THE LATE HON. E. B. RYCKMAN

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, on November 28 last
Hon. E. B. Ryckman tendered his resignation as Minister of National Revenue, which resignation was submitted to His Excellency the Governor General and accepted. A letter to that effect was written to the retiring minister on November 30, 1933. His successor, Hon. R. C. Matthews, was appointed on December 6, 1933. I lay on the table the correspondence in connection with the resignation because of ill health of the retiring minister.



PRECIOUS METALS MARKING ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2 to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act, 1928.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. STEVENS:: Mr. Speaker, this is merely a consolidation and revision of the act as it stands at present for the purpose of bringing it into harmony with the changed conditions obtaining in the businesses affected by this act. It does not introduce any radical or new measures; it is merely a general revision of the act. We will explain it in detail, of course, when the committee stage is reached.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INTOXICATING LIQUORS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3 to amend the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which is sought to the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, commonly known as the Doherty Act, is rather technical, and is introduced at the instance of the Attorney General of Ontario. It seems that it has been the custom during past years for brewers in Ontario to ship direct to consignees in the province of Quebec who are authorized by the Quebec Liquor Commission, but the Doherty Act provides that shipments may be made only to the Liquor commission itself. The proposal now is to insert the word "or," so that the act will read that shipments may be made to the liquor commission, "or to an agency which by the law of the province is vested with the right of selling intoxicating liquors." The practice has been going on for a long time, but it is a technical contravention of the present law.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAIIAN (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4 respecting the Bureau for Translations.
Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: Will the hon. minister kindly explain this bill?


Mr. CAHAN:: The situation is such that the department of the Secretary of State either must have a number of translators attached to it or must be able to avail itself of the services of some one or more of these ninety-one translators. For instance, the Department of the Secretary of State has to procure a translation of the address of His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of parliament, but there is no translator to whom I can apply to have that work done, so I have been dependent upon the gratuitous service of personal friends, or to pay others to make that translation from time to time. In addition we have a very considerable number of important state documents of which the Secretary of State, as Registrar General, is the conservator or keeper or guardian. Yet some time ago, when a treaty dealing with the waterways was signed between the government of Canada and the government of the United States, there was not a single translator to whom I could apply or to whom I had the right to apply to make a translation of that document from English into French for circulation as required. In respect of private, confidential documents such as that, I had to enlist the services of a personal friend to make the translation. There were other documents such as the convention between Ontario and Quebec in regard to the same waterways, and in connection with them there was no one in the public service to whom I could apply for a translation. I had to go outside to procure the services of a friend to make such translation. And so it is that the different departments are from time to time called upon to prepare in both English and French very important state documents.
On review of the matter it was recommended, first by the civil service commission that, to avoid the appointment of a number of translators in addition to the number I have mentioned, and in view of the fact that a consolidation had been made under the Minister of Finance of the accounting systems of the different departments, a bureau might be created to which the existing translators would be attached, subject to the civil service commission in every respect, which could be called upon authoritatively to translate state documents as from time to time throughout the year they may be required.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Would that bureau be
under the minister?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It was suggested that it
should be under such minister as might from

time to time be appointed by the governor in council to administer the act, and that a superintendent of the bureau should be appointed by the Civil Service Commission, from among the existing translators, who would superintend the actual work and such distribution of work as might be deemed necessary. For the present the word " minister " where it appears in the bill means the Secretary of State for Canada, or such other minister of the crown as may from time to time be appointed by order in council to administer this legislation. However I prefer to discuss the matter when the bill is actually before the house upon second reading, at which time all members will have access to it.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. BRASSET:: 1.	Who is the watchman of the wharf of St. Maurice de I'Echourie?
2.	What was the amount of revenue from the fees charged in 1931 at the said wharf?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Ovide Cloutier is wharfinger-no knowledge of any watchman.
2.	S20.15.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if the house was not to understand from his motion of a few days ago that the speech from the throne would be considered to-day, and that this order would receive precedence over all others? It has been customary on former occasions to proceed in that manner.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention that consideration of the Governor General's speech should appear on the order paper following questions. However I understand from the clerk of the house that having regard to the terms of the motion the order paper should be as it is. I propose, with the consent of the house, that the order for notices of motions might stand, without losing their position on the order paper, that gov-

The Address-Mr. Gobeil
ernment notices of motions also should stand, and that the house should proceed to the consideration of the Governor General's speech, as appearing at page eleven of the order paper.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The understanding is that the motions under the heading of notices of motions will stand, without losing their position on the order paper, and without to-day being affected by standing order 52 which provides:
When a private member's notice of motion shall have been twice called from the chair and not proceeded with, it shall be dropped.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) a question with resipect to certain dispatches which have appeared in the press. Has the resignation of the Vancouver board of harbour commissioners been asked for, received or accepted?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: Mr. Speaker, to this day I have personally received no resignation from the harbour commissioners of Vancouver. I may be in a better position to-morrow to state the situation exactly.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government if it is their intention to table the Amulree report on Newfoundland, and if so, when?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it was not proposed to table it. The report was not in any sense connected with the operations of this government. The government of Canada was asked to name a commissioner to sit with commissioners from Great Britain and Newfoundland. With that in mind Mr. Magrath was selected.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, is the government aware of the action taken recently by the medical profession of the city of Winnipeg with respect to medical services formerly afforded families on relief? If so, in the event of other means failing, will they intercede on behalf of these people and see that they are afforded proper medical services.
Right Hon, R, B. BENNETT (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, representatives of the medical profession met me in Ottawa some weeks ago, and later a communication was sent to -them indicating that there was no reason to believe that the provinces would not discharge their constitutional duties with respect to the health of their citizens. That point has been stated and restated so often it is difficult to understand why a question should be asked with respect to it.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ANGUS MaeINNIS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) if it is his intention this year to proceed with the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act?
Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration
Mr. MaeINNIS: When will we have an answer?


