Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That on and after Monday the tenth instant and every day thereafter, government orders shall have precedence over all business except questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg
North Centre): Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words before the motion now before us is passed. On Friday last the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) made no reference whatever to unemployment and the serious depression prevailing throughout Canada. I do not know
s
Business oj the House

whether or not it is ihis intention to deal with those matters at this session; he made no reference to them. I submit that unemployment is one of the most important matters with which the country is faced. Two years ago a special session of parliament was called to deal with this important problem, and today we have more unemployment than we had at that time. If there was need of a special session then there is much more need to-day.
Cities in the west are almost desperate, they have not been able to obtain any clear undertaking as to the manner in which the Dominion government will give relief during the coming year. As a result they are at their wit's end to know how to carry on financially. My own city of Winnipeg last year spent over 5900,000 of the city's own funds for relief. That must be multiplied by three if we are to have the amount necessary in the city of Winnipeg alone. Other western cities are in very much the same position. Provincial governments are not able to handle the situation; they do not know how to arrange matters for the coming year.
I should like to make special mention of the recent edict banning riding on freight trains by .people stranded in different localities. For a time the authorities permitted this practice; in their efforts to find work men were allowed to travel in this way. Then notice was issued that on a certain date this method of travel was to be stopped. The result was that some men tried to burry to their homes or elsewhere for the winter. Others stayed to carry on the work of the harvest which is not yet fully completed. Only yesterday I had a resolution sent me from my own party, the Independent Labour party of Winnipeg, urging that the government should grant free transportation of the unemployed to their own homes. That seems reasonable. For a time these men were allowed to travel on the freight trains. Whether or not the government connived at it, certainly a great many municipal authorities urged the unemployed out of town, practically forcing them to ride on the freight trains. A number of men have told me that the authorities issued instructions that the unemployed had to ride the freight trains and get out. I do not think this condition ought to go on for many weeks. The freeze-up is coming, and these men ought to toe suitably provided for. It seems to me that the provinces have a right to know what the government is going to do in the matter.
Then there is the larger question of the general depression, of which unemployment is only one phase. I believe the depression is

as great to-day in western Canada as it was two years ago, and almost as great as it was one year ago. True, we have had a fairly good crop in certain sections, but that crop is not bringing sufficient returns to pay for the cost of putting it in and taking it off. The result is that the money going to the farmers is mortgaged. It seems to me that without going into this matter at further length the Prime Minister ought to assure us that there will be no adjournment of this session until these matters are fully discussed, and until he has stated very definitely what he will do with regard to the whole situation. In the judgment of a great many of us the legislation implementing the agreements arrived at by the Imperial economic conference is not as important as the immediate relief of our own people. It is quite possible that the government may take advantage of its large majority to force an adjournment at the conclusion of that business, so that we would have no opportunity of discussing matters vital to the interests of the ordinary citizen. I ask the Prime Minister to give this house an assurance that before we adjourn we may have the fullest information w'ith regard to the attitude of the government concerning these matters that affect the welfare of the people of Canada.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, if passed, the motion now before the house would give government business precedence. Because of the agreements at the Imperial Economic conference I presume such procedure is necessary, and in so far as I personally am concerned I have no objection to giving preference to the agreements for a time. We will not know of what they consist until Wednesday next when the Prime Minister, as he stated a few days ago will give information to the house. However, while those agreements may be of importance my judgment is that they will but touch the fringe of the economic difficulties with which we in Canada are faced. While we are quite willing to expedite the passing of these agreements, if they disclose nothing of a- controversial nature, at the same time I should like to impress upon the Prime Minister and his colleagues that the real problems with which we in this parliament should deal are inside Canada, and not outside of it.
During the last election campaign the Prime Minister in discussing problems before Canada took exception to the then Prime Minister depending upon conferences to meet the economic problems of the day. On many occasions statements made by the Prime Min-

Business oj the House
ister during that campaign have been placed on Hansard. I remind him of only one:
Mr. King promises you conferences; I promise you action' He promises consideration of the problem of unemployment; I promise to end unemployment. Which plan do you like best?
There is mention in the speech from the throne of the possibility of a world economic and financial conference. I wish to protest emphatically against dealing with outside problems until we have dealt with those confined to Canada. To-day, in Canada, with the exception of a few important commodities, we have natural resources and machinery of production sufficient to satisfy the consumption of our people. Yet there are people in Canada on the verge of starvation. I submit the present is not the proper time to put off consideration of these economic problems. Winter is before us, and I trust that before very long the government will give to this house some intimation as to its policy concerning the economic problems within Canada.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat what I said on Friday concerning the desirability of concluding the debate on the address before other matters are considered, and certainly before this parliament adjourns. I join whole-heartedly with the hon. members who have just spoken concerning the importance of the domestic problems of Canada. I agree that they are of greater magnitude than those with which the country has been faced at any previous time. The Imperial economic conference should not be made a cover or a shield to conceal the government's inability to deal with the larger immediate domestic problems. We have a right to ask that before Imperial economic conference matters are discussed the Prime Minister should give this house a definite undertaking that before the adjournment at the end of the preliminary session there will be ample opportunity to discuss not only problems of unemployment but questions concerning banking, credit and currency as well.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I join with those who have spoken in asking the government to give the house an assurance that the problems confronting us may be discussed before any adjournment for an international economic conference. May I say that I do not like the new practice of not going on with the discussion on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I have just looked at the order paper for the day and I find that consideration of the speech of His Excellency is placed there under the title of _ government
orders. That is a new practice, or I am considerably mistaken. It has always been placed on the order paper as a special order. This is an order which is directed to be placed there by a vote of the house, after Your Honour has informed the house that His Excellency has kindly read his speech at the opening of parliament. It is not a government order; the speech ef His Excellency is not directed to the government, it is directed to you and to the members of the house. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister is attending there as is everyone else,-perhaps he is better looking than the others on account of his official uniform-but the speech is delivered to the members of the house. It is parliament, all the members of the house, who move an address in reply to the speech from the throne; not the government, not the Prime Minister. I think it is certainly desirable that the members of the house should have the opportunity of discussing all the problems of the country in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I understand that there are special circumstances this year that might make it desirable that we should proceed with consideration of the agreements which were reached at the last Imperial economic conference, but to adopt this as a practice I think is wrong.
I also submit that wre should have an assurance that the .majority of this house will not force an adjournment after the debates are concluded on the agreements reached at the conference, and thus deprive hon. members of the opportunity of discussing the problems of the country in the debate on the address.


Mr. SPEAKER:: For the information of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and the house generally I wish to say that the words "government order" on the order paper were a clerical error. The consideration of the speech of His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session should have been placed under the heading "special orders." It was printed as it is, as I say, by a clerical mistake and not at the instance of the government or anjmne on behalf of the government.


Ernest Lapointe: So much the better.
Mr. ANGUS MacINNiIS (Vancouver South): I think the point raised by the member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) and the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) is very well taken. During the opening ceremonies of parliament a few days ago my mind kept reverting back to a somewhat similar situation some two years ago. I can well remember with what assur-

Business of the House
ance the Prime Minister brought forth his program that year of appropriations for public works, and his amendments to the customs tariff, that were going to bring us out of the depression and into the bright sunlight of prosperity. I am quite positive that whatever the benefit of the agreements come to at the Imperial economic conference may be, they will be just as futile in meeting the present economic situation of Canada as was the legislation of 1930. It is therefore very necessary that we should have assurance that we shall have more than an academic discussion of unemployment and, the other pressing questions that are facing the country at the moment.
The people of the province of British Columbia, and particularly the citizens of Vancouver, are beginning to feel that they are at their wit's end, that there is nothing further that they can do. Yet we have nothing concrete from the government as to what is going to be done in regard to unemployment. There is a phase of the unemployment situation that is only now beginning to be seriously felt. Up to the present time a great many people have been able to pay their rent, or if they were not, their landlords were able to keep them on, but now they have reached the limit of their resources; not only those who are unemployed, but many who are employed, on the wages they are receiving to-day, cannot afford to feed a family and pay rent as well, and the landlords cannot afford to wait any longer. Therefore it is very essential that we should have some assurance that we shall have ample discussion, not merely an academic discussion, of a program that will deal with the situation now facing the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have no
right to make any further observations, as I have no right to reply. But I would ask this chamber to remember that this session ordinarily would not meet until March, 1933. It is meeting now solely because of undertakings given at the Imperial economic conference, and the action taken by the government of Canada is the same action that is being taken by the governments of other parts of the empire. In England they called their session earlier, although it was very inconvenient to do so, and not as early as perhaps they would like to have done. And similar arrangements are being made in other parts of the empire. So that we are proceeding with the business for which this session was called at this time rather than next spring. And we will proceed on that assumption.

I have not heard of any effort being made to lessen or limit the volubility of hon. members with respect to the speech from the throne. I have only this to say to the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that, in connection with the speech from the throne we are pursuing the course that has been pursued in England, because long ago the waste of time involved in adjourning from Thursday until Monday to begin the debate on the address was realized. That is something that had to be overcome. Then when the discussion did take place it was not to interfere with government business. No precedence is given the debate for that reason; it becomes a special order when this house passes a resolution that the debate is to have precedence over other discussion. We have not asked for a special order, in the sense in which I am using it, not in the sense the hon. gentleman did; this house has not passed any such motion, it has not been invited to do so, and it will not be invited to do so as far as this government is concerned at this time. The matter will proceed, and as to its being put down upon the order paper as a government order, as His Honour has explained, the government, in that respect, is in no sense responsible. It is a special order as the term is used in the rules of the house; it is not special in that any order giving it precedence has been passed. I know of no reason why hon. gentlemen cannot avail themselves of the fullest opportunity for discussion in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. But most parliaments have learned that those discussions are not very useful, however ornamental they may be, as they will subsequently be renewed with respect to concrete matters of legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to present
the public accounts for the year ending March 31, 1932. It will be recalled that in the speech from the throne it was anticipated that these would not be ready until parliament had reassembled next year. While the Auditor General's report is not ready, the public accounts have been completed by the printers and I therefore table them.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: I desire to lay on the table orders
in council Nos. 2209, 2210, 2211, 2212 and 2213, passed pursuant to the Relief Act, 1932, and all relating to the expenditure of money.

Soldier Settlement


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to direct the attention
of the government to a question which I believe to be of extreme importance. This morning I received a telegram from the mayor of Sioux Lookout, in which he states that the gaol is full of transient unemployed persons taken off the trains by the mounted police, under orders from this government. They want to know what to do with these people, and what measures the government has in view to deal with the situation.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I presume that following the publication of the notice that riding on trains must be stopped, there are many municipalities in Canada in which a number of these unemployed have been gathered together, and they will have to be cared for. In the locality referred to by the hon. member this situation arose previously, and when application was made to the provincial government steps were taken adequately to provide for the maintenance of such transients. I have no doubt that if the mayor of Sioux Lookout will address his communication to the provincial government steps will be taken to meet the situation existing in that town.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: I
desire to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman). I have received a telegram from western Canada having reference to the imposition of an arbitrary valuation on barbed wire imported from Holland. The telegram directs attention to the fact that this commodity is a prime agricultural necessity, and that such an arbitrary valuation will impose a considerable hardship on the farmers of the west. I do not expect the minister to give a definite answer at the moment, but I would greatly appreciate it if he would look into this matter and later on give the house what specific information he may have with regard to the need for and the nature of this arbitrary valuation.


Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue):: I can tell the hon. member now that there is nothing at present before the department or the government having to do with the fixing of any arbitrary value on barbed wire.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). I have received information from western Canada to the effect that a grievance exists among the returned men who have been placed on the land. I understand that they carry fire insurance on their buildings, and that when a granary, for instance, is destroyed by fire the insurance is not paid to the returned man but is used to pay off his indebtedness to the crown. I should like the Minister of Labour to investigate all grievances of this kind to see if he cannot do something in the direction of assisting the soldier settlers during this trying period through which they are passing.	.
Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think the policy of the government with respect to soldier settlers, as well as other settlers who have received government help, has been made very clear since I had anything to do with the administration of that department. Our policy is to take such a course as will not embarrass any settler who is honestly endeavouring to farm his land and meet his obligations, even though he cannot meet in full those obligations he may have to the crown. With respect to fire insurance losses, as each case comes into the department it is dealt with on its merits. I will be very glad to review all such cases as have been referred to by the hon. member and if it appears that anything in the nature of a hardship has been worked on any settler I can give the hon. member the assurance that the situation will be dealt with without delay, although I doubt very much if any such hardships have been caused.


Mr. McINTOSH:: May I say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I may say that the view prevailing among many of the soldier settlers is that the department takes it for granted that they do not want to pay their debts, and because of this mistaken idea the government is taking this way of making them pay.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of the speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session.
The Address-Mr. Davies
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PERCY G. DAVIES (Athabaska) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I feel that it
is an honour for me to move that this house approves of the speech from the throne. I am not well versed in the French tongue; however, as a large number of French Canadians reside in my constituency, it is through deference for them that I wish to express these few words in their language.
Under ordinary circumstances and in ordinary times, Mr. Speaker, the pleasant task which has fallen to my lot to-day is one which would cause me no concern. Under existing conditions, I must confess that I am beset with many misgivings as I proceed to move that an humble address be presented to His Excellency thanking him for his gracious message. These misgivings do not arise, I assure you, through any lack of confidence in those who happen to be entrusted during these trying times with the management of the affairs of this country; rather is this consideration a source of fortification. But they do arise by reason of my knowledge of the fact that the number of days I have spent in this chamber are few, and to the same extent has been the period of my active association with the public life of this country.
As a newcomer to parliament hill, and as a student of Canadian history, not the least impressive sight to me upon my arrival was the efforts that have been made by this chamber to perpetuate the names of several of its former members who were very closely identified with the progress of this country. I refer to the monuments which are to be found outside this building and on which will be found inscribed the names of Macdonald, Brown, Baldwin, Lafontaine, Cartier, Laurier and others. Posterity has been happy to confer upon these men this tribute, not because of their association with any particular party, but rather, it seems to me, because of the extent to which they have been identified with the progress of this country. I think, therefore, that these monumental tributes must, as we assemble here to-day, particularly having regard to the present crisis through which the world is passing, serve to remind us of the opportunities that exist to-day for public service-for public service as distinct from party service. If this be not true, then the only result following must be, in not a few cases, that the unfortunate position in which many of our fellow countrymen find themselves in will be capitalized by some for narrow party purposes. Is it not even more true to-day than in the century preceding, which gave rise to the saying, that he serves his party best who serves his country best.

It will not be my purpose to-day to examine to any great extent in detail the address presented to both houses by His Excellency. A perusal of that address, together with the implications that follow, leads me to express the opinion that this session is perhaps destined to be one of the most momentous in the history of this country, with the exception, possibly, only of these deliberations which led to the establishment of confederation and the happy unification of the two great races upon which it was founded. I do, however, crave your leave to refer in some measure of detail to those matters which most concern those whom I have the honour to represent.
Athabaska constituency is populated by approximately 55,000 people. This population is almost entirely engaged in farming, and in respect to those who are not actively engaged in farming, it may be said at any rate that they are entirely dependent upon the prosperity of agriculture for their own livelihood. It would be no exaggeration to say that it is a most cosmopolitan constituency in that, amongst its population are to be found in practically equal numbers representatives of the three great races which preponderate in this	country-English-speaking	Canadians,
French-speaking Canadians and those of Ukrainian origin, who are now more commonly called our New Canadians. It has not infrequently occurred to me that perhaps one of the tragedies of this depression so far as Canada is concerned, in so far as extremism and radicalism can be said to have been associated with it, has been the extent to which those of our settlers of foreign birth have been misrepresented and misunderstood by a large proportion of the population of this country, largely by reason of the fact that such people have not come in contact with these settlers. Too often to-day it is forgotten that these settlers of foreign birth came to Canada at the invitation of the government, at the invitation of our railways and steamship companies, at the invitation of colonization associations. They were told that here a welcome awaited them; that 160 acres of land was free for the asking, and that an easy living could be earned. It is perhaps unfortunate that once they arrived little interest was taken in them, and so to-day, when here and there among their numbers appears one of extremist views, a tendency to discredit all people of that racial origin is common.
To-day, therefore, with respect to immigration laws and other matters, I ask for these settlers of foreign birth a continuation of that sympathy and consideration to which they are entitled in view of the conditions under which

The Address-Mr. Davies
they came into this country and of what they have accomplished since their arrival and settlement.
'It has not infrequently been said in this house that agriculture is the basic industry of Canada. This is not a bald statement; it is axiomatic, and despite the fact that the agricultural producer has taken a tremendous shrinkage in his income, that statement is just as true to-day as ever in our history. An examination of the five principal sources of export wealth of this country during the past five years will indicate that in each year wheat has been our chief source of export wealth; and a further examination of this same table will also indicate that Wheat flour, in each of the five years, has been within the classification of these five. It seems to me, therefore, that, without reference to the other extensive sources of export agricultural wealth, it is not too bold a statement to make in this house that in the welfare of the producer of wheat is to a very considerable extent wrapped up the welfare of a substantial portion of the population of Canada; not only the welfare of him who produces wheat but the welfare of numerous cities, towns and villages which are part and parcel of the wheat field; the welfare of thousands of railway men in eastern and western Canada engaged in hauling the crop, and thousands engaged in terminal elevators, in our flour industry and in shipping; and, finally, the vast amount of purchasing power which all these groups do give to the benefit of industry throughout Canada. It is not without just claim, therefore, that the wheat producer has from time to time made certain requests of this house.
While the west is favoured with a bounteous crop; while we have learned to produce wheat more cheaply than we ever dreamed before that we could produce it, I am sorry to say that this great crop, having regard to present price levels, is not of extensive avail. When I left my own small village less than ten days ago wheat was selling for about twenty-five cents per bushel. One-fifth of this is immediately absorbed in the cost of threshing; to this must be added the cost of harvesting, the cost of twine, the cost of seed, cost of summer fallow, wages and one charge and another; and finally the principal and interest on the agricultural debt. When this is taken into consideration, it must be obvious to all that nothing remains for the labours of production. The wheat producer hopes that an adjustment of price levels affecting his commodity is imminent. I am certain of this: that in the far west he cannot continue in business indefinitely unless some such adjustment is forthcoming.
I wish to refer for a few minutes to the trade and commerce of this country, particularly with respect to agricultural commodities. Much has been said by hon. members opposite that the policies of this government are in the direction of a progressive strangulation of Canadian trade. To me, that observation is merely another evidence of the fact that there are some hon. members opposite who are oblivious of the conditions of the world at the present time. Some hon. mem- ' bers appear blind to the extraordinary conditions Which this government has had to face.
I am sure that no hon. member will question this statement: the world would be better off to-day if we had a general reduction in tariffs. But surely we can profit from the experience of the mother country? It is now a matter of history as to how England clung with that bull dog tenacity which is characteristic of her people to that principle which has been for so long the foundation of her fiscal system,-the policy of free trade. She watched other great trading nations of the world extend their restrictions against her trade. She watched her exports decline. She watched imports mount. She watched prices fall. She watched unemployment increase. Finally, when she had been bled, and bled, and bled; finally when her monetary system was in a state of bankruptcy; finally, when her entire internal economy was upset, England woke up. England adopted a general tariff, not because she wanted to, but because she had to in order to cope with world conditions.
So, while I join with other hon. members in deploring the present condition of world trade, I have no reason to think that a general reduction in our tariffs would help this country to sell more produce to other countries, unless such tariff reduction would be international, mutual and simultaneous.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) for the extent to which he has been successful not only in preserving the trade of this country but, in many cases, in extending it. I am indebted to the Economic Committee of the League of Nations for information which indicates that during the period January, 1930, to January, 1932, the commerce of the world declined by practically one-half, when compared with the peak year of 1929. A further examination of the tables compiled by that committee indicates that, comparatively speaking, we in Canada are exceedingly fortunate. I would like to read into Hansard the portion of those tables which indicates the falling off in the imports and exports of certain countries. The following figures com-
The Address-Mr. Davies
[Stage Direction]
piled by that committee give the percentage of decrease in exports and imports between the two periods just mentioned:
	Imports	Exports
	per cent	per cent
Germany	.. 66	49Austria	.. 37	54Spain	.. 62	70France	.. 51	51United Kingdom..	.. 39	47Hungary	.. 59	70Canada	.. 60	49United States.. ..	.. 58	63Poland	58
It is apparent that while our imports have fallen off to a considerable extent our export trade puts us in a most favourable light.
The indications as to the trend of agricultural trade are indeed encouraging. We find that during the crop year ended August 31, 1932, Canada exported over 27,000,000 bushels of wheat more than in the crop year 1929-30, when hon. members opposite were in power, and when world restrictions were few as compared with to-day. We find that for the months of August and September of this year the clearings of wheat from Canada are 60 per cent higher than last year. Figures prepared by the Bureau of Statistics also show that during the first eight months of this year we exported 263,065 hundredweight of bacon and ham, an increase of over 500 per cent when compared with the same period last year. These figures are greatly in excess of those for 1930, when imports and exports were practically the same. The exports of fresh beef during the same period were 23,915 hundredweight, almost double the exports during the same period last year although not as much as during 1930. Our exports of butter amounted to 30,924 hundredweight, only half of the exports for last year, but still five times those for the same period in 1930. The exports of cheese for the same period this year amounted to 417,850 hundredweight, approximately a twenty-five per cent increase over the same period in both preceding years. Our exports of cattle declined by 24 per cent but, strange to say, the returns are only slightly lower than for the same period last year. Our exports of oats amounted to 9,284,867 bushels, or eight times greater than the exports during 1930. The exports of barley amounted to 7,483,974 bushels, nearly three times the exports of 1930. The exports of rye amounted to 7,548,862 bushels, nearly forty times those of 1930. The exports of tobacco during this period amounted to 9,006,082 pounds, more than double of what they were in 1930, and nearly double the figures for last year. Despite what some hon. members opposite say, this fact remains: 
Under the policy of the present government, Canada to-day is selling more agricultural products than she has for some years past.
Referring to that portion of the address dealing with monetary matters, it is to be regretted that the lateness of the world economic conference makes it necessary to defer for the present any action in this field. That the deliberations at this conference may have considerable influence upon what this house may do, needs no emphasis.
Perhaps one of the greatest problems facing the nations of the world to-day is the problem of the unprecedented low price level. This problem is closely allied to monetary matters. I believe it is generally conceded that the collapse of 1929 was primarily a financial collapse, primarily a collapse of the monetary system of the world, which would in itself seem to indicate its weakness, and the need for that conference.
There are those who consider the Canadian banking system as being one which is near to perfection. In the light of my present knowledge I cannot subscribe to that view, although a comparison of our system with the system in vogue in the great republic to the south of us would seem to indicate that we have much for which to be thankful. Figures which I received last June indicate that since the depression started over five thousand banks have failed in the United States with a loss to depositors of approximately $5,500,000,000. No such calamity has occurred in Canada. This conclusion, therefore, I would draw, namely, that in so far as our present system gives depositors an extensive measure of security, it appears to be ample. But, it also seems to me, that in so far as it permits the furnishing of credit when credit is most needed, that is, to implement the system of distribution, it falls short. I look forward with a great deal of eagerness to the results of that world-wide economic conference and the discussion of that matter in due course in this house.
I would like to refer for a few minutes to the Imperial economic conference with particular reference to its importance to agriculture. While realizing full well that the greatest measure of prosperity for Canada must be founded upon world trade as well as empire trade, which deduction naturally follows from the fact that Canada is a leading trading nation in the world, I can only view the conference just concluded as being a very substantial step forward in the rehabilitation, not only of the trade of this country-and we know how prosperity is founded upon trade- but also in the rehabilitation of the trade of the world. While also realizing full well it should be the nations of the world which

