestral life. The atmosphere of cities to her is unhealthy, she wastes away, and the same may be said of her cousins, the English, Scotch, Irish, or the French Canadians whom city life unnerves and weakens when it does not contaminate them physically or infect their minds with socialism or even worse, communism. Let us rest assured, there is no Hercules, no adversity capable of laying low the Canadian people, if following the example of Antaeus, their feet stick to the soil, their foster-mother.
I now broach the important question of our railways. One must be blind or in bad faith not to acknowledge that at present their condition is far from being satisfactory. By degrees, our three transcontinental railways were built across Canada:	the Canadian
Pacific, the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific. Did legitimate hopes justify the building and the completing of these three great railway systems? In a speech delivered at the Sphinx Club, in London, the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, an ex-Speaker of this house, after mentioning the existence in Canada of these three great transcontinental railways, predicted that it would soon be necessary to construct the Hudson Bay railway and, he further added:
Yes, we are proud of our system of transportation, and only yesterday the Governor of Canada, one of the best men that the English aristocracy has ever given to Canada, Earl Grey, rediscovered the Hudson Bay which was known to tile old traders of the Hudson Bay Company two hundred years ago, the Hudson Bay through which our own Commissioner in London, Lord Strathcona, came nearly eighty years ago. When I was a lad, he left Scotland to serve Canada and to serve the Empire. Yes, Hudson Bay has been rediscovered. To show you the importance of the country, the importance of the foreign 
interest in Canada, the three transcontinentals will not be sufficient to give an outlet for transportation of our grain, but we shall require, in the near future, the shorter route of the Hudson Bay. All this will benefit Canada, but above all it will benefit the British Empire.
But these four railways-for the Hudson Bay railway of which the Hon. Mr. Lemieux proclaimed the necessity, has also been built -are almost all in a deplorable financial state. Does this, however, justify charging this government with a want of foresight or with negligence. No. These conditions of which we deplore the existence, arise from numerous causes. First, we must mention the world-wide disturbance brought on by the war of 1914. We must further take into account the closing of our country to immigrants from Europe and, on the other hand, take into consideration that these European countries and the Argentine republic as well, have been within these last years, growing wheat on a large scale. The consequence, therefore, was that on both these scores our railways were the losers. Less immigrants to transport to the west and less wheat to carry to our Atlantic ports. Add to these causes the competition of motor trucks.
Must we for all that throw up the sponge and allow our railways, especially those that have become state lines, to extricate themselves as best they can? I feel certain that the house holds different views, that it approves tihe policy of the present government which is to 'help our railways, and especially those which form part of our national inheritance. However, before further steps are taken, the government has decided to inquire into the conditions prevailing in these extensive systems, in order to remedy their defects, and that is why a commission of inquiry, presided over by Hon. Justice Duff, has been appointed. It is only reasonable to expect that tlhis inquiry will bring to light the shortcomings of our railway systems and point out the retrenchments to be made in their management.
This house learns that our government has entered into negotiations with the United States of America for the purpose of carrying out the St. Lawrence deep waterway. I am not acquainted with the plans prepared in this connection by the engineers to whom the study of this colossal project has been entrusted. All I know is what has been disclosed to the public by the Canadian press. This deep waterway would be undertaken in that part of our great river comprised between Prescott and Cornwall known as the international section, and our rich neighbours, the United States, would contribute largely to this gigantic enterprise. The house feels confident

The Address-Mr. Bourgeois
that in the working out of this scheme, the government was guided solely by the interests of Canada; there can be no question in this matter of international courtesy. No one will gainsay that the possession of this great waterway on the greater part of its course, constitutes one of the major assets of this country, I would even go so far as to state that it is the main channel of our economic life. I am not an hydraulic engineer; however, I may state that from the geographical viewpoint, considering the area drained, the width and depth of its course and the enormous flow of water, the St. Lawrence is, without comparison, the most important waterway in the world. None can be compared to it, neither the Amazon, the Nile, the Volga and the Rhine. Pascal said: ''Rivers are movable roads." The St. Lawrence is an imperial highway which moves along carrying towards the ocean and Europe the products of the entire northern part of this continent. Over a thousand miles of its course, it is navigable for ocean-going vessels, so much so that at Montreal, we have this unique fact, an ocean port located a thousand miles from the ocean. I represent a constituency of the province of Quebec, and so far as electric energy is concerned-for it is certainly with this purpose in view that the deep waterways of the St. Lawrence is sought-Quebec possesses all the water power it needs. Therefore, it is not as a citizen of the province of Quebec that I am looking into this problem. I consider that such a vast undertaking, one of such a vital interest to the country, should be studied without losing sight of the interests of the Dominion as a whole, and it is not simply as a Freneh-Canadian but solely as a Canadian, one dyed in the wool, that I consider this matter.
We have the firm hope that this great enterprise of the St. Lawrence deep waterway will be carried out in the interest and to the advantage of Canada. This faith rests on the confidence we are reposing, and with good reason, on the patriotism of our Prime Minister and his colleagues. We shall not be deceived, I feel absolutely convinced of this, because they are fully aware of their responsibilities as heirs and followers of the policy laid down by Macdonald and Cartier, they are endowed with the courage and foresight necessary to see that nothing is sacrificed of our interests or nothing is neglected in order to safeguard our rights.
The speech from the throne mentions the Conference on disarmament opened at Geneva on February 2 last. Let us hope that our representatives will work efficiently to establish a lasting peace throughout the world, and
thus promote the prosperity and greatness of the British Empire and, thereby, of Canada which forms part of it.
May I now refer to the Imperial Economic Conference, which is to take place at Ottawa, on July 18, next. We are entitled to expect much good from it. This Conference, without doubt, will be one of the most important events in our country's history. The ideas advocated in London by the Prime Minister, in October, 1930, are, we are convinced, on the eve of being entirely put into practice, to the best advantage of Canada and the other dominions forming part of the British Commonwealth.
The various and numerous proposals announced in the speech from the throne lead us to believe that we shall have, during the present session, to fulfil an arduous task. Might I be allowed to wish everyone, in the fulfilment of this task, the indomitable courage, the invincible confidence and heroic tenacity which was shown by one of the most illustrious inhabitants of this Canadian soil.
We have in Three Rivers, in that city almost three centuries old, since it was founded in 1634 by the Sieur de Laviolette, that historical and glorious town of Three Rivers which I have the great privilege of representing here, we have, I say, a humble monument which narrates one of the most thrilling feats of our national history. Along our esplanade, skirting the St. Lawrence river, there is to be found a pedestal upon which the wayfarer reads with emotion:
On this site was located the house where was born, November 17, 1685, the most illustrious son of Three Rivers. Pierre Gaultier de Varennes, Sieur de la Verendrye, the discoverer of the Rocky mountains and the Canadian West.
After untold hardships and at the cost of superhuman efforts, La Verendrye, with his own resources only, without the help of any governing power, started from the post of Ivaministikwia and went up this river, skirting Rainy Lake, where he built in 1731, Fort St. Pierre then proceeding along lake of the Woods, where he erected, the following year Fort St. Charles, he continued along the Winnipeg river, where he build in 1734, Fort de Maurepas. Crossing towards the northwest, lake Dauphin (Manitoba) and lake du Cygne, he explored the Biche (Red Deer) river and reached the source of the Saskatchewan river.
In 1738, he erected Fort LaReine (Portage la Prairie) on the north shore of the Assiniboia river and, in the angle formed by this river and that of the Red river, he erected Fort

The Address-Mr. Bourgeois


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member perhaps is not familiar with the rule which limits his speech to forty minutes. I direct his attention to the fact that he has exceeded his time.


Charles Bourgeois: (Translation) Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stitt) that an humble Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, to thank His Excellency for the gracious speech which he has been pleased to make to both Houses of Parliament, at the opening of this session.
Mr. JAMES H. STITT (Selkirk):	Mr. Speaker, as I rise to second the motion of 41761-2J
the hon. member for Three Rivers-St. Maurice (Mr. Bourgeois) I realize the inadequacy of language in which to express myself as a humble Canadian let alone as one possessing the sentiments proper on such an occasion as is this. On such an occasion when we meet in this honourable assembly not only to try to promote the progress and prosperity of Canada, but if possible to rehabilitate the welfare of the great commonwealth of nations to which we belong, to try to give social justice to all classes, and, perhaps higher and better still, to promote peace in a world which has been blasted by and is, at the present time, almost on the verge of war, I would not be quite human and less than land if I did not thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) for the honourable place he has given me in this debate. I do so, however, with the humble realization that this is because of the great constituency which I have the honour to represent and of the great central province, Manitoba, of which it forms a part.
"Manitoba" is a word to conjure with and perhaps delight the fancy. The word Manitoba" is derived from the language of the original inhabitants of this continent: Manitou ', meaning the Great Spirit, and "Woban", meaning the narrows. The original inhabitants, as they listened to the wind blowing through the narrows of lake Winnipeg, which also happens to be a part of my constituency, believed it was the voice of God speaking through the narrows and they were wont to say "Manitou woban." The original settlers in that part of the country, who were also the original settlers in my constituency, the settlers of Lord Selkirk, took this fancy from the Indians, and our province was called by them "Manitoba". Is it therefore any wonder, when this name was derived in this way, in this place of unparalleled and mystic beauty, when the original settlers believed it was the voice of God speaking in mystery to the water, that I regard the honour of the position which I occupy at the present moment as an honour to my constituency and to my province?
I well recognize the fact that there are many members from the central province who are more eloquent and gifted than I am. I would like to advise the house that only recently, I believe yesterday, three members on this side from the great province of Manitoba and on whose desk the laurel wreath is resting at this moment, won for Canada and for Manitoba the curling championship of the world. Under such circumstances I can well be humble, because there is no doubt that if they had not engaged in carrying the

The Address-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)
fair fame of Manitoba before the world, someone else would have had the honour of seconding this motion.
I wonder if I might be permitted to say something about the great historic constituency of Selkirk. Selkirk, as hon. members all know, was the original portal to the northland, the portal of the voyageurs whereby they were able to traverse the northern part of the country into Hudson 'bay. The constituency of Selkirk at the present time might well be termed the portal of the great Canadian west. I believe that at the village of Marquette on the western borders of my constituency, you will find the very heart of Canada, for it is there that the Canadian Pacific Railway, that great transportation system, is bisected into two equal parts, one running to the east and the other to the west. If Selkirk enjoys this invaluable location from a geographical standpoint, it is also a constituency in which there are inhabitants to the number of around 45,000. It is an area which embraces the whole of lake Winnipeg. It is over 250 miles in extent and on the land portion over fifty miles in width. It might be interesting for members of the house to realize that it is in Selkirk that we find the original home of Manitoba No. 1 hard wheat, for it was, I believe, the Selkirk settlers who first grew No. 1 hard and exported it to the markets of the old land.
If Selkirk is the original home of No. 1 hard wheat, it is also the place where the finest butter in Canada is made at the present time. Hon. members may laugh and say that this is an exaggeration. Just a few months ago I had the satisfaction at Stonewall of presenting to a farmer's wife a gold medal for winning at the Royal Winter Fair for the last two successive years, the first prize for the best butter produced on a farm in Canada by a farmer's wife. Furthermore, the best butter in Canada was produced the year before last in the dairy at Teulon in the very heart of my constituency by a new Canadian named George Deorn. It is well for the house to recognize this fact; it is well to realize that in these days of depression, in these days when Canada is faced with such problems as it has never faced before, there are fanners' wives and gentlemen in the factories who make products the finest in the Dominion of Canada.
If my constituency is remarkable for the fact that it was the original home of No. 1

wheat and also for the fact that the best butter in Canada is produced there, it must also be remembered that the fisheries of lake Winnipeg are extensive, for lake Winnipeg is the home of the palatable whitefish and the luscious goldeye. May I direct the attention of the house to the fact that in the province of Manitoba in the year 1930 there was produced SI,830,000 worth of fish, over SI,000,000 of which came from the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this house.
In the first part of the speech from the throne His Excellency expressed gratification at being selected by His Majesty as his representative in this dominion. May I say, sir, that we also express our pleasure, and I should like to say on behalf of hon. members on both sides of the house representing the two great races in Canada how grateful and thankful we are for the coming of His Excellency to Canada. By his coming not only was there forged a further golden link of empire, but history was made because I believe that for the first time the representative of His Majesty was appointed on the recommendation of His Majesty's Canadian privy council.
It may be that upon such an occasion the imagination stirs and one is wont to express himself in verse. Not often has a poor maker of verses an opportunity to express the result of his effort in public. However, the day before His Excellency came to Canada I thought it a proper occasion to celebrate in verse not only the forging of this further link of empire but at the same time the realization of the autonomy of the Canadian people. In part I have written as follows:
There be men in this good land from England and Ireland,
From Wales and from Scotland and lands o'er the sea,
And some of us once broke a lance in a far land,
With men now asleep who were led, sir, by thee.
We hasten to greet thee with song when w'e meet thee,
Let the iron gun boom and the silver band blare,
In that golden desire for that greater empire
Which is ours and is God's in the life we would share.
We meet at a time of universal economic depression. I believe it is fair to say, however, that the government which I have the honour to support has met the situation by wise policies prosecuted vigorously. Speaking this afternoon, it is not difficult for me to analyze the cause of the economic situation in Canada.

The Address-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)
About two years ago it was analyzed by my hon. friends opposite. We are the heirs of world depression; we are struggling as a young nation of ten million people finding ourselves in the aftermath of a war in which was wasted the accumulated wealth of centuries and imperilled the future credit of the world. Gold standards and other standards of currency have been thrown aside; inflation, followed by extravagance, wastage and unemployment, has been the order of the day.
Coming from the constituency of Selkirk 1 am not one to minimize the situation we now face in Canada. I do believe, however, that we might render some service to the country and to this house if we considered briefly the measures taken by the government to circumvent our difficulties. To summarize, I would mention the following: First, there was the great conversion loan; second, the national service loan; third, the Unemployment Relief Act of the special session; the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931; the protection given to industry by antidumping legislation, and lastly a measure, from which we have the most hope, paving the way for action to rejuvenate trade within the empire. In the speech from the throne we have notice that a conference of the British commonwealth of nations will be held in Ottawa on July 18 next. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is a record of which any government might be proud when we realize that the present government has been in power less than two years.
I have prepared some statistics furnished me by the director of unemployment relief and which show perhaps more clearly than anything else just how colossal has been the undertaking of the government in that regard. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have these statistics incorporated in Hansard:
Total
contribution by dominion, provinces and
Dominion Contribution municipalities Municipal works. . .|14,000,000 $43,000,000 Provincial works. . .	1,500,000	3,500,000Provincial highways. .	6,000,000	13,000,000Trans-Canada highway	3,250,000	6,500,000Works in Yukon. . .	10,000	10,000
Saskatchewan drought
area medical aid. .	100,000	100,000Federal public works.	6,000,000	6,000,000
Grade crossings-
Railway Commission	500,000	500,000

In the first column there is shown the federal contribution to unemployment works and projects, and in the second column the total amount subscribed by the dominion, the municipalities and provinces for these undertakings. Commenting upon these figures, it will be noted that for municipal works the federal government has set aside $14,000,000, and that the total value of the work will be $43,000,000. For purely provincial works the sum allocated by the Dominion government is $1,500,000, and the total value of the work will amount to over $3,500,000. For provincial highways the Dominion government has set aside $6,000,000, and the total contribution is $13,000,000. If the figures I have before me are added together we find that the federal government by the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931, has allocated a total of over $31,000,000 and with the aid of the municipalities and provinces this sum will reach the colossal amount of over $73,000,000. If you add to this figure the $20,000,000 voted at the special session and the extra $20,000,000 subscribed by the provinces and the municipalities you get an additional $40,000,000, making in all $113,000,000. If you add to this amount the $14,000,000 appropriated and almost spent for direct relief the total emerges at about $128,000,000. If you add the bonus on the production of wheat of $10,000,000, you have the grand total of from $138,000,000 to $140,000,000 which this government has raised and expended with the aid of the provinces and the municipalities for the relief of unemployment. Could anything be more eloquent of the fact that a wise policy has been laid down and has been carried out with vigour and with success?
I come from a constituency where there are large numbers of working men. Last winter I was fearful of the conditions that might arise in West Kildonan and in the town of Selkirk, and I want to assure the house that the allocation of moneys under this scheme of relief which was made jointly by the dominion, the province and the municipalities proved a tremendous benefit to those unemployed workers. I desire to pay a tribute to the cooperation of the municipal councils and the provincial government. It may seem strange that I should be able to say that in the districts in my constituency where there was most unemployment there was least complaint, and this was due solely to the wise policies inaugurated by the federal government.
In the speech from the throne reference is made to the St. Lawrence waterway and to
Total

The Address-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)
the Imperial economic conference. I am sure that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his party generally will support any measure of the government tending to the making of a treaty with the United States for the construction of the St. Lawrence waterway. There is one way in which we can help our farmers very beneficially, and that is to reduce their transportation costs. With the early completion of the facilities at Hudson bay and with the construction, I hope in the near future, of the St. Lawrence waterway, the great western part of Canada will be helped to find more easily and with less expense markets for our products, especially our wheat.
Now, sir, let me say a word in passing with regard to the Imperial economic conference which is to be held in Ottawa next July. There has been considerable debate as to the proposals made with respect to this conference, and during last session we were told by the opposition that the conference would never take place. Is it not remarkable, Mr. Speaker, that the British commonwealth of nations have agreed to meet here next July, when, as it were, the seat of empire will be transferred from London to Ottawa?
In the course of the studies that I have made in preparation for this session I have read diligently the Manchester Guardian, the London Observer and the London Times, and it is apparent from these journals that the people of the old land are serious about the approaching economic conference; there is no doubt about that. As evidence of this I should like to quote an excerpt from the Ottawa Citizen of the 5th instant containing a statement by the Right Hon. Neville Chamberlain, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is headed "Britain's Trade Bill Means the End of Free Trade." Mr. Chamberlain said:
There can be few occasions in all our long political history when the son of a man who counted for something in his day and generation has been vouchsafed the privilege of setting the seal upon a work which his father began, but which, perforce, he had to leave unfinished. Nearly twenty-nine years have passed since Joseph Chamberlain entered upon his great campaign in favour of an Imperial preference tariff reform, and more than seventeen have elapsed since he died without having seen the fulfilment of his aims.
Time and misfortunes of the country have brought conviction to many who did not fully agree with him then. I believe he would have found consolation for the bitterness of his disappointment if he could have foreseen these proposals which are direct, legitimate descendants of his constructions laid before the House of Commons, which he loved, in the presence of one and by the lips of the other of the two immediate successors to his name.