Alfred Duranleau: Within a few days.
We are waiting for more information from other parts of the empire so that as far as practicable the legislation may be uniform.



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. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton) moved:: That an address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, to offer the humble thanks of this house to His Excellency for the gracious speech which he has been pleased to make to both houses of parliament.
He said: Mr. Speaker, representing a constituency where the English speaking element makes up an important proportion of the community, may I, at the outset, take a few minutes to express to them, in their own mother tongue, my heartfelt pride in having been designated, I their humble representative, to move the address in reply to the speech from the throne.

The Address-Mr. Gobeil
However, I harbour no illusion for I am well aware that it is not my humble person which has made me worthy of this honour, but my claim as rural representative of this little Canadian Switzerland, known as the eastern townships of the province of Quebec, and which, in 1830, returned six members to carry out the policy of our illustrious Leader of whom the present government feels so proud.
The eastern townships, and more particularly the county of Compton first, were settled by British stock, of English, Scotch and Irish origin.
When the declaration of American Independence took place, many loyalists desirous of living under the protection of the Union Jack transferred their home to the eastern part of our province.
Among them there shone a true leader, one inspired by lofty views, who contributed more than any to give to this corner of our province a special character of bilingualism. This man whose memory still is cherished in the annals of our history, bore the name of John Henry Pope. He took an active part in the affairs of our country, became first member for the constituency of Compton in 1857 when the provinces of Ontario and Quebec were joined together, and later joined the cabinet of Sir John A. Macdonald. He was the first to conceive the idea of settling French Canadian parishes in the county of Compton, along the United States border. Greatly encouraged by the clergy of the time, he took advantage of the repatriation movement, then in full swing, from 1870 to 1880, so as to bring back from the United States a large number of French Canadian families.
In this, the untiring co-operation of the colonization society of the county of Bagot, proved to be a precious help and attracted to our section of the country numerous families from the older parishes of the Richelieu and Yamaska valleys.
On many an occasion he publicly proclaimed that the settlement of these French Canadian parishes along the United States border was our strongest bulwark against American invasion.
Such was the spirit which gave birth to the settlement of these bilingual parishes. It is, therefore, not astonishing that the two races have always lived together in an unbroken harmony.
(Translation) Now, Mr. Speaker, the fifth session of the present parliament begins, I think, most auspiciously. Canada seems to have definitely reached the stage of readjustment, a forerunner of prosperity, the only

one compatible with a young country endowed by Providence with an unparalleled wealth of iesources. The Imperial conference agreements, in force for over twelve months, have given most satisfactory results, and the government under the leadership of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has cause to rejoice.
May I, sir, quote a few figures gathered from our official statistics, they refer to the increase of our agricultural products exported to England, without, however, including the other component parts of the British Empire.
I note that from October, 1932, to October, 1933, these agreements have greatly benefited the Canadian fruit industry, and it is noteworthy that these products are of the utmost interest to all the provinces of Canada, with the exception, perhaps, of the three prairie provinces. In the course of those twelve months, we exported to the United Kingdom 1,753,601 barrels of apples, compared with 1,407,047 barrels for the previous twelve months, thus showing an increase of 25 per cent. During the same period we exported, in 1932, 136,975 pounds of dried apples, while in 1933, we exported 511,025 pounds or an increase of 275 per cent.
In 1932, always during the same period, our exports of various preserved fruits amounted to 7,184,063 pounds, while in 1933, the figures reached 16,479,000 pounds, or an increase of 129 per cent.	As to canned
vegetables, our exports which amounted to 7,570,295 pounds in 1932, reached in 1933, 10,263,802 pounds or an increase of 36 per cent.
In 1932, we exported to the United Kingdom 172,462,000 feet of planks and boards; in 1933, 450,000,000 feet, and it is to be noted that the price of this lumber has been increasing within the last six months. Meat exports show interesting figures. Poultry exports-this item is of interest to all the provinces, including the western provinces-increased from 338,094 pounds in 1932, to 1,026,513 pounds in 1933, or an increase of more than 200 per cent. Bacon from 317,022 cwts to 605,088 cwts. or an increase of 91 per cent, and the price of pork has more than doubled within the last twelve months, moreover, the Canadian farmer has an opportunity of considerably increasing his output of bacon, since the quota of our exports is still far under the one agreed upon.
As to cattle the prices have not been as satisfactory as those of pork, although there has been of late an improvement, especially as regards those which meet the British market requirements, and the difference in prices

The Address-Mr. Gobeil
should induce the Canadian farmer to improve his herds fey all possible means. I, here, sir, put a question to the Canadian farmer: W hat would have been the cattle situation of this country, during the year just ended, if the 53,000 head of cattle which we exported to the United Kingdom during 1933 had been thrown on the Canadian market? I leave the answer to our farmers; however, I beg to remind them that this government has done for them in a few months, what no government for the last 35 years was able to carry out; moreover under the regime of our opponents, not only were we debarred from the British market, but our neighbours to the south, to whom we sold for more than 821,000,000 worth of live stock when the Liberals assumed power in 1921, had, during these nine years, so highly increased their tariff on Canadian cattle, that, in 1930, the last 3mar of our opponents' regime under the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), we only sold to them about three quarters of a million dollars worth; and the government of that day, apparently did not bestir itself to remedy this disastrous situation. Since I have broached the subject of cattle, may I comment briefly with reference to the tuberculin test of our cattle. Immediately after this government assumed power, the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) adopted the policy of indemnifying the owners of steers found to be tuberculous, this put an end to an injustice and was greatly appreciated by the farming community. However, according to the regulations in force, the cattle which react remain the property of the farmer, but he must dispose of them immediately, so as not to contaminate those that are healthy, and he must furthermore disinfect his stables. He must, therefore, sell them for what he can get, the sale price varying between three and five dollars per head. These diseased cattle are sent to the slaughterhouse, and, I think, I am well within the mark in stating that 75 per cent are sold for human consumption. I shall not discuss the hygienic viewpoint, which is outside of my sphere; however, I have no doubt that the cheap sale of these cattle has a disastrous effect on our meat markets.
I would suggest that there be added to the indemnity paid to the farmer for his contaminated cattle, the price which he receives to-day for the carcass of these animals and that the latter instead of finding their way to our markets, be used as fertilizers. I feel confident that it would practically cost
the country nothing and would considerably enhance the prices of meat on our markets.
I could, sir, enumerate many more products for which we have obtained considerable advantages through these Imperial agreements, without going outside of agriculture where I wish to remain; however, lest I should He reproached for taking advantage of the patience of this hon. house, I shall simply consider them from the viewpoint of the dairy products and more particularly of butter. Hon. gentlemen opposite seemed to have derived much satisfaction from the fact that price levels of butter within the last four years had dropped; the pleasure which they derive interests them more than the loss sustained by the Canadian farmer. In their oratorical flights they taunted the right hon. Prime Minister; the latter, if we are to believe them, ensnared the people by false promises as regards the price of butter. May I remind these hon. gentlemen that there are statistics which speak more eloquently and especially more truly than their denunciations.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	Hear,
hear!