The Address-Mr. Laurin
have their heads together in these matters, rather than just a portion of the world, in the absence of such international action, and, indeed, in the presence of mounting restrictions on the part of a great number of these countries, I can only view with a great deal of favour the group action that took place in this city last August. I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister of this country for the prominent part he took in that conference and particularly for the concessions that he and those associated with him were successful in securing for agriculture. While the cloud of world depression and existing difficulties may in some measure eclipse, for the present, the true value of his contribution to the development of our commonwealth, I am satisfied that history will write his name down as one who has been largely instrumental in developing and fostering that degree of interdependence and self-help, which among nations of the world, above all, should characterize the dealings of those who claim a common allegiance.
Much has been said by some hon. members opposite as to the undesirability of bargaining taking place at such a conference. I have felt that for too long the nations of the commonwealth have not been taking the fullest advantage of their position and resources. To my mind trade must be based upon something more than sentiment. It must be based upon mutual advantage. In empire politics, we have far too long been talking platitudes. I was exceedingly glad to see that the conference just concluded got down to realities, and on behalf of those I have the honour to represent I would like to express our approval to the Prime Minister, and his colleagues at that conference, particularly in respect to the concessions gained in favour of our great basic industry, agriculture.
Referring to a few of the benefits that an agriculturist should expect of such a conference I would say simply this, that in respect to wheat I am satisfied that the agreement concluded will very greatly extend our market. The wheat producer of Canada in the past three years, in addition to being faced with the downward trend of price levels, has also had to face the competition of Russia, which competition became a factor only in the past three years. What that competition means is best illustrated by the statement that last year Russia exported to the United Kingdom practically as much wheat as did Canada. With the preference that has been granted, and the control of dumping that has been associated with it, I have no doubt that our market in the mother country will be very greatly extended.
In respect to hog products, the quota of 2,500,000 hundred-weight assures for some time an extensive market to the hog producers of Canada for this product. I only hope that our Canadian farmers will respond, so that the fullest advantage may be taken of that quota. In respect to cattle, it is a matter of history that the restrictions which the United Kingdom placed upon our cattle were for some time a source of annoyance. The removal of those restrictions should bring considerable benefits. In regard to miscellaneous farm products such as butter, cheese, eggs, fruit, poultry and tobacco, I cannot help feeling that the result in each case must be that our trade will be extended. As to the wisdom of the concessions Canada has made, I entertain no misgivings. Generally speaking, Canadian industry is favoured with an abundance of cheap power and raw material; I have no fear that our industrial interests will be jeopardized.
In conclusion, it may be of interest to point out that while the United States of America has for some years past enjoyed seventy-five per cent of the available trade of her colonies and protectorates, and while France and Belgium have enjoyed fifty per cent of the available trade of theirs, the United Kingdom has enjoyed only thirty-three per cent of the available trade of hers. I am satisfied that this gap will be closed through the instrumentality of the conference just concluded, and that out of the bridging process which will follow the acceptance of these pacts will flow an extensive measure of benefit to the Canadian people. I therefore beg leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin):
That an address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, to offer the humble thanks of this house to His Excellency for the gracious speech which he has been pleased to make to both houses of parliament.
Mr. GEORGES P. LAURIN (Jacques-Cartier) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, on rising to second the motion of the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Davies), I feel moved at the thought that not long ago, in this very chamber, His Excellency the Governor General addressed a meeting of eminent statesmen of the British Empire, delegations differing greatly, nevertheless actuated by a set purpose and well prepared to face the intricacies of the problems to be solved: moderate and undaunted protectionists, convinced labourites and well disposed freetraders.
At this gathering of so many distinguished persons with varied aspirations, a chairman of extraordinary diplomatic skill was needed,
The Address-Mr. Laurin
[Stage Direction]
one whose mind had been strengthened by contact with the most difficult problems, uniting also to the power of an inflexible will, broadmindedness, patience and tolerance which could rally all views.
The Eight Hon. Stanley Baldwin stated:
Over that conference it was fitting that the Prime Minister of Canada should preside, and fortunate have we been that in Canadas Prime Minister we have a man so admirably qualified for that difficult task. He possesses a driving power	given to few,	which	is	an
essential element in the conduct	of business of
this kind. He has a grasp of detail which is astonishing, and yet with all. when one realizes what a grasp of details involves.
And he further added:
I have been	struck all the	time	by	hisaccessibility, that lie has always been ready to discuss points as they arise with any delegation at any hour and in any place." It is a rare quality, which is seldom met in great men, and I think I am	expressing the	views	of	my
colleagues; that never have we come in contact with him without being impressed with the power of his personality and the facility of his accessibility.
This Imperial conference which was holding for the first time, its sittings outside of England, and which we had the great honour of welcoming in Canada proved to the entire world the solid unity of the community of the nations which comprises it and the joint interest of trade and spirit which actuates the empire. However, it would have seemed very strange indeed had this conference, comprising so many individuals with such diversity of views, not felt the shock of dissensions, we therefore have the Eight Hon. Mr. Baldwin giving us briefly a true picture of these dissenting views, when he stated:
We were met with blue sky and sunshine, and we have had a great deal of that. We have also had storms, we have had thunder and lightning and we have very nearly been washed out. However, there was to he found fortunately in this gathering a man with a personality both prolific and creative of deeds, who could bring to bear, on our somewhat weakened efforts, the courage and perseverance necessary to unite the scattered forces and -whip them into a concrete whole.
Mr. Stanley Bruce expressed the same idea, when he stated:
Let me assure you, Mr. Bennett, that we all bear witness that by your genial and forceful personality you have been the mainspring of this conference, and we all recognize that the success that has been achieved has been due in very great measure to the guidance you have given it in presiding over all that has been done and said. But your work has not stopped there, for after all, in a conference of this kind the work is not mainly done in the formal meetings but in association outside, and in informal

meetings and discussions. There you have played a great part and we are all deeply grateful to you.
We have gathered here to approve the work of those who, at very trying moments, made enormous sacrifices to lay the foundation upon which we and future generations will have the opportunity of erecting an edifice as useful and stable as it is possible to realize.
The following is what Mr. Baldwin had to
say:
We have learned more than we have ever learned before of each other's difficulties and each other's point of view. It only remains for us to try to work out in practice what we have achieved on paper, with that sanity and that forbearance which I know will always characterize the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations and then it may well be that the generations that come after in speaking of us may say "indeed they builded better than they knew."
It is but fair and reasonable, sir, for everyone present to 'bring to the statesman who so worthily represented us with all the power of his energy, the loyal support of ^ our cooperation and approval both practical and real so that these overtures hardly broached may become for us and future generations a source of inspiration forever increasing and spreading in order that we may hold in the midst of this new union and the whole world the position to which we are entitled, a striking example of strength and constructive energy. To this end, sir, it behooves us to examine briefly this evolution of new ideals which have cropped up among the nations making up the British commonwealth so as to clearly grasp the duties which are inherent to our cooperation and approval.
The conference was held in order to lay the foundation of an economic policy by which England and the sister nations could expand their trade. It seemed impossible that the dominions, young nations essentially protectionists, would consent to endorse England's free-trade policy of the past, while, on the other hand, these nations having just reached their manhood and proud of their national autonomy could hardly expect that England, 'for ever so long a free-trading nation would forsake a policy which, in the last century, had been the means of securing to her a dominant position in the world's trade development.
However, the economic difficulties by which all nations are beset, including England and the dominions, have proved to the delegates the necessity that the conference should .not serve for business transactions between countries having selfish aims as their object, but

The Address-Mr. Launn
should serve, through cooperation and mutual concessions, in reestablishing prosperity among the nations of the British Commonwealth, and thereby, prove to other nations that people with varied interests can, by good will and undaunted courage, smooth over difficulties, overcome obstacles and arrive at an understanding for the common welfare and interest of the entire world.
I think, sir, that the conference has succeeded in laying the foundation of such an agreement of cooperation and that in the treaties which were signed, the delegates secured reciprocal, adequate and mutual advantages.	.
We are aware of England's paramount position in the world's trade expansion; her almost complete monopoly, in the past, of coal, her power of purchasing raw materials at low cost, facilitating the supply of her factories and industries giving her the first place among exporting countries of manufactured articles.
These conditions, however, necessitated the withdrawal of her farm hands in order to place them in industries.
Owing to this fact we have seen her depending more and more on other nations for her food, and exporting in exchange her manufactured products.
At the beginning of the present century, other nations having, by degrees adopted protection, England found herself compelled to follow the movement, but having neglected to modernize her manufacturing methods she could not possibly compete on an equal footing with the other world nations which had replaced coal by electricity and oil.
During the period following the war, France, through necessity, modernized her industries; Germany, through the financial aid of the United States and even of England, rebuilt hers to compete with our neighbours to the south, and England forced to meet an ever increasing unemployment and not finding in foreign channels the same opportunities of exporting her manufactured products during the last two or three years and suffering like all other nations from considerable financial losses found it advantageous to seek new fields of activity for her foreign exports.
This trade upheaval created protectionist and labourite movements in England.
From 1921 to 1925, the labour party seemed to favour closer business ties with Russia to the detriment of sister nations; however, owing to the crisis prevailing, in the last two years, England is turning towards the dominions, . and has manifested her intention to adopt protection, and as an eminent economist points out:
The dominions look up to England with the feelings of a married son towards his father. Besides, this comparison with the family fits in exactly because it is indeed a question of relations existing between parents and children. The latter proudly uphold their manhood so recently acquired; however the head of the family takes pride in its offsprings and exclaims: I did it all. There does not exist in him those feelings of wounded pride which is met sometimes among older people when younger generations, ^according to Bossuet's saying, "pousscnt de Tepaule, leurs devanciers" turn their elders away.
England takes a different view, she truly feels a pride in having achieved a great deed which is hers and remains so, even if on more than one score she has lost the effective leadership. The fiction of imperial unity is, in itself alone, a sufficient advantage to induce her to grant many concessions.	.
Indeed, during the last century7 the dominie ns were ruled by England, wriiere they shipped on advantageous terms raw materials and received the surplus of the mother country's population. By degrees the trade of the dominions expanded. The latter surrounded themselves effectively with tariff walls, as high as necessary and limited the flow of immigrants, and for the last twenty y7ears their exports increased while those of the mother country decreased. England exported more to the colonies and the dominions and the latter caotured a larger share of the world's trade.
The basic industries of England, such as ccal, iron, steel, cotton and wool were the principal ones to feel the shrinkage in their exports, these industries suffering the most from the unemployment crisis found, within these last years, a wider field in the dominions. Hence England's endeavours to extend the activities of her industries to the dominions and her colonies. On the ether hand, the dominions, whose main industry was agricultural, sought, naturally, openings on the English markets. This double aspiration had to be reconciled.
Canada-the Prime Minister of Canada stated last session-must adopt the policy of Macdonald and Tapper and only grant a preference on the basis of mutual preference and mutual advantages.
Sir Wilfrid Laurjer turned a new leaf in 1S97, by granting a preference to England, with the hope for reciprocal treatment. However, it was not until 1919 that England responded and then, only on unimportant items. To succeed a greater driving power was required.
At the Imperial conference of 1930, the Prime Minister stated:
The primary concern of Canada to-day is profitably to sell its wheat. We wish to establish a better market in Great Britain.
REVISED edition
The Address-Mr. Laurin
[Stage Direction]
This market we want and for it we are walling to pay, by giving in the Canadian market a preference for British goods.
First, we must approve or reject the principle. I put the question definitely to you, and definitely it should be answered. There is here no room for compromise and there is no possibility of avoiding the issue. This proposed preference should not be considered as a step towards Empire free-trade. In our opinion Empire free-trade is neither desirable or possible. I offer to the mother country, and to all 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.
This obliged England to corue to a decision as regards this problem which she had been seeking to solve without however taking it.
If she refused, the dominions felt free to follow the course which they deemed best under the circumstances.
The Prime Minister's proposal was broad enough to satisfy the claims of all parties with the exception perhaps of those who were intent on establishing free trade between all the component parts of the empire. It would have been absurd to aspire to the latter, because "economically speaking," it is unsound. The answer was not long in forthcoming. Mr. Neville Chamberlain, in January, 1932, referring to the coming Imperial economic conference, stated:
His Majesty's government attaches extreme importance to this conference, and it intends to bring to bear a firm determination to conclude agreements susceptible of considerably increasing the inter-imperial trade. It is evident that the dominions no more question our right to levy customs duties in our own interests, either to create revenues or restrict imports, than we have questioned their right to do the same.
This was a straight and clear cut statement. England abandoned in practice her century-old policy of free trade. England found it necessary to secure a market for her basic industries, and the dominions likewise for their farm products.
Those opposed to this policy contended that the proposals made by the right hon. Prime Minister would not materialize.
To-day, political opponents who proclaimed that this policy was impracticable, note that the mother country and the other dominions have understood the soundness of the views of the one who at present is looked upon as one of the most illustrious statesmen of the empire.
The weakness of the Roman empire was that no one seemed to realize that the integral parts which comprised it were developing and drawing their source of strength from the very principles which had built up Rome's

greatness, and that they naturally aspired to emulate her. The disintegration which resulted forms a period in history which serves as our best guidance. We are acquainted with the dissensions which broke up each of its component parts and caused the fall of Rome's greatness.
England, on the contrary, conceded the dominions' right to independence; at the Imperial conference of 1926, she acknowledged "that they were component parts of this society of autonomous communities, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another as regards their domestic or external affairs." Ever since then England relied more on the dominions which were taking a more active part in the world's trade movement. It was to avoid the disintegration of the empire and dissensions among the nations which comprise it that our Prime Minister invited England and the British commonwealth of nations to lay the foundations of this new society which had a similar aim and found their own strength, not only in sentimental ties, but also and especially in their mutual and material interests.
Called upon, sir, as a Canadian to take part in the erection of this new edifice, I feel it necessary to extend my entire cooperation because it ensures our ethnical survival, draws us closer into this British commonwealth, gives us more authority in our dealings with our neighbours to the south, and by the building of the St. Lawrence waterway will ensure our material and social dealings with them, thus affording us to act as a link between the British commonwealth and the community of American nations as a guarantee both of peace of the world and of its prosperity.
Mr. Speaker, I listened presently to the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Davies) while he was reviewing most of the measures mentioned in the speech from the throne, which have my whole-hearted approval; how-sver, before resuming my seat, may I be allowed to extend to the right hon. Prime Minister the assurance of my deep gratitude for the great honour which he has kindly bestowed on the people of the constituency of Jacques Cartier in inviting their humble representative to second the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Wherefore, sir,
I am pleased to second the motion of my hon. colleague from Athabasca.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to look in your direction without observing the greeting which hon. members opposite have extended to one of their num-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
ber on his eighty-fifth birthday. Speaking on behalf of lion, members on this side of the house I join with hon. members opposite in extending to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black) our best wishes for many happy returns of the day. I am sure it is gratifying to all	of	us to know	that	we	have in thehouse	at	the beginning of	this session themember who is oldest in years, though not in length of membership. That honour, I think, belongs to the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). To be hale and hearty at the age of eighty-five and to be serving one's country as a member of parliament at so great an age is indeed a rare distinction. I hope	my	hon. friend	may	be	spared manyyears	of	health and	strength	in which to
continue his service to his country.
It is a pleasing coincidence that having the oldest member with us, we have just had the pleasure of listening to the youngest member. The hon. member who addressed us this afternoon is not youngest in point of membership in the house-I think that distinction belongs to the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Jean) who was introduced only a day or two ago-but youngest in years. I extend to the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Davies) my very warm congratulations upon his speech of this afternoon in moving the address to His Excellency the Governor General. I think hon. members will agree his speech- was moderate in tone and well reasoned. The hon. member will not expect me to agree with all the sentiments and views he expressed, but I am sure hon. members on his side of the house had reason to feel that his remarks adequately expressed the points of view hon. gentlemen opposite are most anxious to have put forward at this time. I am not surprised that both he and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin), who seconded the address, should have made presentations, so commendable in many particulars, and especially in manner of delivery. Both hon. members are of the legal profession and have taken a wide interest in educational affairs. I cannot express my own feelings better than to say I believe they have done credit to themselves, to their profession and to the positions they hold as members of this House of Commons.
We are reminded by what appears on the title page of the speech of His Excellency that this is the opening of the fourth session of the seventeenth parliament of Canada. That fact in itself is of great significance when we consider the legislation to be introduced at this session. The times in which we live and the conditions prevailing throughout the world, and
particularly in our own country, make doubly significant the measures the government may present to parliament at this time. Glancing at the speech from the throne with a view to seeing what measures the government intends to bring forward, to deal particularly with the commercial and industrial depression which has continued now for so many years, and to help relieve the distress that exists in rural and urban centres alike, one would naturally expect to find a program of exceptional importance and the mention of measures which will deal in no uncertain way with the social problems which are uppermost in the minds of the people at this time. In this particular unfortunately there is the greatest disappointment. Analyzing the speech from the throne in what it contains and in the light of what the right hon. Prime Minister said a day or two ago with reference to the business of this session, which we have been assembled here to consider, it appears to fall into two parts. The first part of the speech makes mention of two important subjects, the agreements which have been reached at the recent Imperial economic conference, and the report of the transportation commission which is to be brought down shortly, and on which certain legislation is to be based. From what the right hon. Prime Minister has said these are the two measures to the consideration of which the house will be called upon to give pretty much its whole time between now and the time adjournment is made until after the beginning of the new year. The other measures I shall refer to in a moment. May I say to my right hen. friend that it comes somewhat as a surprise to me. and I think it will to the house generally and to the country, that having been brought together for the purpose of considering these two subjects almost to the exclusion of everything else, there should as a matter of fact be nothing before us of a concrete character on which we can base the discussion that we would wish to have on these matters at this time. With respect to the Imperial Economic conference we have nothing before us on which it is possible to take action of any kind. My right hon. friend laid on the table of the house cn Friday last the report of the conference, which contains the following:
This includes reports of the proceedings of the conference together with annexes, I, II, III and IV. Annex V, including the text of the trade agreements concluded during the conference, will be published later as a supplementary volume.
May I ask my right hon. friend, why should this parliament not be favoured in advance, with the text of the agreements it

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
is to be called upon to consider as the most important business of the session? I submit it is not treating parliament fairly not to have these agreements before us. It is not according to hon. members of this House of Commons the consideration that has been given by other governments of the empire to the representatives of their parliaments who are being called together to discuss this important matter. I drew my right hon. friend's attention last week to the fact that the British parliament does not begin its session until the 18th of this month, that is a week from to-morrow. My right hon. friend says that on Thursday of this week he will table the agreements. What does that mean? It means that the members of the House of Commons of Great Britain, and of the other parliaments of the empire, will have in advance of the time that they begin to consider the agreements, full knowledge of. all that the agreements contain, but that the one parliament of the empire which will not possess this knowledge is the parliament of the Dominion of Canada, the country in which the conference itself was held. I say, Mr. Speaker, that some explanation of this circumstance must be given by the Prime Minister and I hope it will be one which will satisfy the public mind. I must say I feel that it is, as matters now stand, little short of an indignity to parliament, that we in this House of Commons should be kept in ignorance on so important a matter as the texts of the agreements and subjected in this particular to a different kind of treatment from that received by members of the other dominion parliaments of the empire and of the British House of Commons.
But there is something more extraordinary than that. My right hon. friend has on the order paper to-day notice of a motion which he told us he intends to move on Wednesday of this week. It reads:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the trade agreement entered into at Ottawa the twentieth day of August, 1932, between representatives of His Majesty's government in Canada and of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, and that this house do approve of the same, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the fiscal changes consequent thereto.
The agreement itself is to be tabled in its entirety on Thursday. That was the statement my right hon. friend also made-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Wednesday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my right hon. friend propose to deal with the tariff changes as well on Wednesday?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Rhodes) would make the necessary motion in that regard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would that
be made on Wednesday?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the idea, just
to make the motion formally, that is all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon.
friend speaking on Friday last is reported in Hansard as follows:
However, it would seem to meet the convenience of all if on Wednesday next the resolution be moved ratifying the agreement with the United Kingdom, and bills introduced with respect to the other agreements. If the motion were made here about four o'clock in the afternoon the British government would be in a position to release on the thirteenth all the agreements, in their entirety, so that they may be printed in the morning papers of that day.
That is to say, on Wednesday we are to have first, if I understand it aright, a motion to approve of the agreements, and then the agreements are to be tabled. My right hon. friend told us we were to depart from the customary practice of this parliament, of disposing of the debate on the address in the first instance, and that the government would reserve to itself the right to proceed immediately with tihe consideration of the agreements themselves. Now I wish to say to my right hon. friend with all due respect that I feel this House of Commons is entitled to have the text of the agreements before it in full, not for a few hours, but for at least a few days before we are called upon to debate the far reaching and all important issues involved in or raised !by those agreements. I have, as I said to my right hon. friend, every desire to facilitate the work of the session. We on tihis side will do everything we can to see that he is accommodated in the matter of having business despatched as rapidly as circumstances will justify, but we must have our rights as representatives of the people in this House of Commons respected by the government. Those rights demand a knowledge of what we are expected to discuss.
After all, what my right hon. friend is asking this House of Commons to do is what his government asked the electors of South Huron to do a week ago today. The electors were asked to regard the agreements as the main issue in the by-election campaign; they told them that the verdict of that -constituency would be looked upon in Britain and elsewhere as the verdict of Canada upon these empire pacts. The people of South Huron