Surely there have been few more remarkable incidents in the British House of Commons. In the presence of his brother, the son of the late Joseph Chamberlain was able to announce that the dream of the great imperialist was about to come true. And may we not claim some credit for our leader that England has set her face in the direction of protection? I endorse the. statement of Mr. John L. Garvin in the London Observer that Joseph Chamberlain had again become incarnate in the person of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, and I am proud to be a member of this party which has the advantage of such a great leader. For was it not the right hon. gentleman who proclaimed this policy to a reluctant England; was it not he who led the line?
I desire to congratulate the government on the ministerial changes announced last Friday, I think I voice the sentiments of my colleagues when I say that we are very pleased that the mantle of Minister of Labour has fallen upon the Hon. Wesley A. Gordon. Those of us who represent constituencies where there are many working men desire to pay a tribute to the excellent relief work carried out by the Hon. Gideon Robertson, Mr. Gordon's predecessor. If ever a man was a casualty to his country's need I believe the ex-Minister of Labour was, and I tender to him my humble thanks for the patience with which he always received the representations I made to him on behalf of the workers of Selkirk. We are also very much pleased at the elevation of the Hon. Mr. Rhodes to the office of Minister of Finance. With his long parliamentary and business experience we believe he will prove a worthy successor to the long line of great Canadians who have preceded him as finance minister of this dominion.
In this connection I desire to add a word with regard to the elevation to the Senate of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, and to say that I am grateful that his counsel will be available as a member of the cabinet. When I went to the upper house to listen to the reading of the speech from the throne it struck me as rather remarkable that to the right of His Excellency stood Right Hon. Richard Bedford Bennett, while to the left of His Excellency stood that other great Conservative, that other great imperialist, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. If I might venture a remark to the right hon. leader of the opposition, in all kindness I would say that when this double-barrelled leadership of which he spoke fires its guns he may have occasion to regret his statement. The greatest tribute

The Address-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)
paid to Right Hon. Arthur Meighen on his elevation to the Senate was paid by the Manitoba Free Press, which did the most to defeat him.
I might add a further observation, Mr. Speaker. I believe the right hon. leader of the opposition promised some years ago that the upper house would be reformed. I am sure he will acknowledge that the greatest reform to be made since he uttered that statement has been brought about by the elevation to that chamber of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. If there was one thing I, as a young member of this house, deplored last year-and I say this in all sincerity, not as a politician but as a Canadian citizen- it was the fact that the mantle of infamy had fallen upon our parliamentary institutions, but I think it will add greatly to the prestige of the upper house to have Mr. Meighen there with his broadsword. I hope this is only the beginning of a policy which will mean that the government will not follow the scheme of the opposition in reforming the Senate only when death permitted them to do so.
A great deal of criticism has been levelled against the government; the right hon. leader of the opposition made a very critical speech in Winnipeg, to which I listened over the radio. The following day the right hon. gentleman delivered a splendid speech before the Winnipeg board of trade, in which he amplified the sentiment, contained in his great book Industry and Humanity, of the extension of human opportunity. In the course of his remarks the right hon. gentleman spoke of the great work we ought to do in connection with industry and labour, by which labour perhaps might become a partner with industry.	-
I want to thank the right hon. gentleman for that speech and for those sentiments, but while doing so I cannot forget the speech he made the previous evening at a Liberal meeting. I think it is fair to say that the ills of Canada were diagnosed, but no prescriptive remedy was offered for our recovery. I do not believe it is going to help this country in the solution of our problems to speak about the virtues of free trade when there is a world war going on at the present time in connection with trade and commerce.
I spoke of the measures which were adopted to protect Canadian industry, particularly in regard to anti-dumping legislation. Surely if it is right that a man should stand up and take his own part, his country should also. What would have happened to this dominion if the national fabric in the east had suffered as it did in the west? Where would we have
found our basis of taxation if industry had fallen on the parlous times that have come over agriculture in western Canada? Where would we have found that five cents per bushel-that five cents which has meant
810,000,000 to the western farmers-if it had not been for industry in eastern Canada? Surely in all these matters it behooves us to take a practical course and not to be overcome with an infirmity of mind which might make us believe that we can fit life to a theory, or a pure theory to practical life.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I believe we are met here at a most critical time for Canada. We are facing great and momentous questions, having to do with world trade, internal economy, capital and labour and other matters, and if these questions are not properly handled they may well mean the ruin of this country. But, sir, when I said that the honour I have been given had come to me because of the constituency and the fair province which I represent, perhaps I might have added that possibly it was tendered to me because in a small way I represent that class of men who now are coming in greater numbers to this house, the men who carried the maple leaf in the foremost files of empire to the battlefields of Europe. I believe there are over thirty men in this house, from all provinces and sitting on both sides, who saw service for their king and country and for the peace of the world in the great war. I believe I speak for them, as I believe I speak for every member of this house, when I say that all we desire is to help Canada, to help the British commonwealth of nations achieve its purpose and do its work looking to the peace and prosperity of the world.
I should like to conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by quoting some words of Sir Cecil Spring-Rice, that great servant of empire, that great British ambassador who represented Great Britain at Washington during the world war, written just prior to his death. I am sure that what we desire, and what Canada expects, is that we should consecrate not only our minds but our hearts, our time and our wills to the welfare of our country. Sir Cecil Spring-Rice, perhaps conscious that the end of his life was approaching, wrote these words:
I vow to thee, my country-all earthly things above-
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love,
The love that asks no question; the love that stands the test;
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best:
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final
sacrifice.
!4

The Address-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)
Then in conclusion, moved no doubt by that great emotion which possesses all great souls, he wrote:
And there's another country, I've heard of long ago-
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know.
We may not count her armies; we may not see her King,
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering.
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of gentleness and all her paths are peace.
There is a power that rules nations, a power that rules the activities of men. If we only have faith in our country; if we only have belief in an ever-ruling Providence; if we only work together; if unity is our shield and integrity our buckler, and if courage is our sword we can, with belief in God and in enthusiasm for humanity, realize our place among the nations of the world. It is with great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, that I second the motion of my hon. colleague from Three Rivers-St. Maurice (Mr. Bourgeois).


William Lyon Mackenzie King: After listening
to the motion which you have just put to the house, Mr. Speaker, and particularly after hearing what the mover of the address (Mr. Bourgeois) and the seconder (Mr. Stitt, Selkirk) have said in such courteous terms about His Excellency (he Governor General, I again experience and must express regret that the first act of this parliament should not have been one of extending to the king's representative in this country the courtesy of a word of thanks for his first address from the throne before taking up the time of the House of Commons with matters that are personal to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). Parliamentary institutions under the British flag have many time-honoured customs which deserve to be respected to the full, and I feel that I should be remiss in my duty as one who believes in the British constitution and its practices, and likes to see those practices followed to the letter, if I did not take exception to this strange discourtesy which has been shown His Excellency the newly-arrived Governor General in this country by the first act of this parliament to-day.
I intend to say a few words in criticism of the speech from the throne, and for that reason it may be necessary for me, so that there can be no thought in anyone's mind that I am at all reflecting on His Excellency the Governor General, to say a word about the

significance of the speech, 'the manner of its preparation and the part it is intended to play in the proceedings of parliament. Before I do so, however, I should like at once to follow the customary practice of extending congratulations to the hon. gentlemen who have moved and seconded the address. The mover of the address, the hon. member for Three Rivers, was, I think, appropriately accorded that honour as being the most recent arrival in this house. He will not expect me to congratulate him on his victory, but I do congratulate him very warmly on the manner of his first address in the House of Commons. He comes here with the reputation of one who stands high in his profession; and indeed all who have listened to him this afternoon must have realized that he ds accustomed to public speaking and also that as a skilled attorney he is capable of making the best of a bad case. I congratulate him on the manner in which he has discharged his duties today. The hon. member for Selkirk has spoken in the house before and to-day he has, 1 think, acquitted himself in the same creditable manner as he has on previous occasions. He is one of the younger members of the house and this afternoon has given us an interesting,, informative and entertaining address. May I reasnre him at once, with regard to any fears he may think I entertain of the doublebarrelled leadership of the Conservative party.
I have realized from the start that this would mean a double offensive so far as I am concerned. But, as he says, the people at this time are more than ever interested in the conditions as they exist in the country; and' are going to pay more attention to argument than to sound. He need not be in the least alarmed that having been swept off their feet in one general election by one big gun. the people are likely to be carried away a second time, even if there are two commanders-in-chief instead of one.
Let me return to the speech from the throne. The speech, as all hon. members know, but as some of the public may not know, while it is delivered by His Excellency the Governor General is prepared by the Prime Minister, and His Excellency the Governor General, in presenting to both houses of parliament the address which he does, is not in any way responsible for what appears in its paragraphs but gives to the country what the Prime Minister has prepared as a guide to the proceedings of parliament. It is particularly as a guide to the business of the session on the matters that are likely to be brought forward in legislation, and the more-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
important matters likely to be submitted for consideration, that the speech is intended. It is quite appropriate that it should give, as the speech before us does give, some account of the condition of the times as a sort of background or general setting to the different measures that may be considered during the session. As I am going to take exception to some of the statements in the speech, I desire again to make it perfectly clear that in so doing I am not taking exception to any act of His Excellency the Governor General. There is an old constitutional maxim, "the king can do no wrong," and in this country the king's representative in matters of state can do no wrong so long as he acts on the advice of the Prime Minister; and in presenting to parliament the speech which has been delivered, His Majesty's representative in Canada has simply presented the speech which has been put into his hands by the right hon. the Prime Minister.
There is in the speech one paragraph which being personal to His Excellency, has in all probability, been written by His Excellency himself. It has had the approval of the Prime Minister and may have been written by the Prime Minister at the request of His Excellency. It is the first paragraph in the speech. With what is expressed in that paragraph all hon. members will be in hearty accord. We warmly welcome the kindly expression which, with respect to his arrival in Canada and recognition of the manner in which he has been received here, has come from the king's representative to the people of the country. May I say that the people of Canada most warmly reciprocate towards His Excellency the sentiments which he, as His Majesty's representative, has expressed.
Passing from the introductory paragraph, the speech, it will be seen, falls into three main divisions. The first portion in point of importance sets forth what may be described as the legislative program. This happens to be the briefest part of the speech. Another portion deals with subjects of general interest which are likely to receive a good deal of attention during this session. The third portion consists of a number of general statements, in the nature of assertions and affirmations, some of which are true and some of which I think are untrue. I shall have a word to say later on in the course of my remarks with regard to these statements.
It is not necessary, but it is a custom sometimes followed, to have an amendment moved to the speech from the throne. This year, I believe the people of Canada are anxious
that parliament shall get down to business as quickly as possible and that as little time as possible shall be lost in preliminary discussion. If the opposition follows the course which up to the present it has proposed to follow and does not present an amendment, it will not be because we agree with what is in the speech or with many of the government's policies, but simply to show that we approve of His Excellency's part in delivering the speech and wish, after thanking His Excellency for it, to get on with the country's business as rapidly as may be possible. We will reserve to some other time, possibly on occasions of going into supply, what we wish to say with regard to a number of matters.
As I have said, the speech is brief. I shall endeavour to follow an example which I think is a good one, and if possible be briefer than usual in my own remarks. I shall take up the different features of the speech in the order I have indicated.
First of all, I shall deal 'with the legislative program. It is embraced, so far as actual mention of measures is concerned, in three paragraphs.
The first paragraph reads as follows:
The Geneva Narcotics Convention of 1931, the Red Cross, Prisoners of War and other conventions, will be submitted for your approval.
We may as well take the legislation of that paragraph as read and accepted. In so far as this side of the house is concerned we are ready to approve these conventions immediately. We know all about them already and in taking them up we need not spend any time beyond what is necessary for the purpose of the formal approval which has to be given by parliament.
The next paragraph reads as follows:
Among the other measures to which your attention will be invited will be a bill relating to insurance, and bills relating to patents and trade marks.
In regard to these measures we shall, of course, have to wait until they are before us and we have opportunity to see what their provisions are. I imagine that they will be controversial not so much in a party sense as in connection with some of the important provisions they contain, and that they will be referred for consideration to either a special or a standing committee. I doubt if except as regards the insurance measure much time of the house will need to be taken up in the consideration of these measures.
The next paragraph reads as follows:
You will also be asked to consider bills to amend the Canada Shipping Act and the Fisheries Act.
T'f)	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
What I have just said applies to this paragraph ; until these measures are presented to the house, we will not be in a position to offer any comment thereon.
This is the legislative program. I must express surprise that at a time when unemployment continues to play the part which it does, and particularly after listening to the remarks of the mover and the seconder of the address with regard to the importance of this question and the course pursued by the government in dealing with it, there is nothing in the speech from the throne with reference to any further provision for unemployment or any expression of an intention to deal with the great question of unemployment insurance. I am inclined to feel that unemployment is still the most important question before this parliament and the country at the present time, and that the time of parliament should be devoted to discussing all aspects of it very fully. But no reference is made in the speech to any proposed consideration of matters pertaining to unemployment.
There is another omission. When we consider the importance which is being attached to-day to a consideration of banking and credit, to depreciated and appreciated currencies, it is significant that we find no mention of anything at all suggestive of a forward looking policy with respect to the improvement of our banking and credit systems. No consideration is suggested of the questions of currency which are so allimportant. I had assumed 'that the government would be giving the fullest consideration to matters of this kind and would have had something to place before parliament for its consideration. I notice that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, speaking in Toronto the other evening, was very strong in advising the people to be sure to keep their investments in banks and insurance companies. That may be sound advice, but there are people who are investing their lives in industry; there are people who derive all they have in the way of a standard of comfort from the value to be attached to what they may have in the way of purchasing power. These people are interested in seeing that questions which affect banking and credit and currencies are considered carefully by their representatives in parliament.
Perhaps it is a blessing that the legislative program is so brief. If legislation were to be of the character of that introduced at the last session and at the special session of 1930, then I think the country should be thankful that the program is so brief. If there is a

single factor which has helped to contribute to the difficulties of the present time, it is the extremes to which the ministry has gone in the matter of tariff legislation and its administration. As we know, the extensive revision upwards of the tariff and the continuous interpretation of the legislation in connection therewith in a manner to make it not merely restrictive but in many directions prohibitive of trade has been an outstanding feature of the work of this parliament and of the government since the new ministry came into office. The public should be thankful that it has been spared further legislation of that kind.
Much more important than legislation itself is the opportunity to be given the people's representatives to discuss in this parliament questions which are all-important in the minds of the people themselves. During the last two sessions there has not been provided the opportunity which should have been provided to discuss great national problems. By one device or another the government has sought to prevent this House of Commons from discussing at length the most important questions which were before it. The first special session was called to deal with unemployment but instead of being presented with unemployment measures we were faced with a most extensive revision of the tariff, and we were told that unless the Prime Minister was able to get that legislation through in the course of a fortnight, which was all the time available for discussion, he would not be able to attend the imperial conference. We were told also in one of his public addresses that the imperial conference was of great importance to the future of Canada and that it was necessary for him to be present if Canada's interests were to be safeguarded. That session, as I say, was deliberately framed so as to render impossible any discussion by the people's representatives in this house of the question of the tariff, which was the most important question with which any parliament could be concerned.
As regards unemployment, we were presented with a bill asking for 820,000,000 to be used for unemployment relief. No opportunity was given for discussing the general question of unemployment. Very little was said by the government of how they intended to use that 820,000,000. No statement was given to the house of the basis upon which they had asked for this amount. It was simply a case of: We must have 820,000,000 to do with as we please. And that 820,000,000 was voted. I shall refer a little later to what I think the effect of that method of

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
legislating has been on some of the problems that have since arisen. But that was the situation with regard to the special session that was called to deal with the question of unemployment.
Let us consider the last session. The last session was a much longer one. Unemployment had become a still greater problem in Canada. From the beginning of the session until within the last few weeks of its close, I repeatedly asked my right hon. friend what his policy was with respect to unemployment, what he meant when he said that he would end unemployment, what measures he was going to introduce into parliament to redeem that promise and obligation, but I received no reply. When we endeavoured to discuss unemployment, the rules of the house were resorted to in order to make it impossible to proceed with the discussion at any length. We were told by the Prime Minister that the cabinet was the board of directors of the nation. I want to repeat what I said to the Prime Minister at that time in regard to that remark. The cabinet is not the board of directors of the nation's affairs. This parliament, this House of Commons, is the board of directors of the nation's affairs. The cabinet is a compiittee of the House of Commons, but there are assembled here representatives from all parts of this country who have a knowledge of the conditions with which their constituents have to contend and how those conditions are to be met, much more complete than that which can be possessed by any individual group of men in this house. If parliament stands for anything at all; if the House of Commons, as the forum of the people's representatives, means anything at all, then the people are entitled to hear not only the members of cabinet with respect to their measures, but all hon. members of the House of Commons; and ample opportunity should be given to them to discuss the various measures and subjects of importance.
As I said, at the last session we had little or no opportunity to do this. On the other hand, time and again the customs, traditions, and practices of the House of Commons, were set at naught. In voting public money it has always been customary for a ministry to state the specific object for which moneys are needed, and to seek the appropriation of a specific amount. That is the way in which the House of Commons holds its control over expenditure. What did hon. gentlemen do? They waited until the end of the session, when everyone was well nigh exhausted after several months of the sitting of the house,
and presented a bill giving the right to deal with unemployment relief and other matters as they pleased. They secured in this way a blank cheque which they might fill in to any amount and which would enable them to take out of the public treasury, without any further control on the part of parliament, whatever sums of money they wished to spend to that end from that time until the present.
This setting at naught all the practices of British parliamentary procedure, this riding rough-shod over provisions which have been time-honoured and Which exist for the protection of the people of the country, is something that must not be further continued, and if there is an effort to continue it, there will be very strenuous opposition from this side. At a time like this we do not wish to make matters more difficult for the government than they are; we are anxious as far as possible to cooperate with them, but it takes two to cooperate, and there will have to be a disposition on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to permit a free expression of opinion from all sides of the house if they wish to have the cooperation of all the members to the degree to which at such a time as this it is desirable to have it.
While I am speaking on the rights and privileges of parliament may I in this connection refer to a remark made by my right hon. friend on Friday last? When he was speaking, I did not catch the significance of what he said or I should have very sharply taken him to task at the moment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon members may smile. Perhaps the privileges of parliament are a matter of indifference to them; but if they will bear with me for a moment; if they are upholders of the constitution, I think they themselves will be among those who will agree with what I have to say. It has always been understood that the members of each of the houses of parliament are the custodians of their respective rights and privileges. From the days of magna cha.rta it has been understood under the British constitution, apart from parliament altogether, that any free man has a right to be judged by his peers, and is entitled to the protection of the 'law of the land. Everyone knows, so far as the Senate is concerned, that that body is the custodian of its own rights and privileges, and when matters have been referred to that honourable body, no member of the House of Commons has any right even to so much as publicly comment upon what is there taking place. Yet, at a