Samuel Gobeil: During the
last two years of the Liberal regime, the Canadian producer received for his butter, in 1929, an average price of 39-27 cents per pound, and of 31 -07, in 1930. I take as a basis of comparison the wholesale prices of the Montreal and New York markets. The United States farmer received as an average price 45-01 cents per pound in
1929,	and 36-53, in 1930, or 5-74 cents, in 1929, and 5-46 in 1930, more per pound than the Canadian farmer. During the last two years these prices were 19-98 cents, in 1932, and 20-57 in 1933, in Canada, and 20.99 cents in 1932, and 21-33, in 1933, in the United States showing only a difference of 1-01 cent for last year and 0-76 for this year, in favour of the United States market.
However, one must consider, and our friends opposite should remember in their oratorical flights, that, under their regime, from 1921 to
1930,	the United States increased their tariff on Canadian butter from 2i cents to 14 cents per pound and as much as fifty and some odd cents on cream, which had the effect of completely closing the market of our neighbours to the south to our farmers and the latter are quite aware of this; they have also found out that the only market opened to their products is not the United States, but London. Now, sir, what have been the prices of butter on the London market, compared to those of Canada,


Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, upon rising to second the motion of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) may I be permitted to express to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and his colleagues my appreciation of their recognition of the Pacific coast province and the honour they have done the Fraser Valley constituency by inviting their representative to second this important motion. I have been told that in making this choice the qualifications taken into consideration by governments are youth and inexperience and no doubt these applied in choosing a member from British Columbia.
The task which I have been asked to undertake to-day is a pleasant one compared with that of last year and the year before. During the last two years the most one could do was to express a somewhat pious hope that conditions might improve, but to-day we are entering a new year with something more than hope. We have before us definite evidence that the clouds are lifting, that the downward spiral of the depression has been checked and that the upward movement has been in progress in Canada for the last eight or ten months. The speech draws to our attention the improved world conditions and the fact that these have been reflected in Canada by expanding trade, increased revenues and increased employment. The optimism which prevails to-day throughout the whole dominion has been reflected in the speech. It would perhaps be difficult to find any one year since the war that has been so crowded with climaxes as the year 1933. We had the American crisis and the measures with which it was met; we had the world conference; we had the German revolution; we had the disarmament deadlock and the wild dance of world currencies, some of which have been wholesome while others have been very disconcerting. But the underlying fact remains that in the midst of the lashing surf the tide has turned.
The world is gradually returning to economic stability. In Great Britain a higher level of prosperity has been manifest and the British people regard the depression as a thing of the past. This condition is reflected in other parts of the empire. In European and leading Asiatic countries there is, in the main, a
marked improvement. Upon this continent and elsewhere the forward march has resumed; world trade which had sunk to one-third of its normal volume is expanding again. To no country in the world is this more important than to Canada, as normally we export one-third of our total production, and to that extent our economic destiny is bound up with that of our neighbour nations.
The development of trade is a function of government, and although the general improvement in world conditions has been reflected in this country, at the same time I believe that the great mass of the Canadian people realize that the return to better conditions in this country must be credited to the untiring efforts and the policy of the present administration. In 1930 the leader of the Conservative party, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), gave to the people of this dominion a pledge that if he were placed at the head of government in this country he would see to it that Canadians were afforded an equal opportunity with their competitors to carry on the development of Canada. That pledge has been fulfilled to the letter.
In order to give that opportunity the tariff was increased; (the Customs Act was amended to prevent the dumping of surplus products of foreign countries on the Canadian market, and this action alone saved many producers in Canada from complete ruin. We have been told that the tariff is high, and there is no doubt that we shall be told again this session that the tariff is high. We admit that it is high. But, as the Prime Minister has pointed out on more than one occasion, the tariff is simply an instrument, and under present conditions it has been applied in cases of emergency. Other instruments have been used, instruments perhaps more painful than the tariff-the dumping duty and even the embargo-have been applied in order to save Canadian industry.
Those of us who come from fruit districts, and from districts where other lines of farm produce are grown, fully realize the great benefit that has been derived from the imposition of these dumping duties. In my own district, where large quantities of small fruits and vegetables are produced, had it not been for the dumping duty against surplus American products, these producers would have been out of business two years ago. This applies not only to districts in British Columbia, but to other districts throughout Canada.
At the same time this government has directed its efforts, and with considerable success, towards selling Canadian products. Through trade commissioners, through treaties

