NEW MEMBER

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that the clerk of the house has received from the chief electoral officer certificate of the election and return of Joseph Arsene Bonnier, Esquire, for the electoral district of St. Henry, in the province of Quebec.



DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to amend the Dominion Franchise Act.
Mr. STEWART:: Explain.


Mr. RINFRET:: The effect of this amendment is merely to postpone for another year the revision of existing electoral lists. It is similar to bills introduced in past sessions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILFRID LACROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend the Civil Service Act.
He said: The object of this amendment is to provide that all employees of the federal government who are appointed to positions within a province or transferred from one province to another, either as temporary or p rmanent employees, should before being appointed or transferred pass an examination as to their knowledge of .the language of the majority of the province. For instance, no one might be appointed to a position in the civil service in the province of British Golum-biv or Manitoba or Nova Scotia, unless he has the requisite knowledge of the English language, and no one might be appointed to a position in the, province of Quebec unless he has the requisite knowledge of the French language.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[Stage Direction]
Criminal Code

Trade Unions


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to amend the criminal code.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Explain.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: The purpose of this bill is to prevent employers from refusing to employ, or from dismissing employees, or conspiring with others therefor, for the reason that they are members of a trade union.
As it is lawful for- workmen or employees to form themselves into trade unions and to bargain collectively, it should, as a matter of public policy, be unlawful for employers to seek by overt acts or intimidation, threats or conspiracy to prevent them from belonging to such trade unions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse) moved for leave to introduce Bill No 5, to amend the Railway Act.
He said: This bill is the same that I introduced last session and which did not reach second reading on account of the short duration of the session. The object of this bill is to amend the Railway Act so as to place under the jurisdiction of the board of railway commissioners the assessment of damages resulting from the erection of snow fences by the railway companies.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6 to amend the Government Railways Act.
He said: This bill is similar to one I have just presented. Its object is to amend the Government Railways Act in the same manner.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I wish to address a question to the government and

particularly to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). Has a substantial body of representations been made to the government for the repeal of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act; has a decision been arrived at as a result of these representations; and, finally, will the minister consider printing the report of the commission, together with proceedings and statistics, which he laid upon the table on Friday?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I think my hon. friend's question is really a request for the government to announce its policy with respect to a matter of possible legislation. As to the representations, of course representations pro and con with respect to the act to which my hon. friend refers have been made to the government continuously since that legislation was first enacted. I should not like the impression to go abroad that all the representations received have been against the continued operation of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Representations both for and against it have reached the government from time to time from various parts of Canada. I cannot make any pronouncement with respect to government policy in the matter; in that regard my hon. friend will have to possess his soul in patience until the government decides to introduce or not introduce amendments to the law.
With regard to the printing of the report which I tabled the other day, the government will be glad to give consideration to the matter, bearing in mind, however, that if the printing of such a report is ordered by the house it will be paid for out of the House of Commons vote.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My reason for asking the question was that the report is not a very lengthy one, but it is one in which I know that a large number of members are vitally interested.


Mr. DUNNING:: We will give consideration to the printing of it.



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.
Mr. J. N. FRANCGBUR (Lotbiniere):: (Translation): Mr. Speaker, when I left you last summer, I did not expect to meet you here, at the opening of this session in the Speaker's chair. For two sessions you have

The Address-Mr. Francoeur
presided over the proceedings of this house with a fair-mindedness and tact that reflect great credit on you. Allow me, at the opening of our parliamentary labours, to extend to you my best wishes; may you enjoy a very good health. I dare say no more, for I know that you are endowed with these virtues, namely indulgence and patience.
Scarcely two months ago I had no idea that I would occupy a seat in this chamber, but the house has to grieve over the loss of six of its members. Last Friday, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and leaders of other parties paid a tribute to the memory of those who have passed away. I shall speak only of my predecessor, Mr. Verville, a member of this house for twelve years, practising his profession among his constituents, at St. Flavien, right in the centre of Lotbiniere county, was in daily contact with the people whose confidence he had won and retained. In spite of his apparently pleasant nature, Verville was possessed of a tenacity and impetuosity which surprised his friends and baffled his opponents. His sudden demise, though foreseen by his intimate friends, caused unanimous regrets in the constituency and in the whole Quebec district.
Immediately after the decease of my predecessor, the government did not hesitate to call for an election on December 27 last, and the campaign started at once. My friends came to lend me a helping hand. I wish to mention right now the support given me by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger), the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Tremblay), the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Edouard Lacroix), the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Dussault), the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemount (Mr. Sarto Fournier) and the hon. member for Quebec West and South (Mr. Charles Parent). They placed before the electors of Lotbiniere not only one problem, but all the problems which the government has been called upon to consider and to try to solve since its return to power in 1935.
The speech from the throne mentions some new legislation. Before discussing the merit of the questions which are submitted to us, let me call your attention, Mr. Speaker, upon a public event which took place in the month of May. I am speaking of the coronation of our new sovereigns: George VI and Her Most Gracious Majesty, Queen Elizabeth. Not only the United Kingdom, the dominions and the *1952-2
other possessions of the British Empire, but the whole world paid the British crown a very real tribute of admiration. We are convinced that our new sovereigns will pursue the traditions of a dynasty which have given proof of their affection towards the people in respecting political and parliamentary liberties.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out the achievements of the government since 1935. Without special commitments, they undertook to work for the social and economic reestablishment of the whole country. Immediately after their return to power the government thought of the farming class, which I represent in this house. They endeavoured to develop our trade by negotiating forthwith with our neighbours, the United States, which are the natural market for our products, a trade agreement the good effects of which are already noticeable. Several other trade agreements have been made, namely with the United Kingdom, the other British possessions and some European countries. As we have already mentioned, by stimulating the trade and reducing the tariffs, we have increased the opportunities for work and thereby reduced the number of unemployed. The benefits of this policy were summed up in the address delivered by the president of the Royal Bank of Canada, on January 13 last, at the annual meeting of the bank's shareholders. This is what he said:
Canada is a fortunate country. During the past century there have been more years when business in Canada has been on the up-grade or -when prosperity has prevailed, than in any other part of the world. This fact was brought out in a careful study which analysed the activity of business in each important country. During 1936 the rate of recovery in Canada was phenomenal, and the high level attained in that year was maintained in 1937. In spite of the moderate recession at the end of the year, induced by uncertainty of the business outlook in the United States, the volume of activity in most lines of business compares not unfavourably with the record year of 1929, and in many lines, particularly mining, new high records have been established.
You will notice that this is not the evidence of a political partisan or of an admirer of any one in this house, but the testimony of a business man, who, before making such a statement, must have analysed the conditions. The conclusions which he arrives at are an encouragement for the present administration and should urge them to follow the course they have entered upon. The financial question is another very important issue. For the last two years the government has been striving to end the era of deficits. It is a difficult task, but the hon. the Minister of



The Address-Mr. Francoeur
Finance (Mr. Dunning) seems to face it with so much energy that we may soon hail a balanced budget.
Then, the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Finance on the first of January last was most gratifying. May I quote an excerpt from his survey of the economic conditions :
In my budget address last February, I expressed the belief that we could keep the overall deficit down to $35,000,000 for 1937-1938 and that we could attain our goal of a balanced budget in the following year. I am still confident that these expressed objectives will prove to be conservative. Had it not been for the western drought, we should have had a balanced budget this year.
He goes on to say:
I think I may say that the year 1937 has seen considerable progress made, not only in the restoration of our normal economic conditions but also in the strengthening of our national finances. We still have problems to solve, but the progress already made leaves no basis for discouragement.
That is a statement deserving to be brought to the attention of the electors of the constituency which I have the honour to represent here.
During that campaign, my fellow members of this house and I discussed all those problems, and at a mass meeting held at Saint-Flavien on the 19th of December last, my constituents even had the honour of welcoming the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) w(ho was accompanied by the hon. the Minister of National Health (Mr. Power), and on that occasion, the right hon. the Minister of Justice delivered a speech which the people of the constituency of Lotbiniere, nay, which all the provinces and even the whole country had 'been awaiting. Mr. Speaker, the right hon. the Minister of Justice did not disappoint his audience. Speaking for over an hour, he placed before the province and the country the true problem on which the electors were called upon to vote on the 27th of December, and in a straightforward manner, he recalled what the government had done, emphasizing at the same time the main issues which, in such a campaign had to be considered and decided upon.
I need not add that, on such occasion, he was given a tribute not only of admiration but also of trust, because, speaking as a leader of the province of Quebec, as a statesman, he was able to place the problems in their true light without paying any attention to those appeals to passion and prejudice with which, ever since the beginning of the campaign, our opponents had endeavoured to sway public opinion.

But I must admit that they did not care to say anything about the government's record from 1935 to the present time. Two main issues were discussed. At first, they brought up the question of secession, thus reviving a subject which dated back several years; they said that the province of Quebec, in order to enjoy her autonomy, her privileges and her rights, had to withdraw from confederation. The other important issue was the national defence question.
Incidentally, I should point out that the
government's opponent was not a Conservative, since the Conservative party had not seen fit to put in a candidate. A nationalist-independent candidate entered the lists. We did not hesitate, my friends and I, to discuss that issue of secession, we stated that the province of Quebec-and in this we knew that our feelings were those of the majority of electors-did not wish to withdraw from confederation, but wanted to remain in it as long as not only the letter but also the very spirit of confederation was adhered to.
Seeing that such an argument had not much effect upon the electors, our opponents stated that they would leave aside for the time being, the secession issue, that they would abstain from any agitation over that matter in order to examine and dwell upon the reasons why the province of Quebec should have greater antonomy.
Mr. Speaker, that school appealed to very few serious-minded men in the province of Quebec, but enlisted the support of a few young people eager to get on, of a few young men thwarted in their ambition, and I may add, of the dregs of nearly every party who believe they can seize the avenues of power by reviving that issue of the withdrawal of the province of Quebec from confederation.
But I may state in this house, to the representatives of other provinces of the dominion, that the province of Quebec means to continue as a member of the confederation, as long, I repeat, as the British North America Act is adhered to, and provided Quebec is treated like the other provinces of the dominion. Moreover, I had the opportunity to recall, even during the last campaign, the attitude I had taken on that issue, long before the last appeal to the electorate.
In 1909, when I had the honour of being requested by Sir Lomer Gouin, then premier of the province of Quebec, to move the address in reply to the speech from the throne in the Quebec legislature, the problem had already arisen, as a result of a nationalistic campaign. May I quote here the answer I made to those who sought directly or indirectly
JANUARY 31, 193S	19
The Address-Mr. Francoeur
to stir up strife in connection with the confederation act:
Without denying his origins, without abjuring his language or his faith, without forgetting the traditions of his race, every Canadian should, instead of shutting himself up within the narrow confines of a retrograde provincialism, rise higher, widen his outlook, aim at the ideal of a Canadian nation in the broadest and most generous sense of the word. With this objective the self-governing provinces, while operating within their powers, will show greater cohesion and each one, in the ardour of mutual emulation, seeking to become the main factor of common progress, will ensure general prosperity. Because of its traditions, its geographical situation, its boundless wealth, our province should hold first place in the dominion and should be, if we so wish, the principal factor of this general prosperity. . . . Such is the noble and patriotic aim to which we should devote all our efforts.
The problem arose again later on, and in January 1918, answering those from other provinces, especially from the western and the maritime provinces, who were asking us what we of the province of Quebec wanted, I said:
What we want is to live and let live. To live while observing not only the letter of the constitution but especially its spirit; to live according to our tastes, our temperament and our mentality; to live as free citizens conscious of our duties and of our responsibilities; to live while working for the progress and development of our province, in the conviction that we are thus ensuring the progress and development of the country; to live while maintaining our language, our beliefs, our traditions, our institutions and our laws; in short, to live as loyal Canadians devoted to the British crown. To let live: giving to others the respect we ourselves demand; recognizing to them the liberty they claim in the exercise of their own vested rights; leaving them free to speak and teach their mother-tongue, to preserve their beliefs and their traditions, and even fighting with them, if need be, for the defence of this heritage which they cherish as much as we do. . . . Thus it is that we shall become a truly Canadian nation in which shall prevail that "strong conimunity of interests constituted, as has been said, by the consciousness of sacrifices that each has made and is ready to make again." We would thus be protected against the causes of ruin which threaten us from within at the same time as we ward off dangers from without. We should then appear as a nation bound not solely by common interests, but also by a true union of hearts and minds.
Such were the considerations which we put forward throughout the last campaign in Lotbiniere county in replying to those who, stirring up strife, ignoring the policies and accomplishments of the present government, endeavoured to turn public opinion and capture the vote of the people.
The other problem is that of national defence. In accepting to stand for Lotbiniere county, I did not hesitate to tell the electors that I intended on this point to support the policy of the present government, because I
51952-2}
considered that a citizen's first duty is to defend his country. My friends and I stated at every public meeting that we were in favour of defending our country, that we believed that the first line of defence was. now in Canada, but that we did not want to contribute one cent for arming or equipping-an expeditionary force, in short, that we do. not intend to take part in foreign wars. Thus did we present the question and thus did the electors of Lotbiniere understand it. The answer they gave on December 27 last shows that they wish, like all other citizens of Canada, of whatever race and whatever religion, to exercise the first duty of all citizens, that is the defence of his country.
The vote given in Lotbiniere on December 27 has received various appraisals. It would serve no useful purpose to repeat here all the comments to which it has given rise. Some saw in the verdict a deeper meaning than the electors wished to give to it, going so far as to say that the voters of Lotbiniere had declared themselves militarists. Others said that the result had no significance whatever and that it did not indicate approval of the government's policy.
Mr. Speaker, the vote cast in Lotbiniere on December 27 last on the question of national defence means that the French Canadians of the province of Quebec want to do their duty. They are ready to contribute their share of the expenditure required for the defence of the country, but nothing more. They are not militarists. They want peace just as much as any citizen of any other province, but they also wish to see all needed measures taken for the reorganization of our militia according to the government's plans in order to ensure peace within and prevent attack from without. Such, I repeat, is the way the question was presented. And such is the way the electors of Lotbiniere have understood it. At every meeting not only the older men, but especially the youth of the county, in great majority, applauded the statements made by the members of this house who assisted me in the campaign on this important question of national defence. That does not mean, though, that the province of Quebec wants the government to enter into the armament race. The result of the election means that Quebec is conscious of its duty and aware of its responsibilities and wishes, according to its means and in the light of the new conditions, to furnish its share of the expenditure essential to ensuring peace within the country and to prevent attack from without.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne foreshadows measures of considerable importance. I do not propose to discuss them now.

The Address-Mr. Francoeur
The government has wisely stated in that speech that in the matter of amending the British North America Act they intended obtaining the approval of the provinces in the matter of unemployment insurance; in the event of a constitutional amendment being necessary-and there are those who doubt its necessity-they proposed doing likewise. The house will be called upon to consider these measures.
Another question which is agitating public opinion at the present time is that of the export to the United States of electric power from the provinces. I am sure that the opportunity will be afforded us during this session carefully to consider this question which deserves the serious attention of the house.
I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to speak at length. For some months past, not only in the province of Quebec but in all the provinces of Canada, journalists and others have been dwelling on the necessity of safeguarding Canadian unity. As I stated some moments ago, Canadian unity can be obtained only by respecting the constitution which governs us. To my mind, the confederation act should be treated with great prudence. Our constitution, as we know, was the result of a compromise and the fathers of confederation intended that it be not interfered with for many years. Not very long ago the question of whether the Canadian confederation offered prospects of enduring was still discussed. I think that after seventy years it is possible to answer that question affirmatively. But, as I said a moment ago, let us not lay hands on the British North America Act without the most careful consideration. It is particularly necessary to take account of the powers assigned to the central government and to the provinces.
The honour of proposing the address in reply to the speech from the throne I owe to a county that, ever since confederation, has remained faithful to Canadian Liberalism. Immediately after the victory the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) very kindly asked me to propose this address. It is an honour which I owe to the electors of Lotbiniere and for which I am grateful to them. At the same time I offer my thanks to the right hon. the Prime Minister who particularly wished, I believe, to show his appreciation of the unswerving fidelity of the voters of Lotbiniere to the principles and ideas which he has upheld in this chamber and elsewhere with such brilliance and success.

Someone has said:
Nations are not, any more than individuals, the result of spontaneous generation; they are the outcome of a long succession of efforts, sacrifices and devotion.
Every Canadian should ponder these words and be governed by them. He should strive by constant effort and sacrifice, by untiring devotion, to preserve the heritage of our political liberty, of our institutions and of our laws. It is in Canadian Liberalism, to which their attachment never ceases to grow, in their broadness of outlook, their love of freedom, their tolerance, their respect for all opinions and all rights that our people will find the ideals which uplift and strengthen their soul and sustain them in their struggle towards the realization of their destiny.
The men who uphold Canadian Liberalism to-day are the worthy successors of those who, in the rank's of their party, have no other aim than the greatness of their country. They have just received a new and striking expression of confidence which this house will surely ratify.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to propose:
That the following 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; namely,-
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Baron Tweedsmuir of Elsfield, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Member of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Governor General and Commander in Chief of the Dominion of Canada.
May it please Your Excellency:
We, His Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your ^ Excellency for the gracious speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both houses of parliament.


Mr. R. M. WARREN (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to second the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne, may I first be permitted to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on behalf of the citizens of North Renfrew for the honour conferred upon us. There is no doubt that in conferring this honour he had in mind the paying of a tribute to the memory of an old and staunch friend, the late Doctor Matthew McKay. Doctor McKay was an unusual character. In his profession he served the poor just as readily and willingly as those who were able to pay. He always took an intense interest in public affairs. I suppose there had not been an election held in

The Address-Mr. Warren
the last sixty years in which he did not take an active part. He was progressive in his ideas and always striving to raise the standards of the poorer classes.
During the past year we have lost many useful public servants. I am sure we all greatly regret their passing, but their works remain to keep their memories fresh.
In the speech from the throne mention is made of the coronation. It must have been pleasing to the Prime Minister and his ministers to know that while they were taking part in the festivities in England, all across the Dominion of Canada, in every city, town and hamlet, citizens from all walks of life were gathered together to rejoice and celebrate as was being done in England. This must have been pleasing also to Lord Tweeds-muir, the representative of our king, George VI. We have followed with intense interest the travels of His Excellency during the past year. A gentleman who is so anxious to gain first-hand knowledge of the remote parts of Canada must be a useful servant, not only of the people of Canada but of His Majesty the King.
Mention is made also of the tragic crop failures in Saskatchewan and southern Alberta. It is hard for us to realize just what these successive crop failures mean. There is not only a loss of purchasing power to thousands of farmers, but also a reduction in the revenues of our railways. Then in addition the thousands who have been left without any means of support must be cared for.
There is one feature of the handling of this situation which I think is worthy of mention. The government decided, I believe rightly, that it would be much cheaper to reduce the number of live stock in the dried out areas to the minimum rather than to import feed to carry them over the winter. The stock was gathered together and taken to feeding grounds in Manitoba. They were then graded and each animal was sent to the proper market. It appears to me that that was good business on the part of the government. As we all know, there are speculators who are ready to take advantage of the distress or lack of knowledge of the farmer, but the opportunity of taking that advantage was eliminated by the action taken by the government. Much of this stock was sold by auction at the yards in Manitoba and the returns from the sales were made to the farmers in the dried out areas.
We are glad to report that the condition of our farmers generally is gradually improving. Back taxes are being paid up and cars which have been locked up are again being taken out. Telephones which have been disconnected for some time are now being-hooked up. The new agreement entered into between this government and our neighbours to the south has had a great deal to do with improving the condition of many of our Canadian farmers. To quote a few examples: In 1935 we sold $12,987 worth of alfalfa seed to the United States; in 1937 this had increased to $826,507, Of cattle we sold in 1935, $5,617,861 worth; in 1937 this had increased to $13,553,064, an increase of 141 per cent. Of horses we exported in 1935, $630,331 worth; in 1937 the export had increased to $1,309,535, an increase of 107 per cent. Of live poultry we shipped in 1935, $14,535 worth; in 1937 this had increased to $833,235. The percentage of increase in this case would be so great as to look rather ridiculous, so I have not worked it out. Of cream, in 1935 we shipped S7 worth; in 1937 the value of our shipments was $191,911, and even at that we did not nearly fill our quota.
These results do not appear to have interfered at all with our trade to the British Isles. We find that, as regards .the export of cattle, in 1935 we shipped to Great Britain 6.704 cattle; in 1937 this had increased to 9,610, an increase in the numbers shipped of 43 per cent. In 1935 the value was $428,838; in 1937 it was $858,347, an increase of 100 per cent. Of cheese we shipped in 1935 527,196 hundredweight; in 1937 we shipped 811,815 hundredweight, representing an increase in quantity of 53 per cent and in value of 97 per cent.
There is in Renfrew county, and, I suppose, in a great many other counties throughout Canada, quite a number of farmers who to a considerable extent depend upon forest products for their living. We have now reached a stage where we have a market for any of those products. No longer is our pulpwood rotting at the sidings and' our mature timber deteriorating in the woods for lack of a market. Yet we as farmers have a great deal to learn, particularly as to the proper preparation of our products for market as well as the proper method of marketing them. It is comforting to know that in this regard the government proposes to give to the farmers of this dominion every possible assistance. I will give a small example of what may be accomplished in this respect During the last two or three years the live stock branch of the federal government has been responsible for the organizing of some twenty-six associations throughout the province of Ontario which handle eggs and poultry on a graded basis. This business is done at the very minimum of cost. The farmer
The Address-Mr. Warren