The Address-Mr, Mackenzie King
moment when I was expressing, as I think hon. gentlemen will agree, in a kindly and straightforward manner, my appreciation of one of the appointments which the Prime Minister had made of a former colleague to be the leader of the Senate; when I had been speaking, as I say, surely in a courteous way, my right hon. friend interrupted to say, to all intents and purposes, that the apppint-ment which he had made had been made in order that he might have in the Senate, in the person of the new leader of the Senate, an instrument of his will, someone who on his behalf is to perform the office of Lord High Executioner, someone who, without any evidence, without any hearing, is to be prosecutor, jury, judge, pronounce the verdict and the sentence, and complete the entire indictment and legal process, all on his own authority. May I say to my right hon. friend I think he is very much mistaken if he imagines the present leader of the Senate is going to be simply an instrument of his will in matters of that kind. He will find the double-barrelled arrangement will not work quite as smoothly as he believes will be the case in this particular instance. But, asides apart, I would say that the Prime Minister of Canada, who is not only the leader of the House of Commons, but, above all others, supposed to be the guardian of the rights and privileges of parliament, should be the last one to set an example which he himself knows to be entirely wrong.
I now proceed to the other matters that are mentioned in the speech from the throne. There are in it some subjects of general interest. It is not indicated that any of them are to be followed by legislation, but it is to be presumed that in the course of the session legislation will be introduced with respect to some of them. I shall take them up pretty much in the order in which they appear in the speech from the throne. One is:
My ministers have under consideration a commercial treaty with the Dominion of New Zealand.
I wish the government had found it possible to tell us that a commercial treaty had been arrived at which would be presented to parliament. That is what we had understood from the press. It is quite right, however, that the ministry should safeguard its statements, and all we know at the moment is that it has under consideration a treaty with New Zealand.
The thought that comes to my mind is this: If it has been possible within the past few weeks to arrive at a treaty with New 
Zealand which contains any advantages to both countries, why was that not possible a year ago? Why have we not had the advantages that would flow from such a treaty during the past year when anything in the way of additional trade would have meant a great deal to Canada? Nearly a year ago, the Prime Minister of New Zealand was here in the city of Ottawa, ready to negotiate. He was prepared to sit down with the Canadian ministry and formulate a treaty, but hon. gentlemen opposite were not willing or ready to discuss a treaty with him. When the Hon. Mr. Forbes realized their attitude he went back to New Zealand and made a public statement to his own parliament. In this connection, I read from a Canadian press cable from Wellington, New Zealand, dated June 4, as it appeared in the Montreal Gazette of June 5, 1931:
The Prime Minister said he hoped Canada would agree to send her minister of trade to New Zealand to negotiate a new trade treaty. New Zealand lias been forced to show a strong hand in placing Canadian imports on the general tariff scale-in view of Canada's "complete failure to listen to representations regarding the butter duty," he said.
Those words are in quotations. Then, the article continues:	[DOT]
Mr. Forbes added that on the day he had arrived in Ottawa, Canada had taken an unfriendly action by raising the butter duty.
Canada slammed the door in New Zealand's face at the very time when she was anxious to negotiate," the Prime Minister said.
Those words are in quotations-"slammed the door in New Zealand's face". Canada slammed the door in New Zealand's face- that may be a part of the process of blasting a way into the markets of the world. Let us hope however that there will be no more slamming of doors between different parts of the empire. If that is to be the method of procedure at the forthcoming imperial conference I can tell my right hon. friend he will not get very far in any trade negotiations he may have with any part of the empire. Let him take a lesson from what has been the experience with regard to New Zealand and adopt a different method of negotiating with different parts of the empire in matters of common interest. We will hope that the treaty said to be under consideration is one which will prove beneficial to both Canada and New Zealand, and that its provisions will be laid before the house at a very early date.
The speech from the throne contains reference to two conferences. I shall refer first to the paragraph on the Disarmament conference. It reads:

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
A Canadian delegation is participating in the Disarmament conference, which was opened at Geneva on the 2nd of February. I join with you in the prayer that the representatives of the nations there assembled may reach an understanding which will put beyond peril the cause of enduring world peace.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that is a paragraph in the speech from the throne with which not only all hon. members of this House of Commons but the people of Canada generally will be in complete accord. The people of Canada are most anxious to have this great Disarmament conference do something for the security and peace of the world. In my view, if my right hon. friend will permit me to say so, the paragraph is splendidly worded, and expresses the sentiment cherished by this nation as a whole.
I should like to say a word regarding the meeting of the disarmament conference. It would seem the very irony of fate that there should be meeting at the League of Nations at the present time representatives of the different countries charged with a consideration of the great problem of disarmament while in another part of the world we are witnessing hostilities having many of the features of international conflict. Some have said that this means the League of Nations has failed to function, that it has not done what was expected of it. As there always are dismal prophets in all parts of the world, there are those who are saying that this seeming failure means the beginning of the end of 'the great movement for which the League of Nations stands. Also there are those who say that in view of what we are witnessing to-day in the orient, we have the strongest reason why the disarmament conference should not make the headway which otherwise we would have hoped it would make. In other words they' say' that if we are to have adequate protection, instead of nations disarming there ought to be more arming. I do not agree with either of those views. I do not think that the League of Nations has failed; I do not think the cause of disarmament is any less real to-day than it has ever been, and I wish to give my reasons.
The principle upon which the League of Nations is acting is that before hostilities take place between countries there should be an investigation; that the public should be fully informed of the causes and merits of a dispute under some inquiry judicially conducted; that before any part of the world is thrown into a state of turmoil, nations should be in a position to judge as to the right and wrong of the great questions involved. In other words the view of the League of Nations is that in international affairs reason rather than force should prevail.
In 1907 this parliament enacted what is known as the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. That act laid down principles which are identical with those which constitute the basis of the practice of the League of Nations.
I am not suggesting that those present at the League of Nations had that act before them, but I do say that the principle of investigating industrial disputes before there are lockouts or strikes and in the first instance of obliging parties in industry to submit to an investigation so that the public may be fully informed as to the right or wrong of the situation is the principle laid down in that act, and that it is a principle identical with that which constitutes the basis of a large part of the work of the League of Nations. I remember very well after that act was passed that in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia its provisions were disregarded at the outset on one or two occasions. The act became law at the time of mining troubles in the west. The miners at the time did not realize the full significance of the measure. They misunderstood its purpose and aim and arrayed themselves in defiance of it. It was not long however before they discovered that having violated a law of the land they had, to a considerable degree, lost the sympathy which might otherwise have been theirs. More important than that however was the fact that they discovered, when they began to study the act, that after all there was a more excellent way of obtaining justice, namely that of basing their case on its merits, knowing as Burke has said that "justice is the common concern of mankind," and that the public when it understands the right and the wrong of a situation may be relied upon to see that justice prevails. What has been the result? That act has been on the statute books of this country now for nearly twenty-five years, a quarter of a century. Conformity with its provisions has become part of the accepted practice of those engaged in the large industries to which the provisions of the law apply. Parties to the industries concerned do not think of lockouts or strikes until the public have been fully informed as to the right and wrong of situations which have arisen.
Take what has been happening within the last few months with respect to the question of rates of wages, hours of work and the degree of employment of the men on the great railway systems of Canada. Before the time of the statute there were lockouts and
30	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
strikes to settle matters of the kind when in dispute, but to-day before such things may occur each party involved has an opportunity to appoint its own representative on a board of investigation, to meet under the presidency of a common chairman, and the opinion of the board on the facts and merits of the dispute is given to the country before any interruption of the service or disruption of industry takes place. With what result? With the result that since the Act has been in force in the great majority of cases where disputes have been investigated no strike or lockout has ever taken place. Now, that has been Canada's experience in regard to legislation which relates to industrial relations. I should think that the experience of the world in the course of time will be identical with respect to great international problems which involve questions of right or wrong between nations. I am not at all sure that it is not a fortunate thing for mankind that at the moment the world is going to have an opportunity of demonstrating what with regard to the attitude of nations the force of international public opinion may mean in a given situation with respect to any nation which may violate the provisions of great covenants such as those of the League of Nations, and the Kellogg-Briand pact. I do not wish to say anything about the merits of the dispute in the far east beyond this, that I think this country and all other countries were entitled to know the right and wrong of the situation before a shot was fired The machinery for such a course exists and it was due to the nations of the world, whatever the differences or causes of conflict may be that these should have been made clear to some international tribunal before the peace of the world was disturbed.
May I say this, Mr. Speaker, that I believe were it not for the League of Nations being in existence, and for the fact that public opinion has developed as it has with respect to the great question of international peace, that instead of witnessing what we have witnessed in the last few weeks in the orient, isolated encounters here and there, we would to-day have been witnessing the most unparalleled butchery that mankind has ever known. If the world has been saved a tragedy of that kind, it is, I believe, because of the respect which, no matter what the provocation may be. nations now have for the good opinion of the rest of the world of which they are also a part.
With regard to disarmament, far from the present situation being a reason why nations should seek to do more in the way of arming themselves, it affords the strongest reason why 
disarmament should be striven for more strenuously than ever. What are we witnessing? We are witnessing air forces, land forces, naval forces, all taking part in an international conflict. Assume that the relationship between Japan and China to-day was similar to the relationship between the United States and this country, does anyone believe that there would be that kind of occurrence in the orient at the present time? I venture to say that if the orient had, as we have on this continent, something in the nature of an international joint tribunal which would deal with questions of international difference, we certainly would not be witnessing to-day what we are forced to witness. We can only hope -and I am sure that every member of this parliament will share the hope-that the nations of the orient will realize that there is such a thing as a great family of nations to which they belong, and that all the other members of the family are interested in seeing that justice is done where there is a wrong, and that if given the opportunity so to do, they will find a way of justice being made to prevail, short of the kind of conflict that is taking place at the present time.
With regard to the disarmament conference, let me repeat that this parliament will strongly support those who are representing this country at the conference. I hesitate to say anything in the way of criticism of the delegation which has been appointed by the government to represent Canada at the conference; comparisons are always invidious; but I do say- and I think it is what the country feels-that having regard to the importance of that great gathering, Canada might have sent a stronger and more representative delegation. If I may be permitted to say so, hon. gentlemen opposite might have followed the example which the previous Liberal administration set with respect to representation at Geneva at some of the international gatherings held there. When in office we appointed at one time the late Sir George Foster, a great and distinguished member of the Conservative party, to be one of our representatives at Geneva; we appointed the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), a member of the party that sits in the far corner, also as a representative of Canada at the League of Nations. We did that in order that all parties might be represented as one on a matter which was not a question of political difference. I submit that having regard particularly to the fact that a petition carrying hundreds of thousands of names was carried across the sea, those names including members of all political parties in Canada. The purpose in

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
view would have been much better served if, in selecting the representation for that delegation, the Prime Minister had sought out persons representative of all parties in this country, persons who would be among the most informed on questions of disarmament. and best able to speak for all political parties in Canada. However, as I say, subject to this criticism-which of course has no bearing upon the efforts which we know will be made by the present delegation-we all hope and pray that Canada's representation at Geneva will be able to further the great end which it is intended to serve.
The next reference in the speech from the throne is to the economic conference. The paragraph dealing with the economic conference is as follows:
On the invitation of my government, an economic conference of members of the British commonwealth of nations will meet in Ottawa on July 18th next.
May I, Mr. Speaker, as leader of the Liberal party in this house say that we are pleased indeed that the government of Great Britain and the governments of the dominions of the British empire have accepted the invitation of Canada to be present at the imperial conference to be held here this year. We are pleased that at last a date has been definitely fixed and that the conference is to meet in Canada. And may I add in all sincerity that we of the Liberal party will do what we can, in so far as our point of view will permit, to cooperate with hon. gentlemen opposite in making the conference the great success which all Canadians hope it will be. I should be happy if it were possible to believe that this House of Commons could be as one on the policies that would be put before the conference as those of Canada. But unless there is a great change between now and July the 18th in the point of view of hon. gentlemen opposite and of ourselves with respect to the significance of tariffs and the part they should play in governing trade, I fail to see just how we may get together. I would ask of my right hon. friend that there be given to this House of Commons during this session of parliament a full opportunity to discuss the questions that are to come up at the economic conference, in order that the members of this house may speak their mind, and speak it very freely, with respect to the policies that should be put forward at the conference. Indeed, 1 should very much like to see the government state its policies in the form of a resolution before this house, and have the endorsation of those policies before they submit them to the conference.
If they were to do that they would be in a very strong position when presenting the Canadian viewpoint. I hardly expect they will be willing so to do; however, that is for them to judge. But I do say that this House of Commons is entitled to know what particular line the ministry intends to take; that we should have ample opportunity to discuss the pros and cons, so that when Canada's voice is heard at the conference this country will know whether what is being presented is in accordance with some general consensus of view or whether it is the opinion of only one section of the country that- is being expressed.
I should like to refer to the economic conference at a little greater length, Mr. Speaker. As it is almost six o'clock I would ask the permission of the house to go on after recess.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the house rose at six o'clock I was beginning to outline the Liberal attitude towards the approaching imperial economic conference. I had said that as a party we were pleased indeed that the Prime .Minister had found it possible to receive from the other dominions and Great Britain an acceptance of the invitation of the government of Canada to have the conference meet in this country. It would be strange indeed if the Liberal party were not wholeheartedly in favour of any conference which gives promise of the development of interimperial trade, because, as is well known, it was the Liberal party that instituted the British preference which became in time an imperial preference. I believe the records will bear out the statement, that what was given in the way of preference originally and whatever has been given in the way of increased preference to Great Britain at any time since has been given by a Liberal administration. One may search the records of this parliament in vain to discover a. time when a Conservative administration increased the preference. There are numerous instances, none, of course, so glaring as that-afforded at the special session of 1930, where a Conservative administration has materially lessened the preference to Great Britain.
When Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Right Hon. Mr. Fielding decided in 1897 upon the preference as a matter of policy in regard to the tariff there were in the main two reasons that actuated them. One undoubtedly was senti-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
meat, which does play some part in public affairs, particularly where it relates to matters affecting the British Empire. Anything that will make for closer cooperation between the various parts of the empire should receive, and certainly always has received from the Liberal party, the very strongest approval. Before attending an imperial conference in Britain in 1897, at the time of Queen Victoria's diamond jubilee, the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier introduced through the then Minister of Finance the first measure of preference that was brought into this parliament. The other motive was the one that every nation must have in mind primarily, namely, its own interest. When this country adopted the preference it did so because it was believed by the administration of the day that it was good business so to do, and every administration that has remained in office in Canada since then, whether Conservative or Liberal, except the administration of which my right hon. friend is the head, has maintained the preference at the figure at which it stood at the time the administration came into office, or else increased it. So that there has been a pretty general agreement that it was good business to give a preference to Britain. Now it did not mean that by giving a preference to British goods we were simply helping Britain. My right hon. friend put forward that point of view in opposition to an increase in the preference at the last general campaign. He came forward with his so-called doctrine of Canada First, as though there were, in matters of trade, which means an exchange that is mutually advantageous, something to the disadvantage of Canada, because Britain might receive some advantage from the arrangement. That is where I differ so completely from my right hon. friend. Trade, to my mind, is an exchange which in the very nature of things is of mutual advantage. There would be no such thing as trade at all unless each party to the exchange felt that it was to its interest to 'trade. My right hon. friend takes the view that trade is rather in the nature of economic war and that we have to fight and bargain oveT the arrangement that is to be made before two countries can do what it is to their mutual interest to do. This, then, is the point of view from which the Liberal party, so far as it has any expression of view in the matter, will approach the forthcoming imperial economic conference. We will welcome it as a conference which we trust will lead to much more in the way of empire trade, to much more in the way of preference on the part of this country towards Britain and towards 
the other dominions, and, where they have tariffs, more in the way of preference on their part towards us. But I do say to the Prime Minister that if the imperial economic conference is to be the success which this country wishes it to be he will have to change his point of view in regard to trade.
Moreover, he will have to change his methods of dealing with other parts of the British Empire, and he will have to change his policies. I have touched for a moment upon the right hon. gentleman's point of view; let me say a word about his methods. We are looking forward to this economic conference in the hope that it may be a success. Why was the last economic conference not a success? I have already given my view in the house and I repeat it to-night:	I think
it was because of the attitude of my right hon. friend, because of the way in which he approached that conference, the way in which, before "he left Canada at all, at the special session of this parliament, he put up duties against Great Britain and other parts of the empire, doing away with a large measure of the preference they formerly had, and, when he reached England, telling them they must accept what he wanted to have done or he would not be prepared to listen to anything.
I do not want to go over the ground I traversed pretty fully a year ago, but, lest anyone may have forgotten what my right hon. friend did say, let me read one paragraph in relation to what he termed his offer to Great Britain. This was after having stated his Canada First policy, the Canada First policy being that whatever can be produced or manufactured in Canada must be produced or manufactured here. Under his Canada First policy, tariff walls were to be so arranged that it would be impossible for goods of the kind mentioned to come into this dominion above those walls from outside, whether from other parts of the empire or from other countries. Preference was to be given, by raising the tariff wall against other countries still higher than it was against those to which the preference was to be given. After he. had stated his Canada First policy, the right hon. gentleman at the conference said:
I offer to the mother country and to all the other parts of the empire a preference in the Canadian market in exchange for a like preference in theirs, based upon the addition of a ten per centum increase in prevailing general tariffs or upon tariffs yet to be created.
That is the proposition which the Right Hon. Mr. Thomas very properly described as humbug, and I am afraid my right hon. friend will have to get rid of his humbug