their surplus products. If the proposed legislation provides for the setting up of something in the nature of a marketing board, I am sure this will be welcomed by ithe agricultural industry. But in Canada to-day we are faced with something more than that; we are confronted with the problem of orderly marketing within our own country. It is, I think, generally believed that co-operative marketing, while it has effected many improvements, has failed to accomplish all that it was expected to do. The failure of cooperative marketing has been due to *a tendency on the part of a comparatively few producers to refuse to cooperate, and to such producers seeking to take advantage of the better conditions generally brought about by the cooperative organizations. In other words, 100 per cent of voluntary cooperation amongst farmers has proved to be impossible. The breaking down of orderly marketing within our province has been disastrous to the dairy and fruit industries. The dairy industry in the Fraser valley, to put it mildly, is in a demoralized condition. Milk is being produced at less than cost of production and this situation naturally cannot continue much longer or many farmers will be forced off their farms, compelled to sacrifice their stock and seek relief. Engaged in this industry there are 4,000 farmers with 60,000 head of dairy stock representing an investment at present day prices of $25,000,000. These men are now looking for government action to save the industry from ruin. Such conditions are not confined to British Columbia. Those of us who last year sat on a committee which investigated the dairy industry are quite aware of this fact. The demand now comes from, not 50 per cent, but 90 per cent of the producers of our province for compulsory legislation. Canadian farmers, speaking through their respective organizations, point out that such legislation has been granted by the British parliament to the farmers of Great Britain; it has also been provided for the farmers of the United States and our farmers believe that they should be granted similar legislation and powers. It has been pointed out that the compulsory legislation in British Columbia was successful until declared ultra vires in 1931 by the privy council. It is claimed that if it were in force to-day in that province it would increase the purchasing power of the Fraser valley dairymen by at least $500,000 a year without raising the price to the consuming public.
I want to make it quite clear that these producers fully realize that legislation such as

the British Marketing Act does not come under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament, but that owing to our set-up of government comes under the jurisdiction of the legislatures of the various provinces. Owing to the ruling of the privy council, however, it is felt that in order to make such legislation sound it will be necessary that something in the nature of enabling legislation be passed by the federal parliament. It is to be hoped, following the conference with the provinces and while the present legislation is under consideration, that some satisfactory arrangement may be made bettween the governments in order to afford relief to these industries.
There is one other matter on which I should like to touch, but before proceeding to do so may I say that I have just noticed in the speech from the throne some mention of relief camps. During past sessions we heard considerable criticism of the camps operated in the province of British Columbia. I have made it my business to visit these camps occasionally, and I wish to say that I have heard many compliments from different parts of the district with regard to the manner in which the Department of National Defence has conducted these camps. I have discussed matters with the men in the camps. They appeared satisfied and they paid many compliments to those in charge.
We are pleased to note in the speech from the throne the suggestion that some program of public works be undertaken. I do not believe the people of Canada expect this country to launch a very extensive scheme, certainly nothing to compare with that undertaken in the nation to the south. We do believe, however, that this is the opportune time to introduce something of this nature in order that private industry may be stimulated and more and more people brought back to employment.
One other matter which remains to be dealt with is the question of the central bank. Those of us who have been here during the past two or three sessions will remember that there have been demands from practically every corner of the house for legislation of this nature. The world economic conference decreed that every developed country should have a central bank to facilitate international credit and currency action. Since last session the government has had the project examined by a body of experts, and I think all will agree that the royal commission which was constituted last fall was well chosen. Their sittings in all parts of the country were notable for the freedom with which all possible evidence was received and for the patience

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
and tact displayed in dealing with the material submitted. As a result of this inquiry it is believed that a properly constituted central bank can be developed as a useful adjunct to our banking system.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that there is one charge that cannot be made against this government. It cannott be said that they refused responsibility or that they lacked courage. During these most difficult times, under sane leadership our great institutions have weathered the storm. We have met our contracts on the terms laid down both at home and abroad, with the result that Canada's credit stands high in the markets of the world. This was evidenced by the loan which was floated in London during the past year, and which was over-subscribed about four times. We have been able to cope with conditions caused by drought. We have met the problem of unemployment as successfully as any other country. Trade and commerce has gradually improved, and the future is bright. Under these conditions Canada's record is one of which every Canadian citizen might well feel proud.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
when the leader of the opposition rises to speak on the address it is customary for him to open his remarks by extending his compliments and congratulations to the mover and seconder of the motion whioh your honour has just read. That custom has arisen from the circumstance that usually the honour of moving and seconding the address is accorded to newly elected members of the House of Commons. Unfortunately for hon. gentlemen opposite all the newly elected members of the house are on this side, and the government have been obliged to fall back on two of their stalwarts to support the policies of the administration and to make the best of those policies from the government's point of view.
I congratulate the hon. gentlemen who respectively have moved and seconded the ad-'dress, not on what they have said, because I am afraid I shall have to disagree with most of their statements, but upon having discharged their duty in a manner which I am sure has commended itself to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and to their fellow members. I should like to extend also my very cordial congratulations to the hon. member for Toronto East Centre (Mr. Matthews) upon his elevation to the ministry, and in doing so I would extend, as has been done by their applause already, the very cordial greetings of all hon. members on this side. On behalf of our party I extend to him our best wishes for 74726-2
his success in the administration of his department and in the discharge of his ministerial duties.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having congratulated my right hon. friend and the government on the latest acquisition to the ranks of the cabinet, may I congratulate the house on the latest acquisition to its membership, in the three new members who have just been seated. As hon. members know, we had in October last elections on the same day in three different constituencies in parts of Canada which are widely separated. It was generally recognized before the elections took place that the results would be of exceptional significance, and in each of the constituencies the policies of the government were very fully discussed. The promises made by the Prime Minister at the time he assumed office and the extent to which those promises were performed, as well as the present position of the country and other matters were very fully reviewed, and I think the results may be taken as being of exceptional significance.
That is so for two reasons. One is that the constituencies were as I have already said, widely separated; they were in different parts of Canada, broadly representative of the varied interests of our country. One constituency, that of Restigouche-Madawaska, was in the maritime provinces; another, Yamaska, was in the central portion of Canada, in the province of Quebec, and the third, Mackenzie, was in the middle west. If either one or two of these constituencies had supported the Liberal party and the third had supported hon. gentlemen opposite we would probably have heard hon. members opposite saying that, after all, the results, considering the times, were not too bad. But when we see ail three constituencies situated in different parts of Canada registering their verdict against the administration and in support of the Liberal party I doubt if better evidence could be found of the views held throughout the country, and of the opinion of the Canadian people concerning the administration. Those results are equally significant as showing approval of the Liberal party.
When one considers the majorities registered in the by-elections one finds the results even more significant. In the constituency of Yamaska the Liberal candidate-and I am figuring the way hon. gentlemen opposite have figured, namely by percentages-increased his majority by eighty-four per cent. Down in the maritime provinces, in the constituency of Restigouche-Madawaska, in the province of New Brunswick, which was considered to be more or less of a Conservative stronghold, the majority of 548 which was given hon. mem-