*who brings in his product knows he is going to be paid for it on a graded basis, and that the grade he gets at the grading station will be accepted on any market. It is estimated that this has resulted in an increase of three cents per dozen to the farmers who deliver eggs to these associations. That is only a beginning, one small beginning, perhaps, but there are many opportunities; for the field is so large. It is some comfort to know that throughout Canada, outside this house as well as among many hon. members, men are studying and grappling with these questions, and it is to be hoped that the farmers generally will cooperate to bring about better methods of marketing our products.
We have heard a great deal during recent years of the problem of unemployment, and it is some comfort to know that the figures of the past year show a decrease, in this respect, of 213,000 persons receiving relief, representing a decrease of 21 per cent as compared with 1936. In thinking of this question, or for that matter any other, one is likely to be snore or less influenced by local conditions; :and I am glad to be able to report that, as 'compared with 1934, in the north riding of Renfrew relief has been reduced by 85 per cent. I am also pleased to be able to report that for the last seven months of 1937 we have not had any employable men in receipt of relief. I do not think that conditions are particularly abnormal in Renfrew county, but I want to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the active employment officials and to employers of labour in that county. We have officials who are not afraid or unwilling to go out and hunt jobs for men, and employers who are willing to give a man a chance to get experience and to become hardened up to his job after some months of idleness. We have had splendid cooperation from our officials and our employers of labour. This condition is not anything of a miracle; it is, I believe, something that might be accomplished in a great many municipalities if the .same effort were put forth.
A great deal is said on public platforms regarding the problem of youth. In the rural districts, particularly in those of North Renfrew, this has never been much of a problem. Our boys and girls, apparently, are capable of going out and finding their own jobs. We have had some very happy experiences, particularly during the past year, of young fellows who, having drifted away to the mining areas or the woods, have come back in shining cars, well dressed, with a sufficient competence to enable them to marry local girls. The neighbours get together and give them a 
grand reception, showering them with gifts, and away they go to become home builders in Canada.
I suppose this problem of youth is one that has to be faced in the towns and cities. During the last session there was a move on the part of this government to train the youth of Canada, and now upwards of fourteen thousand of our young people are receiving training on a fifty-fifty basis as between the province and the dominion government. These young people are being trained in industry, in forestry, in domestic work and in many useful callings. I note that this work is to be carried on, and that a school for the training of girls is to be opened this week, I believe, in the city of Ottawa.
I have often wondered why more of our young women do not take up -this line of work. It is true that most of our girls prefer to be office workers or school teachers, but it is often very true that the girl who is willing to go into a good home and do domestic work -has more money in her pocket at the end of the year than the office girl or the school teacher; and in engaging in such work she probably gains about as much in culture and really useful learning as she would in a ladies' college.
It is important, I suppose, that we should know what our young people are working at; but it is much more important that we should know that they have an opportunity to work at some useful occupation. I am glad to observe, therefore, -the indication in the speech from the throne -that the government will continue to deal with this problem. This is only the beginning, and I feel confident that what is now being done will develop into something that will be of great benefit throughout the dominion.
In -the collection of revenues, there have been no new sources of taxation this year, so that if we have an increased revenue that is a sure indication that conditions have improved. If there is an increase in revenue in all branches, that again should indicate that the improvement is general. Now what are the facts? In a statement issued recently by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) we are told that in the first eight months of the fiscal year our revenues had improved over those of the previous year by 18-8 per cent; or, stated in figures, our revenues were up by $57,200,000. The -total for those eight months was 8360,330,000, or -the highest ever recorded.
The use of the mails ought to be a fairly true indication of conditions, because when conditions are exceptionally bad, people hesitate to buy postage stamps. In the Post Office Department, however, we have a

The Address-Mr. Bennett
wonderful machine that delivers our mails in sunshine or rain, every day, in rural as well as in urban districts, a machine that manages somehow to take care of the great increase in the amount of mail handled during the Christmas rush. And what is the situation in that department? The Post Office Department is operated, not for profit, but for service, though if it can show a surplus so much the better; for a surplus naturally helps the taxpayer, whereas if there is a deficit it has to be paid by the same taxpayer. We have a surplus in the Post Office Department of $3,735,976.73, the highest on record.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that in sixty-nine years this particular department has shown forty-two deficits as compared with twenty-seven surpluses? It is gratifying, therefore, to know that there is a surplus in the Post Office Department; it undoubtedly indicates more favourable conditions among the people. In the matter of revenue, it is also worthy of note that the great increase has come from our external trade. Our external trade is largely responsible for the improvement; and there is one feature in this connection which must cause a tingle of pride in every Canadian, and that is that Canada, a nation of eleven million people, now occupies fourth position among the exporting countries of the world.
It should also be of interest to the Canadian people that during the past year new trade agreements have been arranged with fifteen different countries, and that negotiations in the direction of liberalizing trade have become almost continuous. I am sure there is nothing that would do more to prevent war and to put an end to the fear of war than fair trade agreements. I hope that the example set by the Department of Trade and Commerce will be emulated by all the nations of the world.
We have in Canada at present a royal commission of inquiry which apparently has been causing a measure of unrest in the minds of some people lest changes which might be proposed would create disharmony between provinces. Undoubtedly their fears are uncalled for. I had the pleasure of attending a little dinner the other day at which were present members of this house from almost every province in the dominion. The impression I gained at that dinner was that if the matter is left with hon. members on this side of the house, harmony and unity will prevail.
Taking the good with* the bad I believe this government can face the coming year with great courage and optimism and hopefulness. I doubt whether in the history of
Canada any government ever more fully enjoyed the confidence of the people. This sentiment is clearly felt as one travels here and there throughout the country; one gathers it not from Liberals alone, but from members of different political parties. The people feel an assured confidence that this government is carrying on and will carry on in the best interests of our great dominion. If any proof of that were required we have sufficient in the fact that since this house met last year six vacancies have been filled, five of which were filled by Liberal members. One went to the opposition, but even that was due to the generosity of the government in allowing an acclamation.
I take great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in seconding the motion of my hon. friend (Mr. Francoeur) for an address in reply to the speech from the throne.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I greatly regret that an accident in transport prevented me from hearing the undoubtedly admirable speech in which this motion was moved. I heard a portion of the address made by the hon. member who seconded the motion, and if the whole speech relied, as much as did the part I heard, upon his imagination, I am quite certain it was an admirable performance.
The speech from the throne might well have been an address prepared before the war; but in these days it is difficult to understand any such document being submitted to a responsible parliament in the British dominions. It leaves such uncertainty in the minds of those who read it; it contains so many provisos, and at times is couched in language so ambiguous, that one cannot be sure whether it was a product of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) when opposing the Committee for Industrial Organization or of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) when supporting it.
With the first paragraph of the speech I think we can all agree. The most important event of last year in our world was the coronation of the king and queen; and that during the past year they have succeeded in so performing a very difficult task as to command the admiration and respect of their own peoples and the esteem and regard of the world is something with which we are all well pleased. It strikes me as a matter of singular importance that a young man and a young woman should have offered their lives as lives of service to the people in the manner in which the king and queen did at the coronation. It has been well said that the spectacle of the coronation was not only a
The Address-Mr. Bennett

great pageant, it was more; it was a service so deeply moving in .all its aspects as to impress men and women with the magnitude of the task undertaken by the king and queen as well as the duties and responsibilities that rest upon their subjects.
But when we have dealt with that we cannot forget that at the same time there met an imperial conference. If one reads the records of that conference as they were presented to us a few days ago it is difficult to understand what it met for. But if one reads the reports in the newspapers he finds a somewhat deeper significance. If the speech of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) as reported in the press-and not in the proceedings-is to be taken as being of value, he undertook to interpret the will of the chief executive of a foreign country to those who were assembled with him as representing the British commonwealth of nations. I do not pronounce upon the authenticity of those reports; it is not for me to do so, but. they appeared at some length in leading journals, and doubtless there was some foundation for their being thus printed.
But there is one thing upon which we can all agree, and that is the pride and satisfaction we feel in the knowledge that the British commonwealth has withstood so many shocks during the year through which we have passed. Menaced as it has been on more fronts than one, it has still stood four-square to all the winds that blow, and we know that whatever else may be said, the greatest assurance we have for the maintenance of our democracy and our institutions lies in the preservation of that commonwealth of nations amongst the peoples of the world. There may be ample opportunity on a later occasion to discuss matters connected with the imperial conference of 1937. I do not propose to enter upon a discussion at this moment with respect to these matters. But it is of course of singular importance to us as well as to the other dominions that for the first time the new sovereign was crowned as king, and his consort as queen, of the overseas dominions by name, as indicated in the speech from the throne. The imperial conference did and does afford an opportunity to discuss problems of common concern to everyone who lives within the commonwealth. That the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) availed himself of that opportunity is not unexpected. Those who have had the pleasure of reading his utterances, such as those delivered in Victoria not long since, will realize the striking effect they had upon his mind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Even the minister himself laughs loudly as he recalls the effect upon his mind as indicated by his speeches delivered on those occasions. About that I shall have something to say before I resume my seat, but there is one thing that did not take place at the imperial conference with respect to defence. That was that responsible people should publish in this country the extent of the provision we have made for the defence of Canada. When I read in the press, as I did, a statement that had about it every sign of having been authorized by someone, as to the character and type of the defences we are erecting on Vancouver Island and on the mainland, I wondered if at the imperial conference the minister was told that this might be desirable. Those who are responsible for these publications, to which I shall refer presently, have done a grievous wrong to this country, for they have published to the world the size, calibre and weight of the guns we are to use, and what their prospective range may be. No such thing has ever happened in any country that I know of in the world before, and I do suggest that the Minister of National Defence at least did not learn that rule of strategy at the meetings of the imperial conference.
I should like to say how much I rejoice, as do those who are associated with me, in the gratifying progress of this country during the last twelve months. The upward trend began in 1933. The president of one of our banks pointed out that last year the progress was greater than in any other year excepting the progress in 1934 over 1933. It is desirable to point out, it seems to me, that there has been little departure, by the new administration, from the policies of the government that formerly held office, and that at the end of two years, entering upon the third session, they, in common with other governments of the world, rejoice because of a prosperity which, during the last twelve months, was very great indeed. But it has been interrupted. It will be found that the report of our exports in the months of November and December last shows that they have decreased as compared with November and December of 1936, and it is also well to recall the fact that the favourable trade balance which we had with the United States, amounting to over $50,000,000, has been altered to an adverse balance on visible commodities amounting to several millions of dollars.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) to some of his utterances in 1929 and 1930. He will recall how, in those days of buoyant trade and expanding revenues he, as

The Address-Mr. Bennett
Minister of Finance, pointed out that all was well; yet within a few short months a nation that depended upon its external trade found its favourable balances destroyed, with adverse balances created and depression upon us unequalled in the history of the country. It is true that the depression was not limited to Canada, but it cannot for a moment be denied that the conditions that exist in this country, to which the Minister of Finance referred in 1929 and 1930, are conditions that obtained in 1937, and the interruption of that seeming prosperity-for I call it but seeming when it depends upon export trade-in November and December by a falling off in our export trade to the extent of many millions of dollars, cannot be explained solely by the lessening of wheat exports. When we contemplate these matters those of us who remember that history has an unfortunate habit of repeating itself must reflect as to what steps are being taken by the government of the day to provide against the conditions of which these are symptomatic signs. You have it in the United States; you have it here.
It is worthy of note, further, that the seeming prosperity to which attention is directed with respect to export trade as well as with respect to domestic activities is not unconnected with the armaments being provided by the nations of the world. I wonder if trouble has been taken to investigate the extent to which our export trade, to which reference is made, depends upon the production of war materials by nations that are providing armaments for their own defence or for aggressive purposes. I wonder if that is being considered. I wonder if the government realize that upon an analysis of those figures, which properly may be made at some future time, it will appear that the prosperity to which we allude depends in no small measure upon the armaments that are being created by the nations of the world, for the production of which Canadian raw materials are being acquired.
That in itself should make the minister pause and reflect, for I recall that in 1930 he reduced the sales tax in the face of a positive deficit. Then when he came into office he increased it from six per cent to eight per cent.
But, Mr. Speaker, I want to go a step further. As I came in the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) was referring to the great revenues that this country has , been producing, and he pointed out that not ' in the history of Canada had we ever raised
F| so much money as national revenue as we have collected during the last few months.
Stripped of verbiage, Mr. Speaker, that | merely means that the Minister of Finance imposed higher taxes per capita upon the people than have ever been imposed upon . them before. That is all it means. There is only one method by which money can be collected. That method is by taxation. I was blamed once for directing attention to that fact. The taxes imposed upon the Canadian people during the last few months have been higher per capita than at any time previously in the history of this dominion. Yet we rejoice and say, " Behold, the great revenues we have taken from the Canadian people. We have retained the excise tax that we railed against when we were out of office. We have retained the three per cent excise tax upon commodities coming into this country." Before the previous government went out of office it removed it with respect to Great Britain and the British Empire.
" We have retained our sales tax, not at the old rate of six per cent but at the rate of eight per cent," which in itself has been a tremendous tax upon business. "We have retained the three cent postage rate," and the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, who rejoiced over these great revenues, must have reflected upon the fact that while in days of great depression, in order to maintain the service, it was necessary to make the rate three cents per ounce, in these days of abounding prosperity, the same rate must be retained. Rather than boast of the surplus with respect to the Post Office Department he should have said, " I regret that there has been no increase in the amounts paid to rural mail carriers. I regret that there has been no reduction in postal rates." I recall that last year I asked the minister whether or not he thought it was likely that he would be able to make any such reduction, and he regretted that it would not be so. Now his faithful follower comes and says, "Behold the surplus: behold the surplus! " Is it the purpose of the government to conduct the Post Office Department simply to create a surplus, or is it the purpose to render a service to the public? Can they rejoice because men who were poorly pnid when the minister was not in office are now paid at the same rate? It all depends upon
where the minister sits.	*

So far as I have been able to see, the Minister of Finance has not remitted the stamp tax on cheques, nor have I heard of a remission of the excise tax. Who within the sound of my voice can for a moment forget the pathetic tale which was unfolded day after day about the iniquitous sugar tax? Why,
The Address-Mr. Bennett

the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley) must recall his fervid eloquence as he told the people of this country of the sad plight in which they were put, because the sugar tax was reduced only from two cents to one cent per pound. There it still remains. Incredible as it may seem, it is the same one cent per pound. Doubtless at an early day, if an election is imminent, the Minister of Finance will reduce or abolish it, just as in 1930 he reduced the sales tax from two per cent to one per cent. I mention these matters because they seem to have a direct bearing upon the observations made in the speech from the throne.


Ralph Melville Warren: May I ask the right hon. gentleman a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it might be desirable for the hon. member to resume his seat.


Walter Edward Foster: With the consent of the right hon. gentleman the hon. member may ask a question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When I have finished the h-on. member may ask any questions he wishes.
I have observed, of course, the reference made to the conditions under which we live in western Canada. The prosperity that has been so apparent in some parts of Canada has not been apparent in western Canada, except in the Turner valley. There has been a lack of moisture for which, in days gone by, the members of the present government would have charged the then government with full responsibility. We do not charge that lack of moisture to their account. We do not think, for instance, that a magic wand could be waved by the Minister of Agriculture by which he could reduce the Department of Trade and Commerce to a mere nonentity, will provide moisture for the stricken areas of the west. And we have some doubt as to whether or not a Shaw report would be capable of doing it. I feel quite sure, however, that if we could set up the machinery suggested by that report we might be able to provide, shall we say, some provincial premier with larger powers such as were proposed with respect to a high commissioner.
However, I have only this to say with respect to the administration of the act:	It
is still a politically administered act. At the proper time and place I should like to bring to this chamber a number of communications, provided the reading of them would not worry the house. But with respect to the relief afforded to those who have been so unfortunate as to live within the areas in question, it is quite clear that this govern-[Mr. Bennett 1
ment has divorced itself from some of its responsibility, and has left it with the provincial administration.
I shall give an illustration of what I mean, one which may be multiplied many times over. In their wisdom the government may decide that a herd must be reduced; we will say from twenty to ten. The order goes forth, accordingly. The reason is obvious; it lies in the difficulty of providing fodder and feed for the purpose of taking care of twenty head of cattle. The number is reduced to ten, and feed is provided accordingly. But unfortunately-and I say unfortunately, because I am prepared to support my statement with cases, days and dates-when an individual believes that his herd should not be reduced to ten he has recourse to a political effort, and I suppose he cannot be blamed for it. His efforts may induce the authority to say that for the ten may be substituted fifteen. That has been going on constantly. In case after case and community after community men have gone down and said, "It is desirable that John Smith should not be cut down to ten. He is a good fellow; he has great influence ; we do not wish to lose his good will. Let us permit him to retain the fifteen he says he must have." It is not altogether unexpected, but our complaint is that these matters should be subject to a purely political administration. The other day in a small community a friend of mine who was a stranger to that community found three inspectors operating. One was in the local area, one was in the combined areas and there was a superintendent- to inspect the inspectors. I assume that is a very difficult task in times like these.
These conditions are inevitable if the conduct of business is left to purely political sources. To quote the language used on many occasions by the first minister, human nature being what it is we are not surprised that this goes on. If any hon. members have any doubt upon it they can verify the facts in a very few minutes.
I repeat that when the money of the taxpayers is being spent in this way it certainly should be done by some independent commission, so as to prevent not only the opportunity but the temptation for political administration. However, I am not so young that I do not realize how difficult it is for governments to withstand the pressure brought to bear., as in, this instance, when herds are being cut down, when fodder is to be provided and representations are made as to the desirability of making exceptions in the cases of Smith, Jones or some others. When we multiply tha-t procedure the effect

The Address-Mr. Bennett
is to create dissatisfaction and dissension and a measure of unhappiness and uneasiness in the community, area or province, and I suggest it is a procedure which should be avoided. I make the criticism because it has come to my attention that there have been many such cases, and that they have not occurred by accident but have been done by design. Knowing something of political considerations as they affect the judgment of men, I am simply pointing out that the government should take steps to prevent action of that kind being taken.
The Department of Agriculture has desired to expand its activities, and I suggest without regard to the provision of the statute-for after all, there are statutes which have to do with the powers of ministers, statutes which state that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has one power and the Minister of Agriculture another. All ministers, under the statutes creating their departments, are supposed to discharge the duties devolving upon them and arising from those statutes. We have a singular circumstance here, for we have the statute creating the Department of Agriculture and indicating the work that that department is to do, the definite purposes for which it was created, the duties which it is its responsibility to discharge. I was going to read them, but I shall not take the time to do so. The Department of Trade and Commerce has certain obligations. The obligations of the two departments do not agree, of course.
I would point out that there has not been a time in this country when there has not been some measure of conflict between these two departments. On the one hand we have the Department of Agriculture contending .that it is interested in goods or commodities after they have left these shores. On the other hand we have the Department of Trade and Commerce, with its emissaries in all parts of the world, contending that the duty devolves upon them of seeing to the distribution or sale of the commodities which the Department of Agriculture has properly prepared for sale.
The Minister of Agriculture appointed a commission to go to England. I observe from the report of that commission that the report is made to the Minister of Agriculture. That report deals with matters overseas, matters which under the statute come properly within the purview of the duties of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is not for me to determine how these matters are to be settled, but it is my duty to point out the fact that there is conflicting authority. I recall that the Minister of Agriculture warmly espoused the cause of the Committee for Industrial Organization in a recent provincial election, while the Minister of Labour was censored by at least two papers for, as one paper said, butting into the Ontario political situation and stating that he was opposed to the attitude of Mr. Hepburn with respect to the Committee for Industrial Organization. I cannot but think that this is a clear manifestation of an effort by the Minister of Agriculture to see what can be done in the way of having the Committee for Industrial Organization unite the forces of the high commissioner's office in London with those of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in this country. I cannot explain it in any other way.
I fancy the Minister of Agriculture has his little joke as he reflects at night upon the achievements of the day. He has been able to bring a measure of order out of chaos. Applying the CI.O. principle to his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his legionnaires, and to the Minister of Labour and his wide-scattered army, he has been able to achieve a measure of success as is indicated in the speech from the throne by these words:
The Department of Agriculture has been reorganized and its services consolidated along lines designed to improve the standard and acceptability of Canadian farm products.
Where? At home or abroad? That is where the fine Italian hand of the Minister of Agriculture is at work, in leaving out any reference to where the acceptability of Canadian farm products is to be improved. Is it to be 'among the peoples of the world? That is the job of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, so let us leave it out. Do we traval abroad? Do we set up our new standards for use here or somewhere else? Perhaps the Prime Minister will explain why no reference is made in this document to the community to which the statement refers.
lit looks like a brilliant stroke to talk about reorganizing the Department of Agriculture, but I have not seen any statute which authorizes this reorganizing. I can remember that the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) pointing out on more than one occasion that there must be statutory authority for anything that is done, yet we have the reorganization of this department without, any statutory authority. The law as it stands upon the statute books has not been altered, and it indicates with certainty and clearness the authority of the respective ministers. I regard this as important. It is the old story as to
The Address-Mr. Bennett

where the authority of one department begins and the authority of the other ends-there is nothing new about it. If this is to be determined, as it should be finally, then it should be done by statute and not otherwise. If it was done by order in council presumably the order in council would have been laid upon the table in order that we might understand and appreciate the extent to which reorganization had been carried out. I thought I had among my papers a typewritten statement of the duties of the two departments, but I do not seem to be able to lay my hand upon it. However, there will be ample opportunity to discuss the matter on another occasion.
The next matter that engages the attention of the house at the instance of the government has to do with the air service, about which we will hear more when the minister proceeds with his bill. According to the bill which appears upon the order paper we are about to enter upon an ambitious scheme of transacting air business outside of our own country.
Reference is made in the speech from the throne to the work of three commissions. One commission was appointed under the provisions of the Veterans' Assistance Commission Act, 1936; another was appointed to inquire into the textile industry, and then there is the national employment commission. The national employment commission has made a report to which apparently the chairman has given very careful attention. It might be a matter of inquiry as to why no steps are being taken to implement this report. If the commission was of the importance indicated, why has its report not been implemented? Why does the speech from the throne not indicate that it is proposed to do so? From the language of this document it would appear that the commission has concluded its labours and is now to go out of business.
I come now to the commission appointed to inquire into the textile industry. This commission was appointed two years ago, shortly after the present government came into office; we are now at the end of January, 1938, and the report of the commission has not yet been filed or tabled in the house. There was a tariff board to which this matter might have been referred. Those of us who have followed the language used by counsel who appeared on behalf of the government when attacking the industry and the officers of the industry wonder why one who was selected by the government to represent it on many occasions during the progress of the grain inquiry finds it not inconsistent with his sense of decency to become a director of the Dominion Textile Company.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is quite wrong.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The press carried photographs of Mr. Ralston along with that announcement.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am quite sure that my right hon. friend's statement is in error and that he would not want to do an injustice to any individual by making such a statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was so stated in the Financial Post.