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
have made it pretty .plain to hon. gentlemen opposite that they do not propose to pass judgment on far-reaching agreements of that character in any blindfolded fashion, and that they resented as an indignity the attempt of the government to hoodwink them in that fashion. May I say that we as the people's representatives in this House of Commons do not propose to be blindfolded or hoodwinked by hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to this matter. I fail to understand why this House of Commons should be expected to take up the consideration of these agreements in advance of the time when they are to be -taken up in Great Britain, in South Africa, in New Zealand, in Australia, in Newfoundland, in fact, in all other parts of the British Empire which were represented here at the time of the conference. The only explanation I can find is that this is in line with the way my right hon. friend has proceeded with all important legislation that has been brought in since the beginning of this parliament. Most of the important legislation was either held until the last moment and then rushed through in a summary fashion or was brought on, as it is proposed to do in the present instance, without hon. members being given an opportunity properly to understand its significance or provisions.
I shall not say any more on that point at the moment, but, with all deference, I would ask the Prime Minister to consider our position as the representatives of the people in this house, and allow us, who are of the opposition, at least until Monday of next week to consider these agreements before deciding, as a political party in this house, what attitude we intend to take with respect to them. The agreements are far-reaching in their significance; they involve considerations vaster, I believe, than any with which the British Empire thus far has been faced, and I claim that it is the right of every representative here to have ample time to consider all that is involved before he expresses his views in this House of Commons. These matters should be considered not only individually but collectively as well, and I should add also that I believe public opinion throughout the country should be afforded an opportunity to express itself.
So much for the moment with regard to the agreements. Mr. Speaker, we are in precisely the same position with respect to the other matter which my right hon. friend said would be taken up as all important at this preliminary stage of the session. We were told by my right hon. friend that the report of the transportation commission would be the basis of legislation. The Prime Minister said that legislation based on the report was already drafted, yet this House of Commons has as yet not been furnished with so much as a copy of the report. Again I ask if that is treating the House of Commons fairly. The right hon. gentleman says he is going to bring in a bill and possibly compel the second reading of that bill before the session is over; by his own language as it appears in Hansard, he has made it clear that he regards the matter as more far-reaching than any other to come before parliament this year, yet the only opportunity that we are now to have to read this report is to be while parliament is in session, and while most of us are busily occupied from day to day with the other all-important matter which will be before us. The Prime Minister would be doing only what is right and fair in the matter if he were to see to it that ample opportunity is given hon. members to study this report and fully to comprehend all its bearings before we are asked to express our views upon any legislation he may bring in based upon the recommendations and conclusions contained therein.
. Before I leave the question of the report of the transportation commission, since my right hon. friend already has the measure drafted, I hope he will tell us when he speaks whether the particular recommendation that the affairs of the Canadian National railways hereafter shall be managed by a committee of three, a board of three trustees, is one of the recommendations that are to be implemented and, if it is, whether labour employed on the system is to be given representation on that committee or board. These are times of social reconstruction; in these days there are great social movements swaying human forces in all quarters of the globe. During these times some systems that have prevailed in the past have teen found wanting in many particulars. Those who are interested in the well-being of their fellow-men are anxiously seeking in different directions for the particular measures which will enable society peacefully to evolve along lines that will be of general benefit, lines that may further by evolution rather than by revolution the ends that they have in view for the betterment of mankind. I believe that in connection with the management and operation of the national railways an opportunity presents itself to the government of this country to set an example to industry at large, an example which will be helpful not only as far as the Canadian National railways and other railway systems are concerned but with respect to industry generally. After all, the crux of the problem in industry is the control of policy, and work-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
ingmen who give their lives to industry, who are to be numbered by the hundreds of thousands, are as vitally interested in control of industrial policy as those who have a capital investment in dollars and cents, and they are equally entitled to have their voice heard in the shaping of that policy. I believe that if the government will recognize this fact and, as I have said, set an example in the legislation it may bring down with respect to the railways, it will be going a long way in helping to solve what is perhaps the most difficult and complicated of all industrial problems of our time.
This is not a new suggestion; it is one I made in this house during last session, and it is in accord with what under Liberal policy has been advocated, and indeed effected in part with respect to the Canadian National railways. It was under a Liberal administration that Labour, for the first time, was given a place on the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways. That was a step in the right direction. Now the time has come to go a step further, particularly when there is a reconstruction being carried out such as that proposed. The government should see that Labour is given its due place beside the other factors that contribute to the successful operation of the railways, those who have furnished the capital and those who are giving their technical skill, as well as the community that is helping to serve all three.
These are the two measures that are referred to as the ones which will occupy the time of the house during this preliminary portion of the session. There are four or five other subjects mentioned in the speech from the throne; they may be referred to as comprising the portion of business to be taken up in the new year. Each, I think, deserves a word of reference. The first to which I will refer, since it also was mentioned by the Prime Minister the other day, is the measure which will provide for the redistribution of representation in the House of Commons. In one sense of the word this is a matter of routine; every ten years a redistribution bill comes before parliament, and at this time it comes in the natural order. In considering the question of representation in the House of Commons, may I submit to my right hon. friend in reference to the representation in forthcoming parliaments for the next ten years, that this is an opportune time for the presentation to this house of measures which will help to make more representative and effective the representation of the people in parliament. The time has come when measures respecting proportional representa-

lion and the alternative vote should be introduced.


Mr. STEWART (Lethbridge):: Why didn't the right hon. gentleman do it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend asks why did we not do it, and I shall reply to his question. During the years the late Liberal administration was in office it is true that most of the time we had a majority in the House of Commons, but during all the time we were in office we did not have a majority in the Senate. When at different times, we made efforts in this house to carry through resolutions with respect to proportional representation, they met with determined opposition from hon. gentlemen opposite who were then on this side. It soon became apparent that we were consuming the time of parliament to little or no advantage in pressing forward these measures at that time because, had they carried through this chamber, they would certainly not have passed the other house. But the situation is different to-day. Hon. gentlemen opposite have a majority in both houses and can, if they so desire, put through these measures at this session, and before the next general election; and I submit that if parliament is to be made as representative of opinion as it should be, these measures ought to commend themselves to all hon. members of the House of Commons.
As a matter of fact, there are m this house at the present time no fewer than twenty-seven members who hold their seats, not as representatives of the majority in the constituencies from which they come, but as representatives of a minority. The largest number of minority representatives are among hon. gentlemen opposite. There are some in the Liberal ranks and some in the ranks of the Lnited Farmers and of the independent groups, but there are no fewer than twenty-seven members of this house who are occupying seats here notwithstanding the fact that they do not represent the majority of the electors of their constituencies. I do not say that the representation of all of those constituencies would be completely changed had proportional representation or the alternative vote been adopted. Probably in some instances some of these hon. gentlemen would have continued to represent their constituencies, but there would have been in that event a note of satisfaction in that we should have had reason to feel that this parliament was truly representative of the majority of the people in the constituencies from which its respective members had come.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Perhaps I might refer again to the speech delivered by the hon. member from Athabaska (Mr. Davies). That speech, though it might not have been more eloquent, would certainly have been more effective had the hon. gentleman spoken as one representing the majority of the electorate in his constituency. As a matter of fact, the hon. member represents only thirty-two per cent of the voters of that constituency; he does not speak for the majority. When he spoke this afternoon he spoke as one of a very distinct minority. That is not being a member of a representative assembly in the broadest and truest meaning of the term.
I say, therefore, that the time has come for the introduction of these electoral measures, and I trust that my right hon. friend will consider favourably having them enacted before another general election. There is a special additional reason why this should be done at once. It is this. Under the redistribution measure, representation in the cities will in all probability be somewhat enlarged. I am sure that we should get a truer reflection of popular opinion if in the cities proportional representation were adopted in preference to the method that now prevails.
I come now to the next subject mentioned in the speech from the throne, namely, the St. Lawrence waterway. Let me read what the speech from the throne has to say on this subject:
Since the last session of parliament, my ministers have entered into a treaty with the government of the United States of America for the completion of the St. Lawrence waterway. Upon its ratification by the duly constituted authority of the United States, this treaty will be submitted to you for approval.
The first comment I have to make on that particular paragraph of the speech from the throne is that it offers no definite statement on the part of the government that the St. Lawrence waterway treaty will be submitted to parliament at all at this session or, for that matter, at any other session; it makes no statement of the government's own policy on the matter. It simply directs attention to the fact that when something is done in the United States then our government will say what shall be done in the parliament of Canada. I wish to ask my right hon. friend this question: Does the treaty as at present drafted represent the policy of the Conservative party in Canada. And, if it does, does it represent the policy of that party as it was enunciated at the great convention held in Winnipeg at the time my right hon. friend was chosen leader of his party? That convention laid down a staiement of policy of the Conservative party with respect to the St. Lawrence
waterway, and that statement was couched in no uncertain terms. Here is the clause with respect to this matter:
Whereas the improvement of the Welland canal system by the Canadian people is nearing completion, this convention is of the opinion that the St. Lawrence canal system, as an allCanadian project, should be developed in the national interest, and as and when eonditipns warrant. In such undertaking, the sovereign rights of the respective provinces in the development of power should be protected.
"An all-Canadian project to be developed in the national interest": that certainly is not what we have before us in the treaty presented at this time. Is it another case of the government throwing to the winds the policies by which it got into office, and adopting, when in power, a course wholly different from that to which they pledged themselves when seeking office, and which they declared would be adopted if they were returned? At the time the Conservative convention in Winnipeg made this statement of policy with reference to the St. Lawrence waterway there was some criticism by a section of the press of this country of an all-Canadian waterway route. Among the journals that discussed the matter was the Toronto Globe. The representative organ of the Conservative party in Toronto soon came into the arena of discussion and began pressing the Conservative point of view in opposition to the point of view which was taken by the Toronto Globe.
I wish to read to hon. gentlemen opposite just what appeared at that time in the editorial columns of this Conservative journal, because it bears pretty pertinently upon the situation that exists at the moment. The Mail and Empire published an editorial on October 19. 1927, under the title "Canada Mistress in her own House", and commenting on the Globe's criticism of the project being regarded as an all-Canadian, a national system, that newspaper said:
Does the Globe object to the condition that the St. Lawrence canal system should be developed as "an all-Canadian project" and as a national system? Why should that newspaper prefer to have the improvement carried out in pursuance of a transportation policy framed by the United States government to-figure as the principal issue in the coming presidential election campaign? Has the Globe no confidence in the national spirit and resourcefulness of the Canadian people? Up to the present the Canadian people have done their own canal building.
That was in 1927. In 1928 there was a presidential election campaign coming on in the United States and the Mail and Empire, which I presume knows the Conservative mind as well as any journal in this country', not excepting the Montreal Gazette, made the

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
very clear statement that what evidently was contemplated by those who were proposing a waterway in which the two countries would unite was something to help in a presidential campaign. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the fact that a presidential campaign is in progress in the United States at the present time has anything to do with the signing of this treaty by his administration at this juncture, thus throwing to the winds for the sake of a presidential campaign in the United States the policy which the Conservative party enunciated at its convention in Winnipeg as the one which would govern that party in this matter if returned to power.
I do not need to discuss the St. Lawrence waterway question further at this moment because, as I have already said, it may serve the purpose of a presidential campaign and then possibly we may not hear anything of it for some time to come. I would, however, say to my right hon. friend that in his anxiety to finally conclude a treaty at this time, he appears to have been much more solicitous of the desires of the United States in this matter than he has been of unifying the views of the provinces of Canada, and of seeing that, in dealing with an international question such as this, he did not at the same time raise a more serious domestic problem in this dominion.
What is the next item referred to in the speech from the throne? It reads:
A committee has been appointed by order in council to inquire into the operation of the Pensions Act so that my ministers may have before them all information necessary to determine whether further action may be required to discharge the country's obligation to those who served in the great war.
I am sure that the statement that a committee has been appointed by order in council to inquire into the operation of the Pensions Act will prove a great consolation to those who are suffering a sense of injustice under this act. For what purpose has this committee been appointed? Has it been appointed to carry out some policy which the administration has in mind and which it is prepared to state? Not at all. The speech from the throne reads:
.... so that my ministers may have before them all information necessary to determine whether further action may be required to discharge the country's obligation to those who served in the great war.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is wrong with that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend asks, "What is wrong with that?" My answer is that it makes no declaration of policy, it gives to this house nothing in the way of 
information as to what is intended shall be done; it is another endeavour on the government s part to appear to be doing something, when in reality nothing is being done. It bears out what I have been saying about the entire speech, that while it purports as respects the government to be dealing with great questions at a time of great need, in reality it affords little or nothing to this parliament helpful for the purposes of present discussion, and nothing to which the people of the country can look by way of remedy for their present ills.
Take the greatest of all questions, the one which has been referred to this afternoon by other speakers, that of unemployment. The present administration was elected to office primarily to deal with the problem of unemployment. It claimed it would end unemployment. It was on that particular cry above all others that hon. members opposite got into office. What does the speech from the throne have to say about the measures the government is providing to cope with unemployment which has been increasing year by year and month by month ever since hon. gentlemen took their seats upon the treasury benches? It says:
The problem of unemployment continues to receive the anxious attention of my ministers.
I think the public might have been spared that. The speech continues:
Under the powers granted them at the last session of parliament, they have been able to develop further, in cooperation with the provinces and municipalities, a scheme of direct relief to be put into operation during the autumn and winter months to the extent required by prevailing conditions. Plans for the reestablishment of the unemployed in various parts of the country are in preparation and will become operative as soon as, in the opinion of my ministers, the public expenditure incident thereto will be productive of commensurate benefits.	.
I ask the Prime Minister:	What is there
in all that that holds out a hope of any kind to the unemployed of this country with respect to the treatment they are to receive during the forthcoming winter, or at the present time? All that statement amounts to is an abandonment of the policies which the government heretofore has professed to put into force, and a declaration that they have no longer any policy but propose to deal hereafter with the question of unemployment on the basis of the dole, a contributory dole at that. That is the meaning of the statement in a nutshell. All that the government offers as a solution of the unemployment problem is the statement that it intends to associate itself with the provinces and the municipalities in a contributory dole which the unemployed

The Address[DOT]-Mr. Mackenzie King
will receive, so far as they may receive anything at all. There is not even a guarantee of the extent to which this measure of relief is to be carried out.
Plans for the reestablishment of the unemployed in various parts of the country are in preparation-
What does that mean? It may mean absolutely nothing. Plans may continue to be in preparation for years to come, and in all probability will if the problem continues to be dealt with in the future as it has been dealt with in the past. When will they become operative?
-and will become operative as soon as, in the opinion of my ministers, the public expenditure incident thereto will be productive of commensurate benefits.
They will become operative only when "in the opinion of my ministers" something happens which may never happen while they remain in office. I think by this time the country knows what in the opinion of hon. gentlemen opposite is likefy to be an occasion for quick and effective action in the matter of relief.
The statement in the speech from the throne setting forth the government's policy with regard to unemployment must be read in the light of previous declarations by those who are now members of the ministry, and more particularly by the Prime Minister, with respect to what the Conservative party would do if returned to office, and what its policies would be in dealing with this great problem. I should like to read to the Prime Minister a few extracts from the speeches he made during the elections of 1930 when he appealed to the unemployed from one end of the country to the other to support him and a Conservative administration. He told them he was going to call a special session of parliament and that session would be called, for what purpose? To end unemployment. I ask hon. members to compare the statements which I shall now read with the statements made in the speech from the throne. Remember the speech indicates that the present policy will be one of the dole, which is the equivalent of no policy at all.
At Victoria, British Columbia, in 1930, the present Prime Minister 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.
At Calgary, Alberta, he said:
T propose that parliament shall formulate a definite plan for permanent relief, and that parliament shall deal with this national
problem. ... I am convinced this unemployment has now ceased to be local and provincial and has become national in its importance.
At Edmonton, Alberta, he said:
I will call parliament together, at the earliest possible moment, to provide at once the remedy -employment for all who can and will work.
At Moncton, New Brunswick, he said:
The Conservative party is going to find work for all who are willing to work, or perish in the attempt. I promise to end unemployment.
At Sarnia, Ontario, he said:
Some one is responsible for unemployment; not individuals, but governments. Governments by their majorities in parliament are responsible for enacting all legislation.
At, Quebec City he said:
What you want is work, not conferences, and you are going to get work.
Those were the speeches made by the leader of the Conservative part}' by virtue of which he holds to-day the position of Prime Minister of Canada. Those pledges have been wholly ignored and are now repudiated. The speech from the throne declares that all the government is going to do is the thing which the leader of the Conservative party, the present Prime Minister of Canada, said explicitly he would not do, namely, give doles instead of work.
There is another phase to this matter even more serious. When the Prime Minister was leading the Conservative forces during the campaign of 1930 he took the position that unemployment was a national problem and, as appears in one of the extracts I read, that what was needed was a national scheme to deal with the whole question. The speech from the throne indicates that the government has abandoned altogether the idea of a national scheme if indeed it really ever [DOT]seriously entertained such an idea. It not only abandons the idea of a national scheme, but it now disclaims that in matters of unemployment there is a national responsibility. Stop for a moment and hear what the present leader of the government said when speaking in Calgary on June 12, 1930. His words were as follows:
I propose parliament shall formulate a definite plan for permanent relief, and that parliament shall deal with this national problem. ... I am convinced this unemployment has now ceased to be local and provincial and has become national in its importance.
Now compare these words with the words uttered by the Prime Minister as recently as September 6 of this year when speaking in Calgary to a delegation from the western cities and provinces:
"So far as I'm concerned, the administration of relief docs not lie with the Dominion

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
government. However, I will ascertain if tlie situation can be dealt with, and if we can do it. I'm not prepared to scrap the constitution and say the primary responsibility can be shifted to the Dominion government."
He said he felt it unfair to expect the Dominion government to accept this additional responsibility. It was a provincial matter, he thought, and to pass it on to the Dominion government was merely shifting one of the provincial government's primary responsibilities.
"If, as requested, the Dominion government undertook to supervise relief administration it would divest the cities and towns of control and would place in their stead a commission appointed by the government."
But, Mr. Bennett said, he had not yet reached the poi nt where "I think the Dominion government is better equipped to deal with these matters than either the provinces or the municipalities."
That extract is taken from the Montreal Gazette of September 7, 1932. Could anything be more completely contradictory of the policy previously stated than the attitude expressed there? First, there is a declaration that the problem is a national one and that the government's policy is one of providing work-such were the pledges given-'and now the Prime Minister, after being in office over two years, states on the eve of the fourth session of parliament that the problem is not a national one; that he proposes not to go on with any constructive program of supplying work but that hereafter the most the government may do may be something in the way of a contributory dole. I wish to say to the Prime Minister that that kind of repudiation of pledges made is immensely aggravating the situation in the country. It is that sort of thing which more than anything else is creating resentment as well as unrest in Canada. Is it any wonder that working men are losing faith in governments? Is it any wondeT that the people ore beginning to become cynical about the pledges given them by those who are administering the affairs of the country when there can be such a complete contradiction, such a complete repudiation of pledges made, through which power has been acquired?
The government now confesses its inability-the speech from the throne frankly admits it-to deal with the unemployment problem. May I then repeat to the Prime Minister what I have said at each previous session: Can he not burn over the problem to some group of persons who at least are in a position to help to work out some kind of solution with respect to it? I come back to what I proposed at the special session when parliament was called to deal with this question, and what I have repeated at each session since, namely: that there should be appointed

a national committee or commission which would have to do with the administration of moneys voted by the federal treasury for the punpose of unemployment relief, that in an emergency such as exists at the present time this committee Should have regard for the problem as a national one and should work in conjunction with the provinces and with the municipalities not doing their administrative work, but having a say in the manner in which federal moneys shall be expended. I have heard the Prime Minister say on previous occasions that this was taking the matter out of the hands of the municipalities and the provinces. It is doing nothing of the kind. All I am suggesting is that a commission be appointed by the federal administration to advise upon and supervise the expenditure of moneys that are voted by this parliament; that through some minister of the crown it be responsible to parliament for the way in which those moneys are spent. This is a time of great emergency and emergent means of dealing with a situation of this nature are necessary.
During the period of the war there was an imperial munitions board to deal with the question of munitions; there was a food control board to cleal with food supplies, and there was a fuel control board to deal with the fuel problem. Arc not food and fuel the two factors which above all others are the most important in the matter of relief? Why then should this country, in dealing with a great national problem of this kind, not have the benefit of the services of a group of experts brought together with authority as a commission to deal with the question in an effective way? During the period of the war there was also a national committee that dealt with the patriotic fund. The patriotic , fund was subscribed to from dominion sources, from provincial and municipal sources. It was subscribed to by private individuals. Through a dominion committee all the effort throughout the dominion from coast to coast was correlated and means that were most effective in enlisting the active support of all classes in all parts of the country were put into effect. I say that even yet that step is necessary. It is perhaps more necessary to-day than it was two years ago, because since that time it has become perfectly clear that the government is wholly incapable itself of dealing with the question.
What I suggested first, what I have repeated each session, and what had been intended by the Liberal administration had it been returned to power was that in the first instance there should be called a conference, that would be representative of the