REVI3ED EDITION COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
bers opposite in the election of 1930 was changed to a Liberal majority of 6,460. In the constituency of Mackenzie, where the former Conservative-C.C.F. candidate, Mr. Campbell, received a majority of 3.076, the results disclosed a Liberal majority of 1,614.
A still more interesting circumstance is that in two of these constituencies, the one in the maritimes and the other in the west, there were third party candidates as well as candidates representing the Conservative party. In both cases the third party and government candidates were defeated. Another significant feature is that in each of these constituencies the Conservative candidate lost his deposit. If anything could be more significant of the view taken by the electors concerning the policies of hon. members opposite I wish the Prime Minister would tell us when he rises to speak.
I should like to extend congratulations to the three new members who have come to the house. Each one has already had considerable experience in public life. The hon. member for Yamaska (Mr. Boucher) had sat in this house more than ten years, up to the time of the last general election. The hon. member for Restigouehe-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud) had been in the legislature of the province of New Brunswick for seventeen years, and had occupied a position in the government of that province as minister without portfolio. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. MacMillan) , was formerly a member of the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan. Not only is the house and country to be congratulated on the result of the by-elections, but as well upon what in the way of additional parliamentary experience and power in debate has been secured to this house.
These three by-elections, however, are not the only evidence of the extent to which hon. gentlemen opposite and the government in particular, have been losing the confidence of the public. It will be recalled that in the by-election held in the autumn of 1932, the one immediately preceding the three to which I have referred, the result was a verdict for the Liberal candidate, which also disclosed a very considerable increase over the majority which had been obtained by the present member's predecessor. The constituency of South Huron which in a previous election had given the late Mr. McMillan a majority of 349 gave in 1932 a majority of 1,989 to the Liberal candidate. Those are records of recent byelections. They show what Canada thinks of the policies of economic nationalism and economic imperialism which have been the main objectives of the present administration since it came into office.

However, if still further evidence is required to show not only the manner in which the public has lost confidence in this administration but the manner in which the government has lost confidence in itself, it will be found in the fact that at the present time, and since May last, there has been a vacancy in the representation in the constituency of South Oxford. I ask the administration this question: When the writs were issued for the constituencies of Yamaska, Restigouehe-Madawaska and Mackenzie, why was not a writ issued for the constituency of South Oxford? Certainly South Oxford should be represented in this house at this time. Why are its electors to all intents and purposes, disfranchised; without representation, so far as this session of parliament is concerned or at least that part of it upon which we have now begun our deliberations? Why is it that not until after the Easter recess will we have any representation in this house from South Oxford?
I noticed that in paying an eloquent and deserved tribute to the late member for South Oxford, the Prime Minister stated that in that part of Canada was to be found the finest type of Canadian citizenship. He repeated the statement that the finest type of Canadian citizenship was to be found in the constituency of South Oxford. Having that fact in mind, I now ask the Prime Minister why that finest type of citizenship is not now represented in parliament. The Prime Minister has power to say that representation should be given, but up to this time the constituency of South Oxford has been denied that representation. So the evidence from every side goes to prove that not only has the government lost the confidence of the country but it has lost confidence in itself. May I state further that no matter what majority it may have as a result of the number of hon. .members returned at the time the government came into office, that majority no longer represents the opinion of the Canadian people. By-elections have expressed in no uncertain voice the opinion of our people. This government has lost the moral authority to govern.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I repeat the statement. I say that having lost by-eleotion after by-election in all parts of Canada during the last two or three years, and the people having spoken so positively and so emphatically, it has been made perfectly plain that the government has lost the moral authority to govern, and if it followed its