Charles Avery Dunning: In addition, Colonel
Ralston was not counsel on the textile inquiry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that he was. I said he was counsel on the grain inquiry. I also said he had joined the directorate of the Dominion Textile Company; and in the Toronto Financial Post, as well as in the daily papers of Montreal, his photograph was published with the statement that he had joined that board.
iMr. MACKENZIE KING:	May I say
to my right hon. friend that I saw the report, or one of them, to which he refers, and asked Colonel Ralston if the report was true. Colonel Ralston said to me in reply that his name had been placed on the board of directors but that he had refused to accept an appointment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am very glad to hear that, for the simple reason that it seemed to me to be wholly inconsistent with the discharge of the duties of counsel to the government of this country on the grain inquiry for him to occupy such a position, when counsel for the dominion in the textile inquiry had denounced those companies in the terms in which he had. Those who followed the language used in the denunciation of the textile companies will understand exactly why I make that statement. I am very glad indeed to hear what the Prime Minister has said; I regret to say that I do not think it has attained much publicity, but I trust that this publicity will end any question that may arise in that regard.
But let us go a step further. Why has this matter dragged for two years? Why, when the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) was so insistent with respect to an immediate inquiry-which was granted-has two years elapsed and no report been made? There was a tariff board, to which it was not referred; this special commission of one man was set up for the purpose of making the inquiry and side by side with that there was

The Address-Mr. Bennett
imposed upon him the further duty of making an inquiry which took him out of Canada as well as over every part of this dominion. I should like to know why. There are many people in this country who would like to know why. And why should we not yet have the report to which reference is made? It is said of these commissions that reports will be tabled in due course, and the other day we did receive one report, or I think two, but that on the textile industry has not yet come to hand. It will be recalled-the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) will remember-that the same commissioner was making a report on the grain act. That report has not yet been received. Presumably it was quite as important as any other that could be made with respect to one of the major industries of this country.
We are next referred to the stresses and strains that this confederation has encountered during the last seventy years and to the work of the royal commission that is dealing with problems connected with those stresses and strains. I have had occasion more than once to refer to this commission, and I will observe that on two occasions, at least, the adjectives that I used were somewhat misplaced and the remarks I made with reference to one member were attributed as a reference to another. I think I had better clear up at once any misapprehension there may be. I was opposed to this commission. I still am, and nothing has more clearly vindicated the soundness of that judgment than what has taken place since it came irto being. Behold the spectacle of a commission opening its proceedings in the new provinces of the west and every one of those provinces making demands upon the federal exchequer, which very naturally have their effect upon those who are responsible for the conduct of government in the older provinces where the population is more numerous and their contribution to revenue consequently greater. But the real difficulty about that commission as compared with a conference is this, that in the one case you have an immediate reply made to what is said. You have that debate, that discussion by which a misstatement cannot go unchallenged. That was the whole benefit of the discussions with respect to confederation. The other day one of the newspapers referred to "the commission on reconfederation"; and it is true that this commission is given power to deal with the distribution of legislative powers.
Now, in dealing with that matter it must be clear that no one excepting the provinces themselves is in a position to speak with any authority with respect to their views. What
can be done in the progress of debate? Many a view is put forward which is challenged by the federal power. A discussion ensues and usually an accommodation is arrived at. It is said that the genius of British government is the power to arrive at an accommodation when diverse views are being presented. Here there is no opportunity for that sort of thing. Here there is no opportunity for that discussion between representatives of the federal power on the one hand and the provinces on the other which is essential to sound understanding. And if there is to be a conference afterwards between the provinces and the dominion, think of what has been done to make that conference abortive; think of what has been done to nullify and defeat the very purpose for which it came into being. You have already prejudged your position ex parte. You have done it without affording the opportunity for that fruitful discussion and debate which alone will enable agreement to be arrived at.
Apart altogether from that, I did protest against a commission which undertakes to redefine constitutional powers being composed of members of one shade of political opinion. I want to make it abundantly clear that I have the most profound regard for the chairman of that commission. Not only that, I said on one occasion that if a vacancy were to occur in the office of chief justice of Ontario, it being the duty of the prime minister to make the recommendation, I should have recommended Mr. Rowell for that position. I so stated to the then chief justice. But that does not detract from the fact that Mr. Rowell in public life or as a private citizen was a man with strong political views. That is what I said. And I say with respect to the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, Doctor Dafoe, that he is a man who has managed by one means or another to insult all those who do not share his political opinions. He has been doctor in chief and physician extraordinary to the Bracken government ever since it came into office, and he had the pleasure the other day of having them appear before him and say that if something was not done, they would default. Presumably now, as physician in chief to the whole dominion, he desires to apply a remedy with a like result.
With regard to the gentleman who represents the maritime provinces, I repeat that for bitter partisanship I have never known his equal. I say further that he published a book recently and sent the proofs of it for
The Address

Mr. Bennett

revision to many people throughout this dominion, and from beginning to end it was a tissue of misrepresentations and false statements that had to be corrected in order that it might have a semblance of truth attached to it. That is the position with respect to it, and I know whereof I speak.


Mr. MARTIN:: That is not true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let there be no misunderstanding with respect to it.


Charles Avery Dunning: What was the book?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it had to do with the foreign policy of the right hon. the Prime Minister-it was a tissue of misrepresentation, of inaccurate statements, untrue statements- I use the word deliberately, and any one who wants to see the proof can verify what I have said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have seen it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And when it is corrected I have no doubt it will be put on a proper basis, because corrections have been made in some instances by those who are in a position to make them. What is more, copies were sent to many people in this country-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am one of them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That indicates a lack of prescience on the part of the author, because he knew there would be no doubt of what the hon. member would do as to agreeing with anything he might say.
In its very nature, this commission must be harmful rather than helpful in dealing with this problem. Look what you have done already. You have heard the claims of Manitoba, of Saskatchewan, of Alberta, of British Columbia; you are about to hear the claims of the eastern provinces; and now you have the two central provinces, through their premiers, already taking a definite position in the matter. This is what we have, instead )f a meeting together as our fathers did at Quebec when they were forming this constitution-or meeting together as they did in the United States to frame the American constitution. Would there have been an American constitution had it been made a matter for a commission? No; the people of the American colonies met together; and those who have read the record that Madison kept of those proceedings realize how constitutions are framed. They realize that accommodation is indispensable, that accommodation can be arrived at only when men have an opportunity at once to controvert an opinion or to assail a position that is taken by an adversary. I take one view, you take another; I meet you at 
once with my argument and you meet me forthwith with yours in reply; 'and along a middle course we arrive at an accommodation. That is the manner in which our constitution was framed; that is the way in which it was done at Quebec. Those who have followed the debates of confederation and know the inner history of the subject as recorded by Macdonald in some of his correspondence will realize how difficult it was, in the very nature of things, to arrive at a conclusion.
Now let us look at the western position. The western position relied, more perhaps than upon anything else, upon a brief prepared by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), at a time when he did not occupy that position- a brief prepared on behalf of the province of Nova Scotia, and entitled, A Submission on Dominion-Provincial Relations and the Fiscal Disabilities of Nova Scotia Within the Canadian Federation. I hold the document in my hand, and I make this statement, that in respect of the presentation on behalf of the western provinces reliance has been placed upon this very document, showing how unkind, unjust and unfair we, as a dominion, have been to these provinces, because figures were given by the minister to show the extent to which the tariff, in his opinion, had operated to the detriment of these communities.
Let us go a step further. Setting out the basis upon which he proceeded, he took the tariff as it stood in 1930, taking it after it had been revised, and despite the fact that those who were concerned about it had said they would not increase their prices. Nor had they done so, except with respect to raw materials; and, as is well known, it was but a temporary tariff to meet an emergent situation. The Minister of Labour, with great care, sets out the whole historic side of confederation; then proceeds to show, in his own inimitable manner, the extent to which, as he says, the situation which he describes is attributable to the tariff. He takes, for the purpose of arriving at his conclusions, the prices of the goods plus duty, not what was actually paid, but what would be paid; and he computes therefrom, in a cumulative way, the losses sustained by these provinces by reason of the tariff. The figures are set out in great tables, and these tables have now been made the basis of the claims set up on behalf of the western provinces.
Let me ask this question: Is it consistent with our idea of democratic government that a Minister of Labour should remain in a government that has been practising the same sort of tariff policies with respect to these provinces as did the government of which he

The Address-Mr. Bennett
complains? That is what I put to the house. Let us have 'ho misapprehension about that. If these tariffs were wrong at that time, then they are wrong now. They are just as wrong in the hands of a Liberal government as they would be in the hands of a Conservative administration. And yet the hon. gentleman sees fit to sit as a member of the present government and see the province, whose brief he presented on that occasion, continue to be the victim of these tariffs. He sees the rest of Canada the victim of these tariffs, and, he has not a word of protest. Has his voice been heard in this house, since he came here, demanding that these tariffs be wiped out? Has he asked that they be abolished? I have not heard it, nor do I see anything suggesting it anywhere on the record of Hansard. You will find, perhaps, one or two moments when he had some little hesitancy about the soundness of his own conclusions, but at page 98 of the brief he says:
The most accurate index of the varying rates of provincial consumption is afforded by the statistics of retail sales in Canada and its provinces as published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. On the basis of these figures the rates of provincial consumption in the various provinces are as follows-
The next step in the calculation is to apply these percentages, representing provincial rates o-f consumption, to the total figure representing the gross value of protected goods manufactured and consumed in Canada, viz., $2,061,787,041. The results thus obtained indicate the consumption of protected goods of Canadian manufacture in the various provinces:
Prince Edward Island	$ 9,896,577
Nova Scotia	 76,492,299
New Brunswick	 62,472,147
Quebec	 490,292,958
Ontario	 817,704,740
Manitoba	 141,438,591
Saskatchewan	 141,644,769
Alberta	 135,253,229
British Columbia	 182,880,510
In order to obtain the figures representing the cost of the tariff in each province in terms of enhancement of prices due to protection the same procedure is followed as in items "3" and "4" of the preceding computation. When the comparative world prices are computed and the average ad valorem duty of 26 per cent in 1931 is applied to the results thus obtained the following tabulation sets out the provincial distribution of the cost of the tariff in terms of enhancement of prices to consumers in the various provinces.
Is it any wonder we have stress and strain when a member of the government puts up that sort of plea to the west? Is it any wonder there is friction? Who created it? Who created the cry of "east against west"? I shall presently refer to an observation of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner)
but this is what the present Minister of Labour said with respect to the enhancement of prices:
Enhancement
Province	of prices due
	to tariff
Prince Edward Island. . . .	. . $ 2,042,150
Nova Scotia		.. 15,784,124
New Brunswick		.. 12,891,077
Quebec		.. 101,171,562
Ontario		. . 168,732,723
Manitoba		.. 29,185,740
Saskatchewan		. . 29,228,285
Alberta		.. 27,909,396
British Columbia		.. 37,737,247
In order to indicate more	clearly the comparative position of the several provinces in relation to tariff costs, it is desirable to place such costs on a per capita basis. The following table gives the computation of the per capita distribution of tariff costs by provinces for the year 1931:
Per capita
Province	tariff	costPrince Edward Island	
$23	20Nova Scotia	
30	78New Brunswick	
31	58Quebec	
35	20Ontario	
49	17Manitoba	
41	69Saskatchewan	
31	71Alberta	
38	15British Columbia	
54	36
Then follows a recapitulation in which the tariff subsidy per capita is set out. The tariff subsidy in Ontario is $64.32 per capita; in Quebec, $46.23; in Manitoba, $28.44; in Saskatchewan, $3.55; in Alberta, $11.22; and in British Columbia, $32.03. There is the statement made by the present Minister of Labour, which is the basis upon which the claim is being made by the four western provinces before the Rowell commission. With respect to Nova Scotia he closes in this glorious manner:
By segregating the figures of the above analysis, which apply to Nova Scotia, it is possible to present a recapitulation which will indicate the effect of the Canadian tariff on manufactured goods upon the income of this province for the given year 1931.
Total tariff cost in terms of enhancement of prices to consumers
in Nova Scotia	$15,784,124
Total tariff subsidies in terms of enhanced prices chargeable by manufacturers of Nova Scotia ..	9,487,493
Net loss	$ 6,296,631
Now, sir, I note that on one or two occasions as the minister proceeded towards the end he became a little doubtful whether these figures would stand close analysis, and so he used the word "presumably" on more than one occasion.
The Address-Mr. Bennett

Here we have this beautiful spectacle. A minister of the crown's presentation of the tariff of this federal authority; this tariff which he averred was enhancing prices, tiring out the consumer by an unreasonable burden that he could not carry and survive, made the basis of redistribution of legislative powers on the recommendation of a royal commission that his government appoints. Now, sir, since when was it the habit of a government to appoint a commission and then prepare the ammunition with which to destroy the value of its work? Since when was it regarded as sound, both from the standpoint of the country as a whole and from that of individual provinces, to have the case prepared by one member of the government made the basis of the case against the policies of the government itself? That is the story. But when the Prime Minister in the speech from the throne asks his excellency to indicate that:
The strains and stresses which economic and social developments since confederation have placed upon Canada's governmental structure have disclosed the necessity for adjustments-
I ask him now and I ask the government whether or not they are, in the face of what is before us, going to abandon this tariff? Is it to be abandoned? Has the Minister of Labour no further use for tariffs in his position as minister and, if so, why does he whose statement is the foundation of the claim before the Rowell commission remain a member of the government? I do not know. But what I do know is that this statement, this brief of his, is the basis of the claim made upon this federal power in the four western provinces, and I assume it probably will be in the provinces by the sea.
Let us go a step further. Why have we to-day the disharmony that at present exists in this confederation? Has there ever been a day in the history of confederation in which there has been such lack of unity as exists to-day? Do hon. members recall the great Toronto gathering just before the last general election when there was broadcast from the eight provinces the demand for another Liberal government? The happy family I They could not have foreseen the C.I.O. and Beauharnois and other such matters in their true light. They could not have foreseen the shortage of power-they may have foreseen a shortage of ammunition. But, let us ask ourselves this question: Is it right or just or fair that they should complain of this lack of unity and harmony in this confederation when

they have themselves laid the foundation for it? Take our western provinces, take Alberta and Saskatchewan; when they were made mto provinces they were told that they were not to have their natural resources, that they should be paid a sum of money for them. There were those of us who said: This is not adequate, it is not proper, you are not going to have one province of one kind and another of another kind. In the end that view prevailed, and the government of that day brought down an agreement by which they left with the provinces the money that they took in lieu of resources and also turned the resources over, and then provided that they could make a claim for the resources they lost between the time they got paid for the whole and the time they got part of them. That commission made a report indicating millions of dollars to go to Saskatchewan, millions of dollars to Alberta; and in the case of Manitoba just before the election will anyone ever forget how the Prime Minister of that day, the Prime Minister of to-day, handing over this cheque for over four million dollars, indicated what a fine thing it was to have a government that was prepared thus to remember with this little nest-egg the little province of Manitoba? There is the story. Is it any wonder there is difficulty? Other provinces of course found themselves in a position of inferiority with respect to receipts from the dominion, and what happened? We had the Duncan commission and the Duncan report.


Charles Avery Dunning: It preceded the one my
right hon. friend has just referred to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it came before, but if by using the words "we had," it was intended to indicate that it was after, I correct that. You had the Duncan report from the maritime provinces, and that report gave certain financial benefits to the provinces by the sea with a provision that they could be *heard before a commission with respect to additional sums. They were heard by the late government, and a report was made that they were entitled under the terms of that document to additional sums.
So you have the maritimes and you have the three western provinces, but British Columbia was untouched. Why? Mr. Justice Martin was appointed to report with respect to railway lands, and the railway lands were turned over to British Columbia. But did you ever look at the figures as to receipts by British Columbia as compared with the other provinces? In the end the government of Canada paid to British Columbia on account, in order to make it

The Address-Mr. Bennett
somewhat like the other provinces, S750,000 a year. Thus, in order to create some sense of equality, you had these sums paid to the mari-times, to the western provinces and to British Columbia, while the position of Quebec and Ontario was unchanged. One must remember that in the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier an interprovincial conference was called for the purpose of considering these very matters, and Sir Wilfrid carried through this house a petition which declared that it was a final and irrevocable settlement made between the provinces and the dominion. The petition went to England, and there those words were struck out through the efforts made by Sir Richard McBride on behalf of British Columbia.
Now there is no responsibility attaching to any government other than Liberal ones in respect to these matters. They made these settlements; they created the western provinces; they deprived them of resources; they gave them money instead of resources; then they gave them resources and money. I am not complaining that the western provinces got this money, but I point out that the methods employed created a situation that brought about the stresses and strains to which the speech from the throne refers.
But there is something more. Let us see what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) says-and I always commend him at least for this, whatever else I do not commend him for, that when he was confronted with this situation he at once realized that it was creating those stresses and strains. These words of his I have not forgotten; I wish every hon. member would keep them in mind.


Mr. GARDINER:: Fourteen years old.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and they represented then the sound judgment of one who had not become so much the politician he now is. These are his words, speaking to an audience of United Farmers of Manitoba:
The most harmful slogan ever introduced into the consideration of western public matters wag the cry, "Down with eastern vested interests," which has developed into an attempt to organize the east against the west and the west against the east. Members of the party to which I belong, in the past were responsible for the introduction of that cry, and I pledged myself as a leader of that party to put forth every effort to remove from the appeals of the organization to which I belong, any such unworthy sentiment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It must be gratifying to the minister to hear the applause with which those about him receive this reference to his past. In any event I congratulate him .51952-3
upon that statement. Unfortunately I have heard those appeals from so many platforms in western Canada, made by all types and kinds and under all conditions.
Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) would like a little past history. I have it here beside me. In Saskatchewan he too dreamed dreams and saw visions of the east eating up the west. I do not know whether it was the seven lean yeans or the seven fat years spoken of in Revelations coming up and devouring them, but at any rate the east was gobbling up the west, and the hard working, toiling west was but the victim of the avarice of the east.
Well, the Minister of Agriculture in those days set his foot and his voice against that sort of thing. That was commendable, but the evil to which he directed attention was not stopped just because he thus spoke. It may have been stopped by his immediate followers; I know not, but I know that in the province in which I live that was not so. Those of us who are familiar with the great Progressive campaign of 1921 will remember that a minister whom I do not now see in his place headed that great cause, and certainly at that time in his view the east was very avaricious indeed.
That is another cause, Mr. Speaker, of the stress and strain and the arousing of these animosities. Think what the cumulative effect of it all must be. Here we have great leaders of public thought, the great leaders of the Liberal party; we have a minister of the crown in a Liberal government of to-day, and we have all these matters being proceeded with.
Then, sir, we have something else. We have invidious distinctions being made in the treatment of the western provinces. That is another cause. We disallowed the statute in the province of Alberta, and properly so, that prohibited the right of access to the courts. We disallowed a statute of that province with respect to banking, but did we disallow the statute in Ontario that provided that recourse to the courts could not be had? We did not.
There are other matters to which reference will have to be made presently that have brought about these stresses and strains. One cannot treat provinces differently with respect to the same matters without involving oneself in difficulties, and if these people complain of discrimination, as they do, there exists one more cause for stress and strain. Take them all together. I of course cannot speak with any degree of authority as to what may be in mind, for instance, in the province of Ontario, but perhaps the Minister of National

The Address-Mr. Bennett

Defence and the Minister of Agriculture, who took such prominent parts in the recent byelection there, may be able to give us some information on that point before we rise.