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
policy before this conference meets, if he wishes it to be at all successful. And may I ask, is it not humbug? Consider what that proposal means. To understand it one has to consider first what was done at the special session. At the special session the duties were raised against Great Britain; over a wide range they were increased, and part of the preference was done away with. Under the budget which the Liberal administration put into force just before the conference opened the duties had been considerably lowered; the ground had been prepared for a favourable approach to Great Britain. But my right hon. friend took a diametrically opposite attitude; he raised the duties considerably. Then he went to Britain and said,
" I will trade with you on a reciprocal basis on this understanding, that the preference is to be given not by reducing existing duties but by raising still higher the duties against other countries." He put duties up to a point where to begin with British goods could not get into this country to any considerable extent, and then said he would not lower these duties. How was Great Britain or how were other parts of the empire to make any arrangement with him in the face of an attitude of that kind?
Since his return from the trip which he took to England to combine health and business my right hon. friend has told us that he is going to get something important in the way of concessions through the wheat quota which is to be arranged. Whether or not this wheat quota will be of advantage to our country is something we can discuss only when we know on what basis it is to be arranged, what the percentages are to be, and so forth. I will not go into a discussion of the advantage or disadvantage of a quota arrangement, but what I want to ask at the moment is this: If there is any good in a quota, if it will be of any advantage to Canada, why did we not have it as a result of the last imperial conference instead of having to wait for the conference to come on July 18? Why did we not have the advantage of a quota at a time when Canada needed everything she could possibly get in order to improve her 'condition? The answer is this: my right hon. friend's method of approach. The British government were ready to consider the giving of a quota, they were prepared to take it up at the last conference just as they are prepared to take it up at this conference. But what did my right hon. friend say to them? I quote from . the report of the proceedings of the conference. The remarks of my right hon. friend in referring to the quota were as follows:
Projects other than the one I propose have been placed before you. They have been carefully canvassed by our delegation, and, while we would avoid anything which might savour of premature condemnation, we are constrained to state that none of them can be accepted by Canada as alternatives at all likely to achieve the purpose we have in mind.
If my right hon. friend is going to proceed in that manner when the imperial conference meets in Canada I cannot see that he will get any further than he did at the last conference. That is why I say he will have to-I hope his ministers and others who are supporting him will see that he does-come around to a changed point of view and a changed method of negotiation. May I repeat that I think he will have to change considerably his policies as well.
As I have said, my right hon. friend's method of beginning negotiations has been to put up the tariff against other parts of the empire. What method of approach has Great Britain adopted since she has come to have a tariff of her own? What is the present attitude of Great Britain towards Canada? She will come to this conference with a tariff of 10 per cent against most articles from other countries. What is the duty as against Canada? Nothing at all. We have the preference of free entry into her market. My right hon. friend says: The basis on which I ask each country to negotiate, the basis on which I am prepared to bargain, is reciprocal. I ask him if he is going to follow Great Britain's example and make his basis one of complete free trade with regard to the goods coming into Canada from Great Britain and other parts of the British Empire-that is, the reciprocal basis so far as the present attitude of Great Britain is concerned-or is he going to maintain his present position, his only concession being to increase still higher the duties against other countries? He is on the horns of a dilemma as long as he holds to that position or once he accepts the British position.
May I draw attention to the fact that in preparing for the last imperial conference the Liberal administration which was in office at the time did precisely the kind of thing in the matter of approach which Great Britain has done in anticipation of the coming conference. We did not put up tariff walls against Great Britain; we did not make demands that we would have our own way or nothing would be done. We lowered our tariff considerably. When we discovered that the nation to the south was not prepared to trade with us as fully and as freely as formerly we then took good care to arrange our tariff so that what we were losing in trade in that direction we would gain in trade with Great Britain. We


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not manufactured goods, all goods.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will go one better and say that I believe that as regards manufactured goods Canada exports more per capita than any other country in the world. So far as our manufacturers are concefned they did not suffer under Liberal policies. If you are exporting per capita more manufactured goods than any other country, if the per capita trade of your country is the second largest in the world, what more for manufacturers can you ask from tariff considerations to help the advancement of trade? The fact that this country is in that position means that there is something like two million of our people who are dependent upon external trade. That is to say with those who are engaged in those industries which are exporting and with those who are dependent upon them, at least two million of the people of Canada depend upon what we can get out of foreign trade. Their market is the world and it is all-important that if possible matters should be so arranged that these people are enabled to hold the market they already have and to acquire new markets.
My right hon. friend has said that the tariff is an instrument to deal with industry, that what we need is fair competition and equal opportunity. I agree with him entirely as to the need for fair competition and equal opportunity; but the trouble is this, that when he speaks of fair .competition and equal opportunity, he has in mind only one class in the country, namely, .those who are engaged in the work of manufacturing. That is to say, if we are to judge him by his actions with respect to the tariff, he says: I will so-arrange the tariff that the home market wiil be exclusively secured to the manufacturers here, and in doing that he puts up the tariff to a point at which he shuts out all possibility not only of competing trade but much of all trade. No country can have trade one wajr all the time. Sooner or later imports have to be paid for by exports and exports by imports. Otherwise you cannot .trade; and when you shut off the possibility of trade between any two countries, you soon begin to lose for your manufacturers that very home market which in other ways you are trying so carefully to conserve for them. In other words,, the home market so far as Canada is concerned is not a locality. The home market, is .purchasing power. The home market is the purchasing power that comes to the people of Canada from whatever source it may come. When you consider the great primary industries of agriculture, mining, lumbering,.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
fishing, you at once see, so far as those industries are concerned, Canada's home market means very little relatively to those engaged in these industries; that their real market is the world market. They get back purchasing power and it is that purchasing power which creates the demand which is the home market of the manufacturers. If the tariff can be used as an instrument of national policy to help one class of industry, surely it can be made an instrument of national .policy equally to help the great basic and primary industries. Why should it not be made an instrument of national policy to help agriculture, lumbering, mining, fishing, those great primary industries?
How can it be made an instrument of national policy to serve that end? First of all, by being so arranged as to make as cheap as possible all the instruments of production; in the second place, by lowering the cost of living on the necessaries of life so that our great labouring population will be in a position to get the real wages which they require for their sustenance and the maintenance of their standard of comfort, and that the primary industries will also have their instruments of production at as low a cost as possible. In that way the basic industries will have an opportunity of competing in the world market. After all, it is world prices that determine whether or not our exports are going to be marketable abroad, and if we want to have effective competition in world markets, we have to make the cost of production as low as we can for those industries that have the world as their market. It is essential, if my Tight hon. friend wants to develop industry in this country, that he change his policies to that end.
In connection with the imperial economic conference there is a real opportunity, because with respect to many of the necessaries of life, particularly those that have to do with clothing and the like, it should be possible to enable the great body of working men and women in this country to obtain what they require at a much lower cost than is the case to-day, without working injury to any industry that is being efficiently carried on in this country.
I shall not enter at greater length into the tariff question to-night, because it will come more suitably on a discussion on the budget, and then I hope there will be a special opportunity to discuss the whole of the economic conference. I wish just to repeat that so far as Liberal policy in the matter is concerned, we stand to-day with respect to the British preference where Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr Fielding stood in 1897 when they granted the 41761-34
preference to Britain for the first time. We* stand where the Liberal party has stood every time it has given increased preference to Britain and other parts of the empire. We stand where we stood at the time we brought in our last budget, the one on which we went down to defeat. At that time we introduced in the House of Commons a budget designed specifically to make possible effective negotiations at a great economic conference, and we are and would be prepared, if we were in office at this moment, to restore the position to where it was when we went out of office at the last election in 1930. Therefore hon. gentlemen opposite will not find us standing in their way with respect to the success of any imperial conference; on the contrary, if they see their way to come somewhat to our point of view, which is, as I have already pointed out, the British point of view, in the matter of negotiations, they will receive from this side hearty cooperation in their efforts.
May I say that the question is much larger than one of trade. When one considers the basis of negotiation between different parts of the empire, I question very much if conducting negotiations in a spirit of petty or blustering bargaining is a good method of approach. A voluntary preference, voluntarily given, was the method adopted prior to the time this government came into office, a voluntary preference which, rather than binding or tying Canada's hands, leaves her free to do what she pleases with regard to her tariff in relation to other countries. If you start in a spirit of bargaining, and bargaining is your method, I am afraid it is going to be the beginning of very serious friction and disruption within the empire itself. When we realize how difficult it is to bargain between two parts of the empire, as we discovered at the last imperial conference, what is going to become of bargains that you try to make between seven different parliaments? I believe it is completely unworkable to approach an imperial conference on a bargaining basis. What the government will have to do is to decide what it is in the interests of Canada to do, to do that on a voluntary basis, and when the British delegates come here, to meet them very much along the lines that Britain by her attitude to-day is showing she is prepared to meet us. If we will approach Britain in the spirit in which she is approaching us, I do not say the result will be complete free trade within the British Empire, but it will mean freer trade and thereby very much more in the way of trade within the British Empire,

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
[DOT] and that is something to be devoutly desired, particularly at this time in the history of our country and of the world.
I shall pass on from the imperial conference to say a word with regard to that part of the speech from the throne which has reference to a description of conditions as they are existing or as they are supposed to exist. I can best describe that part of the speech as being in the nature partly of fact and partly of fiction. It is almost completely in the nature of generalizations, assertions and affirmations. How true these are, I am going to ask the house to judge for itself. Reading that part of the speech, I find first of all that it says:
You enter upon your duties at a time of continuing and universal economic disturbance and distress. World conditions are beyond the control of the Canadian people.
All of that is true, but it has not became true just to-day. It was true two years ago. It was true at the time the government of the day was appealing, and also when my right hon. friend was making his appeal, to the people. We who were in office at the time were very frank with the people of Canada. We told them distinctly there were world conditions that could not be met by any single government, by any policy, by any individual; that there was much that could be done to help to alleviate the situation, but that world conditions were being and would have to be taken into account in considering the problems with which we were faced. My right hon. friend seeks to-day to have us believe that his troubles arise for the most part from world conditions. While it is perfectly true that world conditions do in very considerable measure account for much of the hardship which at the moment, the people of Canada are experiencing, it is equally true that many of the problems which my right hon. friend and his government are grappling with to-day have been of his own creation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, that is true. He has helped to bring down on his own head much of the adverse situation with which he is faced ait the present time.
Let me go back to the discussion in this house on the last budget which was introduced bjr the Liberal government of the day. Hon. gentlemen opposite in the house fought that budget to the utmost of their ability; they did the best they could to defeat it. They misrepresented its aims and purposes; on the public platform they went through the same procedure, ridiculing it and finally succeeding

in defeating it-and with what result? The result was that at the imperial economic conference then pending t-hev made a mess of what otherwise might have been a great success. As everyone in Canada well knows, that budget was designed to make the best of a difficult situation |as it had developed in Canada because of world conditions. It was designed to secure immediately the goodwill of all parts of the British empire in matters of trade, and it would have succeeded to that end had it had a chance.
Let me go a step farther in showing wherein my right hon. friend has brought difficulties upon his own head. What did he do at the special session? Though it was called to deal with labour problems, he took that opportunity to make the most extreme changes in the tariff. In that one session he altered the whole tariff schedule, exercising no judgment, discretion or wisdom, but acted just as it suited his whim or caprice,, and without the advice of any tariff board. He swept the former tariff board out of existence and made tariff changes which suited him for the moment. What has he been doing ever since? He has been continuously changing that tariff, with the result that nobody knows for more than twenty-four hours ahead what the tariff rate may be. As I have already pointed out, his negotiations at the imperial conference were most unsuccessful. There, again, he brought down on his own head some of the difficulties he is facing at the present time.
Before I leave the special session of parliament, may I again remind the house that it was called to deal with unemployment. As I said this afternoon the only measure he brought in in that connection was to ask this house for a vote of $20,000,000. He did not care to give or was unable to give any explanation as to how that amount was fixed. Although Canada had assisted with unemployment relief at different times during the ten or twelve preceding years, the total amount that had been spent from the federal treasury for that purpose, including a part of the post-war period of depression, was not $2,000,000. Yet my right hon. friend asked for $20,000,000. How much of it did he spend? Before the end of the fiscal year he had not spent $4,000,000, although he had made commitments for something like $17,000,000 or $18,000,000. Was that not adding to his troubles? Had he come to this parliament and pointed out to the people of Canada that during the previous ten years, including one or two years of great distress, all that it had been necessary to take from the federal treasury, in cooperation with the munici-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
palities and provinces, to meet such situations did not total $2,000,000, and had asked for that amount or for $4,000,000, his problem to-day would not be what it is. When he asked for $20,000,000 what was the 'result? Not being able to use the money and to make the necessary commitments, a great deal of public money was spent for purposes for which there was no necessity whatever, spent during the spring and summer and at times when the money might have been saved and when those receiving the benefits from it might, at least in part, have been getting into some other kind of work.
What was the position the next session? Having asked for $20,000,000 at the special session my right hon. friend, finding conditions umrse than ever, began to experience difficulty in fixing the amount for the last year. Facing that situation he found it necessary, in order to do what he thought would satisfy the unemployed, to ask not for $20,000,000. $40,000,000, $60,000,000, $80,000,000 or $100,000,000, but to ask this parliament to give a blank cheque which he might fill in for as much as he wished to draw. To-day, when men, women and children in this land are suffering through lack of food, does my right hon. friend not realize that their position is infinitely aggravated because they know he has in his possession a cheque in an amount of any sum he may wish to make it, in virtue of which funds to any amounts may be drawn from the public treasury? That is one of the reasons why many people to-day are in such an incensed frame of mind. They cannot understand his action. They say that the Prime Minister has the right to spend all he wishes; for parliament has given him that right. He asked for it and got it

"Why should we not receive it"?
May I remind my right hon. friend of the promises he made during the political campaign? Does he think none of his trouble has grown from his promises? He promised to end unemployment, and to do it immediately; he promised markets; he was going to blast his way into the markets of the world-he said that to the farmers. They have been looking for those markets ever since, and the unemployed have been looking for employment. My right hon. friend did not need to say those things. He did not need to promise he would end unemployment; he did not need to promise he would find markets everywhere; he did not need to promise a national highway; he did not need to promise grants to the different provinces for different purposes, including technical
education and the like; he did not need to promise 100 per cent payment of old age pensions; he did not need to promise immediate completion of the St. Lawrence waterways development; he did not need to promise bridges and highways. But from one end of Canada to the other he scattered promises right and left. He said, " I will fulfil them all, or perish in the attempt." More than that, he said, "I will ask my own following from Quebec to vote me out of power; I will ask my own following from Nova Scotia to vote me *out of power, if those things are not done. These things I will do," he said. There is another place where he made difficulty for himself.
I think 1 ought to quote again a few of his promises to-night. He told the people-and this is what has brought much of his trouble upon himself-that there were things that governments could do, that there were things which could be done by proper policies, that there were things which could be done by individuals. He said: The reason this has not been done is that the policies of my opponents have been wrong. They have had nine years of office, and have been labouring under wrong policies. That is the reason you have not work at the present time. Then he went on to inquire: What is the matter with the governments? Governments can do anything. For fear that his government might not be able to meet the situation he said let me into office and I will do everything: I will undertake to do it, and you will see that it will happen once the government is mine. I say such statements have contributed to the problems my right hon. friend now faces.
What has added more than anything else to his difficulty has been his mistaken policy with respect to the restriction of trade, the cutting off of all -possibility of trade in many directions, making all trade uncertain and creating a situation where no one would venture to invest capital in industry. No one will venture to place orders for fear that inside of a very few hours he will learn there have been tariff changes, or that some ruling has been made which might affect business very seriously. All the departmental orders passed by my right hon. friend's government, the valuations he has placed upon different commodities, the method in which the antidumping provisions have been carried out *-all these things have irritated and exasperated those engaged in industry, those engaged in commerce and business, to an indescribable degree. These are the things which more than anything else are causing the problems in Canada at the present time.
38	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
I said a minute ago that when my right hon. friend was making his appeal he blamed the policies of his predecessors. Let me read one or two statements he made in that regard, and when I read them I would ask hon. members to bear in mind the application of his words to his own policies. At Sarnia on July 17, 1930, as reported in the Montreal Gazette of July 18, my right hon. friend said:
Canada was now in a "critical condition;" unemployment exists "on a scale which never before was known in the history of this country; all this by reason (.IF the policies of the Ottawa government."
Speaking at Montreal on June 26th, 1930, as reported in the Montreal Gazette of June 27th, my right hon. friend said:
Unemployment has become a national problem in Canada. It is the direct result of nine years of unsound economic policies applied by Liberals -under Premier King.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just wait a
moment. I will not give you nine years of Conservative rule, I will give you the record for one and a half years.
An lion. MEMBER: Don't give us any.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Mail and Empire of January 20th, 1931, contains the following report of a speech by my right hon. friend on the preceding day:
"Had it not been," said Mr. Bennett "that due to the policies of the preceding eight or nine years which left the country ill-prepared for depression of the present character, Canada would have met the ensuing crisis even better than she has."
That is what my right hon. friend said with regard to the record of the Liberal administration,-an administration which changed deficit into surpluses, which for eight years in succession reduced the public debt, reduced taxation, vastly increased trade, did not do any borrowing but met all expenditures, including capital expenditures, out of current revenues, and brought about a condition of prosperity such as the country had not known before.
Now, then, if policies are responsible for results, what is to be said of the policies which my right hon. friend has put into effect? What is to be said of a policy that inside of a year and a half made it necessary for this administration after borrowing 8100,000,000 to borrow not 8100,000,000 but over 8200,000,000 more; that has created enormous deficits instead of surpluses, that has vastly increased the taxation of the people, that in very large measure has crippled the trade of the country and that has enormously increased the public debt? If you are going to judge policies by results

there is the record of hon. gentlemen since they assumed office. But my right hon. friend said "There is something more important than policies, namely governments. Governments can do 'anything." Let us hear what he has to say on this score.
Speaking at Calgary on June 12th, 1930, according to the Calgary Herald of June 13th, he said:
This is a new country and there is no excuse for unemployment in Canada if a government does its duty.
I do not hear any applause from my hon. friends opposite.