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
duty it would resign, go to the people and allow them to speak. The Canadian people as a whole should be given an opportunity at a general election to express their view upon policies which up to the present they have been able to do only in part in byelections.
Let me now turn to the speech His Excellency the Governor General delivered from the throne to this house at the opening of the session. As is known, the speech almost in its entirety is prepared by the government, and His Excellency in delivering it is expressing the government's views. However there is one paragraph which refers directly to His Excellency and for which no doubt His Excellency is immediately responsible. It seems to me it appears very properly in the address. I refer to the paragraph in which it is stated that during the course of his stay in Canada His Excellency as the representative of His Majesty has visited all the provinces. I am sure the references His Excellency has made to the friendliness and great courage which he observed, and to the capacity of the people to overcome difficulties with which they are confronted will be very much appreciated by the people in the different parts of Canada visited, just as I am sure His Excellency's visits themselves to different parts of Canada have been very much appreciated.
There are some paragraphs, Mr. Speaker, that in language more or less the same appear in every speech from the throne. We are accustomed to find a paragraph, for instance, which tells us that the public accounts will be submitted, and another paragraph which tells us that the estimates will be submitted, and that it will be seen that due economy has been exercised in their preparation. There is one other paragraph which has crept into every speech from the throne since the present administration has come into office, and which has now become as commonplace as the two to which I have referred, and that is the paragraph which tells us that conditions are improving and that prosperity is just around the corner. If that paragraph did not appear so often, if it had not been in every speech from the throne since this administration came into office, possibly the paragraph which appears in the speech from the throne this year might carry more in the way of conviction with those to whom it is addressed. When, however, one reads what is said in this speech and compares it with what was said in previous speeches, the parallel is so striking that one will have difficulty in believing that the ministry actually appreciated in the past or appreciate
74728-2 i
at present the true position of the country when they advised His Excellency to use the following language:
You are summoned for the dispatch of public business at a time when there are sound reasons for believing that the world is gradually returning to economic stability. I congratulate you that such improved world conditions are reflected in Canada by expanding trade, improving revenues, increasing employment, and a more confident outlook upon the future. Canada occupies a leading position amongst those countries where the evidence of a return to permanent prosperity is most convincing.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, that we could obtain from the ministry the sound reasons it has for believing that the world is gradually returning to economic stability. I would be the last to seek to question a statement of that kind, and I wish with all my heart that it could be supported, but when one looks at conditions as they are to-day, in the orient, as was described this very day in the press, with respect to the relations of Russia to Japan, when one looks at Germany and at conditions as they are in some of the other countries in Europe at the present time, when one looks at the unrest that there is in other parts of the world, and above all when one sees what is resulting from the economic nationalism of different countries, I fail to discover where there is evidence for believing that there is anything in the nature of a gradual return to economic stability. However, that is a matter of conjecture, and I do no more than simply say that it strikes me as an unnecessary statement in the speech having regard to conditions as we all know them to be throughout the world.
But the next paragraph is one of special significance so far as Canada is concerned. In previous speeches His Excellency has evidently been permitted simply to state the fact that conditions are improving, but in the present speech he has evidently been told tc go somewhat further and actually to congratulate us upon the improvement.
For comparison with other years, let me give the house the statement as it appeared at the opening of the second session of parliament. These were the words used in March, 1931:
A marked improvement in the domestic situation. . . . 1'he firm belief of my government that this country is soon to enter upon a new era of prosperity.
At the opening of the third session of this parliament in February, 1932, there was the assertion that
"conditions are gradually improving."
20	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
At the prorogation in May, 1932, there was this assertion:
My government's policy . . . has already achieved an amelioration of conditions and forecasts steady and continued improvement.
Then referring to the Imperial Economic Conference it is stated:
Canada believes that the closer economic association of the British Empire will herald the dawn of a new and greater era of prosperity both for ourselves and for all the nations of the earth.
Hon. members will recall that the session in 1932 was adjourned over Christmas and that parliament reassembled on January 30, 1983, but even away back in October, 1932, we were told in the speech from the throne:
There are at last definite signs that the acuteness of the depression is passing.
Then addressing hon. members of both houses His Excellency was asked to say:
I rejoice that the wisdom of your steadfast policy ... is still more fully manifest with approaching prosperity.
"Approaching prosperity" in October, 1932! There was a reference again to the improved conditions, and then something in the nature of a peroration as follows:
... we will build a Canada greater than we have yet known.
Leaving aside the evident effect upon some hon. members opposite of the rhetorical language which I have just quoted, and coming down to what is set forth in the present speech from the throne as indices of improving conditions, we find this statement:
I congratulate you that such improved world conditions are reflected in Canada by expanding trade, improving revenues, increasing employment, and a more confident outlook upon the future. . . . The evidence of a return to permanent prosperity is most convincing-in certain countries.
When the speech refers to " permanent prosperity " and when it invites us to look at certain specific data for evidence of that prosperity, then it seems to me that we are obliged to consider absolute amounts over considerable periods, not merely as hon. gentlemen opposite have been doing, percentages of slight improvement which have arisen from the fact that while at the outset trade in some directions was practically obliterated by the passing of their legislation, it may have increased a little here and there as some of the barriers have been lowered, making a certain percentage of improvement inevitable.
Let me take first, the figures which have to do with the so-called "increasing employ-

ment." I want to say at once that it is an amazing fact that notwithstanding that these times are what they are, and that public money is being spent to the extent that it is for the relief of unemployment, it is impossible to get from any of the government departments reliable information, or indeed any information with regard to the extent of unemployment in Canada at the present time. For some reason best known to the ministry these facts are not being given to the public; they are not appearing in any government reports. The Department of Labour ought to have a record or a substantial record, but it apparently has nothing to give which will throw light on the extent of unemployment at the present time. I believe that is entirely wrong, and the only explanation I think there can be, is that the ministry does not wish the country to know how many unemployed there are.
I want to go a step further and say that a much more serious fact is the circumstance that in the government reports on employment the government is including with employment arising from private enterprise employment which grows out of unemployment relief. They are bulking the two together with the result that in their reports which are given to the public it appears that employment in Canada, as that phrase is understood, is greater than it has been in previous months, as if that were the evidence of some increased prosperity, whereas it is none other than evidence of increased unemployment relief which means increased taxation of the people of the country. Apart from this, however, the government's own figures do not give the evidence which will -substantiate the statement made in the speech from the throne. "Increasing employment" is the phrase that is used in His Excellency's address. The Department of Trade and Commerce publishes an annual review of employment in Canada. The figures are given, first, upon the basis of index numbers, and, second, upon the basis of the number of persons actually employed. Whether there has been an increase in employment will be best seen when we make a comparison between employment as it was when the present administration took over office, and as it has been since they came into office. In giving the figures from the government's own records, I shall leave out the year 1930 because that was a year in which the members of one party held office part of the time, and hon. members opposite held office the other part of the time. The index figure for 1926 is
2i