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
different interests in the country likely to be most concerned in this problem; that there should be represented at that conference the Dominion government, the provinces, the leading municipalities, important industrial enterprises such as the great railway systems, representatives from the Chamber of Commerce of the Dominion, from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, from the Dominion Trades and Labour congress, from other labour organizations, from the Salvation Army, from the Red Cross, indeed, from all those organizations that are familiar with phases of these great social questions; that that conference of men and women informed on matters of the kind should be allowed to discuss what measures in their opinion should be adopted. Then out of their number to be nominated by them, or from among others whom the government might w'ish to select as a representative body, there be a committee or commission appointed and that body given charge of the whole question of unemployment relief. That step ought to have been taken two years ago, and it ought to be taken to-day. The problem is away beyond the capacity of the government let alone any department of government. After all, departments of government have been formed to carry on ordinary routine work. At the moment I see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) looking over at me. May I remind him that his predecessor found not only that the problem was too great for a single department of government to cope with, but that, as a consequence of his efforts as a minister to cope with a problem that was far too great for any minister of any government to handle, his health became shattered and that he himself became an invalid for the remainder of his days. It is not fair to any individual minister of the crown that a great burden of this kind should be thrust upon him. A great social need such as exists at the moment requires to be dealt with in a larger way.
There was another suggestion. We have under the National Research Act an Honorary Advisory Council on Scientific and Industrial Research. The government may bring together experts on any subject and allow them to make recommendations to the administration as to how great questions of scientific and industrial concern should be dealt with. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man) suggested in the house two years ago that under the National Research Act a body of experts should be brought together to deal in some part with this question of unemployment. I heartily commended his views
at the time, and I urged them again and again upon the government. I suggested an advisory body such as the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation under the Liberal administration; a body of men and women well informed and at least able to give advice of an expert nature. It is not belittling a government to ask it to accept expert advice on great social and economic problems. It is what is done in all countries. It is what is done by any government that desires to get the best and latest information to guide it in its work of administration. A body of that kind should be brought together. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) himself said that this might be done; but it has not been done and, indeed, nothing of any kind has been done. There is no committee, no body of experts, no advisory board, absolutely nothing whatever in the way of supplementing what the single department of government charged with the administration of the affairs of labour has done up to the present time. It is a thousand pities, for more reasons than one, that such a course was not taken.
We are now coming into the third year that this government has been in office and attempting to deal with this problem. Out of the millions upon millions that have been spent what have we in the way of knowledge to guide us in future action? The public debt, by the vast increase in it, will show what has been spent; but what has the ministry in the way of acquired knowledge that will help it to meet the situation during the coming winter? If there had been a commission such as I have indicated, that body by this time would have been familiar with conditions and with the whole question from coast to coast. It would have known the agencies and individuals which could be trusted, and those which could not be trusted. It would have been in a position to advise the government and to carry on the work in an intelligent and effective manner. More than that, an organization of that type would have been in a position to advise a committee of parliament as to the adoption of measures which would be helpful in preventing any recurrence of aggravated unemployment. A national system of unemployment insurance is essential. Such a system can be brought about in Canada only by very careful study and understanding of the whole situation. What greater assistance could a government or parliament have than that which might be offered by a body of men and women who for a period of two, three or more years-or whatever the time may be-has been devoting special attention to
28	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
this matter? I say to the Prime Minister that the government has been found wholly wanting, not only in its failure to cope with the question of providing employment, but in its inability to find any kind of remedy to prevent a recurrence of similar conditions.
I could devote a great deal of time to outlining all the shortcomings of the administration in this particular, but that is not my purpose this afternoon. I prefer at this moment to emphasize anew what we on this side have been stressing from the very beginning. The government now admits that it has no longer a policy, that it is following a dole system. As a first step it should immediately bring together those men and women with whom it could confer, and as a result of the advice given by them, a national committee should be appointed to deal with this very important problem. At the same time a committee of parliament should take up immediately the matter of unemployment insurance with a view to bringing a measure before parliament at the earliest possible date.
I come now to the one remaining clause in the speech from the throne which refers to anything of a concrete character to be brought before parliament or rather which it was expected would be brought. A problem next in importance to, and probably equal to that of unemployment is that concerning banking, credit and currency. Are not questions of price levels, of purchasing power, of credit and interest those which are receiving most attention to-day in public discussions in this and other countries? The people of Canada had a right to expect that in the speech from the throne, of this year in particular, the government would bring forward some concrete statement of policy with respect to banking. credit and currency. We find instead only another attempt on the part of the administration to free itself from responsibility altogether; to shift to some indefinite time consideration of this all important problem of the moment:
You will be invited to extend Canadian bank charters for one year in order that parliament may be informed of the results of the proposed world economic and financial conference, to be called to consider financial, economic and monetary problems, before undertaking the decennial revision of the Bank Act.
That, is all we find in the speech from the throne concerning the all-important question of banking, currency and credit. The action of the government in postponing consideration of the Bank Act is most extraordinary, in view of the fact that, as the administration well knows, banking and allied problems are weigh-

ing more heavily upon the minds of the people and are being more widely discussed than any others. This postponement of the
revision of the Bank Act on the score of a world conference is a mere pretence, a method taken by the administration to avoid discussion concerning banking, credit and currency at the present session. The proposal is to delay consideration until a world conference is held. What was the position taken last session by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) He stated it would not be well to deal with those matters last session because they were to be considered at the forthcoming Imperial economic conference. Banking was to be made a chief item of consideration-in fact, I believe in order ol importance the minister placed banking on all fours with tariffs. What has the Imperial economic conference done to assist in the solution of this matter? It too shifted the responsibility to a world conference. The statement was made that these were world matters, and nothing was done. The government following suit proposes, at this time, to shift the solution of all its monetary problems to a world conference. May I ask the administration where that conference is to meet; when is it to meet?-no one knows. If the Prime Minister can tell me I wash he would.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In London.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was settled by the League of Nations some time ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Probably in December; the date will be fixed in November.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am greatly obliged to the Prime Minister, because he is the first person I know who has been able to give any definite information on the subject. 1 have no doubt my right hon. friend has in mind that he will be representing the government of Canada at the conference, and possibly he has received inside information. I ask him: If nations belonging to one family have found it impossible to arrive at any solution of these intricate matters of banking, currency and credit, does he consider it possible that a conference of foreign nations will be able to throw any light on the situation in a way calculated to be at all helpful to the parliament of Canada? We shall hope that some good may come from a world conference, but we need not wait for a world conference to deal with a domestic problem with which we ourselves alone can deal. This

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
parliament of Canada has enacted legislation to the effect that every ten years the Bank Act must come up for revision. That law is on our statute books to-day, and I may state quite frankly, that is one of the reasons why on the part of the opposition there was not in the last session the discussion on matters of banking and currency there otherwise would have been. Hon. members on this side felt that this was to be the session at which banking and allied matters would occupy much of the time of parliament, and for that reason we said less in the past in this connection than otherwise we would have said.
I say to the Prime Minister that the people of Canada expect immediate revision of the Bank Act. I do not think it is fair to the banks to postpone that revision for another year. The minute a government takes such action suspicions are aroused as to its motives. My right hon. friend must know that in all money matters suspicion is most harmful. As I have stated repeatedly, I believe the Canadian banking system is as sound as any banking system in the world. I think there is no doubt that owing to the excellence of our banking system there has been less discussion on matters of banking in Canada than there has been in other countries. However, the Canadian banking system is not perfect; it has been framed, as have most businesses, with a view primarily to the interests of capital investors, the shareholders. The development of banking has been such that it has assumed increasingly a national aspect; the need has arisen for national control of credit, and that is a matter which in the interests of the banks themselves almost as much as in the interest of the country ought to be considered by parliament at the earliest possible date. The one thing perhaps that above others is needed to meet a situation such as we have at the present time is more in the way of credit at reasonable rates of interest, and this parliament Should be devoting its time and thought, through banking committees and by discussions on the floor of the house, to devising the surest and safest means to bring that about. We know that in other countries central national banks of rediscount have helped very much towards that end. One question which the banking committee should be exploring at this session is the advisability of establishing in Canada a central bank of re-discount. I suppose my right hon. friend will tell us that one of the departments of government already performs that function. During the period of the war, the Bank Act was amended to enable the Department of Finance to perform some such
function but it is not a function that is properly carried on by a government department. What is needed is an institution Whidh will be devoting its time exclusively to what will be expected of it in such an all-important matter as that of credit control. I say the postponement of a consideration of such matters reveals a deplorable lack of appreciation on the part of the government of matters which should be the subject of primary consideration at this session-
I have now gone through all that the speech from the throne contains, as far as I have been able to discover, of concrete measures to be presented to parliament for consideration at this session. But there is another part which while it does not suggest concrete policies, proposals or measures to help meet the pressing problems of the day, nevertheless occupies the greater part of the speech from the throne. These are paragraphs which set forth the extent to which conditions are alleged to be improving in Canada, the extent to which the depression is alleged to be disappearing, and the reasons why we should all rejoice that we have before us a greater Canada than ever has been. Let me ask the hon. members to listen to what the speech from the throne has to say in that regard:
Hon. Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
While the economic situation still weighs heavily upon all classes of the community, there are at last definite signs that the acuteness of the depression is passing. I rejoice that the wisdom of your steadfast policy of retrenchment and constructive development, which has ameliorated the hardships of Canadians and maintained the enviable financial position of this country, is still more fully manifest with approaching prosperity. The strength of our financial structure, the resourcefulness of agriculture. and the integrity of industry have enabled us to take quick and profitable advantage of improved conditions. . . .
The unity, fortitude and capacity of Canadian people, without which all your labours would have been in vain, shall be now the foundation upon which, with cooperation- and faith, we will build a Canada greater than we have yet known.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, w'hether these words, in the light of conditions as people know them, as hundreds of thousands of men and women from coast to coast are suffering under them, these words "depression is passing", "approaching prosperity", "improved conditions," "greater Canada than we have yet known," at a time like this are not like salt in an open wound? I am amazed at my right hon. friend putting expressions of the kind on the lips of the representative of the king at a time such as this. What will be the effect of language of that kind as it is read by the unemployed,

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
and they search the speech in vain for anything that promises a ray of hope in solving the questions with which they are most concerned?
These words, Mr. Speaker, might appear to be of some force and effect had they not appeared in one form or another in every speech from the throne which has been read by His Excellency since the present administration came into office. Listen to what the Prime Minister through His Excellency has been saving at the succeeding sessions of parliament.. In the present speech he says, "conditions are improving, we are approaching prosperity." Let us go back to the opening of the special or first session on September 8th, 1930, just two years and a month ago. I quote from the speech from the throne of that session:
The necessity for dealing with exceptional economic conditions with the resultant unemployment has induced me to summon you at an earlier date than would otherwise be necessary. Measures will be submitted for your consideration, including amendments to tile Customs Act and the customs tariff, which it is anticipated will do much to meet the unusual conditions which now prevail.
I ask you to take note of the language because it sets forth what at the time in the opinion of the Prime Minister -what I believe he honestly believed-was the remedy, but which now we know to have been a main contributing cause of increased unemployment. The government, he says, will 'make amendments to the Customs Act and the customs tariff. I say that those amendments to the Customs Act. and the customs tariff, by the restriction of trade which they have brought about, have done more than anything else to increase unemployment and rural distress in our country.
In the speech of His Excellency, at the end of the first session, at prorogation on September 22nd, just two weeks after the previous statement, there are but two paragraphs. The first reads:
I thank you for the prompt consideration which you have given to the measures submitted to you. and which are deemed necessary for the relief of unemployment in the dominion. It is my fervent hope and confident belief that these measures will prove effective in accomplishing the purposes for which they have been enacted.
That was two years ago. The Prime Minister believed that the increases he had made in the tariff and the powers he had given the governor in council would prove effective and helpful in solving the problem of unemployment. He knows now that they have proved the very opposite, because conditions are worse now than they' were two years ago.
Take the second session, opening on March 12, 1931, five and a half months after

the one to which I have just referred; a year and six and a half months ago. In the speech from the throne it was said:
It will be your privilege to consider certain measures designed by my ministers to ameliorate existing conditions, to provide further means by which our people may go forward to achieve a prosperity hitherto unattained and to furnish them with all possible safeguards against a recurrence of the present subordination to world forces. . . .
My government has explored the origins of our difficulties and is firmly of the belief that many of our problems do not arise out of world wide depression, but are antecedent to it; and that domestic factors have also largely determined the degree of economic distress from which this country is suffering.
Exactly what we have been saying in the recent past. It has not been world forces so much as domestic conditions, aggravated by the measures which my right hon. friend initiated, and the futility of which in large measure he is now obliged to admit. Here is what he said, after having examined the origins and causes of the conditions then obtaining :
It was this belief which impelled my ministers at the emergency session of parliament held in September last to remove one of the root weaknesses in our industrial system by effecting such then possible changes in the tariff as would, in their opinion, provide substantial security against harmful world competition. Although in the interval world conditions have changed but little for the better, this tariff legislation has resulted in a marked improvement in the domestic situation through the strengthening of established industries, and in addition many others, formerly exporters to Canada, have now become producers in Canada.
After reading this, we know how much importance to attach to some of the assertions which under the present administration make their appearance in a speech from the throne; then follows:
The operation of the Unemployment Relief Act, 1930. has proved equally beneficial. While the grant authorized by this act could not immediately have checked unemployment arising from causes of which you have full knowledge, yet its careful administration by my ministers, ably aided by the provincial and municipal governments and the two great railway systems, has resulted in the institution of a nation wide program of public undertakings, each one a unit in a scheme of national development. which have collectively provided work for the greatest number of men who have ever been employed through the direct efforts of the federal government.
Think of that! Praising the institution of a great nation-wide program of public undertakings, each a unit in a scheme of national development-that was the thing that was saving the country that day. And to-day it, too, as a policy, is all thrown to the winds. No more schemes of national

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
development, no more units in a great national plan, but simply the dole-that is all we now have wherewith to meet the unemployment situation.
The policies and measures I have outlined are based upon the firm belief of my government that this country is soon to enter upon a new era of prosperity . . .
Now we come to prorogation, which took place on August 3, 1932, at the close of the second session four and a half months after the delivery of the address in w'hich we were told we were just entering on the new era of prosperity. What was said then?
The development of Canadian industry and agriculture has been further promoted through the measures you have enacted.
Imagine those words being put upcn the lips of the representative of the crown in this country.
These troubled times will pass, for adversity is powerless against the will of Canada to regain the happiness and prosperity which are its birthright.
We come now to the third session, which opened February 4, 1932, six months after the words I have just read were spoken, or about eight months ago. The tone in part is a little different:
World conditions are beyond the control of the Canadian people. 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. This period of trial has shown the Canadian situation to be fundamentally sound . . . The provisions made at the last session of parliament for unemployment and farm relief are proving effective.
Then why are they being abandoned now, if they were so effective in the past?
You are successfully meeting difficult domestic problems. Conditions are gradually improving.
That was only eight months ago.
How we come to prorogation, which took place four months later, or four and a half months ago:
My government's policy of unemployment and farm relief, consistently and vigorously pursued, has already achieved an emelioration of conditions and forecasts steady and continued improvement in both agrarian and industrial communities.
That is the policy that is now thrown to the winds.
Year at hand are the means by which this country, organized and prepared, may hasten its economic recovery. . .	. Canada believes
that the closer economic association of the British Empire will herald the dawn of a new and greater era of prosperity both for ourselves and for all the nations of the earth.
You could not get language much more grandiloquent than that. Unfortunately it does not make us think more highly of w'hat appears in the speech this year with regard to the improvement of conditions which is said to be taking place.
Perhaps the Prime Minister has heard the story of the man whose wife was very poorly, and who called in a physician who had a number of quack remedies which, he said, if applied would be most effective. The doctor administered his herbs and mixtures from day to day, but the old lady got along in a sort of way. Each day her 'husband would ask the doctor about her Condition and how she was getting on, and as regularly he would be told that the condition disclosed "a slight improvement." Finally, the old lady died. A friend who came round to console with the old man inquired as to w'hat was the cause of her death? The man replied, "I don't know, but from what the doctor told me, I think it must have been ' slight improvement.' " With his patent remedy of higher and even higher protection and his repeated declarations of improved conditions the Prime Minister is rapidly bringing this country to a state of paralysis where some day, when it is all too late and the question is asked as to what has happened to bring the country into its deplorable state the verdict I fear will be "slight improvement" brought about by the high tariff remedies of my right hon. friend.
All hon. gentlemen opposite have been making statements of the kind ever since they came into office. They have been speaking in all parts of the country, saying always that prosperity was just ahead, was just around the corner. In what he has put into the lips of His Excellency, the Prime Minister has been no exception. All his ministers have been doing the same thing. Take the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) who is in sudh a contemplative mood at the moment. He took a trip to the west shortly after he 'became a minister of the crown, and what did he say when he came back? Listen to this, in the light of conditions at present. It was said two years ago. Speaking as a minister of the crown, with all the knowledge that a minister of the crown has, my hon. friend is reported in the Toronto Mail and Empire of November 8, 1930, as follows:
A cheering message to the east from the prairies and the Pacific coast was brought to Toronto yesterday by Hon. E. B. Ryckman, Minister of ^National Revenue, returning after a five weeks' tour to inspect customs ports and meet industrial deputations.
In spite of low grain prices, business conditions in the west are improving, the minister

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
declared. He further found the west favourably disposed to the east and to the new government. People are willing to give the Bennett administration a chance, he said, rar from running into free trade sentiment, he had met numerous requests for higher tariffs on different commodities.
"We had no complaints anywhere, either on the prairies or on the coast," the minister emphasized.
Shortly after that the Prime Minister sent New Year's day greetings to the country, the report of which appeared in all the newspapers. I quote from the Ottawa Citizen of January 2, 1931:
Mr. Bennett spoke with optimism of the future and expressed his conviction that the clouds of depression were about to disperse.
That was almost two years ago.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), shortly after sent a message to the Canadian Gazette of London, England, under date of January 15, 1931, as follows:
Already the depression has been going on for some fifteen months and would appear to have fairly well spent its force.
Then on March 18, 1931, the former Minister of Labour, Senator G. D. Robertson, in the Senate chamber spoke as follows:
Conditions have gradually improved. The improvement, it is true, has been slow; . . . The substantial improvement in the situation is due not only to the opportunities created by the cooperative action of governments, federal, provincial and municipal, but also to the tariff adjustments made during the special session last fall.
In an interview at Vancouver, as reported in the Manitoba Free Press of August 17, 1931, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is again reported as follows:
He expressed the opinion that while high wheat prices were not likely within the next few years, it was probable that in eight or ten months there would be a material recovery in prices.
We know what wheat prices have been ever since.
Turning to unemployment, Mr. Stevens remarked that "while undoubtedly the matter is one of considerable seriousness, I am inclined to the view that undue contemplation of the problem has given it a magnitude beyond what it is in reality."
Again, addressing the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in Montreal on October 22, 1931, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is reported in the Ottawa Citizen of October 23, 1931, as follows:
A message of confidence and optimism was brought to a Canadian Manufacturers' Association banquet here to-night by Hon. H. H. Stevens. Minister of Trade and Commerce.

Prosperity, based on more permanent structures than those which had collapsed in the hectic days of 1928 and 1929, awaited the country in the new epoch which opens next year, he declared.
This is the year at which the new epoch was to open.
The minister was given an eager hearing as he pointed to certain facts and figures_ to support his conviction that optimism was justified.
Speaking to the electors of Maisonneuve on June 20, 1932, the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) is reported in the Ottawa Citizen of June 21, 1932, as having said:
I predict with great confidence the return of normal times and conditions in Canada, without long delay.
I notice that the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) is waiting for his quotations, but I am going to keep them for a little later on. I shall conclude with the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), in his Labour day message delivered on September 3 of this year. He said:
It is hoped that we have reached the depth of this depression. There are many indications to-day that we are beginning to emerge from it. Not the least among these indications is the spirit of optimism which the recent Imperial economic conference has stimulated in our country. If we will now all put our shoulders to the wheel, there is abundant reason to justify the conviction that prosperity is not far away.
So month by month, for over the year past, we have these predictions by ministers of the crown, of prosperity not being very far away; being in fact, just around the corner; the people told month in and month out, year in and year out that conditions were improving, that they had improved and that prosperity was already here. But, Mr. Speaker, what are the facts and what are the figures with respect to the improvement of conditions? What have they been right along? The situation might be laughable, if it were not so tragic. Take the trade situation as borne out by the figures of the government's own statistical record. Trade in Canada is the best indication of the extent to which conditions have been improving since the present administration came into office. I shall take first the figures for one month, the month of July of the years 1930, 1931 and 1932, respectively. The imports of Canada in those years have been respectively:	$84,000,000; $48,000,000;	$35,000,000.
Take exports, domestic: $76,000,000; $49,000,000; $42,000,000; foreign: $1,000,000; $995,000; $710,000; or a total for the month of July in those different years of $162,000,000, then a drop to $99,000,000, and a further drop to

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
878,000,000. In other words, the trade of the country has been cut in half during the time hon. gentlemen opposite have been in office.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: These are the facts; yet hon. gentlemen opposite declare that conditions have been improving and that prosperity is just around the corner. I do not wonder that they do not like to hear these
figures, but they are correct nevertheless. I would ask leave to put the full figures on Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is meant by the
full figures?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have quoted round figures; for instance, I have said 884,000.000 without giving the full sum. If I might be permitted, I should like to put the complete figures on the record:

July, 1930 July, 1931	July, 1932
Imports	 $ 84,551,000	$ 48.379.000	$ 35,710,000
Exports
Domestic	
76.407.000	49.645.000	42,321,000Foreign	
1.498,000	995,000	710,000Total trade	
$ 162,456,000	$ 99,019,000	$ 78,741,000
Let us take next the total volume of trade the same years-because these are the latest for the twelve months ending August in each of figures which it has been possible to obtain:

(For 12 months, ending August)
1930	1931	1932Imports	$ 1,114,308,000 $	752,507,000 $	492,798,000
Exports
Domestic	
988,803,000	693.862.000	521.815,000Foreign	
21,998,000	13,513,000	9,667,000

The total trade of Canada has been more than cut in two during the time hon. gentlemen have been in office.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
before the house adjourned I had been enumerating some of the many pledges which the government had given the country at the time it was put into office. I endeavoured also to place on record various statements which have appeared in speeches from the throne illustrating first of all, the government's point of view with respect to the conditions prevailing in the country and secondly, what apparently was in the mind of the government as to the most effective remedy. In connection with the enumeration of the pledges which were made, I might here quote a rather pertinent passage 53719-3
from a speech delivered by a former Conservative prime minister, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, the present government leader in the Senate. Speaking in the budget debate on June 6, 1922, as reported in Hansard of that year at page 2534, Mr* Meighen said:
If we are to follow the practice in this dominion of making concrete pledges to the country, of going to the people and saying, this is what we will do if returned to power, and then coming into office and callously repudiating those pledges, where is responsible government ?
That paragraph embraces in a few words what I should like to bring home to the present administration. Surely there must be some sense of obligation resting upon a ministry when it makes pledges of the character made by hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to unemployment. The administration should have some policy, and I appeal again to them to endeavour to substitute some constructive program of work, as they said originally they would do, for the present



The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
policy, if it can be called such, of providing a dole instead of work in order to meet the situation during the coming winter.
With regard to the conditions which have resulted from the policies put into force by hon. gentlemen opposite, I quoted figures on trade. I had intended to give further statistics with regard to car loadings and other indices to show the trend of business, but I think that all of these are so well known and so apparent as to render unnecessary exact quotations in order to confirm the statement that business instead of getting better has been growing steadily worse ever since hon. gentlemen opposite began to apply the remedy of higher tariffs, which remedy they believed to be the effective one to meet the prevailing situation.
I should like to give some figures with respect to unemployment. I do not intend to quote a large number of statistics but only sufficient to illustrate what has taken place since my right hon. friend began to apply his remedy of an increased customs tariff. Let me give his own estimate of the number of unemployed, made at the time he took office. When introducing the resolution with respect to unemployment relief on September 10, 1030, my right hon. friend is reported on page 64 of Hansard as saying:
I am giving the figures as they were submitted to the gathering-
That, is the employment service council-
-which met in this city on August 21. It will be observed that the present number 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 this 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. There are those who estimate the number higher than that.
And again:
They place the figure at approximately
200,000.
And then again:
The figure of 200.000 would seem to me to be almost incredible in this country at this time.
The Prime Minister's belief was that it would be incredible that there would be 200,000 unemployed in this country shortly after the tune his administration took office. Since then various estimates have been given of the number of unemployed. They range from .500,000 to 700,000; I think one of the professors at the University of Toronto made the statement that the number would reach 726,-
000.	That statement has been questioned, and 1 do not wish to put on record any figures to
[Mr M.irtieuzifl King.]
which exception can be taken. I think I am wholly within the mark when I say that at the present time there are over 500,000 unemployed in this country. I believe that both the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and the Department of Labour would put the estimate at considerably above that figure. It is rather singular that the government apparently has no information upon this subject. I endeavoured to secure from the Department of Labour the total number of unemployed, but I could get nothing of a definite character. I am right I think in stating that from year to year the speeches from the throne have -been asserting that conditions in Canada were improving, but we are faced nevertheless with the fact that the number of unemployed has increased from 200,000 since this government came into office to over half a million at the present time.
While the government has no figures with regard to unemployment, the bureau of statistics keeps a record of the numbers employed in certain industries which report to the government. Many industries employing fifteen or more persons report to the government month by month and these figures appear in bulletins published by the department. By comparing the different bulletins it is easy to discover the relative increase of decrease in employment. These bulletins are most illuminating and perhaps better than anything else indicate how the government's policy has affected the employment of persons in those industries which were actually in operation when hon. gentlemen opposite took office. While these bulletins do not give the number of unemployed they do give the number of employed within certain registrations. As these bulletins do not deal with industries employing under fifteen persons, the type of industry which would be the first to go to the wall, it is quite safe to assume that the figures given therein would be minimum figures. The records indicate a steady decline in the number employed by the firms reporting to the bureau and I intend to give the number reporting on September 1, 1930, on September 1, 1931, and on September 1, 1932, as well as the combined working forces for each of those years. On September 1, 1930, there were 7,334 firms which supplied data to the government. They indicated as having in their employ a combined working force of 1,023,033 persons. On September 1, 1931, there were 7,798 firms supplying data. That is an increase in the number of firms, but the combined working force had fallen to 972,537. On September 1, 1932, the number of firms supplying data was 8,007, a still larger number, but