An hon. MEMBER:: You will.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us take his next utterance. Speaking at North Vancouver on June 17th, 1930, according to the Vancouver Province of the 18th, he said:
Governments can regulate policies of the country so that facilities may be provided to give employment and not make it necessary for thousands to leave home and go elsewhere to get jobs to make a living.
At Victoria, according to the Colonist of June 17th, my right hon. friend said:
Is there any excuse for Canada to have hard times if the government is discharging its duties as it should?
I ask my right hon. friend that question now, in his own words: Is there any excuse for Canada to have hard times if the government is discharging its duties as it should? I am sure that neither my right hon. friend nor any of his colleagues will say that we are not having hard times to-day. If they admit that, there is according to the Prime Minister no excuse for hard times if the government is doing its duty, what according to his own dictum then is to be said for my right hon. friend's government?
Speaking at Sarnia on July 16th, 1930-and these are the words that helped my right hon. friend to win the position of power that he occupies to-day-he was most emphatic:
"Someone," he said, "is responsible for unemployment; not individuals, but governments; governments by their majorities in parliament are responsible for enacting all legislation."
There is condemnation not only of himself and his administration but of all his followers, for he says:
Governments by their majorities in parliament are responsible

So according to the words of the Prime Minister our hard times are due to the action of his government and his followers.
But my right hon. friend left no doubt in the minds of those who heard him that every-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
thing was going to be improved. Policies might not work and governments might not do everything, but there was one source that was infallible. From policies he goes to governments; he goes from governments to individuals-to himself. We shall come to that in a minute. Meanwhile what did my right hon. friend say the other day in speaking to a delegation of the Trades and Labour Congress that waited upon him? Did he say that policies or the government of the country could do everything? He said:
Ten millions of people could have but slight effect upon the movement of world forces.
That is a very different note from what he sounded before he came into office. In seeking office, he told the country that policies and governments could do anything, and as I shall show later, that he himself could do anything. But what is he saying now:	At
Calgary on August 26, of this year the Montreal Gazette of August 28 refers to what was said of my right hon. friend as follows:
Mr. Bennett blamed the present depression on speculation and an attempt to live higher than incomes warranted. It was the duty of every Canadian to do his share in effecting the return of normal conditions.
That was not what he said during the campaign. Speaking only the other day, this very year, in the city to a group of young people who carry his name, the Bennett Young Canada Club, my right hon. friend did not say that governments and policies could cure everything. He said:
The basis of the present trouble is that people have been borrowing too much, living too extravagantly and speculating too much.
That is a very different note from that which he sounded throughout the campaign. Speaking at Toronto on December 18, 1931, before the Commercial Travellers Association, my right hon. friend said:
In this country, as in other countries, the government cannot do everything. Your problems as a people were not brought upon you by governments, but by yourselves.
That must have given great consolation to the commercial travellers as they were going about the country seeking in vain for orders from an impoverished people.
Your problems as a people were not brought upon you by governments, but by yourselves. People demanded things, and for these things the country is now paying.
It is true the country is paying, and paying at a pretty heavy rate. Then he added-I do not know whether as a touch of humour or not; it may be that he had in mind the imperial conference and desired to make the people of the old land feel happy:
I know that people complain when additional or higher taxes are imposed; it is popular to grumble about taxes. But in England men earning as low as $500 a year are glad to pay their taxes so as to do their bit for Britain.
Those are fine sentiments. But are they true? Is there anybody who thinks that the people of Britain are any more delighted to pay taxes than are the people here? If so, human nature is very different in Britain from what it is in Canada.
Let us come now to what my right hon. friend said he himself would do. He got away from policies, away from governments and began telling the electorate what he himself would do. People are asking what my right hon. friend meant when he set forth his Magna Charta of promises, in which he promised something for everybody everywhere, and then said: These pledges I ha,ve made, and by them I stand or fall. That is what is troubling him to-day; instead of standing by them he and his government are falling by them and falling rapidly.
Speaking at Regina on June 10, 1930, my right hon. friend said:
If the party I belong to on the 28th day of July is given authority to conduct the affairs of this country, at the first session of our parliament the government of which I am the head will pass laws that will give Canadians an equal opportunity with their competitors outside of Canada, or will go out of power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: "Or will go out of power." At Yarmouth on July 2, 1930, as reported in the Halifax Herald of July 3, my right hon. friend said:
At the first session of parliament the Conservative chieftain stated he would see to it that Canadians would be afforded fair competition or perish in the attempt.
At North Vancouver, on June 18, 1930 he said:
After I am Prime Minister on July 28th, I will see that my promises are carried out, or the government will go out of power trying to do so.
People are wondering how the government remains in power, because they do not see that the promises are being fulfilled. Here are familiar words. This is what irritates the farmers.
Listen, you agriculturists from the west and all the other parts of Canada, you have been taught to mock at tariffs and applaud free trade. Tell me, when did free trade fight for you? You say tariffs are only for the manufacturers. I will make them fight for you as well. I will use them to blast a way into the markets that have been closed to you.
40	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
At Victoria on June 16th he said:
It is true we must have foreign markets, and as I said the other evening, we will blast a way to those markets on a world-wide basis with any exportable surpluses. We do not have to worry about that.
Then at Calgary, after promising markets to the western farmers, he said:
I told my audience in Winnipeg, and I tell you here and now, that condition I will not permit to continue in this country.
And again at Calgary, referring to access to the world's markets, he said:
These things we must do, Aye, these things I propose to do. That is the answer. These things, I propose to do.
Then at Vancouver on June 17, 1930, he said:
If Mr. Mackenzie King thinks I will not so build up our agricultural and industrial life that its strength will drive our products into the markets of the world, then he is wrong. For that I will do. If he thinks I will not establish new markets for these strive with all my heart to retain them, drive our products with all my power into new markets, into old markets, into reluctant markets, he is wrong. For that I will do.
That is settled-"For that I will do." Then here is one of the gems of the lot. Speaking at Vancouver on June 17, 1930, the present Prime Minister said:
So will I, when the government is mine, continue to blast a way through all our troubles and difficulties.
I think we will all admit that my right hon. friend is the government; that the government is his; but those last few words, "I will blast a way through all our troubles and difficulties" are causing him much of his present trouble.
That was the sort of promise he made to the farmers; but what did he say to labour? He guaranteed that there would be work for everyone. Listen to this, at Victoria, on June 16th. My right hon. friend said this was a new country and there was no excuse for unemployment. Then he said:
Is there any excuse for Canada to have hard times, if the government is discharging its duties as it should?
At Moncton on July 16th he said:
Mr. King promises consideration of the problem of unemployment. I promise to end unemployment. Which plan do you like best?
Again I ask: Is it any wonder that my right hon. friend is meeting with difficulties? Let us contrast the tone of my right hon. friend's remarks to-day; now that he is in office what does he say?


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: That was all in your speech last year. Have you nothing new?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have something new, and I am going to give it to my hon. friend at once. I expected to get a rise out of hon. gentlemen opposite by mentioning these things. Now let me give my hon. friend something new. Here is what the Prime Minister said in addressing the United Church Missionary Congress on October 1 of last year; here we get a new note:
How could present difficulties be overcome? Premier Bennett proceeded. Some people looked to governments and said they must do it; others looked to churches and said they must do it; "But men and women," he continued, "it will be one way only-by you and me, ourselves, and by no one else. It is what the individual will do that will determine the issue."
Continuing, the Prime Minister stated that the grace of God had saved England in the eighteenth century. That is a very different note; but he went a step further:
"And," he declared, "I am firmly convinced that nothing but the grace of God will save this world. You may talk about your economic theories, the application of the gold standard, the demonitization of silver, balances of trade, exports and imports, but one thing only will save Christianity and that is the grace of God. That is my conviction."
I am not taking any exception to that statement.


An hon. MEMBER:: You had better not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is my hon. friend afraid that the Prime Minister will get after me? What I am taking exception to is that when the Prime Minister was addressing the electorate, when he was seeking to get into power, he did not have something more to say about the grace of God and a little less to say about blasting his way into the markets of the world.
At Edmonton on August 25 last, addressing 1,200 Edmonton Conservatives at a reception, the Prime Minister said:
There will be work for all who desire it.
That is the same old story. A year and a half ago he said everyone would have work who wanted it; he repeated that statement at Edmonton a year later, but speaking in Ottawa as recently as December 13, 1931, in support of the Red Cross campaign, he said: When men cannot find work to maintain themselves and their families, when expectant motherhood is denied proper care, when children are without food and clothing, and when the aged and disabled are penniless, our human instincts and sympathies must surely compel us to give them such help as may be within our power.
To adequately provide for these we have created a special national emergency fund main-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
tained by voluntary contributions administered by an agency unhampered by governmental regulations or control.
I ask every citizen in Canada "who is financially able so to do, and every organization in Canada, to contribute to this fund.
That is a very different story. First my right hon. friend said the government would do it, that he would do it, and then he asked every citizen in Canada to do it, something very different indeed.
What were the words of consolation to the unemployed contained in bis New Year's message this year? Here they are:
Hard work and self reliance are the surest barriers against misfortune, and the firmest basis on which to build for good fortune.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hear someone
say, "hear, hear".


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I said it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That must be a lot of consolation to a man looking for work and unable to get it, and to those thousands to whom the Prime Minister referred when he said:
When men cannot find work to maintain themselves and their families; when expectant motherhood is denied proper care, when children are without food and clothing, and when the aged and disabled are penniless ....
In the face of this my hon. friend says, "hear, hear" to such a greeting.
But hard work and self reliance are the surest barriers against misfortune, and the firmest basis on which to build for good fortune.
My right hon. friend is telling the country to-day that he is seeking to redeem his promises, and he points to the way he has raised the tariff and, as some of his followers did to-day, to the millions of dollars he is expending from the public treasury. But may I point out to him and to others that those were not his promises, that he would raise the tariff, that he would spend millions of dollars of public money for unemployment relief, and so on. The promises were that he would end unemployment, and that he would find markets; these other things the tariffs and the expenditures, were the means to that end. We told the people at that time that those means would never meet the situation, that far from meeting it they would tend in the opposite direction, but to-day my right hon. friend is in the position that his promises cannot be redeemed, and he must see that the means he has taken to effect the end he had in view have utterly failed and made the last condition infinitely worse than the first. That is all I have to say at the moment of his
seeking refuge under the cloak of world conditions from his failure to fulfil the promises in virtue of which he was returned to power.
I repeat that what I have read of his own utterances show that in the main he has created the greatest difficulties for himself.
The speech from the throne goes on:
But I rejoice that their resolute adherence to policies designed for the welfare of the nation has minimized the adverse influence of external economic forces.
The policies the government have put into force have minimized difficulties? Ask the large retail and wholesale establishments; ask the distributing houses from one end of Canada to the other whether the policies of the present administration have made things less difficult or more difficult for them. You will not be very long in getting the answer. One business house after another, and many an industrial concern, has already been put out of business through the policies of my right hon. friend and the way in which they have been administered. Here I might just recall what the Prime Minister said during the campaign about the importance of stability in tariffs:
We pledge ourselves to the stabilization of economic conditions and to continuity of trade and freedom from the manipulation of home and foreign markets.
Will he say that pledge has been kept? Will he say we have such a thing as stability of tariffs in this country at the present time? What else did he say? Speaking at Renfrew on July 16, and having regard to the condition of the country, he said:
We have the capital but capital will not allow itself to be used unless there is stability and certainty.
What about the position to-day? Is not that one of the main reasons why capital is not being invested? There is no stability; there is no certainty. First of all tariffs have been raised up to certain levels and then by order in council, valuations, application of anti-dumping duties and the like have been changed from year to year, from month to month; and, in some cases, from day to day. And my right hon. friend, speaking in Toronto only a few days ago, said that the government would go on changing them by order in council as often as they liked.
May I say that the financial and industrial structure of a country is a very sensitive organization; it might be compared to the nervous system of the individual, which is a very delicate structure. If one part is affected it is apt to affect the whole. It is exactly the same with regard to these matters that affect the financial, industrial and commercial

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
structure of a country. The tariff is an instrument that has to be used very skilfully and carefully, if the whole fiscal, financial and commercial structure of the country is not to be affected. It is an instrument which might be compared to the scalpel of a surgeon, which must be used with great dexterity and skill if the needed change of condition is to be brought about. But what has my right hon. friend done?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not
wonder that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) laughs. He does not understand it; it cannot enter into his mind-


Edmond Baird Ryckman: A medical gentleman
behind me was saying that he would like to have his scalpel on your head. That is why I laughed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister, instead of regarding the tariff as a delicate instrument of the kind, has used it as though it were, as someone suggests, a broadaxe-I was going to say a broadsword or a cutlass-after the fashion of a swashbuckling buccaneer in the spacious days of Elizabeth. That is the way in which my right hon. friend handles the tariff; he swings right and left in any direction regardless of where he strikes. Is there any wonder that, with conditions as they are at the present time, the country is in a state well nigh of panic?
There were days when hon. gentlemen opposite used to talk about an adequate tariff, a stable tariff. It seems to me that the present tariff can be best described as a spasmodic tariff, a sort of intermittent fever tariff, for it varies from day to day. Let me say to my right hon. friend that there are a good many business men in the country today who think they are entitled to a right of action against the government. They feel that the way in which the government has used the anti-dumping provisions, the way it has fixed valuations without any authority by act of parliament, resulting in loss to their businesses, is in what it has exacted in duty payments nothing short of confiscation of capital. I suggest to my right hon. friend that he give a fiat to some of those concerns that would like to ascertain what remedy they have in court against the action of his government. I submit that in all seriousness. Unless he wishes to deny simple justice to the business concerns of the country, I suggest that he take that course.

Let me proceed. The speech from the throne says:
This period of trial has shown the Canadian situation to be fundamentally sound.
This is true, thanks, not to this government, but to a long-suffering people.
The over-subscription of the national service loan manifests both the unity and patriotism of the people, and their supreme confidence in the financial strength of the Dominion. Canada still maintains its high place in world commerce.
Here is another sentence that is interesting:
Within the last few months, a favourable balance of trade has been established.
That is a simple statement, but the implication is that some great end has been achieved through the establishment of a favourable balance of trade. May I point out that my right hon. friend has not always held the view that a favourable balance of trade of itself determines progress. Speaking in this house on May 18, 1926, he said, in reference to the budget introduced by the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Robb:
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) and the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), reflecting his mind, point out that there was a balance of trade in our favour during the past year of $402,000,000. I had thought that the practice of computing a country's prosperity solely by reference to the trade balance had been altogether abandoned.
That was his view then. Now apparently he regards a favourable balance of trade as the all-important objective of government, regardless altogether of circumstances. I do not wonder that hon. gentlemen opposite would like to attach much importance to favourable balances of trade seeing that under the recent Liberal administration they were synonymous with progress. During the days of great prosperity under the Liberal administration there were many instances of favourable balances of trade. There -have been few favourable balances under any Conservative administration. Let me give to the house a few particulars with respect to favourable balances of trade so-called. The Conservative party came into power in 1878, when the national policy was introduced, and remained in office until 1896, a period of eighteen years. During that time, under the administration of Sir John A. Macdonald, the national .policy was administered for the most part by a master hand. How many favourable balances were there in Canada in .that period? In those eighteen years there were five trade balances that were favourable and thirteen that were unfavourable. The total favourable balances amounted to $19,126,193. There was one other instance of a favourable 'balance of