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
fixed at 100, and the index figures for other years are as follows:
1927		 104.6
1928		 111.6
1929		 119.0
1931		 102.5
1932		 87.5
1933		 83.4
The index figure for the calendar year of 1933 was lower than it has been at any time since 1920. Yet this is described as being evidence of increasing employment.
Let me come now to the numbers of persons employed. The Bureau of Statistics issued a bulletin on employment dated September 1, 1930, and another dated December 1, 1933. In making my next comparison I have taken September, 1930, as it was the earliest date upon which information was compiled since the present government came into office. At that date the government received returns from 7,334 firms, and those returns indicated a combined working force of 1,023,033. What are the latest figures for December 1, 1933, the last month under the present administration for which figures are available? We find that the number of firms from which the government has been collecting information has increased to 8,428. In collecting their statistics they are now gathering information from more firms than they did in 1930. In 1930 they were collecting information from 7,334 firms, while now they receive returns from 8,428. But what is the combined working force as reported by this larger number of firms? It is 850,486 as against 1,023,033 in 1930. In other words, there are 172,547 less persons employed by a larger number of reporting firms. Yet His Excellency is told to tell this house and the country that there are evidences of increasing employment in Canada. These are the government's own figures.
Hon. gentlemen know that during periods of distress it is the larger firms that are able to carry on the longest. The smaller concerns go to the wall first. Unquestionably there are a number of the smaller firms which have not reported and, if information could be received from them, the showing would be much worse than appears here.
The government has been compiling statistics upon employment and this information has been given out to the public. I have in my hand a bulletin issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, general statistics branch, giving the employment situation in December, 1933. Before quoting from this record, may I assert that to go by the figures as set forth here as they have been quoted in the press makes the whole question of the present position of
employment entirely illusory. It makes the prosperity of the country, not a prosperity as borne out by facts, but a prosperity that is borne out by a manipulation of statistics. Statistics which makes possible such action are not worthy of any department of government, and I think every department should be very careful to avoid possibilities of the kind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the right hon. gentleman indicate from what he is reading?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have indicated it already, and I am sorry my hon- friend was not listening. This is a publication of the Department of Trade and Commerce, issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, general statistics branch, giving the employment situation for December, 1933.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Which statistics are the official product of the bureau of statistics and not revised by the government or any officer of the government other than by the bureau itself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Absolutely. The right hon. gentleman is arguing otherwise.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. minister is responsible for the bureau and he must accept that responsibility. I am now directing his attention to circumstances into which I think he ought to look very carefully and see that the right thing is done and that there is no further possibility of the manipulation of figures as is the case in the form in which they are given here.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The right hon. gentleman has indicated that the department over which I preside hast manipulated figures. I am merely stating to him that these are the figures of the bureau.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Including new loans to
provinces.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: New loans to
provinces, yes. I venture to make the statement that these figures and others that I might give from indices of employment and the like, may be used as a basis for calculation and they will show that at the present
24	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
time there are at least 500,000 unemployed. In a nutshell, the situation is just about this-and I use these figures in relation to what we are told as reasons for congratulation on "increasing employment"-there are at the present time 500,000 or half a million unemployed; there are 1,000,000 or more on relief, and, prior to the time the Prime Minister spoke in the west, the government had spent 8131,462,000, all of which represents additional taxation, on relief of unemployment in this country. In the light of these figures, how can anyone accept a statement such as appears in the speech from the throne, that there is reason for congratulation on "increasing employment" and particularly on our country being among the number where there is evidence of a return to permanent prosperity? Were the public to accept that statement, it would have very little conception of what those figures really meant.
Let us consider the amount that has been spent on unemployment relief in the time that the present government has been in office. It is equivalent to the total amount it took to meet the expenses of the government of Canada for an entire year in the last year of the Liberal administration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It is greater than the gross debt of the Dominion government for the fiscal year 1872-73. It would be strange if, with all that amount of public money being spent for relief purposes and the like, there were not evidences of some increase in employment, but to call employment brought about in that way evidence of prosperity, or "increasing employment" in the sense in which that word is understood by the public generally, is entirely wrong and false, and it should not be countenanced.
I believe, if we were to get figures from different municipalities, we would find that far from conditions having improved at all in the last year, the facts would be entirely to the contrary. Let me give the figures just for this city of Ottawa, which are the ones most easily verified. I obtained them from the office of the organization that deals with these matters. What are the figures? They
are as follows:
Families
Date-	on relief
November, 1932	 3,525
November, 1933	 4,714
December, 1932	 4,316
December, 1933	 4,949
This shows that even at the present time, in Ottawa, which is more favourably situated

than other cities, instead of the numbers on relief lessening, they are materially increasing.
The comparative amounts spent by Ottawa on relief are as follows:
Date-	Amount
November, 1932	$ 82,000
November, 1933	 156,000
These are figures from the social service department of the city of Ottawa, and I venture to say that figures showing similar or larger increases will be obtainable from almost any city in this country. So much for the statement in regard to "increasing employment."
The speech from the throne refers to "improving revenues." How have the revenues improved? Let me give the revenues as they were three years before the present administration took office, and the revenues as they have been since. I am discussing the statements in regard to the evidences of approaching permanent prosperity.
The figures are as follows:
Fiscal Year Ending March 31
Total revenue
1928		 $430,000,000
1929		 460,000,000
1930		 446,000,000
1932		 337,000,000
1933		   311,000,000
Nine months ending Dec. 31,
31, 1933	 245,000,000
This last figure should be set off against an amount of $351,000,000 for the nine months ending December 31, 1929. When revenues are cited to show improving conditions in relation to permanent prosperity, it is the total amounts rather than the small percentages to which it is desirable to look. But even here the revenues afford no grounds for what is said in the speech.
But yet another statement is made. We are told not only that there is "increasing employment" and "increasing revenue," but that there is "expanding trade." What are the figures in regard to expanding trade? Let me take the three years before the present administration came in and the three years since. These are calendar years:
Calendar Year
Total trade
1927		 $2,306,000,000
1928		 2,572,000,000
1929		 2,481,000,000
1931		 1,233,000,000
1932		 946,000,000
1933		 933,000,000
Or a continuous drop, showing that the trade of the country in 1931 was less than half