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
the combined working force had dropped, not to 972,537 as in the year before or 1,023.033 in the year before that, but to 789,321. Whatever the number of unemployed in Canada to-day may be, these records alone reveal a decrease of 234,000 between the date of the special session called for the purpose of remedying unemployment-really for the purpose of increasing tariffs-and the present time. These figures are perhaps as illuminating as any possibly could be because their source is those industries which were expected to reflect favourably this government's tariff policies. The fact is that they indicate how disastrous these policies have been. May I here insert the statement in tabular form:
No. of firms Combined Supplying	Working
Data	Force
September 1,	1930..	7,334	1,023,033September 1,	1931..	7,798	972,537September 1,	1932..	8,007	789,321
I should like to refer to the question of unemployment in the light of the index numbers as made up by the bureau of statistics covering all industries in the country. As of August 1. 1930. the index number was 118-8; on August 1, 1931, it was 105-2; on August 1, 1932, it had fallen to 86-3 and on September 1, 1932, it had fallen to 86-in other words, a drop from 118-8 on August 1, 1930, to 86 on September 1, 1932.
The following are the figures in tabular form:
Tndex Number of Employment
(1926 = 100)
	All	Canada
Aug.	1.	1930	Aug.	1.	1931	Aug.	1.	1932	Sept.	1,	1932	
All Industries 118-8 (Liberal) 105-2 86-3 86-
That indicates the nature of employment in all the industries of Canada during the time hon. gentlemen opposite have been applying their remedies for unemployment in the .way of increases in the tariff. I am stressing the point of tlhe tariff having had this effect for the simple reason that the Prime Minister, in what he has put into the lips of His Excellency the Governor General, has clearly said that the policy of the government was to cure the evil of unemployment by raising tariffs. That is the note that runs through the various speeches I read this afternoon, continued with the statement that conditions were improving.
May I say that it has not been only since hon. gentlemen apposite have put their policies into force that we have seen the inevitability of the errors which they were 53719-3 i
bound to make and have been making. During the time the Liberal administration was in office and my right hon. friend was emphasizing the necessity of increasing tariffs, at a time that our government was bringing in a budget which we believed would be helpful in relation to the Imperial conference that was to take place in England in 1930, my right hon. friend was most emphatic that we should increase tariffs instead of lowering tariffs in order to increase the British preference and to divert trade to Great Britain from countries that were not trading with us as much as we thought they should. I endeavoured then to point out what I believed would be the consequence of their policies if put into force. May I read from a report in Hansard of April 3, 1930, at page 1242, what I said at the time. It will be agreed I think that it would have been difficult to forecast a situation more accurately than as stated in this particular paragraph.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says "hear, hear." I am glad he draws attention to it, because the accuracy of the statement will become doubly apparent in view of his kindly remark. This is what I said on that occasion:
Hon. gentlemen opposite are fond of talking about the home market; it is not the home market they are thinking about so much as a monopoly of the home market for the benefit of a few of their privileged friends. Does my hon. friend know we will be able to have a home market in this country only as we have purchasing power, and that we will get purchasing power only as we are able to sell our products in the markets of the world? The wider your foreign trade, the better will be your home trade. I tell my hon. friend that by his policy and the policy of his friends no ships will be going out of Vancouver or Halifax harbours. When we get what my hon. friend spoke about a moment ago. a tariff wall around this country which will keep everything from coming in and as a consequence prevent everything from going out, you will soon have again the condition of stagnation and unemployment which we have witnessed in previous times.
In that statement there is only one error which I can see at the moment and it is this: I refer to a condition of unemployment and stagnation of trade such as we had in previous times. I had reference, of course, to the close of the old Conservative administration prior to the time Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into office, and the end of the Conservative administration prior to the time the late Liberal administration took office. What I should have said was that we would have a condition of unemployment and stagnation worse than
36	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
anything we -have had in Canada at any previous time. That is the situation as it has been brought about.
It is difficult to estimate what the real effect of these mistaken policies has been, but a day or two ago there appeared in one of Canada's leading journals an estimate which I think will be recognized as important enough to bring to the attention of the house at this time. It is a carefully prepared estimate by one of the leading journals in the Dominion of Canada, and the paper in question is apparently prepared to stake its reputation . as a journal of exceptionally high standard upon the editorial which it has published m this connection. I am quoting from an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on September 21, 1932, just a few days ago. It is entitled "$2,500,000,000 Penalty," and the paragraph which I wish to bring to the attention of the house is the following:
It is estimated that this policy of trade restriction and its counterpart-the attempted maintenance of the gold standard-together with the world depression, will by the end of 1932, have cost the country in loss of purchasing power through reduction in the income of wage earners, farmers, merchants, business men, professional men. etc., not less than $3,250,000,000. To this should be addel the reduced earnings of corporations, so that the total loss-or cost-to Canada cannot be short of $5,000,000,000. But to be quite fair to the government let us assume that half of this loss would have come to us by depressed world conditions even if the King government had remained in power. Still its mistaken policy would seem to have cost Canadians approximately $2,500,000,000 in two years an amount equal to the present national debt-a sizable monument to its error in judgment.
This is the considered opinion of the Citizen. Business men can estimate what $2,500,000,000 of purchasing power distributed throughout Canada would have meant towards business revival and lower taxation!
That quotation, I think, ought to cause hon. gentlemen opposite to reflect very seriously upon the consequences of their policies in accounting for conditions as they are at the present moment. I want to make the direct statement that I -believe the policies of the government with respect to the tariff are accountable in a most direct and positive way for conditions in Canada being as serious as they have been during the last couple of years. I want to say further that unless those high tariff policies are changed and changed very speedily, the country's condition will become even worse than it is at the present time. It is, I believe, impossible to exaggerate what the adverse effects of restriction of trade has been upon the commercial and industrial life of our country, brought about as these effects have been by the mistaken policies of hon. gentlemen opposite.

This afternoon I sought to give in the government's own words a picture of itself as it saw itself, as it depicted itself in the various statements that appeared in the speech from the throne. Let me now give to the government a picture of itself as others see it-the government as the country sees it and views its policies. I do not believe it would be possible to give that in a more graphic way than to remind hon. gentlemen opposite of what took place in South Huron just a week ago today. I speak with considerable emphasis of what took place in South Huron because that election is of very special significance. Hon. gentlemen opposite themselves selected the time for bringing on the by-elect'on in South Huron. They sought to make the issue in South Huron the agreements come to at the recent Imperial economic conference. No less than five ministers of the crown went into the riding and spoke from various platforms; some of them spent several days in- the riding and stressed over and over again the point that, the verdict given by South Huron would be viewed not only in Canada but in Great Britain and in all parts of the British Empire as Canada's verdict upon what had taken place at the recent economic conference. They knew very well when making their appeal to the electorate that they were playing upon the high expectation and earnest hopes of the people in that constituency that out of this Imperial economic conference would come some good. They felt that by making that the theme of the by-election campaign they were playing their strongest card; it was an appeal to the patriotism of the people. All this came immediately on top of all the publicity the country had to endure during the proceedings of the conference held in this city. In view of that fact I say too much significance cannot be attached to the result in South Huron.
The Liberal party did not seek to follow' hon. gentlemen opposite in making the Imperial economic conference a subject of political controversy at the polls. In regard to the conference we adopted the attitude we have followed from the beginning, namely to give hon. gentlemen opposite the freest hand, to interfere in no way whatever,-not even to comment when we believed they were taking the wrong course. We have allowed them a perfectly free hand so that in no way could they say they had been obstructed in their efforts to improve trade within the empire. We did take the position very strongly in South Huron w'hich wre take here today, namely that the economic conference should not be made to serve as a screen to hide the government's shortcomings or the

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
results of its mistaken policies. We made our appeal to the people on the record of the administration and the effect of its policies. As I have stated elsewhere, hon. gentlemen may decide for themselves what at the time of recording their votes, was uppermost in the minds of the electorate of South Huron.
If they wish to say the verdict of the constituency was against what has been accomplished at the Imperial economic conference, well and good; let them say it. Certainly (he result of the by-election expresses pretty plainly what rural communities think as to what the government has achieved. It is a verdict which expresses in no uncertain terms the country's attitude towards this government's policies, and iks failure to carry out the pledges it made before it came into office.
I notice the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) is still waiting expectantly. Let me quote what the hon. member said to the electorate of South Huron. On the day following his address in Exeter of September 15 the minister is quoted in the London Free Press as follows:
Eyes of the nation and the empire today are trained expectantly on South Huron, where the people have the opportunity of being the first in the commonwealth to pronounce their judgment on agreements of w'orld importance signed at the recent Imperial economic conference.
One passage in (hat extract is characteristic of my hon. friend's utterances on political platforms. There is not too great a regard for accuracy. He stated that the South Huron by-election was to be the first opportunity of expression in the commonwealth. The fact is that there had been two by-elections in Great Britain,-and I think Great Britain is still part of (he commonwealth. The minister continued:
This by-election is a plebiscite in which you can say whether you approve of what has been done by Great Britain, by Australia, by New Zealand and by Canada. . . . For this election, at least, it is your duty to forget political affiliations and to vote your approval of the empire and the empire agreements.
Certainly the empire was being made to play its part in that campaign, for aU it was
worth.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) spent a good deal of time addressing meetings during that campaign. An editorial contained in the Advertiser of October 4, contains a quotation which seems correctly to summarize his utterances:
This was the first election contest that had been held since the close of that conference, and the defeat of the government candidate would be construed in Great Britain as Canadian
repudiation of the trade pacts. It would be so construed, also, in the Canadian parliament, when it met shortly to deal with the details of measures, and to say whether or not ratification should be forthcoming.
If that is the view taken by the government I do not wonder the Prime Minister Is anxious to have the treaties approved before we see them or know what is in them.
Let us analyse the vote in the South Huron by-election. The results are interesting, apart altogether from the increase in the majority of the Liberal party. The late Mr. McMillan, who was one of the most popular of candidates and previously represented South Huron, had a majority of only 349 in the general election of 1930. That majority in the recent by-election increased to 1,989-nearly 2,000. In other words there was an increase of from between five and six times the majority at the previous election. That was the result, despite the fact that Conservative administrations were in office both in the Dominion and in the province. Let us consider the figures in regard to Conservative votes polled, and we will learn how the Conservatives acted towards their own administration. In the general election of 1930 there were 5,827 Conservative votes polled in South Huron. In the by-election held a week ago there were only 5,057, or a decrease of 770 votes.
What about the Liberal vote? In the election of 1930 there were 6,176 Liberal votes polled, and in the by-election on October 3 there were 7,046 showing an increase of 870 votes. In other words the figures indicate both Conservative losses and Liberal gains. This may be interpreted as a verdict in the constituency against this government's policies, and an equally strong verdict in favour of the Liberal policies and principles as enunciated during that campaign. I say it was a verdict for Liberal principles as enunciated, because our party made perfectly clear where it stood on those questions which were uppermost in the minds of the constituents, particularly with regard to tariffs.
After a representative riding in the province of Ontario has spoken in that manner, I should like to know from the administration whether they have now decided to change their policy of high tariffs. I should like to have seen something in the speech from the throne which would indicate whether or not the government opposite have come to the conclusion that they have made a mistake in their high tariff policy. I hope the Prime Minister will tell us, when he discusses the trade pacts and agreements made with Great Britain, that he has made a mistake, and that he is now following along the line advocated

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
by the Liberal party, and reducing, rather than increasing tariffs. That is one of the matters in which we will be very much interested when we come to study the agreements made with Great Britain. It will be interesting to note whether the government despite all the warnings it has received intends to adopt the same mistaken policies my right hon. friend has had in mind right along and has been putting into force ever since he assumed office.
Hon. gentlemen opposite may well feel that they have had a very good lesson in South Huron and that they should take it to heart. Perhaps my right hon. friend will recall that during the time of the South African war when the British forces were meeting with serious reverses and the public were becoming impatient, Mr. Rudyard Kipling felt he might do some good if he came out boldly and told the government of the country what people were thinking in regard to the way events were turning. He published a poem called The Lesson, and I should like to give one verse to my right hon. friend and to his colleagues. I think it may be helpful to them; they should take it very much to heart. I am not so sure that it could not be applied also to the country generally, after having taken my right hon. friend at his word in the last general election and accepted all his pledges. Here is what Kipling said:
Let us admit it fairly, as a business people should,
We have had no end of a lesson: it will do us no end of good.
Not on a single issue, or in one direction or twain,
But conclusively, comprehensively, and several times and again,
Were all our most holy illusions knocked higher than Gilderoy's kite.
We have had a jolly good lesson, and it serves us jolly well right!
My right hon. friend and his colleagues should, I think, thank me for drawing their attention to the significance of South Huron in this way.


Mr. MANION:: Why not apply it to Atha-baska and Three Rivers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The reason I
do not apply it to Athabaska is that in Atha-baska the Conservative candidate was returned by less than one third of the votes.
Having regard to the failure of the government's policies, particularly having regard to what appears in the speech from the throne, and even more to what does not appear there,
I feel that some expression should be given at this time to the general disappointment that will be experienced throughout Canada

that there has been no clear indication in the speech from the throne of a change of heart on the part of the government, and particularly that there is nothing which can lend the slightest ray of hope or encouragement to the unemployed, and also that the government has sought to postpone consideration of the important question of banking, currency and credit, which is being so much discussed in all parts of Canada today. I am therefore going to move this amendment which I think comes in appropriately at this stage, though I may wish to say a word about the conference afterwards.
1 would move, seconded by Hon. Mr. Motherwell, that the following be added to the address to His Excellency:
Whilst reserving any expression of view upon the merits of the agreements concluded at the recent Imperial conference, this house is of the opinion that the tariff policies of the present administration have seriously injured the trade of Canada and have intensified the economic depression, and that the government has wholly failed to afford a remedy for unemployment and agricultural distress as pledged by the Prime Minister.
The house regrets that, except the dole, the government has no policy with respect to the relief of unemployment.
It also deplores the government's obvious endeavour, by postponing the revision of the Bank Act. to avoid consideration by parliament of the all important subjects of banking, credit and currency.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before you put the amendment I wish to say just a few words before I conclude in regard to the recent Imperial economic conference and the agreements as they may be when brought to our attention. I have taken care, in the amendment which I have moved at this stage, to indicate that the amendment has reference to the government's policies, apart altogether from what may have taken place at the economic conference. In that I am adopting the attitude which the Liberal party has adopted from the outset towards the conference and the government's endeavour to deal with intra-imperial questions. Obviously it is not possible to say very much at this stage about the agreements, because, as I have already pointed out, while the government knows what is in them, hon. members of the House of Commons generally do not know. We have not the agreements before us, and until we have them in their entirety, we cannot say what their real meaning and significance may be. But they have been published in part, and it is possible to make some reference to certain features of them.
Let me say first that I think the conference when we come to discuss it in detail, will be

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
viewed more particularly with reference to its aims, to the method of negotiation followed and finally as to its results. As far as the aims of the conference are concerned, if we take what appeared to be generally stated by those present in Canada on the opening day, it would be conceded, I think, that the aim was that of increasing trade within the British Empire, doing so rather by the lowering of tariffs than by the increasing of tariffs: and in the second place of giving to the world through the British Empire an example of how the world in these times should proceed in international relations so far as trade restrictions are concerned. In other words there appeared to be general agreement in the need for the reduction of tariffs; whatever may have been behind this in the minds of individuals I cannot venture to say. So far however as there was public expression of the aims of the conference they were all along the line of reducing tariffs within the British empire, making possible the increase of trade not by the raising of tariffs but by the lowering of tariffs, the Liberal point of view as it has been presented from this side consistently from the beginning. And there was the still larger belief expressed that if world conditions were to be improved it was absolutely essential that nations should find some way of coming to a general agreement which would enable them to lower their tariffs and thus permit increase of trade among themselves. If these aims have been carried out as evidenced by the agreements, when they are presented to this parliament, the agreements will meet with the wholehearted approval of the opposition. 1 think there will be no disagreement at all as far as we are concerned with lion, gentlemen opposite if that is the net result of the agreements, provided always that in no particular has our fiscal autonomy been interfered with, or parliament been denied its plenary powers in regard to all matters of fiscal and other policy. So that so far as the desire to see the conference a success is concerned, we on this side are hoping that when the agreements are presented they will make perfectly clear that this twofold aim, in part intra-imperial and in part international, has been carried out.
As to the method of negotiation, I think I should say quite frankly that I believe it was most unfortunate. The method of negotiation adopted by hon. gentlemen opposite was that of bargaining. I believe that the bargaining method as a matter of intra-imperial policy is all vyrong, and I believe that what took place at the conference in Ottawa has demonstrated that to the minds of those
who participated. I do not believe we Shall ever see again within the British Empire another venture of that kind made, because I think that relations. came about as near to the breaking point as it is possible for strained relations to come between different parts of a great empire. There is something of difference between the method of approach and the kind of action that should govern in dealings between the different nations of the British commonwealth and what should govern between the British Empire, or parts of the British Empire, and foreign nations. In relation to Canada, the other parts of the British Empire, the other self-governing dominions and Great Britain, are not foreign countries. We are all members of one great family, united by ties of kinship and race and sentiment and institutions and traditions and common	allegiance to one crown.
I believe that in negotiations between members of the great family cf British nations some method other than bargaining should be adopted to reach whatever may be the desired goal. There are other methods; the conference method is the right procedure to follow, whereby members representing all parts of the empire meet together in conference to freely discuss with each other the various points they have in common and the difficulties with which they may have to contend. There have been other Imperial conferences; there have been other Imperial economic conferences, but at no other conference so far as I am aware was there any such departure as that represented by the bargaining process until my right hon. friend introduced it at the conference of 1930. In that year my right hon. friend went to London and said that the only basis on which he would negotiate with the other members cf the empire was a bargaining basis, and he stated further that the bargaining basis should be a Canada first protectionist basis, that it was on those lines alone that he would bargain.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen opposite say, "hear, hear." I know they can have no difference of view on that. I contend, however, that the conference of 1930 was a gigantic failure and tragedy, as everyone knows, and it was a failure because my right hon. friend adopted the attitude and laid down the policies he did at that time. If the conference held in Ottawa this summer was not an equal failure it was simply because of a retreat from his previous position on the part of the Prime Minister of Canada and because all parties to the conference had

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
come to the conclusion in the end that in the eyes of the world the risk would be too great to allow it to fail even though the cost of agreement might be considerable.
There is another point, Mr. Speaker, which suggests itself in this connection. If good has come from the conference of 1932 and if great results have been achieved, why were not similar results achieved in 1930? Why for two years past have we not enjoyed the benefits that we are told will be derived from what has been achieved here this year? I think I have answered that question alreadjq and I do not wonder that hon. gentlemen opposite grow restive at any mention of it. It was simply because of the policy pursued by Canada's Prime Minister in 1930. To all intents and purposes the line taken then was, that, unless the British government would undertake to change its fiscal policy there would be no agreements made with it, that only by increases of tariff and not decreases could any series of preference be worked out.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen opposite say, "hear, hear." What does that mean? It means that as far as Canada was concerned this country said to Great Britain that she would have to change her fiscal policy-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and hon. gentlemen opposite say, "hear, hear," so there is no doubt that they are in agreement on that point of view. I notice that some of the supporters of my right hon. friend, no doubt among them some of those who are saying "hear, hear," claim that when my right hon. friend assumed the attitude he did, he did so deliberately, with a view to making Great Britain change her fiscal policy. Do hon. gentlemen opposite say "hear, hear," now?