Mr. STREIGHT:: They made a good job of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman says they seem to have made a good job of it, but just what the job was yet remains to be known.
Now, sir, I do submit to the house and the country that it is easy to see the cause of the present disunion and disharmony, which have never been so great in the history of this country, even in the days of 1887, when Mr. Fielding appealed to the electors of Nova Scotia for the breaking up of confederation; not even then, because after all the west was but little settled; two provinces did not exist at all and the others had not attained their present population. The Liberal party have dealt with these matters on a purely political basis. The editor in chief or president of the Winnipeg Free Press pointed out some years ago, in dealing with tariff matters, that the Liberal party had dealt with the tariff purely as a political matter, a vote catcher. That was the way he put it; how many votes would it get? In dealing with the problems of the west, with our natural resources, with the subsidies we were to get in 1905 and in subsequent years, they dealt with those matters on the basis of pure politics. If we had a right to our resources in 1926 and 1928, did we not have a right to them in 1905? These are acts of Liberal governments. These are the things that have brought about the stresses and strains which have resulted in the disunity now confronting us. It is known by all who get below the surface that that is so. Remember this, that those who in days gone by pleaded that the resources should be given to the provinces when they became provinces, were condemned, but they lived long enough to see the men who condemned them accept their proposals.
Then we proceed to the next point, the very point that the Rowell commission has been appointed to deal with, namely the distribution of legislative powers. In the speech from the throne we are told that with respect to one item, namely unemployment insurance, it is to be brought about by an amendment to the British North America Act, and the cooperation of the provinces has been sought. Who represent the provinces? Is it the government at the provincial capital? Do the members of the executive represent it, or the electors? How do they amend the

constitution in South Africa? How do they amend the constitution in Australia? In neither case can it be amended unless an opportunity is afforded the people at least to express their will. Am I to take the voice of the premier of one of the provinces? Am I to take his view and amend the constitution of this country accordingly? Am I to take the view of five other premiers with him and amend the constitution accordingly? Am I to take the views of these premiers as representing the electors? Is that dictatorship or democracy? Which is it? What right have I to say that a premier of a province and his government represent the will of the people with respect to this matter? It has not been submitted to the electors; they have had no opportunity of dealing with it or of expressing their will with respect to it. Have I a right to deal with the question in that way? In this house there are members from these provinces. They represent the electors of the provinces with respect to federal matters, and their views must be quite as important as the views of those who constitute the governments of these provinces, unless indeed the will of the legislature is expressed, and even if the will of the legislature is expressed, what then?
I happened to be in Australia when they were dealing with the amendment of their constitution with respect to a vital matter. What happened? First of all, they settled what the question should be, and then by plebiscite they submitted it to the people of the whole commonwealth. It is provided that on the one hand there must be a majority of the people to support it and, on the other, there must be a majority of the states which are agreed to it. Applying this principle to Canada it would mean that we should have a plebiscite to amend our constitution, if we want to amend it, and that a given number of the provinces should have returned a majority in favour of the change. What right has any government to proceed upon the assumption that the premier of a province has said, "I agree to the change"? What about the people? What about the electors? What about the members of the assembly supporting that government? The premier of New Brunswick says, "I am going to consult the legislature." Well, that is going a step farther towards democracy-but it falls there. Why? It falls because the issue is not submitted to the people in terms.
When one considers the manner of amending the constitution of the United States it is not by a reference to the vote of the people, but by the voice of the House of Representatives elected every two years, the voice of

The Address-Mr. Bennett
the Senate, and the voices of the .members of the legislatures of the several states, whether their chambers be one or two.
It is well known, of course, that the case with respect to unemployment insurance was not presented to the courts. No one knows that better than the Minister of Labour. It was not, for the simple and obvious reason that admissions, which constituted the basis of the judgment of the court, were made.
I quite agree it is desirable that there should be a national unemployment insurance act. We enacted such a measure, but it fell by the wayside because it was referred to the courts when it should not have been. In a moment or two I propose to make further observations on that point, in connection with another matter. It was referred to the courts, and without the concrete facts being placed before the courts admissions were made which, as I say, constituted the basis of the judgment which declared the legislation bad.
How are we now to proceed? How are we to petition his majesty? On what basis shall we do it? Who is going to give us the authority? We do not require any; can we go ahead on our own. If he so desires, the Prime Minister may introduce a petition. If it passes this house and the Senate, it may go to London and become law. He says he is seeking the support of the provinces to that end, and the reference in the speech from the throne concludes with these words:
My ministers hope the proposal may meet with early approval, in order that unemployment insurance legislation may be enacted during the present session of parliament.
We all share that pious hope, but how is it to be done? One premier has said, "I want to see a copy of the bill, first." We know a bill cannot be introduced, because it has been declared to be ultra vires of this parliament, and therefore no bill which he could see can be introduced. That avenue of escape seems to be cut off.
I direct attention to the matter because it seems to me that we must arrive at some fundamental understanding as to how amendments to our constitution can be made. Until this moment I have not had an opportunity to congratulate the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) upon his being made a member of His Majesty's Privy Council. That he deserved it goes beyond question, and that he honours the position he occupies is well known. I do wash him many long years of happiness in which to enjoy his new honour and the new title which goes with it. Strenuously opposed as he is to titles, I shall still insist upon addressing him as the right hon. gentleman. I do suggest to him that 51952-31	;
here is an opportunity for sound statesmanship. This constitution of ours cannot continue in its present form; we all know that. We must agree on that point. How are we going to amend it? That is the question we must ask ourselves. Let us get away from the political side of it.
I was greatly interested in reading the story of the constitution of South Africa. Very able men, among whom were General Botha, General Smuts, Mr. Schreiner, and Mr. Merriman had to do with it. They were very careful to go back to their states with the proposals in order that they might be sure that when the constitution was agreed upon it should represent the views of all the people. What are we going to do? Someone has suggested that there must be a majority of the provinces in agreement. Does that mean a majority of the premiers? Would that be a sound principle to follow? On the other hand, if we follow the principle which has been followed in most British dominions there will be an opportunity for the people to express their views with respect to it. How is that to be brought about?
I suggest the right hon. the Minister of Justice might spend some time in devising a method. I know of nothing which would meet with more ready response than a workable plan of dealing with this difficult constitutional question.
What is more, I do not understand how he can hope to give effect to the provisions in the speech from the throne and at the same time attach any importance t.o the findings of the Rowell commission, because this is sui generis with many matters which have to be dealt with similarly, in view of the judgments of the courts. That being so, how are we going to pick out one, and leave the others alone? Should we not have a comprehensive plan which would be ample to deal with the whole situation?
I come to a point which to me is a very painful feature of the speech from the throne. It deals with two matters, one with reference to the elections and franchise acts, and the other the export of power. I am going to connect the two somewhat closely. I do so with some hesitancy, but I feel I owe a duty to this country and that I must discharge it. In the first place, this country is suffering from electoral corruption.
During the summer I travelled from the Atlantic to the Pacific on more than one occasion. I have discussed the trend of events with many people, people who were not partisans but were calm observers. Never in the history of this country has corruption been so
The Address-Mr. Bennett

rampant electorally as it is to-day. It is not a case of $5,000 or $10,000 in a constituency, but it is a case of large sums of money for corrupt purposes.
I recall the sermon of one minister of the gospel who dealt with the matter in one of the provinces. I recall his observation that after a certain event there were a great many five dollar bills available, and that by reason of that condition there was a prosperous time in the community in question. People gave the names and the days and the dates and seemed to be rather proud of the fact that they got it. What are we going to do to deal with that situation? The election act has to do with it in many ways.
Contributions to political parties are not in any sense eensorable. I know of men who make contributions to political parties the same as they do to their churches. But a levy is an entirely different matter. When an organizer goes to a contractor and says that he wants one or ten per cent, that is a levy and not a contribution. What is more, I say that it threatens the very life of this state at this moment.
I am going to remind the Prime Minister that there are two matters which he must not forget. First of all, there is the question of the export of power. The statute confers upon the governor general in council the power to grant or refuse a licence for the export of power or natural gas. Parliament has placed that duty upon the governor general in council. Parliament has decided that that duty should be discharged by that authority. Not long since the Prime Minister said that he did not desire in any sense to be dictatorial about these matters, and the net result was that this matter is referred to parliament.
Let us see what this reference amounts to. I read these words:
Legislation will be introduced with a view to furthering the principle of parliamentary control of the export of electrical power.
Parliamentary control means the voice of the commons, the senate and the crown combined together. This means a statute that either repeals or amends or in some way modifies the existing statute. As I say, parliamentary control means control by parliament, which is the crown and the senate and the commons. If legislation of that character is to be introduced it must be recalled that this house has already given unanimous approval to a bill of that land.
The power sought to be exported is power which would be derived from the Beau-harnois undertaking. That is number one.

If parliament is to pass upon this matter it must be a free parliament. As I say, parliamentary control means the commons and the senate and the crown, but we have something further than that. We know that in the exercise of its power parliament has seen fit to declare that the Beauharnois undertaking is a work for the general advantage of Canada. This parliament has jurisdiction and the power to deal with the whole situation.
There is a history connected with Beauharnois that is not to be forgotten. Evidence has been given under oath that shares in this enterprise are in the hands of members of the senate and that at least one of them received $200,000 for the Liberal campaign fund from the promoters of the enterprise and made a profit of $529,000 out of an investment of $30,000. That is written on the record. The shares acquired were 800 units of the Beauharnois syndicate at a price of $30,000. These became 1,600 units in the second syndicate and as was his right, the senator subscribed for 1,600 further units in the name of J. R. Lefebvre and that made his holdings 3,200 units. On the whole transaction he realized, as of December 17, 1929, $529,600 profit and 14,040 shares of class A stock of the Beauharnois Power Corporation Limited.
Then it goes one step further. Mr. Sweezey returned to give further evidence that Senator Raymond had received from him some $200,000 for the campaign fund of the Liberal party. I put this to the house. There is a situation where the treasurer of the Liberal party- Senator Raymond has been appointed treasurer of the Liberal party-and the head of the organization, Senator Lambert, met the cabinet only a few weeks ago, and we now have this obligation that must be dealt with by parliamentary control, meaning the senate the commons and the crown.
In view of what I know of the character of the methods by which contributions are made -they are no longer contributions but levies- I say the time has come when we must provide methods under our electoral law which will not permit such a situation to continue. I am not hypocrite enough to say to the members of this house and the people of this country that I do not know that contributions are made to all parties. A contribution is one thing, but a levy of a certain per cent is another. The time has come when this must stop. The contractors themselves are complaining.


Mr. HOWE:: As one who places a great many contracts for this government I ask the right hon. gentleman to give me a specific instance of a levy.

The Address-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can give the minister as many as he wants, but I am not going to do it here and now. What is more, I know of levies being made in connection with Canadian National Railways contracts.


Mr. BRADETTE:: That was under Mr. Manion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it was not; it was in the last few months. Let us have no misunderstanding about that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The right hon. gentleman has said either too much or too little. This matter must be threshed out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It can be threshed out any time you want any committee of this house that you desire to appoint to go into the matter.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Right now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do not make any mistake about that. I say the time has come when this thing must stop. Look at the vast sums of money thrown into by-elections. For instance, out in Victoria a parson who had some influence with the younger people was hired by the Liberal party to make broadcasts. As far as I can find out, the Liberal candidate never heard of him.


Mr. HANSON:: As my home is in British Columbia, I hope the right hon. gentleman will tell the truth as I always respect his opinions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend will respect them now more than he ever has.


Olof Hanson: I hope so if the right hon. gentleman follows the truth.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight- o'clock.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Joseph Arsene Bonnier, Esquire,, member for the electoral district of St. Henry, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. Fernand Rinfret.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. J. N. Francceur for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Richard Bedford Bennett: When the house rose at six o'clock I was directing attention to those paragraphs in the speech from the throne that deal with the amendment of the elections and franchise acts and the introduction of legislation to further the principle of parliamentary control of the export of electrical power, and I pointed out that the treasurer of the Liberal party is a member of the senate, Senator Raymond, whose connection with the Beauharnois transaction I had mentioned, without going into detail. I observed that the new senator, recently appointed, is to remain as head of the Liberal federation, according to a statement made to the press by the Prime Minister, and I pointed out that that combination of circumstances, having regard to what had transpired in this country, was suc-h as to make it open to very grave censure on the part of those who are concerned about the supremacy and maintenance of our democratic institutions; that the real danger to democracy was not from communism and influences of that kind, but from forces from within, from electoral corruption and forces of a similar nature. I do not propose to do more than to lodge this vigorous protest and once more to assert that mere contribution to political parties and their fortunes is one thing, and a levy is another. I desire to make that point as strong as possible in order that there may be no misapprehension of the point I desire to leave for the consideration of this chamber.
From that there necessarily rises some consideration of the paragraph in the speech which deals with our external relations. I had occasion to point out some few months ago that our minister to Japan made a statement to the public press in which he indicated that the war now being waged by Japan against China was not one in which Japan was concerned except for the purpose, as was said, of bringing decent government to China. In the Daily Star, Toronto, of August 12, 1937, the Hon. R. R. Bruce, our Canadian minister, was made to say:
Japan's invasion of China is seen as "simply an attempt to put her neighbour country into decent shape, as she has already done for Manchuria. Conditions in China are very bad. They lack constitutional government and their rulers are just self-appointed war lords. Japan's improvement of Manchuria is causing many Chinese from other parts to flock there for protection under some form of constituted government."
The interview then proceeds with other matters. I understand that on a succeeding day the minister stated that that was not an accurate report of what he had said. We are bound to accept that statemerL but we do
The Address-Mr. Bennett

know, from what he said on many occasions while he was in Canada, that that is substantially the view which he entertains. I protest against our minister taking sides against China in this conflict, bearing in mind, as we must, that China was attacked without any declaration of war, that unfortified cities and towns have been bombed, and that innocent women and children are being killed by the thousands. It is also to be remembered that Japan was a signatory to the pact of Paris, the Kellogg-Briand pact, which we discussed in the house on one occasion. At that time the then prime minister, who is again the Prime Minister, intimated that that pact should be set up in every schoolhouse of the country. It has been summarized in a single sentence, "The signatories renounce war as an instrument of national policy." Broadly put, that is what they did; they renounced war as an instrument of national policy. Notwithstanding that, China was attacked without a declaration of war. That was the finding of the League of Nations, of which Senator Dan-durand is a distinguished member, representing this country on that occasion, as well as when Manchuria was attacked and the Lytton commission reported as it did. Bearing in mind 'these facts I deprecate greatly that this country is represented by one who has declared himself to be thus strongly aligned with the forces of Japan against China. The matter is far too serious to be discussed in an acrimonious sense, but I think the Prime Minister will agree that we should not have it appear that we are not neutral but are instead lending the support and weight of our influence to Japan in this war against China. I think this circumstance is to be deprecated very greatly and it is open to no other construction in view of the known attitude of our minister, who returned some time after the Toronto statement and is now, I believe, in Tokyo. It will be within the memory of this house how great was the importance we attached to the Kellogg-Briand pact, and that all of us agreed with the statement made by the then Prime Minister and with the position he took with respect to the matter.
We might bear in mind that in Great Britain the Archbishop of Canterbury presided over a great gathering in London at which vigorous protest was made against the treatment received by women and children in China, and that other nations have seen fit to express themselves in terms of detestation of the manner in which this conflict has been carried on. I believe we should not permit it to be said that the thought of trade has dulled our sense nf honour. That is a statement which is made

in some quarters, that we are lacking in appreciation of the magnitude of the questions involved and are permitting ourselves, for the sake of the material that is being sold, to take no notice of what is transpiring in the far east. We have a very great interest in that matter, \ and if it were not that I think it might be misconstrued I would use very much stronger language than I have done as to the conduct of Japan with respect to women and children in China. Those states which are still members of the league and took part in the debate decided that Japan had no defence to make for her unprovoked attack upon China. Under these circumstances I think we should at least indicate in some way to the world that, though we are not actively participating in any diplomatic or other action which has been taken, we are not for that reason supporting the position of Japan against China.
I desire also to discuss the position of some of our own missionaries who have found themselves in a precarious position, located as they are in some parts of China. I know that appeals have been made to governmental agencies for their protection. I am not inclined to discuss the matter in any censorious spirit because I recognize the magnitude of the difficulties that have to be faced. On the other hand, if we are to maintain neutrality we should at least do it in such a way as not to leave an impression on the minds of Chinese and others that we are favouring the cause of Japan merely for trade purposes.
It cannot be forgotten by those who are familiar with our history that the migration from Japan into this country of Japanese subjects is governed by what is called a gentleman's agreement. Now, sir, I ask you what importance can attach to a gentleman's agreement when there is a violation of what is admittedly a national treaty-at any rate so far as we are concerned-according to the finding of the League of Nations, and other bodies as well, that there has been a repudiation of the terms of that treaty, an utter disregard of the responsibilities under it, and that war without declaration has been resorted to. I think that the sooner this so-called gentleman's agreement is terminated the better it will be for this country, so that we may not find ourselves in a most difficult position in consequence of reliance upon it.
But there is another side of the matter to which I direct attention. During recent months much has been said regarding the knowledge possessed by Japan of the condition of our Pacific coast and of other matters that have to do with this dominion. I was astounded the other day

and I am sure

The Address-Mr. Bennett
the Prime Minister must have taken cognizance of the matter-to find the following statement published by the Canadian press:
B.C. System of Defence Forms Big Triangle of Fortifications.
Anti-aircraft Guns to Be Placed at Albert Head and on Island Highway.
According to unofficial sources these undertakings may include:
1.	Naval guns on the south coast near Victoria.
2.	Anti-aircraft guns, magazines and other buildings at Albert Head, a few miles from the Esquimalt naval base.
3.	Anti-aircraft emplacements about six miles from Victoria on the Island Highway, on the breakwater outside Victoria harbour, and at Trial Island on the Vancouver Island coast.
Then, follows a description of the size of the guns. The closing paragraph reads:
Two six-inch naval guns will be set up at Ferguson Point, commanding the narrow entrance to Burrard Inlet (Vancouver harbour). Unofficial sources say similar emplacements will be established also on Point Grey headland, commanding the entrance to English Bay, which skirts urban Vancouver.
It is perfectly clear that this statement came from the department in some way.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Not from headquarters, I can assure the right hon. gentleman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said, from the department in some way.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As a
matter of fact the statement is not accurate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But I know that, unfortunately, part of it is accurate. Here is publication to the world of the defences that are being made by Canada on the Pacific coast, and I am certain, from what I know, that this will be cabled at least to Japan. I do say that in the interests of this country and as a matter of fair play with the permanent force, the members of which are vitally concerned

because it is a reflection upon themselves-an investigation should be held and responsibility brought home to the man who gave out that information. I am perfectly certain that if the Prime Minister were over here and I were in his position he would demand that an investigation should be had, because in the eyes of soldiers in this country this is one of the worst possible offences. I have heard men express the utmost wonder and amazement that it could happen; for the Canadian Press is a responsible organization. There would be no difficulty, if a proper investigation were held, in having it disclosed from what source that information came, and the man who gave it should no longer receive a cent of public
money. I believe the Prime Minister would agree with me-and I am saying this not acrimoniously, but only as a citizen of the country with, I believe, the same interest that everyone else has in the maintenance of those defensive works on the Pacific coast. I merely direct attention to the matter in the hope that the government will announce that they have taken steps to have it thoroughly investigated by a properly constituted tribunal so that the person who gave out the information may be punished, at least to the extent of not being retained ,in the public service of Canada. I do not think that is too strong a statement, having regard to the seriousness of what is involved.
I am quite aware -that the article is so worded as to leave it open to several constructions at some points, and that doubtless some part of it is inaccurate. But it was the subject of editorial comment in the coast papers and has been much discussed throughout -the country. Under these circumstances, and having the imprimatur, at least, of the Canadian Press as authority for the statements that have been made-because we know how careful -they are not to give, shall I say, publicity to a statement that has not behind it some authority from some source- this news item, I suggest, should be the subject of an investigation, and I think the minister would be well advised to see that a court of inquiry is set up without delay in order that the matter may be dealt with.
This enables me to make an observation with respect to a matter that was brought up this afternoon by the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren). He suggests that wars result from restrictions of trade. The exact opposite is the case. The most eminent economists are of the opinion that free trade is always responsible for that class of warfare.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; and if hon, members will think for a moment they will see the reason why. With free, unhampered competition the struggle for markets becomes notorious and o-pen, with resultant difficulties. It can be said of every war of recent years that it was- not engaged in by countries that followed protection as a policy. Take the great Russo-Turkish war in which England and France participated. That was in the days of free trade in England. The Boer war was a domestic wa.r to which we need not refer in this connection. The Franco-Prussian war could not be said to have been a war arising out of tariffs, nor could that be said of the Danish war or the Austrian war. I
The Address-Mr. Bennett