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
trade under a Tory administration and that was in 1921-22, when there was a favourable balance of $6,122,677. There you have, roughly, six favourable balances, in the period during which a Conservative administration was in office, leaving aside the hectic years of the war and the two post-war years, whereas the unfavourable balances amounted in all to $55,000,000. Take the Liberal administration-and let us take the recent Liberal administration for the moment. It came into office in December, 1921, and was in power for eight and a half years; eight full fiscal years, from 1922-23 to 1929-30. In seven of those eight years there were favourable balances of trade, one having been unfavourable. The total favourable balances in that period amounted to $1,495,452,723. If you subtract the unfavourable balance in the year 1929-30, which was one of the years we were in office, amounting to $103,355,512, you have a net favourable balance over the period from 1922-23 to 1929-30 of $1,392,097,211, or an average favourable balance during this period of $167,000,000. In other words, in each of those years there was >a favourable balance of more than three times the aggregate favourable balance under the Tory party during the entire period they have occupied the treasury benches since confederation. In two years the combined favourable balance alone was more than equal to the entire export of Canada during the period that the present government has been in office from October 1, 1930, to September 30, 1931. Leaving aside the war and the post-war period, 1914 to 1919-20, you have fifteen years of favourable balances under Liberal administration as against six years under Conservative governments.
If balances of trade are going to be the index by which to gauge the effects of different policies, -then it would appear that the Liberal policies have been a good thing for the country. But may I say that when we wish to estimate the value of a balance of trade as an index to prosperity there are other factors to be taken into consideration. My right hon. friend well knows, because he has said it on different occasions, that there is the money that is brought into the country by tourists, as well as the money that goes out through settlers to other lands; there is also money in the form of investment or capital brought into the country. All these and other things have to be taken into account when you are estimating the significance of a favourable or unfavourable balance of trade. Adjustments have to be made back and forth between countries. Assume for the moment that favourable balances of trade
were 'the only evidence of prosperity: would it be possible for all countries to have favourable balances of trade at the same time? The favourable balance test reduces itself to an absurdity when one considers international relations as a whole and the manner in which credits are adjusted from time to time.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), speaking at the meeting of the Canadian Manufacturers Association on October 22, stated that eighty per -cent of our trade was domestic and twenty per cent foreign. From that point he went on to declare that a one per cent increase in our internal trade would total $50,000,000, while a one per cent increase in our external trade would total only $12,000,000, from which he deduced that it was important to increase the domestic trade. What he really did was to make the discovery that one per cent of a larger sum was a larger amount than one per cent of a smaller sum. What he should have done was to point out that when foreign trade falls off, domestic trade falls off as well; that you cannot have trade going all one way, that exports have to pay for imports and imports for exports. Since this administration came into office what has happened? The exports for the twelve months ended September, 1930, amounted to $982,000,000, while for the twelve months ended September, 1931, they had dropped to $661,000,000. According to the Conservative doctrine there should have been a boom in the country at that time because $300,000,000 of manufactured goods had been shut out and the home market should have been bettered to that extent. Can anyone say that that was -the result? We stopped importing and we expected our ports to flourish. We were hoping for less in the way of movement by sea but we were expecting more in the way of transportation by land. The truth of the matter is that trade has to be kept up both ways if there is to be trade at all. If the carloadings or any other test is taken it will be found that the truth of what I have said is borne out. A policy which restricts trade will hurt business in all directions; a policy which helps to expand trade will help business in all directions.
I shall not take up at greater length the question of the balance of trade, except to mention that my right hon. friend has said that the country which is borrowing should have a favourable balance of trade. As a matter of fact the whole history of recent economic development on this continent is to the contrary. Up to 1873 the United States was making a very rapid development; dur-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
ing all that time they were borrowing large sums of money from Europe but in every year up to 1873 they had an unfavourable balance of trade. The reason is not far to seek. The States were making investments in Europe; securities were being sold; it was a favourable opportunity because of exchange for the purchasing of merchandise, and merchandise and capital flowed into the United States. The same thing is true of this country since confederation. Will anyone say that during the years of unfavourable balances of trade when Sir John A. Macdonald's administration was in power we had bad times continuously in Canada? Take the years from 1904 to 1911 under the administration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier; I do not think .that up to that time there had been a .period of like prosperity. And yet during that period there were unfavourable balances of trade. Canada was borrowing largely and was importing large amounts of merchandise. The very prosperity of the country at the time helped to account for the condition of trade. The essential point is this: If a favourable balance of trade is brought about by the expansion of trade then there may be something to boast about in a favourable balance; but if it is brought about by the restriction and contraction of trade then there is nothing to boast about. That is the difference in the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite and ourselves. They make a sort of fetish of " a favourable balance of trade." They focus their attention on bringing about a favourable balance of trade, but they bring it about by restricting trade, by doing whatever is to be done in the interests of one class, the manufacturing class, in order to retain the home market for its members. They forget about the primary industries, the great basic industries such as agriculture, lumbering, mining and fishing, and the result is that not only do these great primary industries suffer but the very manufacturing industry which they are trying to help is forced to suffer.
Take the period during the Liberal administration when we were face to face with a situation very similar to that faced by this country at the present time. Our currency was below par in another country, there was considerable depression. The government of the day took this position: We will first balance the budget, then we will reduce the duties on the instruments of production and on some of the articles which enter into the necessaries of life; we will increase the preference and we will do what we can to expand trade. Having adopted those policies we had 
seven successive years not only of favourable balances of trade but of the largest trade which this country has ever known.
The next sentence in the speech from the throne reads as follows:
The provisions made at the last session of parliament for unemployment and farm relief are proving effective.
That is one statement with which I wish to take issue. If by proving effective my right hon. friend means that the unemployment condition is improving, then I dispute that statement and I do not think I need enter into any argument concerning it. I will take with it the following sentence:
'i ou are successfully meeting difficult domestic problems. Conditions are gradually improving.
Let me give the facts which my right hon. friend must have known when the penned those sentences for the speech from the throne. What was the .position in 1930? In 1930 the government found it necessary to borrow 8100,000,000. What happened this year? They borrowed not S100.000.000 but floated a Dominion national service loan of $223,000,000. That does not look as though conditions were getting better. The first loan was borrowed in New York at four per cent while this last loan pays five per cent. Yet in the speech from the throne the Prime Minister says that conditions are getting better.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The right hon. gentleman is wrong about the four per cent, but I do not think it matters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the percentage?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I think it was 4-38 per cent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend will find that it was four per cent, but I will take his correction. Taking the percentage on that as 4-38, we find that the loan of this year returns 5-25 per cent.
In order that the country may obtain some appreciation of what this sum of money amounts to, may I point out that the total government expenditure in any one year during the time Sir John A. Macdonald was in oflice never exceeded $62,000,000. During the time Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in power the government expenditure in any one year never exceeded $133,000,000. This year this country has had to borrow $223,000,000. My right hon. friend saj's that conditions are improving. The deficit for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1931, amounted to $83,847,977. What is the estimated deficit for the .present year? Only

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) knows, but I think I would be within the mark if I guessed somewhere between 8125,000,000 and 8140,000.000; this as compared with the 883,000,000 for last year.
Under these circumstances how can it be said that conditions are improving?
Let us next consider the matter of trade. In this connection I will give the figures for 1929, 1930 and 1931. They are as follows:

1929	1930	1931Imports	
969,663,000	729,869,000	451,355,000
Exports-
Canadian	
890,466,000	656,204,000	461,797,000Foreign	
19,261,000	14,046,000	8,667,000Total trade	
1,879,390,000	1,400,119,000	921,819,000As compared with 1930, the decline for the As compared with 1929, the decline is even fiscal year to December 31, 1931, is:	more staggering. Let us take the trade of justIn imports	$278,514,000	the month 0f December	in	1929,	1930	and	1931,In exports-	.	.Canadian	
194,407,000	to see	whether conditions	are	improving.	IheForeign	
5,379,000	figures	are as follows:In total trade	$478,300,000
Dec. 1929 Dec. 1930 Dec. 1931
Imports	 $84,365,000	$60,338,000	$40,289,000
Exports-
Canadian	
88,520.000	66.819,000	53,255.000Foreign	
1,958,000	1.233,000	962,000Total trade	
$174,842,000	$128,390,000	$94,506,000
My right hon. friend says that conditions are improving. Let us take employment. What is the position with regard to employment? At the beginning of January, 1932, it showed a distinctly pronounced decline. The Bureau of Statistics have tabulated returns from 7,832 firms showing the following decline in their pay-rolls:
Persons
December 1. 1931	 904,492
January 1, 1932	 835,960
That is a decrease of 68,532, or 7.6 per cent, in the period between December 1 and January 1, although my right hon. friend says that conditions are improving.
'Let us take employment during the last months of the Liberal administration. The index figures for all industries are as follows:
January 1, 1930	 111.2
August 1, 1930	 118.8
What was the Conservative record?
January 1, 1931	 101.7
January 1, 1932	 91.6
The ironical feature of the whole thing is
that the greatest losses occurred in manufacturing, the index being lower than in any other year since 1925. The figures are as follows:
August 1, 1930	 101.2
That is while the Liberals were still in power.
January 1, 1931	 93.7
December 1, 1931	 89.6
January, 1. 1932	 83.9
The most extensive reductions were in the manufacturing of iron and steel and textiles. Yet my right hon. friend says in the speech from the throne that the measures which the government had passed are proving effective and conditions are improving. Let me read what my right hon. friend said in the house on September 10, 1930, at the time of the special session. He was then speaking of the measures which he was going to introduce and which were going to improve conditions. As reported on page 64 of Hansard of that date, he said:
It will be observed that the present number-
Speaking of unemployment.
-is something over 117,000 and it is believed that that number will approximate 177,000 during the winter. If the measures which we submit to the house are productive of the good which we anticipate, we hope that that number will steadily decrease rather than increase, and that the maximum anticipated number of 177,000 will not be reached.
A very short time ago the former Minister of Labour, Senator Robertson, gave a statement with regard to the number of unemployed. My right hon. friend said: We think the numbers are going to decrease from
177,000.	What was the report that Senator Robertson made about September 5 of last year? He said: At the present time there are 530,000 without jobs. It should be mentioned that of that number possibly 150,000 would include agriculturists in the west, but
46	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
if we deduct the 150,000, you have still nearly 400,000 out of employment, whereas my right hon. friend says that the measures that they were introducing, if effective, should bring the numbers down below 177,000. It would be insulting the intelligence of the Canadian people if one were to try to argue the question whether or not conditions have been improved. Everyone in this country knows what the conditions are, and the situation is not made easier or pleasanter for anyone by words of the kind I have read being put upon the lips of His Excellency the Governor General in the speech from the throne.	'
There are just two other matters to which I wish to refer, and then I shall conclude. Reference is made in the speech from the throne to the St. Lawrence waterway. It reads:
Since the last session of parliament my ministers have commenced negotiations with the government of the United States of America for the completion of the St. Lawrence waterway.
That paragraph in the speech from the throne may mean very much or it may mean very little. AVe shall have to wait until the government makes a pronouncement to ascertain what it does mean. I just wish to draw the attention of the house to what it says:
Since the last session of parliament my ministers have commenced negotiations.
That is as far as it goes. It does not say that anything has been accomplished. It simply says that the ministers have commenced negotiations-and uses the words- "for the completion of the St. Lawrence waterway." This would indicate that the waterway had been considerably constructed already, and that what the government is about to do is to complete the whole construction. The significant words, however, are that negotiations have been commenced. The other day I asked my right hon. friend if any communications had passed between Ottawa and Washington, and he. said no. I asked if any order in council of any kind had been passed, and he said there was none. If that be the position of affairs, we may conclude that negotiations have not gone very far; that so far what has taken place have been conversations between the Canadian minister at Washington and the United States minister here, or between the respective ministers and the governments of the two countries, and that those conversations have undoubtedly brought to the attention of the administrations the many factors that have to be considered. But so far, the information which the government has
iMr. Mackenzie King.]
given to us on the subject amounts to no more than that there have been conversations. The St. Lawrence waterway stands very much where it was when we went out of office, with the exception of the conversations.
There is one thing which I should like to ask my right hon. friend, and it is this: I attach to it great importance. If, as we are led to believe, not so much by the speech as by what has appeared in the press recently, the negotiations are looking to a treaty at an early date -between the United States and Canada, will he undertake to see that the house is apprised of the proposed terms of the treaty before any treaty is formally entered into between the United States and Canada on the St. Lawrence waterway. I think I am justified not merely in making the request that he should agree to that, but in saying that such is the policy which ought to govern in a great transaction of that kind. It will serve no useful end, either to the project itself or to good relations between this country and the United States to have before the fullest discussion a treaty brought into the house that has been signed by the administration of the day and the House of Commons told that that treaty must be passed or that we shall be defaulting in our international relations. In a matter as momentous as this, the House of Commons should be given all the information that can possibly be given as to-the terms of a proposed treaty before the treaty itself is signed. I think the government should be authorized by resolution of the-House of Commons to sign a treaty on lines to be indicated before any signature should be permitted to be placed to it. That was the position which the Liberal party, when we were in office, took with respect to this very matter of the St. Lawrence waterway, namely, that before the house was committed to any treaty, we would see that a resolution of the house would pass authorizing the administration of the day to sign a treaty. I say to my right hon. friend that the people of Canada will expect that much will be the course which he and his government will adopt.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Was that the course the right hon. gentleman adopted in connection with the last treaty he made with the United States?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the course the Liberal government said it would adopt in regard to a treaty respecting the St.. Lawrence waterway, should one be entered into.


James Dew Chaplin: Did the right hon. gentleman adopt that course in connection with the last treaty he made with the United States?'

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not in mind what the last treaty was, but I have in mind very 'distinctly the question of the St. Lawrence waterway treaty which is a very important matter, very much more important than any treaty in connection with the scenic beauty of the neighborhood in which my hon. friend lives.


James Dew Chaplin: It was a treaty regarding water power, which was a very important matter, quite as important as Beauharnois.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I direct attention to the next clause which appears in the speech from the throne:
A commission has been appointed to inquire into the whole problem of transportation in Canada. My ministers expect that the report of the commission will be ready for submission to parliament during the present session.
There, again, is a paragraph in the speech from the throne which may mean very much or very little. I should like however to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact, that it is rather significant at a time when the government has chosen to announce to the house its intention to complete the St. Lawrence waterway that they have appointed a commission to inquire into the whole question of transportation. One would have thought this order of things would be the reverse and that the government would have waited until the transportation commission had made its report on all phases of transportation, on the effect of waterways upon transportation, on the effect of motor traffic and aerial navigation. I assume all these matters are being considered by the commission now functioning.
In regard to transportation all we have before us at the moment is that the administration intends to have a report presented to this parliament on that subject. I notice my right hon. friend, speaking at Toronto the other day, said the appointment of the commission was the result of a recommendation of the select committee of this house on railways and shipping. I wish to tell him that he was in fact quite mistaken. The select committee on railways and shipping did not recommend the appointment of a transportation commission. That committee passed on for the consideration of the government a suggestion originally made by Sir Henry Thornton that such an inquiry might be advantageous. May I again comment on the skill with which my right hon. friend seeks to deprive parliament of an opportunity to discuss matters of public interest and public concern. If it was his intention to appoint a royal commission to inquire into the matter
of transportation why did he not advise parliament before the last prorogation. Before we left this house last August, he had the report of the committee on railways and shipping which, he says, is the basis of his action. Why was the house not told that as a result of that report the government were going to appoint a royal commission? W hy was there not placed in the supplementary estimates a sum of money for the purpose of making provision for the work of this commission? I think I am right when I say this parliament has not appropriated one dollar for any transportation commission, yet we know for the past few' months such a commission has been at work across Canada from coast to coast. As I said earlier to-day action of the kind constitutes an ignoring of the rights and privileges of this house. We should not be called upon to vote sums of money for any purpose after the work has been performed, if it is possible to have those sums voted in advance. We should have an opportunity to discuss the reasons for appointment of bodies of this kind and what is to govern their actions vffien they are appointed.
Concerning the transportation commission I have taken exception to the fact that its deliberations have been conducted in secret. I notice my right hon. friend was very indignant that I should venture to criticize such secrecy. He said when the Liberal administration was in office questions were asked and information refused time and again; that he had been told information could not be given; that it was not desirable to make a statement which might be helpful to competitors. That is perfectly true. The fact however that here and there certain information was thought to be of a character which had much better be communicated privately, rather than publicly, to hon. members of the house did not interfere with this parliament having the freest latitude to discuss all phases of the transportation question.
My right hon. friend forgets-no, he does not forget, because he knows very well-the fact that the whole business of these transportation companies is discussed publicly in the committee on railways and shipping. These companies are before committees of this house and hon. members have the right to ask any questions they desire. There it is customary, where certain matters are of a private nature or should be so regarded, to have the information reserved, so far as the public is concerned, for a time at least. That procedure however is the exception and not the rule.
4S	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
I take exception to the fact that my right hon. friend has permitted this commission, appointed and paid for out of public moneys, dealing with great national public utilities, to carry on its inquiries from one end of Canada to the other, wholly in secret. The people of Canada have a right to know the information being given to the commission, and ought to be in a position to judge of its value. I shall not go into the question of what is or is not wise with respect to the Canadian National railways, the Canadian Pacific railway or any phase of the transportation question until the report of the commission is before the house. I think that the matter is to a certain extent sub judice, and for that reason we will wait until the report is brought down before we discuss the matter one way or the other.
I should like, however, to stress to the Prime Minister that we would like to have the report presented to parliament in plenty of time to consider the evidence and findings before being expected to discuss legislation based upon its recommendations, or otherwise. We do not wish to be kept waiting until the end of the session and then to have a report sprung upon this house and be told that conditions as ^shown in the report are such that immediate legislation or some action of a more drastic or dramatic character is necessary in order to save the country from a crisis, or something of the kind. We wish to have an opportunity fully to discuss the report, seeing any data there may be in the report, and having the benefit of the information from which the commissioners have arrived at their conclusion.
May I, in bringing my remarks to a close, draw attention to my right hon. friend's reference to my innocent comment which was in the nature of a criticism made in the public interest concerning this feature of secrecy in the deliberations of the transportation commission. I felt it a public duty to make clear what a very large percentage of the press of this country has been making clear, namely that it was in the public interest to have proceedings of this body made public, and I said so without fear or favour in any direction. My right hon. friend however came to the conclusion that this was a chance to score in his own peculiar fashion, and apparently with that in mind, addressing a body of Conservatives in Toronto recently he went out of his way, it seems to me, to create personal prejudice against myself.
I have in my hand a report contained in the Mail and Empire of January' 20, 1932 of a 
meeting which was held at the Royal York hotel at which about 1,200 Toronto Conservatives were present. Among the enlarged headings I see the following:
Ringing note of faith in banks and insurance fabric features speech.
Stigmatizes Mackenzie King as demagogue.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says "hear, hear"-at least I think it was he.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was
an hon. member.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: However, the
"hear, hear" came from the benches opposite, and I am pleased it came from there. I should like to read the quotation and then examine the significance of the epithet which has been applied and where it may most appropriately apply. The article continues:
Before an enthusiastic audience of 1.200 Toronto Conservatives in the Royal York Hotel, as well as unnumbered radio listeners throughout Ontario and parts of Quebec and Manitoba, the Prime Minister, in his finest oratorical form, coupled this stirring declaration of hope with a searing attack on Rt. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and others who charge the Duff transportation commission with unwarranted secrecy in its procedure.
Talk of Demagogue
The Liberal leader's speech at Winnipeg denouncing the conduct of the inquiry was, to the prime minister, "the talk of a demagogue rather than a statesman, of one who prefers temporary cheers beyond the plaudits of history." A thunderous crescendo of applause swept the big banquet hall at this declaration.
Well, if there is one thing that Toronto Tories love it is a demagogue, and it is not to be wondered at that the mention of the word itself was sufficient to bring from them this crescendo of applause. I was anxious to know what my right hon. friend had in mind when he was referring to me as a demagogue, so I took the trouble to look up in one or two standard dictionaries the significance of the word. Demagogue, I found, has, according to all the authorities consulted, two significations, one ancient, the other modern; one more or less pleasing, the other sinister. I must confess, having regard to the nature of my remarks, that I am at a loss at even this moment to tell which meaning my right hon. friend really had in mind. I have seen some utterances of his at times which I have thought might merit the sinister meaning of the term he applied to me. I am quite prepared to leave it to the house and to the country to judge between our respective merits in that particular matter.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
The Imperial dictionary gives this derivation of the word demagogue:
Demos, the people, and agagos, a leader, from 'ago' to lead.
Then it gives these definitions:
1.	A leader of the people; a person who sways the people by his oratory.
2.	An unprincipled factious orator; one who acquires influence with the populace by pandering to their prejudices or playing on their ignorance.