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Certainly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then in what position are we? Hon. gentlemen opposite say that the basis on which we are to make arrangements within the empire in regard to matters of trade is by one part of the empire interfering with the domestic affairs of another part. I say, Mr. Speaker, that if this is to be the basis of negotiation between different parts of the British Empire, we will disrupt the British Empire in a very short time. I say that we cannot expect Canada to take an attitude towards Great Britain which we are not prepared to have taken towards us by Great Britain or any other part of the British Empire.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen opposite say "hear, hear." How long will we in Canada tolerate any other part of the British Empire interfering in our domestic affairs? If that is the basis on which hon. gentlemen are going to negotiate hereafter, I say the sooner they get out of office the better it will be for Canada and for the empire. If there is one essential ground for the maintenance of relations between all parts of the empire on a friendly basis it is the recognition of the complete autonomy of each self-governing part and the right of each member nation to have that autonomy respected with regard to all policies. If Canada can interfere in Great Britain's domestic policies and cause her fiscal policy to be changed then Great Britain can do the same thing with respect to our domestic policies, and if it can be done with respect to the fiscal policy it can be done with respect to other matters as well. It can be done with regard to defence; it can be done with regard to immigration, and it can be done in connection with matters of a constitutional character or any other question that may arise. That is the great fundamental difficulty at the root of all this bargaining business; sooner or later it involves one part of the empire interfering in the domestic affairs of another part. I think already we have had enough expressions of views from the old country to show that what has taken place is creating dissension within the old country itself, and that it will create needless and endless dissension between different parts of the empire as well.
Let me point out one thing more. I gather from the attitude of some hon. gentlemen opposite, and from w'hat I have seen of their utterances, that they claim that a great victory has been achieved by Canada through the amount of pressure and force that was exerted upon the British government by Canada's Prime Minister in putting forward Canada's demands in connection with the agreement which has been made. In other words, I understand their contention to be that these agreements were arrived at not by any free will on the part of the British ministers who were present but rather under duress which amounted to a threat to break up the conference itself unless agreements could be reached along a certain line. I am not saying that anything of the kind has taken place; I am taking the utterances of hon. gentlemen opposite, but if anything of the sort has happened I venture to say that it is most regrettable and was wholly unnecessary.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
As I have already said, there have been other conferences. At every conference the method adopted has been for all parts of the empire to discuss very freely what arrangements were likely to be most in the interests of all concerned. After having discussed matters as fully as they could be discussed, and after having as nearly as possible reached a tentative agreement as to what should be done the members of the different governments have returned to their own parliaments, and each ministry has brought into its parliament such measures as it felt would command the support of that body. So far as I am aware, in dealing in inter-imperial relations the argument heretofore never has been used that something can be done in one part only by all parts of the empire doing it. In other words, that we are no longer free to settle in our own parliament what our fiscal policy is to be because that has been settled for us by a, meeting of the executives of different parts of the empire, and that without consultation with their several parliaments in advance. If anything of the kind obtains, that perhaps is the most serious feature of these agreements as they may be viewed objectively.
I do not know that I could better illustrate what I have in mind at the moment than by reading the first line of an item which I saw in an Ottawa paper a day or two ago, with regard to the agreements to be laid on the table of the house during the present week. Here are the words:
The British Empire's new fiscal system, established at the Imperial conference, will go into operation next week.
I ask hon. members to note that statement; I think it expresses as a statement of fact what many of them have in mind.
In other words, that we are to have from now on, that we have it now in concrete form in these agreements, in their relation one to the other, an imperial policy which has been decided, not by the parliaments of the empire but by those who happened to be members of the executives of the different governments which met together here and arrived at agreements which are now ironclad. May I ask hon. members this question. None of us other than the ministers has seen the agreements. Will this House of Commons have the right to alter one line of those agreements? Will this house have any opportunity of lowering or raising any duties as fixed in those agreements? Will the British government have that right? On the contrary, will not all legislative bodies be told, " These agreements were arrived at in the conference
a-t Ottawa and they are to be put through without any change whatever''. What then becomes of the freedom of parliament? What is the significance of parliament in that event? Why have a parliament at all, if executives of different parts of the empire can meet together and lay down a new imperial policy and compel its adoption by the imputation of a want of patriotism or a desire to bring about the dismemberment of the empire, as against those who are not prepared to support such measures?
In this House of Commons we have all along taken strong exception to the executive taking into its own hands the right to say what the tariff shall be and after parliament has enacted a measure, defeating by order in council, through executive action, the ends which parliament had in view. That procedure, I say, is all wrong. We have taken exception, and rightly so, as every other British parliament will take exception to such executive action on the part of any government in the empire. I contend-hon. gentlemen may endeavour to argue the point away -that what we have at the present time is action not by the executive of this parliament alone but by the executives of the various parliaments of the empire working together -action under the guise of separate agreements but which is nevertheless establishing what this paper announces as a new British Empire fiscal system. Now, if such is the case, that is a very serious thing, and I hope the Prime Minister will let us know whether or not this is the case. I remember very well that when my colleague the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and I returned from one imperial conference in England, no one was stronger than the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) in the assertion that neither of us, nor any representatives of a government in the empire, would have the right to go to the imperial conference and there decide a question of imperial policy.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Yes, because you would not submit it to parliament for ratification.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all; that was not the point which my hon. friend was making at the time. He was perfectly right in his contention that no ministers of the crown from Canada had any right, in London, to determine as imperial policy what tvas to be the policy of this country.


Hugh Guthrie: Subject to the right of parliament to accept or reject.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says, subject to the right of rejection. How much right has this House of Commons-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King


Hugh Guthrie: How much right had it when the French treaty was brought back by Mr. Fielding?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have already pointed out to my hon. friend that there is a great difference between agreements that may be reached between this country and a foreign country, and agreements made at an imperial conference between different parts of the British Empire. There may be an agreement between one part of the empire and a foreign country on the understanding that it will be submitted to parliament with a possibility of rejection. If submitted and not ratified, well and good; that is understood as a possibility and therefore rejection is of no political significance. It ma5r be of significance from a purely commercial point of view. But so far as-


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Was this parliament able to change anything in the Australian treaty?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So far as these agreements are concerned, although we do not even know the terms of them, I say, regardless of what they may involve, it cannot be said that if this parliament refuses to approve them, the refusal will not be construed as an act of disloyalty to the empire and an act threatening disruption within the empire itself. This, I say, is an entirely different thing and a very serious thing. Refusal would have a political as well as a commercial significance.


Mr. STEVENS:: Will the right hon. gentleman permit one question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Was the drafting and
signing and the ratification of the Australian treaty in 1925 any different from what is being done now?


Mr. VALLANCE:: In that case there was a six months' cancellation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was different.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not a particle.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not a particle, says my hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In principle, not in detail.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I might as well take up at once the point raised by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. To my mind, there is a vast difference between an agreement which is subject to cancellation at the end of six months and an agreement which is to remain in force for five years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not the point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask this question. We have not seen the agreements, but one feature of them we know is that they are to be binding upon the different parts of the empire affected for a period of five years. If they involve increases in the tariff then those increases are to be binding for the next five years. If they stipulate that, so far as the tariff is concerned, it shall remain where at present it stands with respect to certain commodities, then it will so remain for five years. It so provides on the part of Canada as well as on the part of Great Britain- If that is the fact, I say that it is circumscribing the fiscal freedom and independent action of this parliament; it is putting a chain and ball around parliament in its freedom in negotiating treaties with other countries wherever these particular obligations may come to be factors in such negotiations; and to that extent it would be violating the fundamental principles of freedom in the determination of this country's fiscal policy.
But worse than mere restriction upon negotiation is the effect which agreements of the kind may have in binding subsequent parliaments. I think I am able to cite, with respect to the impropriety of the binding of one parliament by another, an authority who should not be questioned, at least by hon. gentlemen opposite. I should like to quote to the hortse what the present Prime Minister said only a year or two ago, when standing where I am now, with respect to one parliament seeking to bind another. It was in the matter of a very small outlay of money to meet a purely local improvement in the city of Ottawa-not a great question iof fiscal policy, not something which bound all parties in their fiscal rights for a period of years, but merely a question of a sum of money to be voted to the improvement commission in the city of Ottawa for a term of years. What did the right hon. gentleman say on that occasion? Speaking in the House of Commons on April 24, 1928, at page 2352 of Hansard, he said:
T suggest to the government the desirability of substituting the word "five" for the word "thirty." Five years is the life of a parliament, and I cannot think it quite consonant with the ideas of the right hon. gentleman as heretofore expressed that this parliament should bind the hands of future parliaments. I am quite aware of the fact that it would be quite competent for succeeding parliaments to change that figure to forty or to ten; they would have that power, but a vested interest is acquired when a statute of this kind is passed by parliament: the commission naturally expects that that is the end of it.
My right hon. friend there speaks of a vested interest. Is any vested interest

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
established under tariffs which are made binding for a period of five years? Is not a subsequent parliament bound by what is being done now with respect to all the changes that may be made in the tariff structure of this country either here by this parliament or in Britain by the British parliament? On April 26, 1928, my right hon. friend said, as reported at page 2399 of Hansard:
This particular bill is, I think, the one in which we endeavoured to apply, as something that should be observed generally in matters of this kind, the principle to which reference has been made. Personally I have held a very strong view for some considerable time as to the undesirability of any legislature or parliament tying the hands of succeeding legislatures or parliaments with respect to annual expenditures. That idea may or may not be sound, but I do not think that when matters of policy are affected-and matters of policy always are affected in relation to grants of public moneys -this parliament should tie the hands of two or three succeeding parliaments. Not denying that parliament has always the right to repeal legislation. I submit that it is undesirable to create vested rights with respect to legislation;
Nothing could be more emphatic than that. The Prime Minister made it very clear that it is fundamentally wrong for one parliament to attempt to bind subsequent parliaments, but yet we are going to be bound. That will be the effect of these agreements; although we have not seen them, we are bound already by them. How then can we say that this parliament has had reserved to it its full fiscal autonomy and its full independence in dealing with fiscal matters?
When the agreements are brought down I shall have something more to say, but may I indicate now that we on this side will view them from the point of view of their effect upon domestic conditions in Canada; we will view them from the point of view of interimperial relations and organization and from the point of view of international relations and organization. As I have said, if they will make for more in the way of trade without circumscribing our freedom, they will have our wholehearted support.
When it comes to inter-imperial relations, utterances of the Prime Minister already made would seem to indicate that under this arrangement we are not so much freeing trade within the empire as making increasingly difficult trade between different parts of the empire and the world. I want to make it quite plain immediately that what Canada wants and needs is world markets and that any agreements which will foster trade within the empire at the expense of freedom of trade with other countries will not be acceptable to the country or as we would wish to have
them. My right hon. friend is reported in the Calgary Herald of September 6, 1932, as follows:
He did not believe that the results of the Imperial conference had yet been fully realized or would be for some time. One thing was certain, however, that nations outside of the empire would be asked to pay some tribute for the privilege of trading within the empire.
If as a result of the agreements which have been reached all other countries have to pay some tribute before they will be permitted to trade with any part of the empire, then I say a very serious situation is being created. In other words, if the purpose of these agreements is to create something in the nature of an economic unit, as we have heard it described over and over again, there can be only one result, and that is that economic units of vast proportions will grow up in other parts of the world, and it will become increasingly difficult for Canada to find outside of the British Empire itself any markets for her surplus products, products too large and too great in extent to find sufficient markets within the empire.
I might mention other things, as for example the price-shall I use that term?-which under these agreements Great Britain may have to pay for the right to send some of her commodities to this country. Are we to understand that the tariff has been lowered in some respects only on the condition that the tariff will be raised in Great Britain? That is something which we will have to examine with a good deal of care. If that is the case it means that the government of Canada has virtually compelled the British government to tax the food of the British people. Is that the price of the arrangement whereby the duties are to be lowered in this country to whatever extent they may be lowered? Since when has it become part of the policy of Canada to compel another part of the British Empire to tax its food? I have always understood that the last thing the farmers of this country desired was to compel a tax to be placed upon the food of the peoples in any other part of the world. They do not wish to see the taxes on food put up in other parts of the world any more than they wish to see taxes put up in Canada on the things they need to buy; what they want to see, speaking broadly, is taxation taken off food and everything else. Speaking generally that is their point of view-it is in the direction of freeing the world from the restrictions of trade rather than of increasing those restrictions. We will want to know whether there has been a price which makes it more difficult

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
for people to live elsewhere at which greater freedom of trade between Great Britain and Canada has been obtained.
This country will I believe come to view with a good deal of concern the world effects of this conference. I shall in this connection give but one quotation the importance of which I think my right hon. friend will appreciate, as it comes from one whom he cited as a very high authority when speaking on world problems in April of last year. At that time he referred to Sir Arthur Salter, a director of the economic financial section of the League of Nations and general secretary of the reparations commission, as being one of the foremost authorities on trade matters. What has Sir Arthur Salter to say about this world aspect of the effect of the conference? In an article published on October 2, he states:
Future development of world organization lies between greater freedom of trade and intercourse between nations and larger economic units, not more in the way of isolation.
The former will help to remedy currency and prices situation in a normal way; the.latter would aggravate that situation and bring certain nations to bankruptcy; the former would lead to peace and progress, the latter almost certainly to civil and international strife.
The world is the only real economic unit.
I think that quotation expresses in a paragraph what is of greater significance in the agreements which this parliament is to be called upon to approve. If as a result of these agreements there is going to be greater freedom of trade not only as between the different parts of the empire but as between the empire and other parts of the world, then we will be heading in the direction of peace and good will and the future progress of mankind. If, on the other hand, these agreements have the effect of developing trade in some ways within the empire but still keeping tariffs where they are, of taking away with one hand what is given with the other, of causing tariffs to be raised in one place Where they are lowered in another, of failing to make possible greater freedom of trade between the nations of the world, then their effect will be detrimental and harmful, they will be leading in the wrong direction, the direction, as Sir Arthur Salter says of civil and international strife. With responsibilities so vast in arriving at a wise decision we are entitled surely to have the necessary time for consideration of these agreements before being asked to pronounce our views upon them in this House of Commons: and certainly this parliament is entitled to view them with open eys and not with eyes which have been blindfolded by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I t'hamk the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the felicitous terms in which he referred to the birthday of my colleague and friend, the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black). Those of us who have been privileged to know him for many years rejoice that his period of service in this world has been so long extended. We trust that many more years may be granted to him, in which he may be permitted to demonstrate, as he has done in the past, his usefulness to his country.
I fancy, Mr. Speaker, that most of us listened with some surprise to the observations of the right hon. gentleman this afternoon- surprise not untempered with regret. The surprise was that the effort was so feeble; the regret was that it was so lacking in constructive suggestions. I need hardly remind this house that we had expected one thing at least in which we are not disappointed. There was no policy that he did not adopt, no suggestion he did not make that might catch a single vote. He ran true to form. There was nothing that had been heard in the heavens above or the earth beneath or the waters under the earth to which appeal was not made for the purpose of deriving some assistance and support. But there was one thing in which the hon. gentleman ran particularly true to form. The same right hon. gentleman who went to and fro in this country and said: "Who will represent Canada at the Imperial conference in 1930?" could not fail-and he did not-to disguise his spleen that there should have been a successful conference in Canada in which he did not take part. There was nothing he could do to injure that conference that he did not do before it was held. There was no platform upon which he appeared that he did not endeavour in some way to make it more difficult for the government of his country to represent Canada at that conference. There was no time at which he appeared that he did net throw distrust and doubt upon the conference as to whether it would be held at all or not. He was always putting in innuendoes, dropping one here and one there lest per-adventure there should be a conference. Now that one has been held, he comes before the house to-night and makes a specious plea, seeming to show, with his tongue in his cheek, that he supports it in one breath while Jie opposes it with the other. It is no wonder hon. members on his side looked at him trying to discover what he meant. It is no wonder the country, when it reads what he says, will find it difficult to know what he meant.

The Address-Mr. Bennett
When he speaks about freedom, about tying the hands of parliament, is he forgetful of the fact that the government he supported negotiated and brought into effect the West Indies treaty for twelve long years, during which time no notice could be given to terminate? Is he aware of the fact that the leader he talks of incessantly was, in April, 1911, a party to a treaty with Japan for twelve years? Is he aware that the hands of parliament were tied then? But the opportunity to deprecate the efforts of those who have been opposed to him with respect to a great empire treaty did not stand in the way of his forgetting all about the West Indies or Japan or any other country. All he was concerned about was 'to talk about this glorious freedom that has served him so well in times gone by, when he cried: "Freedom, freedom, freedom!" and called to high heaven for support in the maintenance of the freedom of the country-for the one single purpose of getting votes.
ho it is that to-night, in respect to agreements that are not before the house and therefore cannot be discussed, but that were discussed in Huron without being before the electorate, we have the spectacle of my right hon. friend endeavouring to show in one breath that he is opposed to them, but lest there be any offence given to the sentiments of some of his supporters and friends he saj-s: " of course I am with them if they are all right, if they do not interfere with the glorious freedom that is so important." We have that exhibition of his consistency, to which he has referred so glowingly this afternoon-(this opposition to treaties that are for longer periods than overnight. This endeavour to arrange the fiscal policies of the dominion on a stable basis so that the greatest benefit may accrue to every part of it for a period of five years is to be attacked by him, forgetful, as I say he is, of the achievements of the past when a period of twelve years was not considered too long for a treaty whether with a British colony or with a foreign power.
Then he referred to the South Huron byelection. Well, two hundred South Hurons would not place the right hon. gentleman in power.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Try it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Dutch still hold
Holland. A few months ago we reduced the majority in Maisonneuve by four thousand.


Mr. DUFF:: The right hon. member is in
dutch.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In South Huron seven
hundred votes changed sides for reasons that are not difficult to ascertain. And when the right hon. gentleman referred to Kipling's lesson, let me remind him of this: the British won the war. So we remember the lesson and win the next election. There will be no difficulty about that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do not try it in too big a hurry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let the hon. member go
and ask Manitoba about the university and keep quiet.


An hon. MEMBER:: Ask Regina who won the last election.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, it was not the hon. gentleman.
Now, having directed attention to the trade agreements for the purpose of making the observations I have made, I do not propose to dwell upon those agreements longer because they are not now before the house for consideration. But this I will say, that the widest possible opportunity will be afforded to every hon. member in this chamber to study those agreements, and their purport has been known for weeks because the text was published in the papers with the exception of the tariff schedules. When it is asked seriously in this chamber why we adopted the course we did, I need hardly remind any hon. member who has been here for a single session of parliament that, under our rules and procedure, ways and means resolutions become effective on the day on which they are moved, and it would be impossible, if those tariff changes were published, to prevent forestalling or to prevent action being taken by dealers that would be inimical to the revenues and to the state. While in some countries those rules do not prevail, in Canada that has been the universal rule.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What has that to do with approving the agreements in advance?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not talking about that. The right hon. gentleman forgets his arguments. I do not wonder at that. He argued this afternoon that the proper course would have been to give publicity to the agreements.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I make clear what I said in that regard? What I was saying was that I could see no reason why the schedules should not be given pub-
The Address-Mr. Bennett

licity before we were asked to approve the agreements. I was taking exception not to the publicity, but to my right hon. friend's motion to approve the agreements before we knew what was in them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely my right hon. friend is not serious. The fullest opportunity will be given for consideration and discussion, but the motion for approval must be made in order that the agreements may be presented to the house. The motion for ways and means must be made in order that the Minister of Finance may deal with the tariff schedules. The practice that has always prevailed must necessarily prevail in this instance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Could my right lion, friend not table the agreements and then have the schedules moved to ways and means without pursuing his motion to approve them in advance?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am told not. I think this would be the sound rule, because I find that Mr. Fielding, when he brought down the French treaty in 1923, moved that the treaty be approved and effect be given to it, and then he gave an explanation of the treaty- because the tariff schedules must not be made public before they become effective. One of the discussions that took place at the Imperial conference at some length was as to the best way in which this could be done without making them public so far as tariff operations are concerned. A different practice prevails in Great Britain from that followed in this country, and different practices prevail in different parts of the empire. So far as we are concerned, however, we are following the well-defined practice of years, a universal practice so far as this country is concerned. When on Wednesday next I make the motion I trust I may be able to make, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) moves that at the next sitting the house go into committee of ways and means, it will be for the purpose of enabling us to follow the course which has always been followed in this parliament whereby tariff schedules become effective on the day they are moved in the committee of ways and means. That is the reason this course has been adopted. It will be observed that in cases other than that of the United Kingdom, bills are to be introduced. The agreements with the Free State and South Africa, for instance, a different course altogether is followed. In the case of Great Britain's concessions to Canada, they could of course be published, as has already been done. But variations and changes in the
tariff of this country will be made public only when the committee stage is moved in order that there may be no action taken by traders in anticipation of tariff changes. I think that is a fairly* reasonable explanation for following the course we have adopted, and I assure the right hon. gentleman, I assure those who sit near him, and hon. members in every part of the house, that so far as this government is concerned the fullest opportunity will be afforded to all to study these agreements in their entirety. There is no desire to do other than the right hon. gentleman has pleaded that we should do, namely to allow the action of the executive to be subject to the approval of parliament. That is the position we have taken. We have not endeavoured, as an executive, to do anything that bound the people of Canada or this parliament, nor has the executive of the United Kingdom or any other part of the British Empire taken any action which bound parliaments or peoples until such time as the people's representatives in parliament had expressed approval. The action of the executive has been made subject in express terms to the action of parliament. Hence it is that the British parliament is dealing with the agreements at their advance session of parliament; hence it is that the parliaments of every part of the empire are dealing with these matters. Instead of the executives usurping their powers they have reserved the paramount right of parliament to express approval or disapproval of the agreements that have been made, and it is in order that the power of parliament may be exercised that the motion to which I have referred will be made on Wednesday next. At that time this parliament will be seized of the facts in their entirety and may take such action as they may desire.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend when we may expect the debate to be continued?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall be pleased Mr. Speaker, to meet any reasonable requests that may be made in that regard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suggest
Monday of the week following.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot say definitely at the moment- I think perhaps the right hon. gentleman will understand that until he has seen the schedules he could not request a definite date. However, when he has seen the schedules I shall be glad to agree to any reasonable requests he may make.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Thank you.