know that at least one eminent authority is of the opinion that it is because of freedom of competition, because of cutthroat competition-and these words "cutthroat competition" came into use in consequence of that very practice, the reckless, ruthless cutting to the very quick-that wars have been provoked. They have not resulted from the development of national tendencies in the sense of preventing markets being taken by others, because no question of competition then, arises. If you have a protective system by which the commodities of other countries do not find free access to your market, then the likelihood of competition between countries that can come into your market without restriction is far less than it otherwise would be. I do not think there can be any doubt about that.
I do not intend to deal at length with the questions which arise in connection with the trade treaties that are proposed to be made between Great Britain and the United States, or the revision of the treaty between Canada and the United States. Canada has no right in any sense to be concerned about any treaty that Great Britain desires to make with the United States of America; that is the business of the United States and Great Britain. They are quite capable of transacting their own business without assistance from us. But when it comes to the question of a treaty between Canada and the United States then we have a different set of considerations. I ventured to point out a year ago that the agreement which we made with the United States was a lopsided one. Events apparently have justified my view, for now we are to revise the agreement. In order that there may be upon the record a fairly clear statement of the situation I am going to refer to the conditions under which that trade agreement was negotiated. The periods of time that have to elapse between notice being given and negotiations commencing have been quite clearly stated, and it must be clear to everyone that the agreement now in existence was not negotiated by the present administration. The additional thirty days, the two weeks, the period of time within which oral hearings might take place, all these periods elapsed before this government came into office. The negotiations had been completed; the question was whether or not this country was prepared to accept the proposals.
Now let us look for a moment into that, because it becomes of the utmost importance. Remember this, Mr. Speaker, that the proposals made by the Dominion of Canada were contained in a letter which was dispatched to

the Department of State by the minister from this country. First we asked for a mutual undertaking to maintain during the lifetime of tile agreement the unrestricted free entry of commodities now on the free list of either country. That related to newsprint and matters of that kind. That was agreed to or conceded. That will not be changed, for reasons I am presently to give. Then followed:
(b)	The mutual concession of tariff treatment as favourable as that accorded to any other foreign country; this means that Canada would extend to the United States its intermediate tariff involving reductions from the present rates of duty on some seven hundred items, including both natural and manufactured products, together with a number of further reductions below the intermediate tariff rates through the extension to the United States of concessions made by Canada in trade conventions with foreign countries.
That means the most favoured nation treatment accorded to Canada by the United States and to the United States by Canada. We offered that free and unrestricted benefit. Then we proposed:
(c)	The reduction by fifty per cent of the existing United States rates of duty, as authorized by the Tariff Act of 1934, on a specified number of natural products, including inter alia lumber, fish, potatoes, milk and cream, and live cattle; a number of other agricultural products, and several minerals both metallic and non-metallie.
(d)	The reduction of the existing rates of duty by the United States on a number of partly or wholly manufactured products of Canada, including some processed natural products and certain products in which hydro-electric power comprises an important element in the cost of production.
(e)	The reduction of the existing rates of duty by Canada on a number of natural and partly or wholly manufactured products of the United States.
That letter, as will be remembered, was dated November 14, 1934, and in pursuance of the provisions of United States law to which I shall refer, the negotiations were carried forward. The time began to run, the thirty days, the two weeks, and other fixed periods, until finally we reached a point where, the tariff board having made its report, we were ready to complete the undertaking if we thought it desirable. Having offered these benefits without restriction, our contention was that anything in the way of quotas accorded to Canada was wholly unsatisfactory.
We told them frankly that, having given them the benefits we did, we did not think it fair to suggest that it was an even deal if we, with a population of 11,000,000 people, had to take quota benefits. In other words, we were according the intermediate tariff and the most favoured nation treatment to 125,000,000 people, and those 125,000,000 people suggested

The Address-Mr. Bennett
that they were not prepared to give us the same concession, but would only give a concession that was limited by quotas with respect to many items which are of vital concern to Canada-the cattle quota, the cream quota, fish and potatoes, shingles, lumber and other commodities. We were not prepared to agree to those terms. And there the matter ended. The government went out of office, and the present administration coming in executed an agreement, in which there is one item which had not been finally settled at the time the old government went out of office.
Now let us examine for a moment just where we are with respect to this trade agreement. In the first place, the tariff that now prevails in the United States is a Republican tariff, a tariff imposed in the days of President Hoover. It is the highest tariff in the history of the United States. When the president suggested that he proposed to deal with trade agreements, the personnel and temper of congress was such that it became apparent at once that the senate would not give the requisite two-thirds vote to approve any such treaty. So legislation was enacted that conferred upon the president the power to make, not treaties, but trade agreements. These trade agreements were to be subject to certain definite limitations, limitations of such a character that I think it desirable that we should understand what they are.
First, no item upon the free list could be changed into a dutiable item and no item upon the dutiable list could be changed into a free item. In other words, no free items could be granted by the President of the United States in trade agreements that were not free at the time the agreement was made. Second, the maximum reduction in tariff that the president was authorized to make was fifty per cent of the existing tariff rates. And those tariff rates were, as I have pointed out, the rates of the Republican party. The tariff with that fifty per cent reduction, which is the maximum reduction possible, in many cases is far higher than the rates under the Underwood tariff. It will be recalled that the last Democratic tariff in the United States was the Underwood tariff, and under it we had free entry into the markets of the United States for a large number of our commodities.
But the United States did not stop there. In their law conferring this power upon the president they declared further that before any bargain was made of any kind it was essential that there should be afforded an opportunity to all those who might be concerned to express their views as to the effect that such action would have upon their national life. Now the effect of that is to
afford to citizens of the United States opportunity to appear before the tariff board to deal with every proposal. Not only will the business men of the United States have opportunity to file briefs during a period of thirty days, but during the first two weeks after that they will have opportunity to make oral argument as well before that tribunal. No such power resides in this country. In other words they have that advantage over us.
The items that have been noted in the press with respect to this trade agreement are items that are covered for the most part by the existing agreement. First of all dutiable items cannot be made free, and sir, we have given all we have to give unless we are prepared to make specific reductions of tariffs which will extend to twenty other nations, including Japan, under the favoured nation clauses. That is the position. There is nothing more we can give the United States. Without restriction and without limitation we have given them everything we have to give except one tiling, that is, reductions in specific items under our tariffs. For that we have obtained only the opportunity, not to get free entry of any item now subject to customs tax but to get reductions up to fifty per cent of United States tariffs as they stood before any such agreements were made.
But, Mr. Speaker, we want more. We want other things; as the discussions already indicate, we want many things. How are we to get them? There is nothing more we can give the United States except specific reductions of tariff items, but we are told that what we are to do is to sell our British preference for these benefits. That is the story. Without going into it in detail, the sole, simple question is:	What price? And the
price means the concessions we are prepared to make from the British preference in order that we may get something for which -we have given already everything we have to give on our own account.
In addition, of course, our ports are affected. That matter was discussed last year and I am not going into that question to-day, but I do point out that we are asked now to say what we are prepared to pay by abandoning the preferred position we have in the British and empire markets, in order to get concessions from the United States, having given them everything they demanded in the first instance, and having been willing to take half a loaf instead of standing firm. We accepted quotas from people to whom we gave unlimited entry in return on everything.
I need not discuss these matters at length, because it will be time enough to do so when
The Address-Mr. Bennett

the agreements come up for consideration, but certainly the broad principle is there and all the casuistry in the world cannot get away from it. Our ports are affected. We have lost the advantage of direct shipment. That will be gone.


Olof Hanson: How do we know?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because we have done
it already under the old agreement.


Olof Hanson: I do not think the government we have to-day is going to give anything more than it has to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This government gave
up the ten per cent reduction which was conditioned upon the importations being through our ports. That is provided for in the existing agreement. I do not desire to take up the time to go into the matter, but if the hon. gentleman will read the agreement he will find it written there in letters not of gold but, I should say, of silver. That is the situation, Mr. Speaker. You cannot change it by argument or discussion or casuistry; it is there in those terms. We gave all. We got what we received with restrictions. We are now told that it is desirable in the interests of world peace and for other reasons that we should surrender part of the preference which we enjoy in the markets of Great Britain and the other parts of the empire. It is a matter for the government to decide as to what price it is prepared to pay and receive for making these concessions.
Then there is the suggestion in the closing paragraph of the operative part of the speech:
The government is convinced that, in seeking to cooperate with the United Kingdom and other countries in efforts to promote international trade . . .
And so forth. That makes it desirable for me to make this observation, which is a summary of the statement by the Federation of British Industries. What difference is there between a volume of trade, amounting in the aggregate to a given sum, between Great Britain and Canada and between Great Britain, Canada, and the United States? If the volume of trade between Canada and Great Britain is X, when the United States takes some of the commodities that we. have to sell and sells its commodities instead, Canadian trade becomes X minus, and the minus represents the plus of the United States. What is the addition to international trade? Have you increased it? This is what you have done: You have taken away from Canada that part of the trade which has gone to the United States, unless indeed you increased the volume of trade between Great Britain and the United States and did not lessen the trade between Canada and the United States, which enables me to say this:	There is but one stable
[Mr. Bennett.)
market for agricultural products left in the world. That is the market of the United Kingdom, and that market has practically reached its maximum. Why? Because the population is no longer actively increasing. Statisticians tell us the population of the United Kingdom will reach its peak within a short time. In the second place they are promoting, by every means within their power, the development of their domestic production of chickens, butter, milk, wheat-on which they are paying a bonus-eggs, pigs and all such commodities. To the extent to which the United Kingdom can supply their own wants they are doing so. Under these circumstances how can we afford to take a part of the trade we now enjoy, in pigs and wheat and various other agricultural products such as apples and lumber, and hand it over to our great competitors to the south, thus enabling them to get that portion of the trade which we lose as a result of our own action?
That is the position. I submit that it cannot possibly be changed unless indeed we are prepared to say that, having free access to those markets until 1940, we propose to stand by our position. Under the terms of article III of the agreement we have a fixed preference in regard to the very matters in which we are deeply concerned, such as wheat, butter, cheese, apples, pears, canned apples, eggs, condensed milk, milk powder, honey, unwrought copper, timber of .all kinds, fish, salmon, asbestos, zinc, lead and patent leather. On all these we have a fixed margin of preference under the law as it now stands, and that condition will remain until 1940, unless we are prepared to surrender these advantages. Shall we abandon this fixed margin of preference on agricultural products, which are so vital to our life? The margin with respect to hogs, bacon and matters of that kind is provided for by a special clause. Shall we abandon these for the purpose of now getting from the United States what we should have got when we gave them all that we had to give?
I do not propose to traverse at greater length the general details of the speech from the throne, but I do desire to make a few general observations with respect to the situation in Canada at the present time. It is admitted by everyone who gives thought to the matter that these are days of great difficulty. In fact, in the speech from the throne it is indicated that such is the case.
We must now consider our own position, in the light of that situation. However, before going into that matter in detail may I turn to one which I believe I have overlooked.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that I may be forgiven for returning to it. Recently a by-election was held in the constituency of St. Henry.

The Address-Mr. Bennett
The hon. member who succeeded in that contest was introduced this evening. In furtherance of what I said to-day may I point out that speaking in that campaign the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) stated that Montreal needed a Canadian National station. He asserted that the hole in Dorchester street would be closed up. On the following evening the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) said, " If you do not get your station Mr. Houde will be responsible."
Let us look at the other side of it-and I ask the Prime Minister to think of this matter carefully. The construction of the station would involve an expenditure of several millions of dollars. That is a matter for the government to consider. It is for them to determine whether or not the finances of the country are such that the taxpayers can afford to assume this added responsibility. That is not a matter with which I shall deal at this time. However I am dealing with the fact that the promise was made by the Secretary of State and, on the following evening, was supported by the Minister of Public Works. Can we afford to have promises of that kind made in a by-election, or any other election? What is more, the Secretary of State was very careful to say that he did not make that promise on his own. He was too careful a man to do that! He is reported to have said that if they wanted the hole filled up their duty would be a very simple one. He hoped that they would discharge that duty in the proper manner-and, apparently, from what we have seen to-night, that was done.
Let us go a step farther. Coupled with this was the question of unemployment relief. In the Montreal Gazette of January 15, 1938, we find a report of a meeting held in the city of Montreal on the previous evening. In that report I find this:
So long as there are unemployed there will be direct relief for men, their wives and children.
So said ,the Secretary of State.
We will do our part, and if the municipal powers, and provincial powers should become fatigued, be tranquil. While there is a single unemployed, the federal government will see to their sustenance. It is not an independent who will do that. It is not a man isolated from all parties who can do anything. He may make eloquent speeches, even enact farces, but I am authorized to repeat to you that as long as there are unemployed in Montreal, even if we are alone, the federal government engages itself on honour to give sustenance to him, his wife, and children.
That is the position.
The same may be said with respect to the building of a subway under the Lachine canal. Here we have three things:	We have the
Canadian National station; we have the subway under the LachiDe canal and we have
the promise that if the province fails or if the municipalities fail, the federal government will see to it that sustenance is given to the men, their wives and families. That, he says, he is giving, not on his own. He has said, "I give that to you," and makes the statement that "the federal government engages itself on honour to give sustenance to the unemployed, his wife and children."
May I say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), an hon. member who comes from a city which is finding it very difficult to deal with the situation, that his troubles are solved. Everything is over now. He need not worry any more. The province of Manitoba has said it cannot carry (the burden, and the city of Winnipeg says it cannot do it. But here is the promise of the government of Canada to do it, with respect to Montreal, and it cannot avoid the same responsibility with respect to Winnipeg or Calgary or Vancouver.
I am asking whether the government of Canada is prepared to say that it will carry out such an undertaking with respect to Montreal, and not carry it out with respect to Vancouver or Winnipeg or Calgary or Toronto or any of the other great cities in Canada? We now have no occasion for any further worries. They are past. We have that unity and determination which will ensure that there will be no further difficulty with respect to the poor and the unemployed, their wives or their children, in any of the cities of Canada. When I read that I rejoiced, because I knew that although the province of Alberta cannot help Calgary any further and although the citizens cannot provide any further moneys, the great Dominion of Canada, through its Secretary of State, speaking on behalf of the government, has bound itself in honour to provide for unemployed men, their wives and children. I rejoiced that the city of Calgary was now safe for the rest of the hard winter.
That would be true, also, with respect to Winnipeg. Winnipeg need worry no longer. They need not be concerned when: Mr. Bracken, premier of Manitoba, says to them, "We cannot give you any further assistance." Under great difficulty, as is known, they did give assistance to Winnipeg for the month of January. That month ends to-day. Now some one else will provide. Now we have intervention by the Secretary of State when, in a by-election, he says, "The federal government engages itself on honour to give sustenance" to the unemployed, their wives and children. He points out that those people will receive sustenance from the federal authority.
Of course that means the expenditure of considerable money-but that is not a matter
The Address-Mr. Bennett

of moment in a by-election of such importance as that which took place in St. Henry. Because the government is bound, doubtless the Minister of Finance will foot the bill. That surplus to which the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) referred this afternon will have vanished into thin air, like the dew before the morning sun.
It may be somewhat amusing that this should be so-but there is the record. The amazing thing is that upon that record apparently the people were greatly impressed, for we find that in that particular section of the constituency they gave the very large majority of about 5,000 to the hon. gentleman who took bis seat this evening. So it would seem that the labours of the Secretary of State were not in vain, nor were those of the Minister of Public Works.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those hon. members
from western Canada who are saying, "Hear, hear" must say so with great joy, because they know their trouble is now ended. When I hear the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bowden), I realize how he must feel about it.
But from another angle the matter has a somewhat different aspect, and I feel quite certain that when that aspect has been traversed and appropriations made the feeling will be different. The government cannot say that in Winnipeg the workmen, their wives and families will be neglected, but that in Montreal they will be cared for. The federal government cannot espouse such a doctrine as that.
Clearly it is not a case of the old, worn five cent piece; that doctrine is no longer in vogue. It could not be said to be that, in my sense. It is however a declaration of high policy in which the government commits .tself to care for men, women and children, or for all those who may find themselves in want in the great cities of Canada. That I am sure is a statement with respect to which every representative of a city in 'Canada, and especially representatives from western Canada, will rejoice and be exceeding glad. For my part, I thank the Secretary of State and the government for taking so noble an attitude. I am sure the Minister of National Defence will be highly regarded in Vancouver when he is able to tell his constituents that thanks to a by-election in St. Henry there will be no further difficulty or worry with respect to the wants of the workmen, their wives and children in that great city. That it involves a large sum of money is a matter for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) to settle.

I was about to point out that no one in this country can help being concerned over the conditions that exist. There never has been a time when we had greater disharmony and lack of unity among the provinces that comprise confederation. Admittedly the circumstances that surround us, leave much to be desired. We have large numbers of unemployed, although they are fewer than they were. In addition to that, we have large numbers on relief. The figures would indicate that they have increased by 80,000 during the last month or so. That is a substantial increase. The cause for a large number of these people being on relief is attributable to conditions other than the drought conditions which have obtained in the prairie country.
We have a situation in this country where we find the formation of organizations that contemplate a dictatorship such as fascism on the one hand, or communism, on the other. Hon. members may have observed in a Montreal daily the picture of a large number of men giving a salute in the approved Nazi form.


An hon. MEMBER:: They were boy scouts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, boy scouts, but
apparently this matter is taken much more seriously in the province of Quebec. From what has been said and done there it is quite clear that this thing is regarded as being of great importance. I directed the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) to-night, as well as a few days ago, to the fact that the mails of this country had been intercepted and papers taken therefrom. It is quite clear under the law that that should not happen. In the United States that was the cause of a long and protracted struggle in the state of Illinois. Is such a situation to continue in Canada?
We have the formation of these bodies and we hear talk of fascism and other forms of dictatorship. The other day I was reading a report by a gentleman who has written a great deal on public questions. He said:
A world ended in 1918. Another is struggling "powerless to be born." It is between these worlds that we are to-day, with two great forces even now at grips as to which shall control the -world of to-morrow. These forces are liberty or some form of "compulsion."
Being a country of only eleven million people, all w-e can do is to endeavour to improve our position in the light of our experience. We have abundant revenues brought about by heavy taxation. That is admitted. Whether or not relief can be given from that high taxation is a matter that the government must consider. We have

The Address-Mr. Bennett
provinces claiming the rights of sovereign states. To quote the language of a commentator, the central government seems to have abdicated and permitted its power to go to the capitals of the various provinces. That is a condition which I think cannot possibly continue.
No man who is familiar with the history of the United States can fail to remember the great struggle that took place between the states and the central power. The suggestion that the states were sovereign powers was put forward by Calhoun and Hayne. The great debate in the senate between Webster and Hayne was to decide whether they should have a strong union or whether there should be a group of sovereign states gathered together in a loose form of government. That was the issue, so effectively dealt with in the reply of Webster. Hundreds of thousands of copies of his speeches were circulated in every part of the union, and the cry that had gone forward for the establishment of sovereign states ended.
For some strange reason there is a recrudescence of that very struggle in this country. There is a growing opinion that each province is a sovereign state and that unity in the sense of Canada as a whole is something that cannot be understood. It will be recalled that Clay always said that he was not of Kentucky or Virginia, that he was of the United States. He tried to make it clear that union was the essential thing. The United States ended that great struggle with a civil war, but there are none of us who contemplate such a possibility in Canada. But if we are to have a strong and vigorous Canada we cannot consider the possibility of there being nine sovereign states.
The only way we can secure that liberty which we hold so dear as against any form of compulsion is by maintaining with all our power the necessity of a strong central state. Canada is our country, not New Brunswick or Alberta or Saskatchewan. The nation is Canada, not the provinces that comprise it.
One of the reasons why we have these conditions at the present moment is the fact that in the minds of the people there exists the thought that all that could be done by the central power is not being done. That is the view they hold. When questions come up that should be decided by the executive, what do they do? Instead of deciding them, they refer them to the courts. The courts have no powers with respect to these matters. The Supreme Court of Canada is only advisory, and, what is more, it is not a court of original jurisdiction. The constitution gave us no power to create other than an appellate court
in the Supreme Court of Canada. If under peace, order and good government we endeavour to set up a court, we cannot do so because section 92 contains the specific provision that the administration of justice and the establishment of courts belong to the provinces. That is the position.
When we refer to the courts the question of whether or not a given measure that was never a statute is or is not within the competence of a legislature, in my judgment we are taking a course that is injurious, if not inimical, to the preservation of the central power. Think of what we have done! The province of Alberta passed a statute or thought that it had done so. It got through the legislature, but when it came to the lieutenant-governor, he declined to assent. It then came down reserved to be dealt with by this government which had the power to say yes or no as the lieutenant-governor is a federal official. This was decided in the days of Governor Letellier.
Now what has happened? Instead of the government dealing with it, we have this anomaly, this precedent established-and think what it means-that a legislature which has to meet a few weeks from now will not know whether the action it took was taken properly or improperly. One can understand the idea of referring to a court a statute, because it represents the legislative effort of a legislature; but to refer something that is neither fish, flesh, fowl nor good red herring to a court for an advisory opinion is to beg the very question itself and to escape responsibility which justly belongs to the executive. There is no doubt with respect to that. Think where it leads. The question of referring these matters to courts is not one that should be lightly considered. Every question could be referred to the courts.
I find that away back in 1889 the late Sir John A. Macdonald was confronted with a similar situation, and the matter is dealt with in his correspondence. He was dealing with a question of tremendous import and of grievous difficulty. What had he to do? He found himself confronted with the Jesuits' Estates Act. There was an agitation asking him to disallow it. Did he listen to it? He asked for an opinion of the law officers in England, whether or not it was constitutional. His minister of justice, the late Sir John Thompson, was clearly of the opinion that it was constitutional. Then what happened? Lord Atholstan, who was borne to his last resting place to-day, conceived that it would be an easy way out of the difficulty if the matter were referred to the supreme court. He said, " There is the way out. All you have to do is to refer it to the supreme
The Address-Mr. Bennett