An hon, MEMBER:: That is the one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I do not know that in my remarks about secrecy I was pandering to any prejudices or playing upon any ignorance. So it must have been the first of these definitions that my right hon. friend had in mind.
The next authority I consulted was Murray's New English dictionary, where I find the following:
Demagogue: a popular leader, a leader of the mob.
1.	In ancient times, a leader of the people; a popular leader or orator who espoused the cause of the people against any other party in the state.
Well, I am quite prepared to accept that designation as applicable; but there is another definition given by Murray:
2.	Tn bad sense: a leader of a popular faction, or of a mob; a political agitator wrho appeals to the passions and prejudices of the mob in order to obtain power or further his own interests.
To be perfectly sure that this was a correct interpretation I looked up yet another dictionary, Webster's New International dictionary, 1928, and I found very much the same definition:
1.	A leader or orator popular with, or identified -with the people.
2.	One who plays an insincere role in public life for the sake of gaining political influence or office; a poser in politics.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. gentleman evidently recognizes the bearing. Let
me give the remainder of the second definition :
-one who panders to popular prejudice or seeks to inflame reasonless passions in the advancement of his personal interests.
Well, when I read the last definition, I thought, like hon. gentlemen opposite, of some of the things which the Prime Minister, their own leader, had said during the course of the recent campaign, and I decided to look them up again to see whether they did not fit exactly into the class of utterances referred to in that definition.
How did my right hon. friend the present
Prime Minister 'begin his campaign? Speaking of the personnel of the late government in his opening meeting at Winnipeg, this is what he said:
This group of mercenaries, holding office by sham and subterfuge, look upon them as treacherous to you, self-confessed, deserving of your passionate condemnation.
Speaking in the city of Regina on June 10, according to the Leader Post of June 11, my right hon. friend said:
They play with the lives of men and women. What for? Do they realize there are lives that they are playing with, food for wives and children, hunger? Nine years of wasted effort before the great betrayal. It did not take Judas that long.
It did not take Judas that long! And that is the right hon. gentleman who as we have seen to-day, is so sensitive when anyone expresses anything in the way of adverse comment with respect to himself.
At Regina on June 10 we get a note that we have become more familiar with of late; a certain evangelical tone! He said:
There is a good time coming. We may not live to see it. but there is a good time coming. I came to call the sinners, not the righteous.
There must have been a rush for the platform at that moment.
At Vancouver on June 18, he said, and, mark you, this -is the way in which my right hon. friend gained the position which he occupies to-day:
However blind he may be to your future-
He is referring to myself.
-and deaf to your present needs, surely he cannot stop his ears with smug complacence and self-esteem to the cry that carries across the nation-the cry of the destitute and hungry, the cry of mothers and fathers and little children who call to us as Christians and as Canadians to heal their pain.
Of a meeting at Regina, again on June 10, I find this report in the Toronto Globe of the following day:
Mr. Bennett spoke of the sense of responsibility which seized him in the position he now occupied. Canada was blessed with great natural resources, he proceeded, but yet we find something which saddens my heart to-day. I meet men wearing the -white buttons and all they ask for is the chance to work. Think what it is to have a wife and children and all you men ask is a chance for employment.
Then at Victoria, according to the Colonist of June 17th, my right hon. friend said:
You have my promise that if the Conservative party is returned to power that as soon after July 28 as possible parliament will be called together to deal -with the problem of unemployment by providing, not doles, but work. Men and women of this country want work, not charity.



The Address-Mr. Bennett
Then again at Halifax, on July 3, he said, according to the Halifax Herald of July 4:
If the Conservative party comes into power on July 28th I propose at the earliest moment to call parliament together so that we may find a speedy remedy for this situation and decide on means to provide work for Canadians. Work, I said, not doles. The Canadian workmen want work, not charity.
Then may I conclude with this last gem:
So will I, when the government is mine, continue to blast a wray through all our troubles and difficulties.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to leave it to the house and to the country to say which of the two descriptions of a demagogue is the more appropriate to this one who sought to gain office by these particular phrases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, my first duty, and a pleasant one it is, is to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The member for Three Rivers-St. Maurice (Mr. Bourgeois), who discharged his duty with such ability, gave prompt and adequate evidence of his scholarship and his legal training, as did indeed the seconder of the address, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stitt).
I was somewhat surprised that the right hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Mackenzie King) should have spoken in the terms he did regarding the time at which the address was taken up for consideration. He asserted that it would have been more courteous to His Excellency the Governor General if the motion which was adopted by the house this afternoon had been made after and not prior to this motion being considered.
In this house I have never done more than make a bald denial with respect to matters touching myself personally. The offender in this particular case has said many things which we will not discuss, but the matter that was under consideration was not one touching me personally; it was one in which the Prime Minister of this country was charged with having stolen from the public purse. It was so charged by a member of His Majesty's privy council, and my right hon. friend has often spoken of the desirability of maintaining the dignity of that privy council at a high level. My right hon. friend himself is a member of that council, and at any time might be called upon by His Excellency for advice. That being so, and the charge being levelled not against me personally but against the office which I hold, I felt that it was not fitting or meet that anyone occupying that office should ask this house to consider the address at least until such time as a committee was appointed

to determine whether or not the charges so made were well founded. For, sir, one thing is certain, and that is that no man, whoever he may be, is fit to be Prime Minister of this country who is guilty of the offence charged against me in this instance. I offer no apology for taking the course I have taken and which I think any high minded Canadian must have taken with respect to a charge levelled not against him personally but against his office, involving his fitness, as a matter of public honesty, to discharge the high duties of that office, especially when the charge is made by a member of the privy council.
When the right hon. gentleman saw fit to endeavour to criticize the position taken by myself with respect to the crown and the representatives of the crown, I think it would have come with better grace had some other person made that observation. For I recall- and I have in my hand a document that was kept without being made public in June, 1926 -a great campaign in one of the provinces waged on the ground that Downing street was dominating Canada, and the only suggestion that Downing street should be consulted with respect to the matter then to be decided was made by the then Prime Minister, the present leader of the opposition, who asked Lord Byng to be pleased to have his resignation withheld pending the time it might be necessary for His Excellency to communicate with the Secretary of State for the Dominions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All I ask is
that any document from which my right hon. friend quotes shall be laid on the table of the house in the usual way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the document is taken from the sessional papers of this house; I sent down and got it, anticipating that very objection. So the solicitude for the crown, in which the right hon. gentleman has been so considerate to-night, is one of the new-born faiths that come when one finds himself in opposition and not in power. My right hon. friend was willing to have the representative of the crown in this country attacked from platforms throughout Canada on the ground that Downing street was being permitted to govern Canada-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister is talking about something about which he knows nothing whatever, and is saying things that are absolutely incorrect.

The Address-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not the only
instance to which I shall point, not only with regard to inconsistency but worse, before I conclude. I want the right hon. gentleman to understand, when he makes the observations he has made, that I am reading from sessional paper 91 of Monday, February 14, 1927, and the closing paragraph of that letter-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Read the whole letter-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The closing paragraph
of the letter, which is signed by W. L. Mackenzie King, reads as follows:
If there is anything which, having regard to my responsibilities as Prime Minister, I can even yet do to avert such a deplorable and, possibly, far-reaching crisis, I shall be glad so to do, and shall be pleased to have my resignation withheld at Your Excellency's request pending the time it may be necessary for Your Excellency to communicate with the Secretary of State for the Dominions.
I am, Your Excellency,
Yours very sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
And then a whole campaign was conducted; and within the sound of my voice there are members who declared time after time that this country was no longer a colony and could not be ruled from Downing street, while the right hon. gentleman sat mute from malice. Not a word did he ever say as to the truth; not a word did he ever communicate to the Canadian people as to the fact that he had asked Lord Byng to appeal to Downing street and that Lord Byng had declined. So the campaign was finished. That was the solicitude shown for the crown by my right hon. friend; there you have that position clearly defined.


James Layton Ralston: Not very clear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman does not see the point of it? He does not see the point of permitting the crown to be held up to ignominy during a long campaign throughout the country, while all the time the right hon. gentleman was in possession of information that would have stilled the campaign against the crown?
There is one slight difficulty under which the right hon. gentleman labours. He worked himself into a fine frenzy in the closing observations of his speech. One would almost think he had emerged from the valley of humiliation. In his mad effort to secure extrication from the valley he is endeavouring to pull everyone else down into it, and when he finds it impossible to do so his anger knows no limit. Now, in the valley of humiliation and still unable to extricate himself 41761-4j
from it, he asks this house not to believe that he is a demagogue but that he is a high-minded statesman. For the purpose of serving his own ends he makes a joke even of our Christian faith.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I knew perfectly that hon. gentlemen would desire to withdraw themselves from such a statement. Last fall they desired to extricate themselves from the valley, and after the speech delivered here they said they were no longer in that valley of humiliation. So the right hon. gentleman went to London for the purpose of endeavouring to make his defence and prove that he was not in the valley of humiliation at all but that someone else was there, and he thought that might placate those who did not believe they were going to be dragged down into the valley with him.
But this I want to say. Mr. Speaker. Having endeavoured in this fine frenzy to work himself out of the valley to-night he has read quotations, for the third time in three successive parliaments, from the same speeches. I now know that this little residence, this sojourn in the valley, has interfered somewhat with the originality of his thought, and he now calms himself by perusing the speeches that were made by my humble self in days gone by. For the third time he has read them to the House of Commons; he read them in 1930, he read them in 1931 and now in 1932 he reads them again.


Mr. YOUNG:: Do you object?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a bit. I rejoice that he thus associates himself with the policies and principles of the party to which I belong. But there is only one objection I have to make, and I shall make it very briefly. It is passing strange that one who used to be a student of economics and of history fails- alas, because he is no longer in the high, bright light of the clear atmosphere above- to let his mind function upon these matters as it should. The atmosphere of the valley has been unhappy and unpleasant. It has had the effect of souring the disposition of the right hon. gentleman; it has made him somewhat difficult to get along with, and at the earliest opportunity he endeavours to object to everything that is done and to cast aspersions on everyone who dares to differ from him. Is he ignorant of the fact that the conditions of 1929 and 1930 have changed? Is he not aware of the fact that the whole world has changed since then? Does he not realize that even the Bank of England has


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And yet those who sit beyond to the left of you, Mr. Speaker, having created that adverse position, dare to raise their voices in protest.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is a world condition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly it is a world condition; but had this new country taken the steps it should have taken in 1929 to produce a favourable trade balance, conditions would not be what they are. Every thoughtful man knows that. I put this question to every hon. member in this house: What would have happened had we continued with the tariff legislation which we had in 1929? If Mr. MacDonald was right in what he said in England, and I do not think anyone disputes it, then it would have meant insolvency. I have said times without number that the tariff is but an instrument to accomplish a purpose; I have said that I demanded an equal opportunity and fair competition for Canadians, and the tariff is the instrument by which we have endeavoured to
bring that about. The tariff is the only instrument of which I know whereby Canadians can maintain that favourable trade balance which will enable them as a borrowing people with a surplus of exports over imports to meet their obligations in the markets of the world and discharge the contracts which they have made.
I intend to make an observation or two with respect to the economic conference. Twenty-nine years ago Joseph Chamberlain conducted a great campaign in England on imperial preference. One of the wisest men of that generation was the late Duke of Devonshire-the eighth duke, not the ninth who was our governor-general.


Mr. JACOBS:: Does the right hon. gentleman wish to make a distinction between the two as to wisdom?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In making that observation the hon. gentleman does credit neither to his intelligence nor to his wit. The Duke of Devonshire, with that prescience which distinguished him and that wisdom for which he was noted, put his finger upon the crux of the problem. The following is his letter of June 15, 1903:
Is not this question of the alleged decline of exports as compared with imports immensely important, and is it not in fact the sole foundation for any impeachment of the existing
system ?
I do not think that Chamberlain can point to any proof that we are going back, except that the exports of some of our manufacturers are declining.
But if we can export enough to keep up our imports what does it matter? If our iron and steel exports diminish it may be made good either by increased home consumption of iron and steel, or by manufacturing something else either for home or foreign consumption.
That, mark you, was the statement of one of the wisest men of his day, made twenty-nine years ago next June. He foresaw that if the imports of the country were gaining over the exports, then all was not well with England. The succeeding generation of economists pointed that out, but it was without avail, because there were those who believed that a shibboleth was all that was necessary to maintain the economic position of the kingdom. The Cobden school believed in what is called free trade, and believing in that and using that shibboleth, the results that were brought about, slowly, imperceptibly at first, gained momentum until we had in September last the calamity of the destruction of the position of the Bank of England so far as its being the centre of finance was concerned.


Edward James Young: World conditions were not
responsible for that?

The Address-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Mr. McINTOSH:: What about agriculture?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would think the hon. gentleman's interest in that is the same as his interest in other things-purely academic.
These are the figures in regard to the entire hours of labour in the silk industry:
Hours
1930	 3,411,714
1931	 5,145,199
An increase of 1,733,485, or 50.8 per cent. The production increased 79.1 per cent in yards of one form of silk, and in all others, 55.7 per cent, and the expenditure on plants since September, 1930, was $877,500, these [DOT]figures not including the office or sales staff. I put this to the house, to every reasonable hon. member: Will they tell me any method by which this could have been accomplished other than the method employed? Then why shrink from it, when by doing it you are going to accomplish that benefit? WThy shrink from a duty when you know that the issue is the welfare of your country itself? Although it may mean some little disturbance for the moment to the merchants, although it may mean a little unsettling-and I admit that-I say that we would be recreant to our duty if we did not use the means entrusted to us by parliament to effectuate the purpose I have mentioned.
The leader of the opposition calmly says: I agree with the Prime Minister as to the necessity of equality of opportunity and of having fair competition. I wonder if some hon. members have seen some of the competition. I wonder if any of them have studied the competition to which this country has been subjected during the last twelve months. I wonder if hon. members realize that the surplus products of every country in the world have been thrown at us in the desire to get money to convert into gold, in order to meet international balances and obligations; practically any price being accepted. There was submitted to me an article laid down in this country at $3.60 a dozen, when the cost of the labour alone in Canada amounted to much more than that; the successful exploitation of this market with that commodity would have closed down every Canadian factory engaged in its production. I ask: What would any member of the house do in such a case?


Edward James Young: What was the article?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not care to mention the article. If the hon. gentleman desires to see it I shall show it to him, but for reasons that are international in character I am not mentioning articles or countries at the moment. I ask the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) whether, if confronted with that situation, he would have shut up the Canadian factories. I do not think he would.


Edward James Young: I should like to know all
about the case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I give that only as an
illustration. Day after day at the Finance department men have confronted us with those conditions and we have met them with the power which the house has given us. That is what we have done. I have a letter from the little button industry in Montreal stating that their employees numbered fifty in 1929, sixty in 1930, and in 1931, they are eighty odd; and he thanks the government for what it has done. Is that right or not for this country in this world crisis?


Edward James Young: What is the industry costing us?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
asks: What is the industry costing us? The buttons are being sold at this very moment cheaper than they were before.


Edward James Young: That is not the answer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only question that
I am putting before the house is:	Are you
prepared at this moment to sacrifice the industrial life of Canada?
The Address-Mr. Bennett


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: The right hon. gentleman has sacrificed the interests of agriculture ever since he has been put into office. What has he done for agriculture?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman asks: What have you done for the basic industry of agriculture? Wrhen we came into power we found the New Zealand treaty had been terminated. Canada the year before had bought 40,000,000 pounds of butter from New Zealand.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Thirty-five million
pounds.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Forty million pounds of
butter in twelve months.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Five million pounds
too much.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not 5,000,000, but
40,000,000 pounds too much. To-day Canada is resuming her place in England as an export country for butter. That is what has happened.


Mr. VALLANCE:: WThat is the price of
butter?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The price of butter keeps pace with the price of other commodities. That affords me an opportunity to make a statement that probably hon. members will like if they are at all interested in getting at the facts. I commend to hon. gentlemen a book that was published in December last by the Duchess of Atholl on "The Conscription of a People." If they want to know about the price of wheat or butter and will read that book, they will understand the situation.


John Vallance: We do not need to
read about it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But those who desire to consider causes and cannot make the investigation themselves, read the words of those who know.


John Vallance: What the right hon.
member said about the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) is also true of the Duchess of Atholl-her knowledge is purely academic.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Every quotation in that
work is supported by a reference to an original authority in the footnote or in the body of the work. All one has to do is to read that book in order to understand why world commodity prices of agricultural products are what they are. That brings it down to

December, and if you go further and bring it down a month later, you will have a very clear appreciation of the situation with respect to other commodities as well. Moreover, this government last session enacted legislation which gave to the wheat growers of western Canada by way of bonus a larger sum of money than they had ever paid in any year in customs duties.


Thomas McMillan: By order in
council you extended it to British Columbia. Why did you not extend it to the rest of Canada?
Mr, BENNETT:	The hon. gentleman
seems to be a little out in his geography, but it is not a matter of great importance. The elevators that were on the Peace River line across the border on the Northern Alberta Railways were included in it, if that is what he means, and some of them were in British Columbia; there is no doubt about that. Does anybody object to that? I thought the hon. member for Vancouver South objected to it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We asked for it last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: These are the facts and
these are the factors that induced us to take the action we have taken, and we have no apologies to offer for having done so.