The Address-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think it desirable to go further into this matter at the present time, except to correct one misapprehension. There never was a moment in the conduct of the conference when relations reached the state the right hon. gentleman has described. There never was such a moment, except in the imaginations of base men who wrote in newspapers stories that were entirely fabricated. There never were such moments, and that fact is well known to those who desire to know and appreciate what transpired. When the appropriate moment arrives I shall dwell at greater length with respect to the matter.
I desire to observe at this moment, however, that when one says there can be no such thing as bargaining he forgets one of I he essent ial elements of a contract. A contract consists of an offer and its acceptance. Jt involves consensus ad idem, and if the parties have not consensus ad idem there can be no contract. There can be no contract unless there are negotiations so that the parties may arrive at that consensus ad idem which is essential as the basis of a treaty. Hon. members must bear in mind that a treaty is nothing more than a contract between states, as distinguished from an agreement between parties. I suppose the proposals put forth by Sir Wilfrid Laurier would not have been called bargaining by my hon. friends opposite. There is bargaining when the parties say, "You do so and so and I will do so and so; if you give these concessions, we will give these concessions; if you do that, we will do this." You may call it bargaining; you may call it anything you wish, but there can be no treaty unless there is discussion and negotiation. Proposals made in the first instance may be varied by subsequent discussions and negotiations in order that the minds of the people who are negotiating may meet, and a contract or treaty may be the result.
That is what transpired at the Imperial economic conference; it transpires at every conference where bargains are made and contracts signed. It transpires at every conference where treaties have to be made. It always will be so; it must be so. We can hardly conceive it possible that anyone who has the knowledge of a novice concerning business matters would suggest that bargains could be made, conclusions arrived at, treaties made or contracts settled, that did not involve bargaining,-unless, indeed, that person expected Canada to be but a rubber stamp and to say "Yes" to any proposals which might be made. That however was not what we understood the word "conference" to mean. The very derivation of the word suggests its meaning,
and we carried out what we understood a conference to mean, namely, to discuss matters, arrive at conclusions and form contracts, treaties or agreements between parties.
One more word with respect to this effort, unworthy as it is, to talk about imperial policies with respect to trade. In order to draw a red herring across the trail, the right hon. gentleman used the word "imperial" as a word with which to appeal to sentiments to which the right hon. gentleman is a past master in appealing. Those who desire to learn the meaning of the word "imperial" in the sense in which it was used this afternoon should read the record. Read it and see what it means-see what is desired to be left by implication. Then it is likened to defence- why? Is there an hon. member in this house who does not know why? Is there an hon. member who has read the debates who does not know why the word "defence" was introduced in connection with the question of imperial trade? Is there one? There is not one-every one knows. But the agreements are not other than single agreements; they lack that spirit to which the right hon. gentleman endeavoured to direct attention. There is a separate agreement with the Free State, a separate agreement with South Africa, a separate agreement with Rhodesia, and a separate agreement with the United Kingdom. As Sir Arthur Salter said in the article published in the New York Times to which the right hon. gentleman has directed attention, that nothing has proved the status and the position of the dominions as does that conference; each standing separately, negotiating as separate nations and with one another, they made separate agreements. I make this reference in order that so unworthy an effort to talk about imperial policies and defence may be exposed, and exposed at once.
The right hon. gentleman referred at some length to the portions of the speech from the throne referring to the report of the commission on railways and transportation. I shall not in any way anticipate that discussion, but I desire to show the unfairness of the right hon. gentleman's criticism. I explained to the house a few days ago that on the day we received the report it was put in the hands of the printer so that it might be made available to hon. members. I explained that there were charts in that report that it took some time to prepare, and daily I have been endeavouring to push forward the work. I was informed on the very day I mentioned the matter to this house that that report would not be available until to-morrow, I believe I will be in a position to lay it upon the table of the house tomorrow.
The Address-Mr. Bennett

As far as the legislation based upon it is concerned, it must be within the memory of members of this house that I said if the temper of the house indicated a willingness to proceed with the legislation before adjournment I thought it was desirable to do so, but I had no desire to push it forward; for in this instance I look upon the government as being but a trustee charged with responsibility in connection with a great property. Carrying into effect the suggestion made by the president of the Canadian National Railways at the time, we appointed a commission consisting not all of Canadians, one of them being one of the most distinguished organizing brains in Great Britain, Lord Ashfield; another the president of a railroad, small in length it is true, but regarded as one of the foremost railway executives in the United States, Mr. Loree. These gentlemen, with Canadians, constituted a commission which arrived at a unanimous report. My duty then of course was to submit to this house in a concrete form that the house would be able to understand, the recommendations and suggestions made, not as a party measure in the narrow sense of that term, but that as we, charged with enormous responsibility in regard to something that threatens the very financial life of this country, at the rate of So,000,000 per month, might determine whether or not the recommendations and the suggestions of the commission could be carried into effect. After the house has arrived at a definite conclusion with respect to the report I thought it desirable that the bill should be ready so that the house might proceed to enact tthe legislation if in the judgment of the house it will meet the difficulties we have to meet. I thought I had made it reasonably clear the other day that there was no desire on our part to do other than act as the medium through which the report of the committee could be made available to this house in the form of a concrete measure, namely a bill, which represented the recommendations unanimously made by the commission.
As far as the St. Lawrence waterway is concerned, the right hon. gentleman is somewhat vague in his observations. We have pointed out that in this instance the treaty which has been signed and laid upon the table of the house is to be adopted by the United States before it is submitted to this parliament. If that is not a reasonable precaution to take under the circumstances, I will stand censured.


William Duff: That is settled, they will never adopt it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad the hon. gentleman is so satisfied of the excellence of the arrangement made that he thinks the other party to it will not adopt it. At any rate, leaving that for the moment, I make this further observation; when it was said that it was at variance with the Winnipeg platform I think perhaps the hon. gentleman and those who applauded him are not fully aware of, or have not studied as carefully as they should, the provisions of the document in question; for it provides that the rights of this country are so secure that if at any time we desire to construct a canal all on our own territory we may do so, notwithstanding the provisions of the treaty. But having regard to existing conditions the provisions are that there should be a lock on either side, so that it cannot be said that supremacy had been yielded either to one country or the other. And further it was thought, as the engineers reported in days gone by and as they reported more recently, that if the work was to -be proceeded with within a reasonable time the provisions with respect to overcoming the rapids in the international section by two dams was the most economical and safest, and the one that commended itself to the judgment of technical experts as being the soundest. But provision has been made as I have indicated. And what is more, the sovereignty of this country with respect to every inch of soil and every drop of water it now possesses has been reserved in its entirety.
As far as the pensions matter is concerned I only desire to make this observation; the pensions committee that sat in 1930 was not a partisan committee. It was composed of members from both sides of the house, principally men who had served in the forces. It has been said that the working of the Pensions Act which resulted from the report of that committee has not been entirely satisfactory. In order that there might be the fullest possible opportunity to ascertain the views of those who are most directly concerned, a committee was set up by order in council under the chairmanship of the Hon. Mr. Justice Rinfret, who with a high sense of public service expressed a willingness to head that committee, and who is giving such excellent service to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. The endeavour is to prevent something that this house in times gone by has expressed itself as desirous of preventing, the attempt to make it appear that you are my friend, not someone else, and that the dispassionate findings of a committee composed of men who are directly affected as far as the administration of the act is concerned, presided over

The Address-Mr. Bennett
by a very eminent jurist, might enable us to avoid this, without the fuss and fury that sometimes attaches from the obvious effort to make it appear that "Codlin is your friend, not Short." Accordingly an effort was made to let the government be informed of what the difficulties were in the administration of the act so that they might be remedied with the least possible friction and the greatest possible satisfaction to those directly affected.
Then with respect to unemployment, and the references of the right hon. gentleman and others occupying a somewhat different position from myself-for in the very nature of things his duty must be to find fault and criticize, an opposition is measured largely by its willingness to criticize, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly. In this instance, however, as far as unemployment is concerned and the promises to which the right hon. gentleman has referred as having been made by myself and by the party which I have the honour to lead, I can only say this: it has been abundantly demonstrated since that what at that time seemed to be a local condition was a world-wide disease. I say a world-wide disease for the simple reason that in the very newspapers from which extracts were read this afternoon it has been said on more than one occasion that the head of this government is absolved at least from those promises by reason of the universal character of the upheaval which has disrupted this world. It is true I see striking evidences every day of a lack of appreciation and knowledge of the fact that the cataclysm is of universal proportions. Nothing strikes one more than to hear, in the bitterness of partisan discussion, an effort made to have it appear that this country is the one country in which we have this disease. Now and then there slips from the mouths of hon. members opposite a reference to a world-wide condition. When it is said that the conditions in this country are worse, when an effort is made by the jeremiads of a Jeremiah to make it appear that all is not well in this country, to paint everything in the darkest possible colours, to have the right hon. gentleman stand in his place to-day and minute after minute for almost half an hour paint the evils of present conditions in this country and deprecate the efforts that have been made by the government to sustain the morale of the Canadian people, I say it is not worthy of a great opposition or of a great party.
What is more, every observation that was made in previous speeches from the throne or in public addresses was warranted by then existing conditions. I pointed out in this 53719-4
house last year-and a more generous opponent would have recognized and admired it-that when England went off the gold standard this country was struck the greatest blow it has ever experienced, the force of which we have never been able to measure. Eveiy thoughtful man knew that, and Sir Arthur Salter said it involved a second effort. He pointed out how conditions were improving; he pointed out how conditions had changed; he pointed to the gradual and general improvement that was then apparent, and said it was steadily gaining volume and strength. But when that great event happened and Great Britain went off the gold standard, this country, in common with other countries similarly situated, suffered a loss that we have not been able to measure in dollars. Every word that was spoken was warranted at the time, and eveiy man who has studied these conditions carefully, whoever he may be, however warped may be his judgment, however prejudiced may be his attitude, realizes and understands that in great part the cause of present conditions is psychological, the lack of confidence in banks, in individuals and in institutions. All these things have become painfully apparent as the days have gone by, and that lack of confidence on the part of the people must be overcome. It is the duty and function of those who govern for the moment to endeavour by every means in their power to restore the morale of the people and to create confidence in themselves and in their country that all was and would be well.
We plead guilty to having done that; we plead guilty to being optimists in season and out of season. We deny the jeremiads to which we listened this afternoon, which sounded almost like a chapter from the Book of Lamentations. I have nothing to regret or withdraw; this government has nothing to regret in the effort it has made, in season and out, to have the Canadian people feel faith and confidence in themselves and hope in the future, predicated not only upon a realization of our own greatness and our own potentialities but also upon the realization that the lot of Canadians is better than that of any other people in the world. Only the other day a great United States quasi-official newspaper, speaking of conditions in this country, said that if there was one country in the world that had reason to be proud of its position it was the Dominion of Canada. Only a short time ago a friend of mine gave me an insight into conditions as they exist in the great republic to the south. Compare our condition with theirs. I would invite some hon. gentlemen who have been abroad this year to



ICE VIS ED EDITION

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Bennett
[Stage Direction]
compare the conditions existing there with the conditions existing in this country. This government does take some credit for having endeavoured to maintain the morale of the Canadian people, to maintain their high courage and faith in themselves, believing that all would be well and that all was well, that every day put a dark day behind with the promise of a brighter day to come, but in doing so we have but done our bounden duty to the country. To those who tell grim and dark tales of woes that do not exist, who indulge in the lamentations of a Jeremiah that should find no place in a parliament such as this, I recommend new faith in their country, new confidence in its future and new belief in its people and their possibilities.
It is not correct to say, as has been said so frequently in this house, that the proper course was to appoint a commission to administer unemployment measures. I have pointed out in this house that in the board of commerce case the privy council decided that no dominion parliament was competent to enact legislation that would interfere 'with the rights of the provinces in that regard, and we know that at least one province in this dominion, speaking through its premier, has said that it is capable of looking after its own affairs, that if the dominion assisted well and good, but that it was their business, not ours. The administration rests with the provinces and not with the dominion, and in that judgment Lord Haldane pointed out that it was not sufficient to say that an emergency existed. War or famine, as he said, might indeed justify the exercise of the powers of this parliament as they were exercised in time of war, but a mere statement of this parliament is not sufficient for that purpose. There can be no federal administration, to which the right hon. gentleman referred this afternoon. There can be no valid, legal exercise of power by this parliament in the administration of these matters, for under our constitution that administration rests with the provinces and not with the dominion. The privy council spoke in no uncertain terms in that regard. I will not take up the time of this house this evening to do more than merely direct attention to a few words which are of importance. The federal government undertook to regulate prices, in 1919, immediately after the war, and in the judgment Lord Haldane states:
It has already been observed that circumstances are conceivable, such as those of war or famine, when the peace, order and good government of the Dominion might be imperilled under conditions bo exceptional that they require legislation of a character in reality beyond anything provided for by the enumerated heads in either s. 92 or s. 91 itself.

Then he goes on:
Such a case, if it were to arise, would have to be considered closely before the conclusion could properly be reached that it was one which could not be treated as falling under any of the heads enumerated. Still, it is a conceivable case ....
Then he went on to indicate clearly the line of demarcation between the exercise of power by the parliament of Canada on the one hand and the provincial legislatures on the other. While we have power to assist by grants of money; while we have power to impose conditions in those grants, as we have done, under our constitution the administration rests with the provincial authorities, and in all the statutes we have passed we have been careful to point out that while the danger and difficulty are national the administration rests with the provinces and the municipalities, and the duty of this dominion is to lend assistance in that direction.
We have done that steadily; we have done it in every province of the confederation. That was done with the first appropriation of
820,000,000 and it was done with the appropriation in regard to public works and undertakings. It was done with respect to what the right hon. gentleman euphoniously called the dole, which in fact is not a dole at all but a relief measure administered by the provinces to the extent to which they may regard it necessary for the well-being of the people. You cannot ask this dominion to undertake the responsibilities of administration. When the right hon. gentleman suggests that I or anyone speaking from this side of the house ever said 'that the dominion should undertake the administration he indicated either that he has not read or that he has misread what has been said. We have pointed out the functions of the Dominion government, of provincial legislatures and of municipal bodies, and we have endeavoured, as we will continue to endeavour, by appropriate grants in aid to assist the proper authorities to discharge their constitutional duties. If they have not discharged them as they should be discharged the remedy lies with the people of the provinces affected. For instance, we have assisted the provinces from Prince Edward Island to British Columbia in all their large undertakings. We have done that by making grants in aid and by approving of their undertakings. When the premiers met here in April of this year we gave effect to their wishes and their views, not ours. The premiers and representatives of -the provinces met here and said they were no longer prepared to undertake public works, that they were not prepared to bind posterity by imposing burdens upon their

The Address-Mr. Bennett
people, either provincial or municipal, to any greater extent. They said they only asked that we should give them such grants as might seem appropriate, to enable them to discharge their duties. And the right hon. gentleman stands in his place and says that the Dominion government should appoint a commission to do that which the constitution says they may not do-to undertake functions which the provinces have the sole right to discharge.
William Duff: They could up to 99 per cent, could they not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a question of
grant.


William Duff: That is what the Minister of Finance said with respect to old age pensions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a question of the extent to which assistance should be given, but it has nothing to do with administration. That is the very point I am endeavouring to make. Now, we have in some cases borne the cost to the extent of 100 per cent. That is the situation in some provinces where transient, homeless men have been a burden on communities to which they did not belong. In other cases, we have met the wishes of the provinces, their sense of responsibility, the machinery which they have put in motion, their inspection of conditions, their reports with respect thereto, their desire to assist in such manner as they thought best-all which, mark you, varies in the different provinces. It is not the same in one province as in another. We have given them such assistance as we thought proper under the provisions of the statute which we have administered. We have observed our constitutional obligations; we have discharged them generously, and we have met in a broad and general sense with the approval of the governments that have had to administer the law. We have not endeavoured to destroy the constitution nor to substitute a federal for a provincial administration. That we have not done and will not do. Nor have we endeavoured to set up a commission which might attempt to overawe the provinces or the municipalities, without authority. But we have asked the provinces to appoint commissions of men whom we would endeavour to assist in the discharge of their duties, and we have sent our own men to cooperate and assist, and in some instances to suggest what should be done. The expert opinion to which reference has been made has been called upon for suggestions, but not suggestions to us so much as to those charged with administration, to
assist those whose duty it was to discharge the obligations to which I have alluded. This we have done; and, what is more, we are prepared to leave it to the judgment of any judicial tribunal as to whether or not there is anything which we could do that we have not done.
There are at times complaints that we should pay larger sums of money. Well, we have no desire to undermine that high courage, that resourcefulness and ability of our citizens to emerge out of difficulties, strengthened by trials as by fire. We have no desire to remove those characteristics from our citizenship. We know what made this country great; we know what courage the pioneers had. We know how they met difficulties and triumphed, and we are endeavouring, with the advice and assistance of expert minds, which advice we pass on to the provinces, to induce them to have the citizens for whose wellbeing they are constitutionally responsible realize that an effort to better conditions, not to make the government do everything, is the true secret of their ultimate success in winning through. That is what we have been doing; and we have endeavoured at times to press upon some of the provincial administrations as far as possible, with the aid of expert assistance, suggestions that have come to us by reports that, have been made for us by those well able to judge what action should be taken. We have endeavoured to learn something of the lessons of Great Britain; for remember that when the unemployment situation in Great Britain first became acute in the eighties, after the great industrial era was beginning to show some signs of slackening, they began to put up public works and to build roads, and the abuses that arose brought about a change in policy. Those Who are interested can read in the library the story and realize its significance. Moreover, to construct public works to enable money to be paid without effort, is just as bad as the provinces endeavouring to provide relief for those who need it and cannot find anything to do. Let that not be forgotten. That was the history of Great Britain in that regard. Our policy has been to construct needed and useful undertakings, not undertakings that would be called into being as an excuse, but undertakings that would be required; and since they would be required we anticipated then, noticeably the work on the railways. But to anticipate them beyond a given point would be ruinous for the future and the present alike: for the present from the standpoint of financial resources, and for the future so far as the communities are concerned. That is the history of what transpired in connection with these matters.

The Address-Mr. Bennett
With respect to representation, I am sure that the right hon. gentleman realizes that the Representation Act has nothing to do with the franchise nor with elections. The suggestion that there is some close relationship between representation and elections is, of course, accurate, but the statute that deals with representation, as I indicated to the house the other day, is a statute which merely determines the principle, after the decennial census, that shall apply in the House of Commons, referring to a committee the determination of the boundaries of the 245 constituencies that will go to make up the house in the future. But there was a discussion in this house of proportional representation. There was one on the single alternative vote and a division was taken on the question. It will be found recorded in Hansard of February 20, 1923, and while the right hon. gentleman voted for Mr. Good's motion, it is a singular thing that the number against the motion was ninety and for it seventy-two. It will be found at page 434 that a large proportion of those who voted nay on that occasion expressed adherence to the doctrines of the Liberal party; of the ninety, sixty was the exact number who were Liberals. Possibly time will show that the right hon. gentleman has been able to convert his followers to his own belief, but until he shows some signs of conversion among his own followers, I think he had better labour in his own ranks before he extends his missionary efforts in other directions.
The next matter to which the right hon. gentleman directed attention had reference to the provisions with respect to the Bank Act. In view of his desire to appease those who sit to his immediate left, to say nothing of those in his own ranks who are not yet converted, I can readily understand his making the observations he did. But when I found that the League of Nations had succeeded in fixing a date for the holding of this world conference, I thought it desirable that this country should receive the benefit of that conference before proceeding to revise the Bank Act. Last week it was announced that an agreement had been reached to hold a conference in London on a date to be set definitely in November, and in the meantime an expert committee comprising two representatives each from Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, United States, Japan and Belgium will get to work in October. But the agenda has been published; it will be found in the monthly summary of the League of Nations, at page 226. The main questions which demand examination are: Monetary and credit policy; exchange difficulties; level of prices; movement of capital. Then, with 
respect to economic questions, the tariff policy, about which I shall say something in a moment; prohibitions and restrictions on importation and exportation; quotas and other barriers to trade and producers' agreements. As one would expect, the United States of America had something to say with respect to the question of tariffs and so it was agreed that the discussion of this question should not touch the tariff policies of individual countries but rather should deal with tariffs in the broader sense. It was agreed also that the silver problem should be added to the agenda. It is expected that next month there will be sitting in London a world economic conference, the technical description of which is given in the speech from the throne.
During the economic conference which sat here in July and August it became apparent that although we represented one quarter of the world's population, no adequate conclusions could be reached which would solve the difficulties to which attention was directed, both privately and publicly as the record will show, and thus enable us to arrive at a method of dealing with the rise in commodity values, with the question of sound money, with the problems of inflation and all that is involved therein and with the problem of exchange. It became apparent that these matters could not be dealt with even by the representatives of one quarter of the world's population. The position which the United States of America occupies in point of gold reserves must be realized, its position with respect to the whole monetary system must be considered, as well as its population of 122,000,000. The League of Nations, men dispassionate, men unprejudiced, realizing just what I have indicated, provided for this world conference in order that conclusions might be arrived at and agreed to which would be capable of being made effective in other parts of the world.
We 'have learned that ten millions of people, important though we are-perhaps the most important ten million people in the world in so far as exercising power upon public and world policies is concerned, this importance arising partly by reason of our geographical position and partly by reason of our position in the British Empire-are not a great factor in determining the world's monetary system. This great conference, the date of opening of which is to be set next month, will meet in London, and we do not believe it would be fair to the Canadian people to grant bank charters for a period of ten years, and then next year, when we might desire to make changes, Ibe met with the statement on the part of the banks: We have our charters for

The Address-Mr. Bennett
ten years and you must not lay hands upon the vested rights we have under them without making adequate compensation if we feel we are adversely affected. It is our intention to deal with this matter in the light of the knowledge and information to be gained from the conference which is to meet in London.
I suggest to this house that if we did otherwise we would be regarded as being derelict to our duty and open to criticism.
Realizing the acuteness of the situation which prevails throughout the world there is only one thing which can be said about this government with respect to its monetary policy, and that is this: We will stand for sound money. Let there be no misapprehension about that. If we can help it we do not propose to find ourselves in the position in which our friends in Australia found themselves whereby their five per cent bonds were selling on the New York market at practically half of par. When I read some of the speeches which have been uttered, I wonder what would happen in this country if our national obligations and securities fell to fifty on the New York market. I wonder if hon. gentlemen ever sit down and quietly and calmly analyze conditions before they talk in the terms in which they do?


Mr. POULIOT:: Then there would be no truck or trade with the' Yankees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Without going into
greater detail, I may say that that is one of the reasons why we have taken the action we have with respect to bank charters. I should like to remind the house that it must be within the knowledge of the right hon. gentleman opposite that several times in the past bank charters have been renewed for a year only. When was the last revision? After the war they were extended because the chaotic conditions had not yet righted themselves and in the light of the additional knowledge obtained and secured by reason of what was going on in the world at the time it was believed that our domestic problems would be best dealt with by such an extension. The present Bank Act was not passed when the previous act had reached the end of its ten year period. My memory does not serve me at the moment but I think two, if not three extensions were granted before the final revision was made. There is no suggestion on the part of this government that this house should in any sense limit its inquiry into or its discussion of the whole theory of banking and credit. There is no matter in which this government is more vitally interested or has
greater concern. If in the exigencies of place and power we have been compelled, not to go forth and talk by the wayside about conditions we know do not exist 'but rather to do things to maintain the integrity of our financial structure in order that this new country would not be set back half a century by reason of the failure of our credit abroad, we have done so.
Some one has suggested that because we have adopted this course we are dependent upon the United States. I can say only this: Railway and other contracts were made in New York by the government of the right hon. gentleman and these with their interest are payable in the terms of the contract, in gold. We cannot pay them with inflated pieces of paper, we cannot pay them with the printing presses. They are payable in terms of gold, and gold or its equivalent must be found or we default. There have been anxious minutes-I say this deliberately-on the part of this government since Great Britain went off the gold basis, and in stating this I state but a solemn fact. There has been no matter of greater concern to this administration than the responsibility for the maintenance of the integrity of our financial structure and the credit of the dominion asa whole. The keenest observers, both in the United States and abroad, have written to us to say that what we have been able to accomplish challenges their admiration. Our banks have maintained their integrity, our depositors have never found their moneys unsafe or their cheques met with "closed" or "in the hands of the receivers." In the great republic to the south four thousand banks have failed with losses to depositors amounting to over $1,500,000,000. This result in Canada has not been effected by accident, it has been effected through the most tireless efforts both day and night on the part of the administration to see that that precious thing called public credit, upon which the integrity of this country has depended for half a century, should be maintained and that no cheap nostrums in the form of quack remedies supplied by printing presses should take the place of a proper discharge of our contractual obligations.
I do not know that I can say more than that we realize, as every government in this country must have realized, that in the ultimate analysis the words at the close of the speech from the throne are true. Whatever the right hon. leader of the opposition may say, however he may cavil, however he may lament the position in which this country finds itself, we say that the unity, fortitude and capacity of the Canadian people, without
The Address-Mr. Bennett

which all our labours would have been in vain, shall be now the foundation upon which, with cooperation and faith, we will build a greater and more lasting prosperity. Trials and tribulations are the lot of governments and men, but if from those .trials and tribulations we emerge a stronger and better people, then they have not been in vain. We believe that this country has learned much from what has taken place in the past few years and that the people of Canada will be better able to grapple with their responsibilities and march forward to their manifest destiny because of the trials and tribulations through which they have passed. If this government receives the censure of the house by the passing of this resolution, such censure would not be the opinion of the sober-minded, thoughtful man on the street. There may be scattered throughout the country soap-box orators, communists and socialists who will endeavour to arouse the passions and prejudices of the people and who will carry to them the tale of new nostrums and remedies that will cure all the economic evils of the day. But the thoughtful Canadians, the men who are concerned fit the welfare of their country, in its future, day after day, regardless of political considerations or faith, are sending to members of this government communications thanking them for their toil on their behalf, for the efforts they are making on behalf of this dominion and for their singleness of purpose and devotion to the well-being of Canada. That I can say, and I do not believe this resolution now offered to the house as an amendment to the address represents the considered and thoughtful judgment of the Canadian people, Liberal or Conservative. I am not lacking in respect to the right hon. gentleman when I say that hardly a day goes by that some man does not say either to me or to some member of this administration how thankful he is this government is in power at this time and not that party over there. What is more, you will find this reflected in the public press of Canada that loves its country in preference to others.
One step further. The right hon. gentleman dwelt long upon tariffs. If, sir, you will take the trouble to look at Hansard of the time when we increased the tariff in this country you will find that it was said by the mover of the resolution not to be for the purpose of protection. It was for one purpose and one only.