court," and he presented a very powerful petition to that effect to the government of the day. Sir John Thompson considered the matter and wrote a letter to his prime minister in which he pointed out that in his opinion a government should not shirk its responsibility, but face it. Then it was that Sir John A. Macdonald wrote this letter to Sir John Thompson-bear in mind that this was only twenty-two years after confederation. The Supreme Court Act had been placed there at the instance of Mr. Edward Blake. This is in part the letter:
July 24, 1889.
I have made a note on the margin on the 10th page, merely for the purpose of calling /our attention to the grave danger of the prac-;ice of summary application for advice to the Supreme court being resorted to. It would luickly grow, and a dominion ministry, careless or ignorant of constitutional principles, might on every question of public interest, for popularity or some sinister purpose, freely use the power of reference. A Mercier government would leave every question to the Supreme court, if it thought the courts below were adverse to its wishes. And it would be an inducement to pack the Supreme court with its partisans, imitating in that respect the government of the United States.
The courts below would gradually be ousted of their jurisdiction, and a new star chamber formed. I don't think this at all an imaginary danger. Lastly, I doubt the policy of alluding, as is done on the 16th page, to what is stated in some quarters, although not in the petition, but I don't feel at all sure that I am right in my doubts.
That is the letter of one who was regarded as a father of confederation. He pointed out, very properly I think, the bad practice which comes from shirking and evading and escaping responsibility by referring a matter to the supreme court, whose opinion, mark you, is advisory only; more, it is not that of a court as such but of the judges persona de-signata for the purpose of giving that opinion; that is all. Under those circumstances you have unrest, distrust, suspicion. I say to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that while I agree with him wholly in his disallowance of the statute denying rights to the courts in the province of Alberta, I almost ventured to be impudent enough to suggest to him that, having disallowed that statute, he should leave the banks to fight out their questions with the courts. I recall that when I was at the bar I was defending an action brought by the province of Alberta against the Royal bank in connection with the Alberta and Great Waterways Railway in which a deposit of some six million odd was changed from being a time deposit to the credit of the province's general account. The action succeeded in the courts of Alberta: then it was

that the bank in question applied to Sir Robert Borden for disallowance. Sir Robert Borden fixed a time at which argument was heard. I did not appear, so I can speak about it frankly. They made a lengthy argument; the matter was considered by the committee of the privy council, and finally advice was given that the matter, then being in the courts, should be left in the courts and the power of disallowance should not be exercised. That gave the bank the chance to fight the case to the privy council, where, as is known, they succeeded. But the point I desire to make clear is that if we get into the habit of escaping the responsibility that belongs to the executive

and I am not saying that in an offensive sense-the very conditions to which Sir John A. Macdonald alluded will inevitably follow. If on the other hand we exercise the power promptly, and say -as I tell the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice quite frankly I think we should say- to all the world that any provincial legislation which denies the right of any citizen to go to the courts will be disallowed by the government as a matter of policy, I believe it would serve a useful purpose, and would avoid the criticism being urged that in one case you did one thing and in another case, another.
As a distinguished journalist said the other day, there are two things we must deal with in this country. One is, to use the language so prevalent in these days and so apt, we must conquer poverty. I am well aware of the words of Holy Writ, "The poor always ye have with you." That is true. But we can lessen poverty. The other day I had a letter from Taber, and I confess that I found it difficult to continue work. Here was a family whose children were without clothes, and, covered with rude coverings, who kept warmth in their bodies by staying in bed; the father was without work and could not get it; he had been a miner when they were carrying on operations there. I could cite countless cases of this kind. I could mention similar cases in other parts of Alberta that came within my own immediate knowledge in the weeks I spent there during the last few months. Cannot we as a people do something to remedy such conditions? I think we can. The work may be slow, it may be difficult. Take, for instance, the proposals made by Mr. Purvis. He suggested a large scale operation which he thought would bring about an improvement in conditions, and the conditions that he says should be improved are those under which initiative is being destroyed by lack of employment and by payment of relief. Some steps have been taken for the purpose of lessening the numbers on

The Address-Mr. Bennett
relief. But everywhere about me as I travel around this country-and I have travelled over it twice this year with that object and others in view-I have heard, in places, where I did not expect to hear it, a tale of pessimism and despair that I find difficult to understand, and of poverty that I believe we can conquer if we have the will to do it. I do not believe we are so bereft of statecraft, of courage and of enterprise that we cannot do it.
There is another point, and it is a vital one just now. There is no recurring depression in sight, but depressions move in cycles and with rapidity. We know what happened in the United States. We have seen its reactions in curtailed exports in November and December, and I doubt not we will again see in January, with, of course, the consequent reductions in revenue. But what are we doing to prepare ourselves to meet such a situation when it comes.
I have travelled about the British Empire in the last two years and have been struck with what has been done in other parts of the commonwealth to deal with these problems. It is true that conditions are different in each dominion, and what is true in one cannot be said to be true in another. It is true that the conditions which prevail in Australia do not necessarily prevail here. But when I studied the way in which they dealt with these matters, notwithstanding that they depreciated the value of their pound to $4, I realized, as those who have read Professor Copland's report, or The Fight of the Plans, must realize, that in that dominion they faced the problem with courage. Surely we have the same courage. Some people say, " Look at what is being accomplished to-day in New Zealand." Well, I shall not discuss that because there was a deficit there last year despite all their efforts to the contrary. In South Africa we find an abnormal condition, that country being extremely rich in gold. I realize, therefore, that differences exist in the various parts of the empire. But I am convinced that there are methods which might be resorted to, even though they might be experiments, that are worthy of the consideration of the Canadian people; and I believe that if the government took a strong lead with respect to these and commanded, as they would command, the support of men in every part of the house, they would be amazed at the results that would follow.
I know the difficulties that men are experiencing in understanding problems connected with monetary policy. Every day someone asks me questions with regard to *nonetary problems. When the Prime Minister was appealing to the people of the country, what was it he said he was going to do? He was going to wage a great battle against the money power. That was his statement. I did not make that statement; it was his. Well, even the most violent partisan will find it difficult to-day to discover the field of activities, to locate the terrain in which that war is being carried on. And there is no emulation here of the Japanese, because here we have not a war without declaration; there has been a declaration, but I have not seen any sign of hostilities.
We Temember the occasion on which the British delegation was here in 1932, and I have no doubt most hon. members have read the reports of the speeches made at that time by Mr. Chamberlain, and by the representatives of India and other parts of the British Empire. In 1933 we saw the same thing-and always, running through it all, there was the idea that something should be done whereby conditions would be in some degree improved. But what are we doing about it? Is export trade going to bring about the improvement? Well, we have had a very heavy export trade, and I am sure the Minister of Labour is saddened when he looks at the numbers on relief, and the numbers receiving assistance from the state.


Mr. ROGERS:: There has been a very great improvement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly there has;
otherwise the country would 'be relieved out of existence. But there has been no improvement in the last two months; there are eighty thousand more unemployed to-day than there were a month ago.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is explained largely by the seasonal decline.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there has been always a seasonal decline; this is not a new season, 1938, that has come about especially for the Liberal party. The hon. gentleman would no doubt say:
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York.
At any rate we have always had a seasonal decline. But is there anything that this parliament can do? Are we incapable of making progress in monetary reform? Are we incapable of progress in relation to security? What does lack of security mean? I read the other day that the president of the Board of Trade in England had made this statement, that no longer were English people worried about ownership, but only about the question of security. What about labour? What about the conditions that exist in the markets in the United States? What we have to face is lack of certainty-insecurity. That applies every-
The Address-Mr. Bennett

where. Why is it that to-day we have such enormous aggregations of capital in the banks -capital unemployed? Why is it that to-day the banks have such enormous investments in our securities? Is there lack of confidence in our ability properly to function as a producing country? The answer must be apparent to any man who takes time to think. And what are we doing? We are taking our resources out of the ground-resources that we shall never have again-and shipping them out; and then we talk about our vast export trade. But that vast export trade is not doing anything comparable with what would be done for the relief of unemployment if we were fabricating that raw material in our own country.
Where does that raw material go? What is done with it? Do we buy it back? What about asbestos, nickel, lead, zinc, lumber and pulpwood and paper? What about all these articles? What about importations into Canada of commodities made from raw materials that left this country? What are we doing to provide ourselves with adequate defences, not against the enemy on our coast, but against the enemy of our economic life? I ask these questions in all seriousness, because I have not forgotten that there was a time when I sat to the right of the Speaker. I have not forgotten the criticisms that were made then, or the suggestions that were poured forth. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) said, "We have $170,000,000 odd of gold; we can manage with a twenty-five per cent coverage and pay our national debt in part and provide for great public works, if only we are given the chance." And no dumb man has ever been dumber than the hon. gentleman has been in that respect ever since. Apparently there are others besides myself who have memories and can recall what the hon. gentleman has said on various occasions. But, I repeat, are we doing anything? I was chided because I did not do anything; we were chided because we did not do anything. But we did not make the promises that were made then.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We did not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is gratifying to think
that the tension on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite has been relieved by the first smile in which they have been able to indulge for some time. Mark you, I do not say for a moment that these hon. gentlemen are not as greatly concerned about the human side as we are. It used to be charged against us in days of black depression that we did not do this and we did not do that. Go and look at

the revenues; look at the number of people able to contribute to the taxes of the country at that time; consider the problems that confronted us then, and look at the condition in the world and in Canada to-day and tell me this-


Charles Avery Dunning: They have the ability to pay to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I am saying.


Charles Avery Dunning: Then they are that much better off.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was about to say
that they are that much better off, but that the government of the country is making no provision for the continuance of that condition. I have not forgotten that only seven or eight years ago the present Minister of Finance stood where he now sits and I heard his May-day budget speech in wThich he talked about the glorious prosperity of this country; yet he knew, or ought to have known at that very moment, that the country was being plunged into the greatest depression it ever experienced. He must have known it-


Charles Avery Dunning: I had not the omniscience of my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman may not have had it, but at least he professed it. It is pleasing to have him admit that he had not.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the face of these conditions, in the face of the world interest in the problems that concern not this country alone but the whole world, we find on the part of this government inaction. Inaction! A statement that foreign trade will solve our difficulties, when they know as well as I do that the moment the buying power of those who take our products ends, that moment our prosperity departs. They know that; every man knows that is what happened in 1929-30. When those who have been buying our products can no longer buy, then our prosperity vanishes. I believe in foreign trade; I desire foreign trade; but I desire foreign trade only as the complement of the development of our own life and provision against any onslaught that may come to our economic life by reason of the fact that we cannot market our products abroad. When you say it is other than that you cannot but know what the end must be. It cannot be otherwise.
But this government has done nothing. With respect to monetary policy it is just the same old tale: the fight with the money power is still to be joined, the great struggle

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
is about to commence. It is always about to commence but it has not commenced. Tomorrow or the day after peradventure we shall indeed engage them, if the day be not stormy or the signs unpropitious. Peradventure we may be able to increase our paper money five or six times over what it now is and enable the fortifications of Vancouver island to be erected.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about the guns?


Richard Bedford Bennett: An hon. gentleman wants to know about the guns. I commend to him that poem of Kipling's about the guns. When he has read that he probably will have a clear understanding.
I see no possibility of this government initiating anything that looks toward the amelioration of the condition of the people. They are content to say that all you have to do is to establish foreign trade, and supplant the representatives of the Department of Trade and Commerce by those of the Department of Agriculture. That is all there is to be done; when that is done all is accomplished. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have to do something more than that. We have to establish security and confidence. What happened to your loan in London the other day? W'hat happened to it?


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my right hon.
friend want to know?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, he reads, and he is
familiar with the method by which these matters are dealt with. The underwriters took forty-nine per cent of it, and large blocks were taken off the market to prevent its going to a larger discount than it did. You have to compare the 3} per cent loan offered by this dominion with the 3i offered by Australia.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my right hon.
friend mean to say that there is less confidence in London in Canadian loans than in Australian?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mean to say that there is less confidence in this Canadian loan than there was in the Australian loan.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend cannot possibly have the facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The underwriters did not get forty-nine per cent of the Australian loan, and they did of this.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.


Olof Hanson: Oh. oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The great financier from Skeena will be well advised to confine himself to something he knows. That is all that may be said with respect to that.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall have an opportunity to give the facts on some future occasion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no difficulty about the facts; I am familiar with them.
Mr. Speaker, I desire to move an amendment to the address:
We desire respectfully to express regret that the speech from the throne does not indicate that the government has taken or contemplates taking efficient measures to deal with unfavourable economic conditions in Canada, and that no legislative action is proposed to deal effectively with the prevailing uncertainty and insecurity resulting from the inadequate incomes of large numbers of our people.
The real truth is that today, despite what may be said with respect to prosperity, the average incomes of the people of this country are wholly inadequate to maintain decent life and the amenities of life in their homes. Let the government explain why it is that the incomes of the people of this country are wholly inadequate to supply their wants; the unemployed, the hundreds of thousands on relief. Let us hear the adequate explanation. Then will begin, I am sure, that great struggle, so long hoped for, of the giant against the money power, by which it is to be shaken to its very foundations and torn asunder, so that peace and good will will reign amongst the sons of men.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to extend my heartiest congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the motion for an address to his excellency in reply to the speech -from the throne. Both hon. members were known to us before their entrance into this house. We knew them as gentlemen who had each played an important part in the affairs of his own province. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Francceur) was for many years a member of the Quebec legislature. He was for a time Minister of Public Works in the Quebec government, and, for nine years, Speaker of the legislative assembly. Those of us who had the pleasure of listening to him this afternoon will agree that his experience and attainments in political affairs and in his chosen profession were amply reflected in the eloquent and able address which he delivered.
My hon. friend from Renfrew North (Mr. Warren), as we know, played an active part in municipal affairs, having served as reeve of his township and for many years as a

[DOT]50	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
member of the Renfrew county council. He has as well been a member of the Ontario legislature and, as in the case of the hon. member for Lotbiniere, his address this afternoon afforded evidence of the experience which he has already attained in public life. His address has made apparent that we have had added to our number one who is particularly interested in the well-being of the farming community; one who has a broad interest in questions of the day and an hon. member who is well able to participate effectively in the discussions of the house.
I should like, in addition to welcoming these two new members to the house, to extend a welcome also to the other members who have entered parliament for the first time at this session: the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. MacLean); the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. McCallum), and the hon. member for St. Henry (Mr. Bonnier). We shall have with us in a few days, I hope, the hon. member for Victoria, (B.C.) (Mr. Mayhew), who, unfortunately, is indisposed at the present time. All these gentlemen, will, I trust, have useful careers in this parliament in the service of their country.
There is one other hon. gentleman who I am also glad to see again in his seat in this house, our friend the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). With his usual modesty he did not permit himself to be reintroduced to the house. May I say to him that we are glad to see him back again in the fold, as I am sure he is glad to be back. I have no doubt that, after his little escapade last summer and autumn in provincial politics, he has come back a much wiser though perhaps a somewhat sadder man.
Now may I say to my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) that we all enjoyed very much some of the humour of his speech. We have been entertained by his digressions in many directions, although it has been a little difficult to follow him in some of his denunciations, exclamations, innuendoes and insinuations. I am not going to try to follow him along that devious course. I was however somewhat surprised that he was not a little more courteous to one of the hon. members who has just come into this house, who he had heard speaking for only a very few minutes and who he would not permit even to ask a question when, in the mind of the hon. member for Renfrew North, the right hon. gentleman himself was misconstruing what that hon. member had just been saying.
My right hon. friend said that the hon. member for Renfrew North had been drawing on his imagination for the facts. Well, there

are some things with respect to which we need not draw on our imagination to be perfectly sure of the facts. One is that the present administration received from the people of this country the largest majority that any administration has had in the history of Canada. Nor do we need to draw on our imagination to recall that while for a time my right hon. friend was the leader of a very large party, he got at the end of one term of office one of the worst defeats any prime minister ever received. Nor do we need to draw on our imagination for a further fact, one which I think is also important, in view of what my right hon. friend has had to say [by way of erititcism of the government, particularly with reference to what he says we have failed to do, in the matter of improving conditions. Let me ask: How has the country itself viewed the actions of the government since it took office? We have had seventeen by-elections since the general elections of 1935. Of that number my right hon. friend has carried three and the present administration fourteen. Of the three which my right hon. friend and his party have carried, one was in the city of Victoria. Since that by-election, there has been a second in this same constituency and the seat has been lost by my right hon. friend's party. One of the other two was the by-election which returned my hon. friend from Dufferin-Simcoe, of whom I spoke a moment ago. Evidently he was quite overcome by the few kindly remarks which were made about him, for he has left the chamber. The hon. member was allowed to leave this house by one of its doors and to come back unopposed by the same door.
There is still another fact to be kept in mind, it is not something imagined. While the present government was returned to power after the general elections of 1935 with the largest majority any administration has ever had in the history of Canada, to-day, at the beginning of the third session of the present parliament, we enjoy an even larger majority than we had at the time we came into office.
It is the country's opinion, I value. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to devote too much time .to what my right hon. friend has said about our failure to help meet the situation as it exists in this country. He has said a great deal about unemployment, which he states is continuing. May I remind the house of what my right hon. friend told the electorate when he was appealing to them and when they returned him to office in 1930? He promised that he would end unemployment or perish in the attempt. Far from perishing, he is here in livelier form than ever.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
My right hon. friend talks about the number of unemployed, but the numbers of unemployed to-day are very different from what they were during his period of office, fortunately for the people and for the incomes of the people, to which his amendment to-night relates.
I was pleased, as we all were, to hear the reference the right hon. gentleman made to Their Majesties the King and Queen. Those of us who were privileged to attend the coronation ceremonies were deeply impressed by what we witnessed in Westminster Abbey. Even more impressive, however, than the consecration by their majesties of their lives at that service, is the devotion which they have shown to the public service in their high post of duty since his majesty's accession. I doubt if at any time in the history of any country there have been upon the throne a king and queen more devoted to each other and to their subjects, and whose lives have been more completely consecrated to the wellbeing of their fellow men, than King George VI and Queen Elizabeth. The affection in which they are held in the old land is already all but equalled by the affection entertained for them in all parts of their great empire.
The speech from the throne affords, I think, an appropriate opportunity for a reference to the recognition given in the coronation cere-money to the complete nationhood of the Dominion of Canada. I confess that as I listened to the oath which was administered to his majesty, and heard his majesty promise to obey it, I felt great pride as a Canadian to hear for the first time in history my own country in relation to the crown mentioned in terms exactly the same as those applied to Great Britain itself. The oath administered at the time of the coronation ceremony was as follows:
Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples of Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New' Zealand and the Union of South Africa, of your possessions and the other territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, and of your empire of India, according to their respective laws and customs?
The reply was:
I solemnly promise so to do.
That oath marks the end of a suggestion, remote or otherwise, of anything in the nature of subordinate or colonial status. It is the enunciation by the crown itself of the complete nationhood of Canada on equality, so far as status is concerned, with all other nations of the British Commonwealth.
I found it somewhat difficult to follow the observations of my right hon. friend with regard to the imperial conference. So far as I
51952-4j
am able to recollect, his observations were to the effect that speeches were reported to have been made by me, or that something had appeared somewhere referring to me, purporting that, at the imperial conference, I had acted as the chief interpreter' of the views of the chief executive of another country with respect to that country's relationship with Great Britain.
Why did my right hon. friend not come right out and state that some Conservative papens, here and there, have been saying that Mr. Mackenzie King was seeking to be of some service to the President of the United States in connection with his desire to conclude ,a trade agreement with Great Britain. That is what he meant, but he did not say it. He left it as a sort of vague impression, one which has been fostered right and left in the press supporting my right hon. friend. In fact, in an editorial in one of the papers of this city there appeared the statement that, when last year I visited Washington as the guest of the president, the purpose of my visit was to discuss the proposed trade agreement with Great Britain, that I had gone very fully into the whole matter with the president and with the secretary of state, and that I had then gone to the imperial conference and at the conference had been the advocate for the United States with respect to an agreement with Great Britain.
May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members, that at the time I visited Mr. Roosevelt at the White House in the early part of last year, and had the privilege of discussing a great many questions with him in an intimate way, the subject of a trade agreement between the United States and Great Britain was never so much as mentioned. The same is literally and absolutely true with respect to any conversation I had with the Secretary of State for the United States at that time, or with any member of the United States government.
It was from the British Ambassador in Washington, and from our own minister in Washington who, in turn, had received his information from the British Ambassador, that I learned for the first time that for some little time there had been explorations, negotiations, conversations, whatever the proper description may be, with respect to the possibility of a trade agreement between the United States and Great Britain. It was information given, not with any request attached to it, but a simple statement of the fact that these two countries were contemplating negotiations and had begun discussions.
52	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
When, with some of my colleagues, I was present at one of the sessions of the Imperial conference in London, the matter was brought up, not at my instance, as was stated from some inspired source, but by a minister of the crown in Great Britain. The question was discussed openly before the representatives of the empire countries there represented, in which number Canada was included. We were told of the nature of the negotiations under way and were asked to express our views with regard to them. I need not say to this House of Commons that any expression of views from any of my colleagues or myself was wholly to the effect that, while Canada was anxious in every way to be of service in the matter of furthering friendly relationships among different countries, we would necessarily wish to see that every privilege we enjoyed in the British market was fully protected, and that any change which might be made in that position could be made only as the result of what in our opinion were adequate compensations therefor.
I do not propose to-night to go into the matter of trade negotiations between Great Britain and the United States, or for that matter into trade negotiations between Canada and the United States. I shall have something to say on these matters at a later date. Part of the business of a leader of an opposition is, so far as possible, to draw out the government in advance of the time at which discussions on certain subjects may properly take place. The time to discuss these trade matters is when we have something concrete before us for deliberation.
I should, however, make it abundantly clear that any trade negotiations between Great Britain and the United States were begun and entered into by those countries themselves. Of necessity we have to take notice of them. We have an agreement with Great Britain and one with the United States, each of which will expire shortly. In fact, the one with the United States runs to the end of the present year, and is subject thereafter upon notice to complete cancellation at the end of six months. The agreement with Great Britain expires in 1940.
It is necessary for a government at all times to have regard, not only for today but for to-morrow, to have regard to situations which may arise not in the immediate present only but also in the future. Under these circumstances I would ask any hon. member this question: When other countries belonging to the British Commonwealth of Nations have declared their willingness to cooperate helpfully, if it is possible so to do, in the further-