John Vallance: It is too bad you had not read the book before you made statements during the election campaign.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The position is as I have indicated. Connected with that of course is the economic conference. I said in London in 1930 that empire trade did not in any sense exclude world trade, for we could not trade exclusively in the empire; we had to trade in the world as well. I made that as part of my observations at the opening of the conference. I desire to point out to this house, however, that in 1902 Sir Wilfrid Laurier in a memorandum which he left with the imperial authorities threatened them in language very polite that if they were not prepared to give the preference in England he was prepared to take action to discontinue the Canadian preference. Did you ever read that? Does my right hon. friend recall the year 1902? Does he recall what Sir Wilfrid Laurier's position then was? The man is still living who wrote that memorandum and left it with the British authorities. My right hon. friend asked why we did not get the wheat quota now. Why did he not get anything for twenty-eight years? Why did he

The Address-Mr. Bennett
not get it over twenty-five years ago? Why was it that in the last statement made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier he made perfectly clear what would happen if they could not get what they wanted ? These are the words he used:
If after using every effort to bring about such a readjustment of the fiscal policy of the empire, the Canadian government should find that the principle of preferential trade is not acceptable to the colonies generally or the mother country, then Canada should be free to take such action as might be deemed necessary in the presence of such conditions.
And the speeches were in the same sense, and nothing came of it. To-day we have a chancellor of the exchequer in Great Britain delivering a speech in which he says this conference will meet at Ottawa, and "we are committed to the principle of empire preference." Of course, one does not expect in the very nature of things that hon. gentlemen opposite, any of them, would admit that this government in any sense contributed to that end. But there are those who live not in Canada but in England, who will say that the action taken by 'this administration was a powerful factor in 'bringing about that end. That we can afford to leave to posterity, and to those who know the facts, I shall not do more than point out what some at least have been fair enough to realize, that the steady and consistent attitude we have taken with respect to empire preference has brought about the end that for so long Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Liberal party endeavoured to accomplish.
Further, why is it that to-night the right hon. gentleman has changed his tune? What about his speech in Winnipeg? What about his regard for the empire during the election campaign? Do hon. members recall that in 1930 during the election campaign he was going to and fro taking a very generous attitude towards the empire; that he was then the Simon pure defender of the empire? He and his party and they only were prepared to do what was right, fair and just by the empire. In fact, in one place, namely Barrie, he became so violently patriotic that he put Great Britain before Canada. But that was in a moment of emotional and temporary enthusiasm, because later that sentiment resolved itself into something more solid. Listen to what he said at Winnipeg the other night. I wonder if you realize the position he then took. He told them we were not going to have any "narrow economic imperialism," as he called it. His words are:
We cannot be content with any restricted interpretation of our nationality either in the constitutional or the economic sense. We are
opposed to a narrow economic imperialism for the same reason that we are opposed to a narrow economic nationalism.
That was to arouse sentiments of antiimperialism in the community in which he spoke. Everyone who has read the Hansard debates is thoroughly familiar with the principle upon which our ideas of preference were based. We have followed consistently the policies of Macdonald and Tupper, policies of mutual preference for mutual advantage. Unless there is mutual advantage there can be no preference, for preference must be mutual or it is not advantage at all. That is the position we have consistently taken, and that is the position which Mr. Chamberlain took, speaking in the House of Commons the other day with respect to Canada, when he said:
I come now to the position of the empire countries in connection with this change in our fiscal system. The committee is aware that next July the Imperial conference is to be held in Ottawa where the economic relations of the members of the British Commonwealth will be discussed. His Majesty's government attaches the utmost importance to that conference, and they intend to approach it with a full determination of promoting arrangements which will lead to a great increase of inter-imperial trade. Now I have no doubt that the dominions would no more question our right to impose duties in our own interest for the object either of raising revenue or of restricting imports than we have questioned theirs to do the same.
Observe those words,-"restricting imports." While the right hon. gentleman was talking in Halifax about this government restricting trade, the British government was rushing through the House of Commons a fifty per cent import duty measure. Mr. Chamberlain proceeded:
But considerations of that kind have to be weighed against advantages to be obtained by preferential entry into dominion markets, even though they should involve some surrender of revenue or some lessening reduction of imports; and since, until we meet the dominion representatives, we shall not be in a position to estimate the advantages or disadvantages on either side, and since we desire to mark at every stage our wishes to approach this conference in true spirit of imperial unity and harmony, we have decided so far as the dominions are concerned (and in this arrangement we shall include India and Southern Rhodesia also) neither the general nor the additional duties shall become operative before the Ottawa conference has been concluded.
That is in accordance with the principles for which we have contended now for nearly half a century. The fact that Great Britain has departed from the fiscal principles that governed her policies in days gone by is in itself an indication that that great people realize a tariff still is but an instrument.

The Address-Mr. Bennett
It may interest some of you to know that they have copied almost in their entirety some of the provisions which hon. gentlemen opposite condemned so loudly. They have copied measures that were submitted to this house because they believed that through the use ot them they could best accomplish that which they desired.


Edward James Young: The power of an evil
example.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may be the power of an evil example, as the hon. member for Wey-burn has suggested, but we prefer to think it is the power of a realization of what necessity commands people to do in the interests of their own country.
One step further. The right hon. gentleman referred also to the wheat quota, which is connected with this transaction, and he read from the opening observations I made at the plenary conference. He did not however read from my closing observations. I said that in the interim the quota system had been suggested and the British government was not prepared to follow it at that time to its end. They suggested it, first of all, for domestic purposes; the extension of it to the dominions was another matter altogether. In the end what happened was that the quota was being further explored and finally after the election it was concluded that it might be used for domestic purposes, and later might be made applicable to the dominions. The right hon. gentleman is very anxious to tell the people of the west that if this quota was good it was deplorable that they did not have it during the last twelve months. Well, he was in power nine years; why did he not get it then? The real fact of the matter is that the quota was being explored, and is still being explored. When we left London the economic committee was not prepared to make a recommendation; the quota principle had not been sufficiently explored to enable them to speak with certainty with respect to its results. I say now as I said at the close of the conference, if anyone is interested in reading what I said-and I know some of you are not-we have not sufficient evidence to enable us to speak with any certainty with regard to the matter.
Now, there are many other subjects dealt with in the speech from the throne to which reference has been made this afternoon, but I do not propose to prolong this debate for the purpose of covering them again. With respect to the St. Lawrence waterway, I have this to say, that I believe the proper course to pursue in the matter is by verbal negotiations and discussions. If a treaty is concluded 	.
-of course the very word "treaty" implies that the agreement is between sovereign nations, or communities that speak as sovereign nations-then it is submitted to parliament for approval. If a treaty is to be the subject of discussion in parliament before it is signed, obviously it is not a treaty. Everyone knows that in international dealings after a bargain is made each government instructs its plenipotentiary to sign the instrument constituting the treaty, and the treaty is then submitted for the consideration of parliament. But at no time in the history of this country or of Great Britain has a document been submitted to parliament and been called a treaty unless it was an executed instrument. If it is a bad instrument, then of course, it will be rejected by parliament. Was the Halibut treaty signed or was it not? Was the treaty with respect to salmon signed or was it not? You cannot endeavour to escape responsibilities in that way; you cannot escape your constitutional obligations. I should just like to make this simple observation. We are not hurrying the St. Lawrence waterway treaty. All you have to do is look at the map and see your completed Welland canal and your twenty-seven foot waterway to Albany, and then you know why the Canadian government is concerned about the matter. When the appropriate time comes I fancy Canadians will realize that the reason why this government is now carrying on negotiations for the completion of that waterway is not that we desire to add one more to the burdens we have, but that the development we have reached in connection with our own canal system and the canal systems of our great neighbour to the south makes it essential that now, and at no other time, we should consider it. It is all so easy and simple to condemn governments because they take action. Did it ever occur to hon. members that there are occasions in the lives of nations as of individuals when decisions have to be made or the opportunity is gone for ever? That is the situation here. At the appropriate time if a treaty is concluded this house of course will have the fullest opportunity to discuss it and, if it so desires, to reject it. Because the treaty is not being made in any party sense; if made at all it is a treaty made by the Canadian government on behalf of the Canadian people, and if the representatives of the Canadian people believe it to be a bad treaty, they will do what one would expect them to do, namely, reject it.
So far as the disarmament conference is concerned, so much has been said that I will not repeat the language of the speech from

The Address-Mr. Bennett
the throne, but I am grateful to the right hon. gentleman for having said that he does not think he has anything to add to it, that it meets with his approval. But I hold the view very strongly that so long as a nation permits conscription legislation to be placed upon the statute books you will never make progress in disarmament. That is my profound conviction. I have had that view for a long time, I have told our delegates that the basis of armaments is the compulsion to arms, and that the basis of disarmament must be the removal of conscription laws in the countries that are to be disarmed. I regret the right hon. gentleman saw fit to suggest that the delegation representing us at Geneva might have been improved upon. All I can say is, it is not an easy task to secure Canadians who are prepared to devote themselves for months to the work that will fall upon the sboulders'of our delegation. I know it was a difficult task, and I regret very much having, for instance, to ask the Right Hon. Sir George Perky to leave us at this time, but I felt that the delegation should be headed by a representative of the government. There is no man in our ranks who has a wider knowledge of international relations and who has served this country with more fidelity and greater satisfaction to the country with which he came in contact than the right hon. gentleman who has consented to head our delegation to Geneva.
There is one paragraph in the speech from the throne which the right hon. gentleman has not dealt with; it is a matter of tremendous importance to this country-the maintenance of economy in our public administration. I think you will find that in every department of the public service we have spent less this year than parliament authorized us to spend. That has been brought about largely by the diminution of revenues, because the sales tax that in days gone by had produced $20,000,000 for every one per cent now produces less. But looking about us, realizing our obligations, and desiring that the people of this country should understand fully that the government is anxious to lead the way with respect to matters of economy, we have concluded that we will ask this parliament to pass a statute to reduce by ten per cent the indemnities alike of the Senate and of the Commons, and of the compensation paid to ministers and to every branch of the public service. That must be effected. That we believe is essential for the purpose of enabling this country to have a balanced budget. We will then have done the two things
which are necessary in the interests of the Canadian people: first and foremost, we must maintain the national credit, because this new, young country can only go forward into the future if it has credit in the money markets of the world. There is but one money market of the world that is left, practically, and that market is indeed conscious of the high regard we have for our credit obligations, for we have met every contractual obligation of the provinces, the dominion and the municipalities in the money market of New York in the terms of our contract; and that we will continue to do. We have brought that about not only by drastic economies, not only by what I mentioned a moment ago, the maintenance of our position by securing a favourable trade balance; these things we have done, but now we desire to meet the tremendous obligations that rest upon us next year with regard to our railway system. We have determined that we will have this economy begin with ourselves-although we realize that it may be particularly difficult with some, much more difficult than perhaps the average man realizes-alike in the Senate, the Commons and the civil service of this country, except, of course, the judges, who stand in a somewhat different position. That is what we have determined to do. A saving of between $7,500,000 and 88,000,000 will be effected.
But there is one more matter to which passing reference might be made. The right hon. gentleman has referred to the transportation commission. I think he is entirely in error in the quotation he made of what was said by me in Toronto. What I said and if you will take the trouble to look at the report you will find this to be so-was that the subcommittee reported in these words:
Tour committee desire to call the attention of the house to the proposal made by Sir Henry Thornton at one of the sessions of the committee. He referred to the serious position of the transportation business generally and recommended that a commission be appointed for the purpose of considering the whole question of Canadian transportation. Your committee regard such a recommendation coming from such a source at this time as worthy of the serious consideration of the government.
No provision for that purpose was made in the supplementary estimates. That report was unanimously adopted by this house in July, as you will recall, and after carefully considering it in its every aspect we decided to appoint such a commission. But I have no hesitation, sir, in saying to you and to the members of this house that it was exceedingly difficult to secure the men we desired to get.

The Address-Mr. Bennett


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt just a moment? I have in my hand the report of the speech made by my right hon. friend in Toronto. Reading from the Mail and Empire account, the words are as follows:
On the suggestion of the president of the Canadian National Railways the committee recommended that certain matters be inquired into. . . .
The committee did not recommend that; the committee recommended-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have read what the
committee recommended, and that is what I said in Toronto. I feel sure that what my right hon. friend has read is not in quotation marks.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry to interrupt; it is a very small matter, but it is in quotation marks, and evidently the speech was given to the press.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am happy to say not
only that the speech was not given to the press, as is the custom of my right hon. friend, but that the speech had not been prepared at eleven o'clock in the morning. The notes I made were prepared on the paper of the Royal York hotel at eleven o'clock of the day on which I delivered the speech, and those notes are available to the right hon. gentleman if he desires to see them.
However, this is unimportant; the fact is that we gave the matter our serious consideration and, having done so, we endeavoured to secure a commission. I may say it was very difficult to get the men we desired. The British investor, with his millions and hundreds of millions of dollars in our Canadian railways; the American investors, with their hundreds of millions of dollars also, and the Canadian investor, all had to be considered, and there you have the situation. We sought the leading expert we could obtain in Great Britain; we sought as high an authority as we could secure in the United States, and I think it will be agreed that we selected as chairman one who for breadth of knowledge, fineness of intellect and judicial qualities stands unrivalled in the English speaking world. That I can say with frankness.
Under those circumstances we do feel that the only method that can be successful in dealing with the matter is to enable the members of the commission to understand the problem in all its bearings. I have under my hand reports of instances when time after time the right hon. gentleman, his former Minister of Railways, Mr. Dunning, Mr. Crerar and others said it was not in the public interest that the business of these railroads 
should be made known either to the public or to their competitors. There were matters that had to be made known to these men that could only be made known to them by the method I have mentioned, and these means were followed to enable the commission from time to time to become informed with respect to the problem with which they had to deal. They themselves, not the government, decided that. Do not for a moment think, sir, that this government gave any instructions of any kind whatever to the commission with respect to that matter. The members of the commission, as judges, as railway men, as business men, decided to what extent they should make their hearings public and to what extent the necessary information should be communicated to them in private. It would be ruinous and destructive to the very interests that were to be served if this evidence with respect to the internal administration and the finances of the railways were to be communicated one to the other. The Drayton-Acworth report was obtained in the same way, and no man in this house but knows that you could not reach anything like finality based upon adequate testimony or knowledge unless it were done in that way.
Then hon. gentlemen suggest that there is some sinister motive behind it. I can only say that as far as the government is concerned it has as little to do -with it as any hon. gentleman opposite. This commission has been appointed. It has not been instructed beyond presenting to it the order in council, leaving to it the duty of endeavouring to solve a problem which was not created by a Conservative government. Bear that in mind; the problem arises through a Liberal administration creating two transcontinental systems and subsidizing each to destroy the other. That is the position, and you cannot get away from it; when you think of the problem never forget that fact. I have not seen any Canadian business man in modem times who has been able to suggest why it was done. There are men living now who wish they had taken the advice of Mr. Blair, who left the government on that account. There are men living now who realize that there was no firm basis of judgment exercised in endeavouring, with a population of less than eight million people, to fasten three transcontinental systems upon this country. But it was done, and this gov-' ernment has to deal with the problem.
I wonder, sir, if hon. members of this house have any idea of the magnitude of the task that rests upon us in this respect. When I hear men denouncing the government and

Fish Inspection Act
talking, with respect to this matter, as though it were just something to pass by with a shrug of the shoulders and a passing sentence,
I can only say that the other day, asking what was involved in the financing for 1932,
I was told that -the taxpayers of Canada must provide $80,000,000. It was $112,000,000 last year; later on you will hear something of that in a supplementary estimate, but here we have $80,000,000 apparently as an irreducible minimum. After you have balanced your budget there is your problem. Is it any wonder that we 'took time to endeavour to secure the men we did secure? I will not discuss their qualifications, because everyone here must know what 'they are. A-t the time the house rose we had not determined what action would be taken, but as the weeks passed by and the situation became worse, it was apparent that the obligation -rested upon us to provide some means by which the Canadian people might understand the enormity of the problem with which they as taxpayers had to deal, and the tremendous financial burden that rested upon them. That is all I can usefully say with respect to this matter.
There are other matters to which reference might be made, but ample opportunity will be provided to do so as the session progresses. I deny that 'this government desires in any way to lessen discussion in parliament. When I think of what took place last session; when I think that not once, not twice but thrice the same speeches were made, I wonder that the -right hon. gentleman rose in his place to-day and said no time was given to discuss these matters. I saw a smile flit over the faces of his own followers when they recalled the discussions that did take place. This government welcomes the fullest criticism of its actions in every way; its administration of the finances of the country, its administration of unemployment funds, of relief funds or of all other funds that have been entrusted to its care. If there -be any wrong-doing; if there be any slackening of control; if there be any failure -to take advantage of those facilities that were provided in the law of last session which was designed to safeguard the public treasury, let us hear about it. We shall endeavour in the future, as in the past, to meet the obligations that rest upon us as a government.
The right hon. gentleman has said that these obligations are upon us because we have brought them upon ourselves. Well, that would not be the judgment of the impartial historian. I have pointed out the distinction that must be drawn between domestic and
world conditions, between local and external conditions. The speech from the throne makes that abundantly clear. IV e are a part of the great cosmos; we are part of the world, and to that extent we are influenced by the great currents and forces of the world. We have never at any time, either before or during the election, endeavoured to minimize that fact, -but- I said then as I say now that these domestic conditions would not be confronting us if the former government had realized what was coming during the nine years it was in power, if it had read aright the signs that others could see but it could not see. Had they heeded the warnings that were evident we would not be compelled to face the problems we have had to face and are facing torday. But -this I will say further:
I defy any man -to say that Canadians, faced with these problems, could have adjusted their difficulties as we have done had they retained the policies that were then in force. We have changed them for the public good, and the people of this country realize that in this government they have men who are endeavouring to do their best in these present world conditions. And if the policy of this government commends itself to the judgment of intelligent observers abroad, as it does, and this country occupies the high place it does in the estimate of those who are able to draw conclusions, then we care very little for that carping, blue-ruin criticism which we have heard to-night, but we shall march forward to the duties that lie before us.
On motion of Mr. Gardiner the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 9, 1932