An hon. MEMBER:: To cure unemployment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not to cure unemployment, but to afford employment for Canadians as against their competitors who live abroad.


An hon. MEMBER:: Has it worked?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has. Let me say one word more. I put this question to every individual member of the house. Let him go home with it to-night and let him answer it to his own conscience:	If it were possible
for the cheap products of Europe, for the products of the United States to come uninterruptedly into this Dominion, what would have been the result in the last two years? There is no doubt that the entire industrial fabric of this country would have been wiped out.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: It is wiped out now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. The right hon.
gentleman this afternoon read a statement of eight thousand industries that reported an increase over five years ago.


Charles A. Stewart: Small sawmills.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those who are as small manufacturers as that do not make reports. The hon. gentleman has apparently no knowledge of matters of fact. Let us go a step further. This death-knell of protection that came from the hon. gentleman opposite is now reflected in his lack of knowledge with respect to the workings of the statistical branch of the government. Let me put to the house this question: If Canadian requirements are supplied by the United States of America, that under the tariff of 1929 denies the right of access to their markets, what will happen to Canadian industry?


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: What about the Canadian farmer and his requirements?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will deal with that. If the requirements of this country are met by the cheaper goods dumped upon our markets from abroad, from Europe and elsewhere, while the Canadian farmer is denied access to those countries with his wheat, the treaty with France 'being an outstanding example, what happens to the entire industrial fabric of Canada and where is this raising of revenue by income tax when you deny the right of men to earn incomes? That is the position. I deprecate greatly the observations that have been made outside this parliament by men who have talked about raising revenues, as they say, from income. One man says: Steepen up the income tax, and the same voice says:

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
Wipe out those manufacturers and everybody else who earns a dollar. Can you have income tax unless you have income? Can you have income without business? Must there not be business? And, if business is net conducted at a profit, men should not be in business. There is not a business man who will not say that is so.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: There are many businesses that are making no profits.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am saying that and I
say that is an unsound condition of affairs.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Caused by what?


An hon. MEMBER:: By Grit misrule.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to say just one word more. Practically all these measures that have been referred to will be the subject matter of discussion in this house, and my observation at least leads me to the belief that there is no point in long hours of wandering over records in speeches that follow the mover and the seconder of an address. Certainly in the British parliament the practice is quite the opposite. I saw parliament there convene at noon and in the afternoon I heard the mover and the seconder. Before the evening was over I heard Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Baldwin go on and finish their speeches. Then the public business proceeded; a very contentious measure was introduced and advanced several stages and the discussion was prolonged beiore Mr. Lloyd George, for instance, had spoken at all on the address. I shall not trespass upon the time of this chamber by asking members longer to listen to me, but content myself with saying that the measures which will be submitted to the house will offer a full opportunity for discussion and that consistent with the fairly expeditious conduct of public affairs every effort will be made to afford every member of the house no cause for just complaint that he has not had an opportunity to deal with these matters.
Before taking my seat I desire to refer to the pride that anyone leading a party must have that speeches such as those to which we listened this afternoon could have been made by two young men of such promise and enterprise. I tlhank the right hon. gentleman for the warm words of eulogy that he gave to the mover (Mr. Davies) and the seconder (Mr. Laurin) of the address, he, of course, not agreeing with their policies, but recognizing in them young men of promise, hope, courage, enterprise, ambition, who desire to render service to their country. If, as is true, the hon. gentleman who moved the address did not represent fifty per cent of the electorate of his constituency, it is equally true that he succeeded a gentleman who occupied exactly the same position. It follows wherever there are more than two candidates and the vote is fairly distributed, no one can have fifty per cent of the electorate of the riding. Proportional representation brings that albout in a manner which, I think, upon analysis, some members of the house would find it a little difficult to understand in its implications and inferences. Certainly the explanation given in the house in the debate that took place would seem to indicate that it is not a panacea for all the ills from which the electorate suffers. If it be desired to divide the house into fifteen or twenty groups such as they have in old land assemblies and parliaments, where combinations may make it possible frequently to destroy the government of the day, as has been the case in France, then I can readily understand the devotion of some hon. gentlemen to such a cause; for in intrigue I fancy they are greater masters than other members of more experience. May I extend my warm felicitations and congratulations to the mover and the seconder and express the pride I have that numbered with this party are men of such promise who are capable of making addresses such as those to which we have listened this afternoon.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. King), the time at my disposal, according to the rules of the house, is only forty minutes. Therefore when I make only brief reference to the addresses of the mover and the seconder of the address in reply I am sure they will pardon me. I should like, however, to join in congratulating them on the splendid presentations they made, and more particularly the hon. member for Atha-baska (Mr. Davies), whose remarks I understood more readily than those of the seconder.
It is not my intention to follow the arguments of either the Prime Minister or the leader of the opposition. Probably as time goes on I may address a few remarks to some of the references they made, but as my time is limited I shall deal first with the speech from the throne and state my viewpoints concerning some of the matters touched upon therein.
In so far as the first paragraph is concerned, namely that which deals with the Imperial economic conference, I do not think I need make any extended statement, inasmuch as these agreements will come before the house next Wednesday, at which time the house and country will be fully apprised of what
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

they contain. May I, however, direct the attention of the house to one important phase of the matter? When the economic conference was first suggested, and particularly in view of the failure of the economic conference of 1930, it was understood by the majority of Canadian people that empire agreements or policies would be the subject matter of the discussions. According to the Prime Minister's statement, and from what we find on the order paper, we learn that there is a series of separate agreements between the different dominions and the motherland represented at the Imperial economic conference. In other words, we are to deal with separate agreements, and in so far as the economic conference is concerned we may conclude that such agreements could have been agreed upon or brought into existence in a manner similar to that made last year with New Zealand. Therefore the outcome of the economic conference is simply this: We have a series of agreements entered into between component parts of the empire. I shall make no further comment in this connection until Wednesday, at which time the agreements will be before us. At this time I am not in a position to make proper criticism of them.
The next paragraph in the speech from the throne concerns the report of the commission appointed to investigate the railway situation in Canada. We have not had that report before us, but we are told by the Prime Minister that probably it will be available to-morrow. No matter what the commission may recommend-and I understand some of the recommendations are really worth while-the one point I should like the people of Canada to remember is that the big problem, so far as our railways are concerned, is over-capitalization. The overcapitalization is so great that under present economic conditions the Canadian people cannot pay the freight rates necessary to make returns sufficient to take care of these large capitalizations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the hon. member will allow me to interrupt him by saying that so far as the Canadian Pacific railway is concerned, for every $100 of common stock outstanding $125 was spent, and that no change in the capital structure would affect the railway.


Robert Gardiner: I understand the capital stock of the Canadian Pacific railway is very small-only about $335,000,000. There are bonded issues, however, which constitute a tremendous drain upon the Canadian people, and when we discuss the railways those issues must be taken into consideration.

The next paragraph in the speech from the throne concerns the St. Lawrence waterways. I have not had an opportunity to read the agreements or treaties entered into, but I presume the government will be able to give to this house the reasons for promoting that development at the present time, and what it will mean to the Canadian people by way of savings in freight rates.
I desire next to deal with the problem of unemployment, and the reestablishment of the unemployed. I stress particularly the latter part of the paragraph dealing with unemployment :
Plans for the reestablishment of the unemployed in various parts of the country are in preparation and will become operative as soon as, in the opinion of my ministers, the public expenditure incident thereto will be productive of commensurate benefits.
I take it from that sentence that there is reference to the re-settling upon the lands of people who may so desire. I can conceive of no other idea the government may have had in mind. Such a policy brings to my mind remarks heard here and there throughout the length and breadth of Canada concerning that particular policy. I understand such reestablishment involves contributions by federal, provincial and municipal governments. I understand further that the only lands available are those which have been abandoned, or new lands. I believe it to be the height of folly to take people from the cities and place them on abandoned properties, the former owners of which have failed. Such action has been described to me in somewhat humorous terms. It is said that the farmers who have abandoned these lands have gone to the cities to receive relief and to have a rest, and that the city men are returning to the farms to procure work. No matter how we approach the matter, there is merely an exchange of unemployed.
In my view paragraph 8 is the most hopeful one in the speech from the throne, and I believe at contains some possibilities. It is as follows:
There will also be brought before you for consideration other measures which my ministers deem to be in the public interest.
In view of the barrenness of the speech from the throne, and looking towards a solution of the economic problems before us,
I must confess that this particular paragraph holds out a ray of hope-in fact the only ray of hope I see in the whole of the speech from the throne. Time alone will tell whether my hopes in that direction will be realized. However I am hoping that at least the govern-

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
ment will have some measures to present to the house in addition to those mentioned in the speech from the throne.
The next paragraph deals with the extension of bank charters, and the Prime Minister has given his reasons for the delay in taking up the decennial revision of the Bank Act. He states that a world economic conference is to be held, when this question of currency and banking will be discussed, and he therefore feels it advisable that instead of revising the Bank Act at the present time we should have the benefit of the deliberations of the world economic conference. There is a good deal to be said for that proposal. But in dealing with the whole question the Prime Minister made some references which I think merit attention. He pointed to the greater number of bank failures in the United States, as against no bank failures in Canada. I think if the Prime Minister had been absolutely fair in this matter he would have mentioned that this large number of failures in the United States was of individual banks, with no government credit behind them, consequently standing upon their own feet entirely. When we turn to our Canadian banks, taking into consideration the privileges granted to them by the Bank Act and by the Finance Act, we must recognize that there is no reason why Canadian banks should fail, in view of the fact that the total credit of Canada is to all intents and purposes behind our banking institutions. The banks in the United States have not the credit of the country behind them in the same manner as our banks have.
The Prime Minister also made the statement that as far as he and his colleagues are concerned we should have in this country a currency system that is real money. He stated that the printing press would not be used for the purpose of printing money to meet our obligations, and he eulogized the efforts of the government to keep the credit of Canada good in the money markets of the world. That is all quite right and proper, but may I point out that there are two countries in the British commonwealth of nations which are off the gold standard, namely Great Britain and Australia. He instanced the fact that Australian securities were worth only fifty per cent of face value. But may I direct the attention of the house to this, that as far as I am aware, while both these countries are off the gold standard, neither of them has defaulted in any of its payments. And if Australian securities are worth only fifty per cent of face value, it is not because of default of Australia, but rather because of the manipulation of those securities in the New York money markets.
It is also intimated in the speech from the throne that the acuteness of the depression is past. I wish I were as optimistic. Candidly, Mr. Speaker, as far as I have been able to learn, while it is true that because of the large crop of wheat in western Canada and the necessity for harvesting and moving that crop there has been a little more money in circulation, outside of that I see no reason to say that the acuteness of the depression is past. Indeed, I am rather afraid for the future, more particularly the immediate future, the coming winter. Later in my remarks I will take further opportunity of dealing with this matter.
As I stated, with the exception of one paragraph in the speech from the throne, paragraph 8, there is very little hope held out to the Canadian people of any measures that will really improve the economic condition of the country and place within the reach of the people of Canada the food, clothing and shelter to which they are entitled.
May I take a few moments to deal with agricultural conditions in western Canada? The crop in western Canada this year is larger than last year. It is estimated that the return as far as wheat is concerned will be 435,000,000 to 450,000.000 bushels. The harvesting and moving of this crop to the head of the lakes has put in circulation a little more money than a year ago. But how does the farmer come out on that deal? To-day according to Winnipeg prices, that is wheat delivered at the head of the lakes, a farmer at points where a twenty-six cent freight rate per hundred pounds applies, is getting twenty-eight and a quarter cents a bushel for No. 1 northern wheat. It costs from eight to nine cents a bushel to get that wheat threshed, including the feeding of the crew. It costs 60 much for binder twine, so much for cutting and harvesting. I doubt, Mr. Speaker, whether the farmer on that freight rate will be able to secure a return that will pay for the harvesting operations, including threshing and delivery of that wheat to the elevator, let alone the time and money spent in preparing the seed bed, and seeding the acreage that he cultivates. Then on top of that they have taxes to pay. In many municipalities of the west very large portions of the area are to-day being offered by municipal councils at tax sales. That does not, in my judgment, show much improvement in economic conditions, especially as affecting the western farmer.
Recently there appeared in the Commercial Intelligence Journal published by the Department of Trade and Commerce of this country a statement by our representative in
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

Australia, that the Australian fanner was securing two shillings and threepence to two shillings and sixpence per bushel for his wheat delivered at the siding, depending on the freight rate. That, Mr. Speaker, turned into Canadian money means something in the neighbourhood of fifty-two to fifty-four cents up to sixty cents a bushel, and the Australian farmers' wheat, generally speaking, is of inferior quality to our western Canadian wheat.


Mr. YOUNG:: What is Australian money
worth now?


Robert Gardiner: Australian money is depreciated, and that is one of the reasons why the Australian farmer is getting a larger price in actual money than we are getting in Canada.


Edward James Young: When you translate that into Canadian funds, will he make what you said?


Robert Gardiner: It will be very close
to that. Then on top of that the Australian government is paying a bonus of four and a half pence per bushel. So the Australian farmer is in a much more favourable position than the farmer in Canada. That is borne out by the fact that Australia to-day has sold practically all her surplus and will have little more wheat to sell until the new crop comes into circulation. We are competing under these conditions in Canada, and it is a severe task for our western farmers who depend largely upon wheat as their cash crop. In addition, Australia and the Argentine were the only two large wheat exporting countries to increase their acreage during the last year. In each country that increase amounted to over one million acres, which shows that the depreciated currencies of these countries have acted very much in favour of the wheat growers, since otherwise one would hardly expect an increase in acreage sown at this time.
I have only a few minutes left, Mr. Speaker, and in that short time I desire to discuss the economic problem we have before us, because we must have some understanding of the system under which we are working before we can be in a position to suggest remedies which might be of some advantage to our people. To-day in this country, as in all other countries, we are working under what we call the capitalist system. Some people prefer to call it the profit system, the competitive system, or the industrial aid, but it makes no difference what you call it; I refer to the system under which we are now operating. On many occasions I have stated that in my judgment our present economic system has done more for the masses of the people the world over than all former social systems combined, and I still stand by that state-

ment. Unfortunately many people seem to imagine that this social system has been in existence from time immemorial and that it is likely to continue for all time to come. Those who have read industrial history in particular, or indeed history in general, know very well that this system is not very old; in fact it only dates back to the discovery of steam. Had it not been for the utilization of steam for the driving of the machinery of production our present economic system never would have come into existence, and 'probably we would still be back in the dark ages under some such system of feudalism as was in force prior to the inauguration of the present system. With the discovery of steam, however, the present system became possible.
Time will not permit me to follow the progress of our present system from the time steam was discovered up to the present time, but I think it will help us appreciate the problem we have before us if I give a bird's-eye view of what has taken place. With the discovery of steam the inventive genius of man was stimulated, particularly when it was recognized that steam could be used to drive the machinery of production, thus doing away with man power, improving the methods of production and producing more and more with less and less labour. Since that time the genius of men has been applied to the improvement of machinery until finally we have reached the present stage, with the machinery of production immensely effective, requiring very little labour and producing large volumes of commodities. Coincident with the improvement in the machinery of production men began to delve into the natural resources of all the countries of the world, and an immense amount of research work has been carried on in order to discover new resources which could be utilized for the sustenance of the human race, but had it not been for the discovery that power could be used to drive machinery it is likely that this research work would not have taken place.
What has been the result? In every country to-day, with the exception of three, we have ample machinery to produce all that may be consumed by the people within the borders of those countries. In recent years the industrialization of the world has gone on at such a rapid rate that of all the important countries of the world only Russia, India and China remain to become industrialized. Russia is carrying out her own program, and she will not permit outsiders to build plants and assemble machinery for the purpose of production. In China and India there is some ma-

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
chinery of production, more particularly with regard to textiles, but to-day who would invest any mcney in new machinery or new plant and equipment in either of those countries and hope to get a profit from the investment? So that brings the world to a stage of development that it never reached before, and the problems before us to-day are new problems. Old methods will not meet them; we must have new methods to deal with the problems with which we are faced to-day, otherwise we will fail absolutely in our efforts to meet the exigencies of the situation.
How did we manage to pay for all this new machinery cf production? It was paid for to a large extent from savings, whether those savings came from profits or from salaries and wages. Those savings represented surplus purchasing power which the owners did not require in order to provide for the sustenance of themselves and their families, and which as a consequence they were able to use for the purchase of new plant and equipment as new inventions came along. That was how we paid for the new machinery we have acquired from time to time, but the situation to-day is different, as I see it. To-day practically all countries are industrialized. Look at our bank records and see what has happened. Large volumes of surplus purchasing power are being placed in savings account. There never was a time in the history of Canada when the banks had more money in their savings accounts than they have at present, though it is true that according to the report of the Department of Finance there was a slight reduction in savings accounts last month. This means that as far as the people who own those savings are concerned, they have first of all provided for the sustenance of themselves and their families and placed their surplus purchasing power in savings accounts. Where is there an opportunity to-day to invest that surplus purchasing power? There is none. Federal, provincial and municipal governments may float certain loans, but the amount of these savings used to buy such bonds is insignificant in comparison with the total volume of savings deposited with our banks. What is to be done with the balance? How can that surplus purchasing power be used as such? Those savings represent goods and services now available, which are not moving because of the fact that these savings cannot be used as purchasing power, their owners already having provided for the sustenance of themselves and their families. Where is there an opening to-day for the use of this surplus purchasing power, whether it be deposited with the banks or elsewhere? Where are these
people to-day to secure a safe and profitable investment for that surplus purchasing power? There is no such opening at the present time in this country, and with the exception of the three countries I have mentioned, every other country is in the same position as Canada, for every other country is to all intents and purposes fully industrialized.
The capitalist system, as we know it, and I pay it this tribute, has done more for the human race than any other economic system that has existed; but it cannot continue unless it continues to expand. And Where is there any possibility of expansion? Where are the new countries that can be opened up in order that these savings may be utilized for further expansion under the system? Are there new industries of sufficient importance to take up the slack and make it possible for the surplus purchasing power to be invested with a reasonable degree of safety and profit?
In 1921 the automobile business made an opening for large amounts of surplus purchasing power; and there were also radio development and electricity. These three enterprises presented a great opportunity for the employment of surplus purchasing power, which could be invested at that time not only safely but profitably. That was why we overcame the depression of 1921-22 much more easily than we are getting over the present depression. But since that time this country has to all intents and purposes become fully industrialized; tremendous strides have been made since 1921 in providing Canada with new plant and equipment. But where is there any possibility of new industries being developed here or in any other country at the present time, of sufficient volume to take care of the surplus earnings of the people? That is the problem we are faced with. We may talk about tariffs and trade agreements, all good in their way; but when you come to the real crux of the problem you have to go much deeper than tariffs or trade agreements. It is therefore idle for this house to spend weeks and months quarrelling over these things; although they may have some importance it is idle for us to spend time in the hope of accomplishing something that will really improve present economic conditions.
Permit me again to call the attention of the house to the fact that we have new problems to meet such as we have never had before, even in the last depression, and old methods will not meet these new problems; we must devise new methods if we are to cope with the situation as it exists.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

I have cut my remarks short, and I am afraid they are rather disjointed, but it could not be otherwise in the brief time at my disposal. May I say, however, that so far as the speech from the throne is concerned, I see no real hope in it for the masses of the Canadian people. As I stated earlier this afternoon, we have in this country to-day all the natural resources we require for our sustenance. We have the machinery of production and men and women who are ready to go to work to produce, if only the system would permit it. But the system will not permit our people to go to work on our natural resources, using the machinery of production which we have for the provision of food and clothing and shelter required by the masses of our people. We have everything in abundance and there is no reason why we should have starvation or lack of food, clothing or shelter in any form.
Just imagine a country that had a surplus of wheat to the extent of 130,000,000 bushels at the end of the grain year, with another crop in sight of from 435,000,000 to 450,000,000 bushels, making a total of at least 550,000,000 bushels. Imagine a country with that quantity of wheat having approximately one-fifth of its population on the verge of starvation. All the ballyhoo in the world will be of no avail unless we are willing to get down to the real problems that face us and to deal with the economic situation as it is-not as we imagine it but as it.actually is. There will be no hope for the Canadian people unless this parliament is willing to take the proper measures to deal with the system.
So far as the speech from the throne is concerned, I repeat, I see no hope in it except in the one paragraph which states that other measures may be introduced later in the session. That does not offer very much hope, but it is a thin thread upon which we may hang a little hope. I trust that the government and this house will endeavour to tackle the real problem that faces us. My good friend and colleague the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) introduced a resolution, which was accepted last year with some amendment, providing for an economic research council, but the excuse of the government was that there were officials in government departments who would do the work. I should like to hear from the Minister of Trade and Commerce some time what progress they are making in looking into these economic problems with which we are faced at the present time. This house can no longer evade the issue; and the issue as I see it is this: Are the Canadian people to starve in the midst of plenty?
[Mr. Gardiner.!


Mr. BROWN:: Mr. Speaker, I move the
adjournment of the debate.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Speaker, I
move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon.
member for Lisgar moves that the debate be now adjourned.


Mr. SPENCER:: Mr. Speaker, the government whip had an arrangement with me whereby the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) should have the floor.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; the government had no arrangement.


Albert Joseph Brown: If that is the arrangement-


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I was not aware of
any arrangement.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If the hon.
member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) wishes to withdraw his motion he may do so, but it must be with the consent of the house.


Albert Joseph Brown: If I am to be handicapped in withdrawing my motion, then I must insist upon my rights. But if it is understood that I reserve my right to speak I will withdraw the motion; only on that condition, however.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as we are concerned, we have no objection.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to rule.
Tuesday, October 11, 1932