ance of trade relations between the two greatest trading countries of the world, in a manner which it is hoped will help to serve the interests not only of these two countries but of all parts of the British Commonwealth and other nations as well, should Canada be the one to sit back, like a dog in the manger and say, "We will have nothing to do with either of you in transactions of the kind "? I wonder where we would be in the course of another year if that were the attitude we chose to take.
If that is the attitude he would take, it is a fortunate thing for Canada that my right hon. friend is not in office to-day. I tell him that, strongly as he may feel about the importance of having a wall around this country, the walls which have been built up around different countries are more than anything else, responsible for the unrest throughout the world at the present time. The world will get through its present difficulties, not by nations adopting an attitude of non-cooperation, but by all countries being as helpful as they can and in as many directions as possible. Particularly is this true with respect to matters tending to improve conditions in international trade.
The next topic to which reference is made in the speech from the throne is the improvement in Canada's economic condition. The facts of recovery are so evident, I had thought I would not say very much on this subject, but the amendment of my right hon. friend forces me to make some observations. He has moved the following in amendment:
We desire respectfully to express regret that the, speech from the throne does not indicate that the government have taken or contemplate taking efficient measures to deal with unfavourable economic conditions in Canada, and that no legislative action is proposed to deal effectively with the prevailing uncertainty and insecurity resulting from the inadequate incomes of large numbers of our people.
The amendment regrets that the speech from the throne does not indicate that the government have taken or contemplate taking efficient measures to improve economic conditions. Why should the speech from the throne state that the government contemplates taking efficient measures to improve economic conditions? Look at the facts and figures with regard to the present conditions in Canada in comparison with what they were when we came into office and see what they disclose. They speak more eloquently than any words in the speech from the throne could. If we inserted in the speech from the throne the exact words calculated to avoid my right bon. friend's amendment he would have criticized us at once. He would have

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
told :us that instead of putting any such words into the speech from the throne it would have been much better to have enumerated the statistics which would verify the fact that an improvement had taken place.
He said that within the last little while there had been a falling off of trade with the United States, that there had been a setback to some extent, and that the balance of trade was not what it had been. My right hon. friend knows very well that the falling off this year in exports to the United States and other countries is due, more than anything else to the unfortunate drought which has been experienced in western Canada. In the past year, the United States had a surplus of grains, feed and fodder, whereas Canada unfortunately, as a result of intense drought had no exportable surplus. A year ago that situation was entirely the reverse. At that time we had a surplus of these commodities and drought in the United States necessitated large imports of them from Canada. Because of drought, Canada did not have a normal quantity of wheat for export in the closing months of 1937. The exports of wheat in December, 1936, were valued at $25,256,000, whereas in December, 1937, they were valued at only $10,121,000. In the one item of wheat there was a decrease of $15,000,000 or 60 per cent in one month. This decrease was due in part, to the fact that the dominion had not been able to produce the wheat required for export. We hope that this condition will not recur in the present year, and there is strong reason to believe that it will not. If conditions should again become what we hope they will, then unquestionably sales to the United States and other countries will be appreciably increased as a consequence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The exports that have just been mentioned were not to the United States only.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They were
Canadian wheat exports, but a very large part would have gone to the United States if we had been in a position to sell.
Notwithstanding what my right hon. friend asserts in his amendment, there is abundant evidence of substantial progress. The speech from the throne refers to the new levels that have been reached in revenues. Revenues are a fairly good index as to whether or not conditions have improved. For the first nine months of the fiscal year 1935-36, the total ordinary revenues of Canada amounted to $2SS,000,000. In the same period in 1936-37, they had increased to $339,000,000. In 19373S, they totalled $401,000,000. The figures for
1937-38 showed an increase of 18 per cent over the 1936-37 period and 39 per cent over the 1935-36 period. In 1937-38, the revenues of this country were the highest that they have ever been for a similar period in any year.
These figures supply the answer to my right hon. friend's amendment. They indicate the degree of relative prosperity in this country when compared with what it has been in the past.
Let us take the figures with respect to trade. The total trade of Canada for the calendar year of 1937 was the highest since 1929, which was one of the best years. In 1935, the last year my right hon. friend was in office, the total trade of Canada amounted to $1,389,000000. In 1936 it amounted to $1,663,000,000, and in 1937, $1,934,000,000. The 1937 figure shows an increase of $271,000,000 or 16 per cent over the 1936 figure and $545,000,000 or 39 per cent over the 1935 figure. For those who insist that the important factor is the balance of trade, let me state that Canada had a favourable visible balance of trade of $316,000,000 for the calendar year 1937. For the first time since 1921, Canada regained her position as the fourth greatest exporting nation in the world.
Yet to-night this new doctrine of no advantage in export trade, is put forth quite evidently to help combine the Tory party with those of the Social Credit and other groups who sit to its left.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know my right hon. friend did not say it, but I am saying it. I know what he has in his mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say there was no advantage in export trade.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend has so many doctrines that it is hard to keep track of them, but, according to the latest one put forth to-night, it is a mistake to think of international trade as being a good thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say any such thing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend said that it led to war.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I said either.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend may have his eyes on the Edmonton East by-election.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I am not thinking about it.
54	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Was there an order in council?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect to the report?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, with respect to the consolidation of the department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect to the consolidation of the department, that has been a matter of internal organization in the department, the minister managing his own department and arranging its affairs within the terms of the law.
So that there may be no mistake about the line of demarcation between the functions of the two departments, may I say what my understanding of it is-and I think it is correct. The marketing of agricultural produce in so far as it relates to Canada is a matter that belongs entirely to the Department of Agriculture. There can be no doubt about that.
 r
There are in Canada provincial departments of agriculture as well as the federal department, and it is necessary for the minister so far as the federal Department of Agriculture is concerned, to have supervision over the entire work of marketing throughout all parts of Canada. As Minister of Agriculture, he is equally interested in seeing that all agricultural commodities for sale in foreign countries are so processed, packed, classified, packaged, transported and inspected, that there can be no doubt regarding their quantity and quality when they reach the market. In other words, he has to see to the quality and acceptability of the commodities that are exported.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Acceptability" might be open to a wrong construction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: "Acceptability" in this sense, that the effort of the Minister of Agriculture is to ascertain the particular form and the quality and the kind of commodities most desired in the markets of the world. The jurisdiction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce begins with the matters of trade and of sale. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has to do with the business of sales, the business of trade in foreign countries. There need not necessarily be a conflict between the two. The line of margin where possible differences may arise, or at least have arisen in the past-they need not in the future if proper safeguards are observed-is with respect to the borderline I have described, where the Minister of Agriculture sees to it that products reach the old country and are there in a form for marketing that will be acceptable, and the part which the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his officials play in seeking to advertise these goods and to gain for them the widest possible sale.
All along there have been a number of inspectors in the old country, under the Minister of Agriculture, to inspect live stock and commodities as they reach that country. They have been there since 1912. It is proposed that there shall be-in fact the government has agreed to it

a commissioner to supervise the work of these various inspectors, and who is to be free to travel in foreign countries for the purpose of gathering information which he can send to his own department to be of assistance to the minister in having agricultural products prepared as necessary and in the manner most desirable. That is the extent to which his organization is expected to operate beyond the bounds of Canada; the rest of the work is all under the control of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
That brings me to another matter which has been the subject of discussion, to which my right hon. friend referred when he was speaking to-night, namely that in some way the supervision of advertising had been taken from the High Commissioner for Canada, Mr Massey, because of the estimates for that purpose having 'been transferred from the Department of External Affairs to the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not mention
advertising.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was it my right hon. friend had in mind?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had in mind the question of the relation between the two departments in connection with the high commissioner's office. The statute says he shall act as agent for Canada in connection with all business.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What my right hon. friend says is correct; the high commissioner's position is that of agent for Canada with respect to all departments. However, my right hon. friend will recall that prior to 1933, I think it was, the Minister of Trade and Commerce brought into the house estimates with respect to the work of publicity overseas, and he himself changed that arrangement and had them brought in by the Minister of External Affairs, which office he held, because, as I understand it, he felt, from representations which the Hon. Mr. Ferguson had made-Mr. Ferguson was high commissioner at the time-that there was need for closer coordination of effort with respect to publicity in the old country, and that there should be more immediate control by the high commissioner. He believed that he himself was in a better position than anyone else to bring about the desired result. When we came into office Mr. Massey continued the work which Mr. Ferguson had carried on in that regard; and Mr. Massey has done that work as efficiently and effectively as could be expected of any high commissioner.
What is the change that has been made? In reality none, so far as Mr. Massey is concerned. Mr. Massey's position remains exactly as it is with respect to the supervision of the work of publicity. He will be assisted in the future, as in the past, by an advisory committee composed of representatives of the departments interested. The only difference is that instead of my presenting, as Secretary of State for External Affairs, the estimate for overseas publicity, advertising and the like,
in the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, these estimates will be presented hereafter by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Mr. BENNETT; Instead of the high commissioner's office?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, instead of their being presented in connection with the vote for the high commissioner's office they will be presented with the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That change was made at my own instance after the experience I went through in the house last year in presenting the estimates to the house. After having endeavoured to tell this house about the overseas advertising publicity campaigns, and the like, I said to Doctor Skelton, the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, that I did not see why I should have to do this, that it properly belonged to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and that I hoped that, when the estimates were prepared this year, that vote would be submitted in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then there is no change at all?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no change at all, and the effort to have it appear that in some way there has been some difference which accounts for the change is as erroneous as it could possibly be. I think that what was felt most keenly in connection with the Shaw report was that references, which were not intended in any way to relate to the advertising campaign which Mr. Massey had put on for the Canadian government in England, were construed as relating to that campaign. They did not refer to that campaign at all. I think it has been generally conceded that that work was done most efficiently and effectively. It is very much to Canada's interest that it should be distinctly understood in the old land that there is nothing but the highest approval on the part of the government, and I believe on the part of the opposition and all hon. members of the house, of the campaign put on by Mr. Massey in the old country in the last year or two. In fact one of the strongest endorsations of that campaign came from the other side of the house last year.
In order that there could be no difference of view, and that the matter might be presented more clearly to the house when parliament met, I submitted a recommendation on the 25th of this month, and an order in council was passed with respect to advertising and the promotion of trade overseas, defining the rela-
58	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
tion between the work of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the high commissioner's office regarding advertising in the United Kingdom. The recommendation adopted is as follows:
1.	All financial provision for governmental assistance to the promotion of Canadian trade abroad (including any appropriations for advertising and trade publicity) shall be made in the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce and shall be subject to the supervision of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
2.	An advisory committee on trade publicity overseas shall be set up of representatives of the Department of Trade and Commerce, External Affairs, Agriculture, Fisheries, whose duty it will be to assist in securing effective collaboration between the several departments concerned with special aspects of government advertising and publicity policy abroad.
3.	The advisory committee on publicity in the United Kingdom established under the chairmanship of the High Commissioner shall continue to carry out the work it has been doing in connection with the vote for government advertising and publicity in the United Kingdom.
With the permission of the house I should like to table the order in council.
I hope this will clear up the situation. I deplore very much the criticisms that have been made of the high commissioner in London. I think they have been most unfair and unjust.
While speaking of the high commissioner, may I refer to one other criticism that has been made. It has been alleged anonymously that Mr. Massey did not show the attention he should have shown to some Canadians who were in London during the period of the coronation. I believe if it were left to hon. members who were in London at the time of the coronation to speak for themselves, they would agree with me that the high commissioner did all that any man could have possibly been expected to do in meeting the difficulties with which the high commissioner's office was faced at that time, and that what Mr. Massey and his small staff accomplished was really most remarkable in face of the situation as it existed. The coronation and the imperial conference made exceptional demands on the high commissioner's office. I wonder if hon. members realize how great that additional obligation w'as. There were arrangements for invitations to and the placing of Canadians in the abbey; the allocation of 4,800 tickets for Canadians to view the possession on the line of march, as well as the financing and administration of the sale of those tickets. This involved the writing of approximately 30,000 letters by a small staff hurriedly improvised for the occasion. There were arrangements for the erection of 
the stand at Canada House, the allocation of 525 seats thereon and the financing of this enterprise through receipts from tickets. This was entirely a Canada House initiative. Canadian visitors registered at Canada House during the coronation period to the number of 7,360. Efforts were made to assist them in a variety of ways, securing them accommodation, tickets for luncheons, hospitality, and looking after their mail. Approximately 30,000 letters were distributed or readdressed, to visitors by the Canada House staff during this period, while some 13,000 invitations to official, semi-official and private functions were arranged. The high commissioner himself entertained at his own house during the coronation period some 2,000 Canadian visitors. I submit that with a task of that size thrown upon the organization at Canada House, what was accomplished in the circumstances was truly remarkable.
Before leaving this subject, I desire to refer to an insinuation, if not a statement made by one newspaper correspondent, that money voted by this parliament for publicity purposes had been used by Mr. Massey as high commissioner for entertainment and social purposes. I deny that statement emphatically and totally. I wish to add that if more statements of that kind appear in- future, the government will not hesitate to institute prosecution of those responsible for them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It could not happen anyway.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, certainly not.
There will be other opportunities to discuss the work of the royal commission appointed to deal with dominion-provincial relations. I should like, however, to say at once that the criticism my right hon. friend has directed against the personnel of the commission is not so much a criticism of individuals of this particular commission as it is a criticism of all royal commissions. It is a criticism of the integrity of men who undertake judicial duties. My right hon. friend knows as well as anyone living, better than most people, that any attack of the character upon the judiciary would be wholly indefensible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not judicial duty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: These are
judicial duties, very much so. The commission is presided over by a chief justice of one of our provinces. I was surprised that my right hon. friend should make the attack he did upon the personnel of the commission. He has told us to-day that he did not make

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
the criticism of the chief justice attributed to him. But he did, I think, include him as belonging to the pack of Grits to which he referred. He now nods his head to that effect. But the chairman of the commission was not so classified at the time he was President of the Privy Council in Sir Robert Borden's government. I think the present administration has shown pretty clearly in this appointment as in the appointment of Mr. Dafoe, the attitude of those who were supporters of Sir Wilfrid Laurier throughout the whole of his leadership. We have not been hidebound by a narrow or bigoted party point of view. We have sought to take what we believed was the right and large view of liberalism in this country. May I ask my right hon. friend a question? I suppose there is no greater political partisan in the country to-day than himself. And I think he would agree that there are few men in Canada-and I say this with pride and pleasure-who are more admirably equipped intellectually and by high legal attainments and learning for a position on the bench than himself. Would he regard the fact that he had been in politics, and is to-day the bitter partisan that he is, as evidence that he was wholly unsuited to occupy a position on a royal commission or wholly unsuited to occupy a place on the bench? The judiciary of this country is filled with men who a' one time or another have occupied seats in this House of Commons, who have been extreme party men or perhaps I ought to say very sincere party men, who fought their political battles in the open, feeling that others believed in their integrity and sincerity of purpose. When they have gone on the bench or have acted as members of royal commissions or have been given other positions of honour and trust and confidence, they have sought to bring to those positions the integrity which their fellowmen had come to know and admire while they were sitting in parliament.
The same is true of the gentlemen who have been appointed to this royal commission. There is not in this country a man, with the possible exception of the chief justice of Ontario, who has given more careful thought and study to constitutional questions than Doctor Dafoe. I do not believe there is a man whose integrity of mind and purpose is stronger and firmer or more respected than that of Doctor Dafoe.
No one knows better than my right hon. friend that this commission is not deciding on the future constitution of Canada. The work of the commission is concerned with the finding of facts and the expressing of opinions in reference to those facts. Whether or not the opinions reached prove to be wise and such as
to commend themselves to the judgment of others will depend upon what those opinions are, in the light of all the facts put before the commission. My right hon. friend says we should have had the matter so arranged that there would be a convention where, as soon as one opinion was put forward, in the very next moment it could be combated by another. I wonder what would be accomplished at a convention of that sort, where every time a speaker got up to make one proposal from one province he would be combated by someone with a counter proposal from another province. It was precisely to avoid that sort of thing that this commission was appointed, and that is the reason most commissions are appointed. The commission will make its investigation thoroughly, as it is doing now, with respect to facts and opinions from coast to coast, being prepared to receive any representations presented to it in a responsible way for consideration. All this information will be at the disposal of hon. members of this house and the members of provincial governments when estimating the value of the opinions of the commission. Whether or not the government itself will accept the views of the commission, or the opinions of any commission, is by no means certain. The government like everyone else, will wish to study the report. We are not obligating ourselves in advance to accept whatever this or any other commission may recommend or suggest. The terms of reference have been drafted in specific terms to make clear that what the commission is expected to do is to give opinions and the grounds for those opinions, and endeavour so to elucidate matters that when public bodies come to deal with the great questions with which the commission is concerned, they will have accurate and adequate information before them.
. I venture to say that the commission has more than justified its establishment already, if for no other reason than that the country sees to-day, as it has never seen before, the reasons for the differences that exist between different parts of Canada and the difficulties in the way of meeting the various situations that arise. I venture to say there is not an hon. member of this parliament who has not already had his eyes opened by the representations that have been made to the commission in different parts of the country; as to what was expected of the government at Ottawa; as to what is to be expected in years to come, and as to the impossibility of the acceptance of some of the proposals that are being advanced. It is just because the whole situation is so complex and involved that it is necessary to have a commission to sort out the material and go through it in a thorough manner, reviewing

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
it so that it can be taken up intelligently by those who later will have to deal with questions of policy.
So far as policy is concerned, what is to be done with the information that will be put before parliament as a result of the work of the commissisn, is a matter that will come up entirely independently of the commission. Anyone who says that we are seeking by means of the commission, to change the constitution of this country, and that we are thus in fact changing it, is stating something that is wholly without foundation. The commission has been appointed, not to change the constitution, but to examine facts with regard to economic conditions, financial responsibilities and the like. There is a difference between changing and examining. When it comes to the question of change, this parliament and the legislatures of the different provinces of Canada will have their full say in the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The order in council
speaks of the distribution of legislative powers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, the commission is empowered to examine into the distribution of legislative powers, but not to change them. My right hon. friend knows that no commission can alter the distribution of legislative powers. He knows that this parliament is the only body which can do that with respect to the constitution of Canada. His time would be much better spent, and his great knowledge of these questions better utilized, if he sought to show wherein it might be possible, step by step, precept by precept, here a little and there a little, to bring about changes that are going to be in the interests of Canada as a whole, rather than trying to add to difficulties by suggesting, [DOT] because different views are finding expression, that the commission is rendering a disservice to Canada.
I never listened to anything so-I was going to say " puerile "; I hope my right hon. friend will not mind the word-[DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not at all, considering its source.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -as his statement with respect to a document which had been prepared by the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) for the government of Nova Scotia, which evidently has been much appreciated by the citizens of other parts of Canada as well as of the maritime provinces. My right hon. friend says that this document is going .to upset the constitution, and set the east against the west. My right hon. 
friend went a long piece out of his way to attack the government when he had to do it in that roundabout fashion over the head of the present Minister of Labour in reference to a matter that related to the maritime provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, in it he referred to
the other provinces.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I know.
And may I say this to my right hon. friend, that the Duncan commission, as he will recall, had to deal, among other things, with problems that affected the relations between the dominion and the provinces through a commission having primarily to do with the maritime provinces. If evidence were needed as to the service that a commission can render in just those very matters, nothing better could be cited than the work of the Duncan commission itself, because it helped in very large part to meet some of the conditions with which it was faced.
My right hon. friend appointed a commission himself. He appointed a good many; but the one I have in mind in particular is the commission that inquired into railways and transportation. At the head of that commission he placed the chief justice of Canada, and on the commission he appointed a number of other gentlemen who were known to have very definite and fixed ideas with regard to certain phases of transportation. When he appointed the members of that commission, was he doing so in the belief that they would not act in a wholly honourable manner in discharging their duties, and give to the country the best of their intelligence by way of a careful and just analysis of all the evidence that was put before them? Unless he is prepared to say as much in regard to the commissions which he .himself appointed he should not begin to criticize other people from motives which they find it difficult to understand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My right hon. friend is wrong. I was not criticizing motives; I was simply saying the method was wholly inapplicable to a constitution; that is all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we shall agree to disagree, but may I say this last word in regard to the value of the evidence that may be given before the Dominion-Provincial commission. I do not recollect any too well much of my early classical training, but there is one sentence in Cicero which has left a lasting impression upon my mind. It is: "Magna vis veritatis qua facile se per se ipsa defendit." As my latin may not be *too easily understood, may I give the translation. It is: "Great is the power of truth

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
which of itself so easily defends itself." That is the way in -which the work of this commission will be judged, as will the work of every other commission. We will judge what is best in any situation from the truth itself. The truth will be easily defended because of itself it defends itself, once the facts are adequate and clear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And my right hon. friend will remember, "What is truth"?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a question which has not yet been answered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But we are getting nearer the answer every day.
My right hon. friend's attention was next directed to the course the government is taking with respect to seeking to have a national system of unemployment insurance enacted by parliament as speedily as possible. I was amazed to hear his observations on the subject. He said, "How do you ever expect to amend the constitution? How do you expect to pass an unemployment insurance measure? Are you going to take the word of the premiers of the provinces? Are you going to listen to provincial governments? Are you going to take the approval of legislative assemblies of the provinces, or will you take the word of the electors?" He sought to leave the impression that all of these were necessary before a measure of unemployment insurance could be brought into parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was the inference left.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, that is not what was said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I find it difficult to tell what my right hon. friend does say, but I do point out-and I do not think he will deny it-that it was he who, only a year or two ago, introduced a national unemployment insurance bill into this house. He drove it through the house, without asking the premier of a single province what he thought of it. He never asked the members of provincial governments in any of the provinces what they thought of it. He never thought of referring a copy of it to the legislative assembly of any of the provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He never
thought of giving the electorate in any of the provinces a chance to say a word about it, nor was he willing to permit the electorate
of Canada to say anything about it. He was determined to jam it through the House of Commons, at no matter what cost-and he did that very thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely my right hon. friend knows better than that. He is putting into my mouth words which I did not use. What I did was to introduce and carry through the house a certain measure, on the assumption that the house had sole jurisdiction to act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend, who usually stands behind the courts- and I believe he is right in so doing-would not allow the courts even to look at his measure. He knew that there was a statute which provided that the supreme court might be asked to express an opinion upon matters of that kind.
To-night my right hon. friend has had a great deal to say about the extent to which the provinces have been arraying themselves against the central government. I will tell him where the responsibility for that lies.
I tell him that it began during the time he was in office, and because of the methods he adopted while in office. He was the man who in office tried to take the management of public affairs from the control of parliament, and to handle them himself. He was the one who, in the first instance, instituted quasi dictatorship in the conduct of public affairs in Canada. It was he who brought down and put on the statute books the so-called social reform legislation to which I have referred, although he knew, and was told over and over again by the opposition of the day, that he was attempting to deal with something which came within provincial jurisdiction, and that the provinces would so regard it. Notwithstanding that fact, and notwithstanding the position which had always been taken by parliament, he insisted upon putting through the new deal concocted between himself and the then minister to Washington, and did so in large part much against the will and wish of his own party. He insisted on jamming these measures through parliament. That is what antagonized the provinces.
That is what has given rise to a suspicion in the provinces that, so far as Ottawa is concerned, there is a desire to get everything into our own hands. Instead of attempting to do things in that way, the present administration has sought to go about the matter in the only way in which it can be speedily and satisfactorily solved, namely to communicate with the provinces themselves, with the constituted authorities in each province, hoping that they may see the reasonableness of the position taken by the government, and
62	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
extend their cooperation so as to enable the necessary amendment to be made to the British North America Act. That cooperation would facilitate the early introduction of the legislation. If it cannot be brought in as a result of cooperative effort between the provinces and the dominion. I fail to see how else it can be done. That is the one and only method, and if that method had been taken at the start by my right hon. friend, instead of his adopting arbitrary action the results might have been different at the end of his term of office.
As leader of the opposition, at the beginning of the parliament over which my right hon. friend presided, I urged him to do that very thing. Had he sought an amendment to the British North America Act at that time, some seven years ago, and had an unemployment insurance measure been then introduced, we might have had such a law on the statute books five years ago. If there has been delay, such delay is due, first of all, to the years of inaction of my right hon. friend the present leader of the opposition, and, second, to the wrongful methods he adopted in seeking when in office to bring such legislation into being.
I now pass on to the next subject mentioned, namely the elections and franchise acts, and the export of power. Here may I say at once that I believe my right hon. friend went out of his way to do something he was not in the least called upon to do. He said he proposed to join these two subjects in what he had to say, and then proceeded to talk about political corruption in Canada. His statement was that he wanted to end that corruption. Well, for five years he had the elections and franchise acts under his control. Furthermore, he put through legislation with respect alike to the franchise and elections. Why did he not at that time put into the legislation those provisions so necessary to prevent corruption, if it was possible to do anything more than was done?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend comes along today and speaks as though there were some sinister connection between the desire of the government to amend the franchise and elections acts and the other subject he has mentioned. He knoVs vety well that there is no connection whatsoever between the two subjects. He knows, further, that so far as the franchise act is concerned this House of Commons was committed at the last session of parliament to bring in legislation in accordance with cer-

tain recommendations of a committee, and in the light of what it thought was needed properly to amend the act. We are now fulfilling a promise made at the previous session.
My right hon. friend would have the country believe that this has something to do with the export of power, a subject which was not even thought of at the time the government was dealing with the franchise measure. He makes the observation that while out in British Columbia at the time of the recent byelection he heard a clergyman say, or that someone else had heard a clergyman say that he had been paid by the Liberal party to talk over the radio. Well, now we are talking about things we have heard, may I say to the right hon. gentleman that I heard from a number of sources that the Tory party thought they had a good chance to win the seat, until the right hon. gentleman came along and made a speech in which he introduced the trade issue. He said, "This is the issue, and you must decide the by-election upon it." After he had been heard, his supporters threw up their hands and said, "The thing is lost; the other party will carry the day." And that was exactly what happened. I do not know who paid my right hon. friend to go out there to make the speech, but I do know he went all the way from Halifax to Victoria and, by himself, succeeded in losing the seat for his party. There is just as much justification to talk about political corruption in the payment of preachers by the Liberal party in the Victoria by-election as there is justification in talking corruption as respects what my right hon. friend said when he himself tried to preach to the electorate in Victoria.
I do not think that we should copy the Tory party with respect to the management of elections and payment to party funds. My right hon. friend knows that there is no one in this parliament more ready to join him or any other hon. member in seeking to bring about such reform as will make political corruption as impossible as it can be made than myself. I shall welcome and the government will welcome anything that can be done to make it impossible for any man or any party to gain political advantage in that way.
When my right hon. friend talks about the effect of promises and their influence on political campaigns, even in connection with by-elections, he must realize that it takes a long time to untrain the minds of the people with respect to the practice of making promises. I have in my hand Hansard of 1930. I well remember that just after my

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
right hon. friend came into power it took me a couple of hours to read the promises which he had made from coast to coast during the elections then just concluded. He referred to something being said about a station in Montreal and to one or two other things. I should like to quote from an article which my right hon. friend wrote, signed and had published in MacLean's magazine in 1930 under the heading, "The Election Issues as I See Them." Speaking of stations, here is what he had to say about transportation, one of the many subjects he dealt with in that article:
We pledge ourselves to the improvement of the whole scheme of Canadian transportation northward by the completion of the Hudson Bay route, and the construction of such branches as may be necessary to render it most readily available to every part of Canada; to the Pacific slope by a Peace river outlet, and east and west by the development of the St. Lawrence waterways, and we pledge ourselves to aid existing traffic channels and to increase port facilities on the Great Lakes, Hudson Bay and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and to the establishment of a national highway system.
That was only one pledge out of 300 or more of the same order. They were not made in one by-election campaign; they were made in a general election in every constituency in Canada. My right hon. friend had better go back to Sunday school for a while before he begins to lecture this House of Commons on election promises.
Mr. BENNETT; Every one of those was carried out.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING; Those who make
promises sometimes find it difficult to carry them out. I do not believe in making promises myself. I agree with my right hon. friend when he says that we should discourage that sort of thing as much as possible, but I say that he is the last one who should try to teach anyone that particular lesson.
My right hon. friend appeared to be critical of the government with regard to the position taken in connection with the export of power. Has the course we have taken been of a character to deprive parliament of control? He says that whatever is to be done must be done by an act of parliament, an act that will pass the Commons, an act that will pass the Senate and an act that will be assented to by His Excellency the Governor General. He is going to get his act and it will help in making effective the control of this parliament with respect to the export of electrical power.
May I say that I think it ill becomes him to bring into a debate on this subject in the manner he did to-night the names of any members of another house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was as officers of the Liberal association.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I wished to do so I might have pointed to my right hon. friend's deskmates who sat on either side of him in past years, and who while members of this House of Commons were treasurers and organizers of his party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. Organizers and treasurers of his party. And referring to the Senate, what about Senator McRae?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was not in the
Senate; he was not appointed until after. He declined to have anything to do with the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to know since when it has become a crime, political or otherwise for an honest, honourable man to hold the position of treasurer of a political party? I should like to know since when it has been made a crime, political or otherwise, for a gentleman to give his time as president of a party association?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what was
said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was the insinuation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was no insinuation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I resent it
very strongly. I say that it was unworthy of my right hon. friend to make the references he did. I believe that on reflection he will regret having done so. Every one who has had to do with politics knows that no political party can be managed without some of its members performing the duty of treasurers. The fact that a man is made treasurer of a political party is usually a mark of the confidence which his fellow men have in his integrity and honesty. My right hon. friend knows that the position of president of the National Liberal Federation, a body which commands the confidence of young and old alike from one coast to the other, is one of the highest offices of honour and trust a man can hold in this country. It is an office of trust and responsibility, and the fact that a man holds such an office should commend him highly to the favour and regard of his fellow men.
Let me return to what I was saying about the export of power. If this government were seeking to deprive 'fjarliament of its control over the export of power, then we might be challenged as to our reasons for so
04	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
doing, but the action we have taken has had the effect of reserving the question for a fuller measure of control by parliament.
I shall say only a word about the export of power as the whole matter will come up in full discussion when the bill is introduced. On April 17 last, an application was received from Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated asking for a licence to export a certain quantity of electrical energy. Some of my colleagues and myself were leaving at that time for the imperial conference, and speaking on behalf of the government I stated that it would be impossible for us at that time even to consider the application. The law of the country as it stands gives to the government the right to issue licences for the export of power. The executive has to take the responsibility for granting or refusing to grant a licence, but the authority is there. We would have been taking no new authority to ourselves had we granted a licence to export power. As I have said, I took the position that it was impossible to consider the application until the entire government had had a chance to review the whole situation. I declined, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, to have anything to do with it until we had returned to Canada after the conference and it was possible to hold a meeting of the full cabinet.
An application in due form had been sent to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) by the Cedars Rapids Manufacturing Company, a subsidiary of Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated, asking for the right to export 40,000 horse power. That was the application which we had not found it possible to consider prior to going abroad.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was that a public body or a private enterprise?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: For export?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, the export was to the United States. I believe it was to the Aluminum Company of America at Massena, New York.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I understand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At any rate the matter was very carefully considered by my colleagues and myself. On August 14 I replied to a communication which had come formally from Mr. Norris, president of Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated, asking if the application could not be granted. The letter dated Prime Minister's office, Canada. August 14, is as follows:

Dear Mr. Norris:
I wish to acknowledge your letter of August the 10th, just received, with reference to the application of the Cedars Rapids Manufacturing and Power Company, a subsidiary of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company, for a licence to export 40,000 horsepower to the United States for sole use by the Aluminum Company of America at Massena, New York.
The representations in your letter have received the most careful consideration of my colleagues and myself. I regret, however, that the government is not in a position to grant the licence, at the present time. In view of the broad question of policy involved and the fact that the export of power to the United States has been debated at length in parliament on several occasions, the government is of opinion that an opportunity should be afforded at the approaching session for a discussion on the subject, before any final action is taken with respect to the application of the Cedars Rapids Manufacturing and Power Company.
Yours sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the Prime Minister would file the letter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He can put it on Hansard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I intend later to file all the correspondence we have had with reference to applications for export of power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would make the reply much more clear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Early in
November I was waited on in my office by Mr. Powell, president of Aluminum Limited, of Montreal, in company with Mr. Geoffrion, his counsel. They asked if it would not be possible for the government to grant a licence to Aluminum Limited for the export of power. It was practically the same application as the one to which I have already referred. A few days later, a reply was sent to Mr. Powell on my behalf by Mr. Read, the acting Under-Secretary of State in language almost identical with that which I have just read. Mr. Powell and Mr. Geoffrion interviewed me on November 2. Mr. Read's reply was sent on November 12. On November 29 the Hon. Mr. Hepburn waited on myself and members of the government to ascertain whether the Dominion government would grant a licence to the Ontario Hydro Commission for the export of power. All I wish to draw attention to is this, that the government had in August, and again in November indicated in writing its position with respect to the granting of licences. On both occasions it had stated that no licence for the export of power would be given by the administration until after the matter had been fully discussed in this

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
parliament and the question of policy further and fully considered here. When the premier of Ontario met with my colleagues and myself, and preferred his request, we read him the communication that I have just read to the house, outlined the nature of previous discussions on the subject - < the export of power in this parliament, and indicated that, while we were prepared to consider the additional information that he had just then put at our disposal, we could not at that time consider granting the application in view of the government's position as previously adopted with respect to the two earlier applications, and as set forth in the communications to Mr. Norris and Mr. Powell.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pardon me, what quantity was involved in the Ontario application?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have forgotten at the moment, but I believe it was 90,000 horsepower.


Mr. EULER:: No, 120,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was 90,000 to 110,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall speak
on this question later and at that time give full particulars. What I wish to make perfectly clear to-night is this, that the government had determined and laid down its policy before it had any knowledge whatever that the Ontario government was contemplating applying for a licence, or of the negotiation of a settlement of its differences with some of the power companies. We made and could make no alteration in that policy when the premier of Ontario called upon us. When I told the premier that it was impossible for us to meet his wishes and gave him the reasons which I have given to the house to-night, naturally he was disappointed. My words to him were simply that, as an executive, we were the servants of parliament, not its masters. That is the position which this government is going to continue to take with respect to the export of electrical power from this country. It may be that there are circumstances and conditions which will justify one view or another with respect to what is most advisable as to the export of power. That may be discussed very fully and freely in this house. The words, however, injected by my right hon. friend into this debate which would seek to link in any way the present administration and its attitude towards the export of power with any matter which pertains to the franchise, are wholly uncalled for and wholly unworthy on his part.
The hour is late, but I wish to avoid if possible speaking in this debate again tomorrow. If the house will grant me a few minutes, I shall briefly conclude what I have to say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Go on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend has spoken about the international situation. I agree with him whole-heartedly when he deplores much that has taken place in China, the way in which women and children have been treated in that country, and many other of the incidents which have marked the conflict there. I should not confine these feelings to what is happening in China. I also agree wholeheartedly with him that we cannot be too careful at this time of all times, to refrain from doing anything or saying anything which in any way can cause our neutrality to be suspected. These are dangerous times in the affairs of the world. My own feeling is that much of the unrest in our own country, many of those things that we describe as affecting the unity of Canada, are the result of a contagion of ill-will which has spread itself over the globe-inevitably, because ill-will is contagious just as good-will is contagious, and the one can only be offset by the other. It behooves us in this country of ours, blessed as we are in our geographical position, blessed as we are in our neighbours, blessed as we are in being part of the great British commonwealth of nations, to be very careful and very guarded in everything we do and say at this time.
If in some particulars it may seem to hon. members that the government is not going as far as it might go, is not doing some of the things which it might do and which many of us in our hearts would wish to do if we had the power necessary to back up our acts against all possible consequences, let them remember that there are other powers in this world as well as Canada which have great concern in the world situation, that other powers are deeply interested in all that happens in China as well as in Europe, and that if great powers like the United Kingdom, France and the United States think it wisest in the present world situation to refrain from taking some steps which might be construed in a different way than they would wish to have them construed, perhaps we ourselves are not acting unwisely, either in their interests or our own, in being equally cautious. Any one who has followed the attitude of the British government and some other governments towards .the situation in Spain must have been impressed with the fact, that time and time and time again these governments have refrained from asserting themselves in an extreme way, lest their action might provoke a still graver situation. They have remained seemingly silent under grave provocation. There are times when it takes much more in the way of courage to remain silent

66	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
in the face of seeming or actual insult and injustice than it does to be outspoken and to strike out from the shoulder. These are times when all the restraint that can be exercised by a country, a government or by members of parliament should be exercised. I do hope that, in the course of political discussions in this house during the present session, hon. members will think twice with regard to whatever they may have to say on foreign affairs, and ask themselves whether, in view of the attitude which great nations such as England, France and the United States have thought it wisest to adopt, we ourselves should seek to outrun them and attempt some of the things that go much farther than they are prepared to go.
With respect to the remarks attributed to the Hon. Mr. Bruce, may I say at once that no one regrets more than Mr. Bruce himself does that there should have been by him even so much as a mention of the situation in the orient. He so expressed himself to me, and in reference to the article referred to by my right hon. friend gave a statement to the press which I think ought to be put on record:
I would not be so indiscreet as to make a statement of that kind. The statement is entirely misleading. It is a misinterpretation of my remarks, although I do not consider that it was done with any deliberate intent.
I talked over the situation with Mr. Bruce, and I believe that, in so far as he may have spoken at all in private conversation with people in different parts of the country or with others, what at most he did was to indicate in some cases what he believed was in the mind of Japan; not that he was giving his view of the situation but that he was seeking to interpret, to those who could not comprehend the situation, what from the Japanese point of view the situation was considered to be. That, I would say myself, might just as well have been left unsaid. I agree with the criticism which the leader of the opposition has made to-night as regards a member of the diplomatic service having said anything at this time with respect to a situation so critical as that between China and Japan. But I do not think that we need enlarge upon it to any extent. I do not believe that the Chinese government or the Japanese government could for a moment think that this country was seeking to take sides in the unfortunate differences which have arisen and the conflict which is in progress. I believe they understand that our decision is to be strictly neutral, to hold ourselves in a position where, if opportunity does

offer, and some word of ours can help to shorten the conflict, to minimize the struggle, that word will be given in season and may prove of value.
Mr. Bruce has intimated to me that after the coming summer he would like to be relieved of his position as minister to Japan. When he accepted the position he did so with the understanding that it would be only for a year or two. He took the post to oblige the government. Sir Herbert Marler was being appointed to Washington and it was difficult to find anyone wholly qualified to take his place in Tokyo. Mr. Bruce has an understanding of conditions on the Pacific coast which very few men possess. He has a wide knowledge of affairs. Above all he has a disposition and a nature which can be relied upon not to antagonize those with whom he is brought into contact but to further cooperative effort.
Mr. Bruce has done exceedingly well in Tokyo. Reports from those who have met him, reports from our own people who have been in Japan while he has been there, make clear to me that his service to Canadians in or passing through Japan has been a very real one, and certainly the reports we receive from him have been extremely helpful to the government. It is true that his sight is greatly impaired; but there have been men whose sight has been impaired, but whose judgment has been all the keener, perhaps as a consequence. Mr. Bruce is of that type. He is accustomed to bring about him into conference each day those who are close to him in the legation, and through other eyes and the confidences imparted to him, he obtains, I believe, pretty much all that can be comprehended at the present time by any minister in regard to the situation in the orient.
May I conclude with this one word to my right hon. friend with regard to the advantages of international trade and what he said in his remarks as to the danger of international trade leading to war. As I have already said-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was it he said?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman will read it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me, then, put in it this way. His advocacy to-night has been of what we may term economic nationalism.

Canada Shipping Act-Munitions


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite the opposite.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did he not say that greater freedom of trade leads to war?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he did not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think he did, and I believe a good many others in the house think he did. At any rate, a difficulty I find in my right hon. friend's argument is this. When he was speaking of the agreement made with the United States he seemed to want to take credit for the whole agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes; and in that- connection he was for the moment assuming that an agreement was a good thing. He sought to point out how it had come about as the result of the work he had done before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The work the government had done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, if this greater freedom of trade is a bad thing, why did his government try to do anything? I think my right hon. friend has let the cat out of the bag to-night. I do not believe he ever meant to put through an agreement with the United States, simply because he believes in economic nationalism and economic imperialism. Had he remained in office, that agreement would not exist to-day.
Does my right hon. friend recall what he said just before he came into office in 1930? Does he recall what he said as to how he would get into other markets? He was not going to take the slow way of seeking entry by agreement into foreign markets. He was going to blast his way into the markets of the world. And now he comes and tells us that this business of blasting one's way into world markets is all wrong. What we need, he now says, is not to get into the markets of the world; we need as a country, to be in a watertight compartment where we can work out our experiments; experiments to be worked out between the Conservative party and its new allies the Social Credit party in the west.
On motion of Mr. Blackmore the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
It being twenty minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 1, 1938