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
of what it had been the year before the present government came into office, and in 1933 about one-third.
I heard the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) say that he thought comparisons ought to be made between conditions as they were under the old and under the present administration. Let me give him one. In the last fiscal year in which Conservative policies were in effect before the Liberal administration came into office, that is to say, the fiscal year 1921-22, the total imports for home consumption and the total exports of merchandise amounted to $1,501,700,000, while in the last fiscal year in which Liberal policies were in effect, that is to say, 1929-30, the total was $2,393,000,000. For the last fiscal year in which Conservative policies have been in effect and for which we have record, that is to say, 1932-33, the total amount of imports and exports was $SS7,000,000. These comparisons taken from the Canada Year Book indicate pretty clearly how the policies of the different administrations have affected the trade of this country.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Has the leader of
the opposition figures relative to the physical volume of trade?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry I do not happen to have them with me. I have no doubt they are obtainable.
I come now to the next paragraph in the speech from the throne referring to trade. This is the one in regard to the Ottawa trade agreements I noticed that both the mover and seconder of the motion spent most of their time in endeavouring to have it appear that trade had materially increased as a result of the Ottawa trade agreements. This is the paragraph of the speech from the throne referring to these agreements and their alleged results:
The Ottawa trade agreements have now been in operation for a full year and the results indicate substantial expansion of Canadian-Empire trade over the preceding year. It is worthy of note that the agreements are proving beneficial to all empire countries. The trading position of the empire in the world has steadily improved. Canada has again resumed her place as the fifth exporting nation. Our favourable trade balances have enabled us to discharge our international obligations and have greatly lessened the difficulties of the international exchange situation.
In that statement there are two sentences with which I wish to take direct issue:
It is worthy of note that the agreements are proving beneficial to all empire countries.
I do not think that is true. I think the opposite is true.
The trading position of the empire in the world has steadily improved.
I think the trading position of the empire in the world, instead of improving, has, in consequence of these agreements been tending in the opposite direction. The mere assertion of these things in the speech from the throne does not help to convince anyone of the truth of what is there put forth. Let me take, however, the concrete part that relates to our own country:
The Ottawa trade agreements have now been in operation for a full year and the results indicate substantial expansion of Canadian-Empire trade over the preceding year.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I seem to have mislaid my notes. I cannot quote the figures I thought I had at hand.


Mr. MANION:: It doesn't matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
An hon. MEMBER:: And sugar.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, sugar,
and many another necessity of life, costs very much more, and this at a time when the farmers through low prices and crop failures are having the most bitter struggle in

all their experience.	A sound policy for
agriculture in Canada should be directed to cheapening the processes of production to the greatest possible degree to enable the Canadian farmers to compete successfully in the markets in which they must sell their products. On the other hand, nothing has been accomplished by way of securing better and wider markets. As a matter of fact, it has been made more difficult to get into the markets of the world because of retaliatory measures taken by other nations against the high tariffs of this country. The policies of the present administration have been a real factor in destroying our markets. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the seriousness of the plight of western agriculture cannot be exaggerated, and the government, if it wishes to help agriculture at all, will very speedily have to change the tariffs that are in force in this country at the present time.
In one of the reports which the Prime Minister laid on the table, there is reference to a discussion with delegates from other parts of the empire, and the statement is made that trade has improved within the empire through the lowering of the tariff which was agreed upon at the Ottawa conference. Well, if it be true that for what little improvement there may be in empire trade, according to the statement of those who claim that there is improved trade, we are indebted to a lowering of the tariff, why could we not improve the trade of Canada as a whole by lowering the tariff all round? Why can we not thus relieve the burden upon agriculture, a burden being borne by those who have been suffering most of all from present conditions?
Another thing, Mr. Speaker, that I observed throughout the west was this: no matter whether or not a man was solvent, if he happened to be a farmer it was almost impossible for him to obtain money anywhere at a reasonable rate of interest; in fact in some cases it was impossible to obtain money at all. Certainly a demand that one felt was paramount throughout western Canada was more reasonable rates of interest, and something in the nature of agricultural short term and intermediate credits. I should have thought that the government would have been fully apprised of that situation long ago, but all we have in the speech from the throne with reference to the relief that is to be given in that direction is that the government has been discussing with the governments of the different provinces this question of agricultural credits, and that something will be done

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
as a result of their conference. Let me read the statement in the speech from the throne:
My government have been giving careful consideration to measures that might he adopted for the establishment of agricultural short term and' intermediate credits; and have invited representatives of the provinces to study the means by which practical effect may be given to the recommendations in this respect made by the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Problems.
What is the recommendation that was made by the Macmillan commission? The recommendation of the commission was simply that the government should seek to take up with the provinces the question of rural credits. That does not help us very much. Let me read the exact recommendation of the commission :
We unanimously recommend that an inquiry be instituted by the Dominion government, preferably with the cooperation of the provincial governments, to investigate the existing organizations for the provision of rural credit with a view to the preparation of a scheme for the consideration of parliament.
All of that, so far as it relates to anything in the nature of action, is a long way off. If the farmers of western Canada have to wait until this government has instituted an inquiry into the question of rural credits or until a conference with the provincial governments has matured some scheme that will be satisfactory, I doubt very much whether anything that happens in this particular parliament will effect a final enactment with respect to rural credits. Again I say that, instead of waiting until the fifth session of this parliament, to make a promise which is in the nature of a further postponement of any immediate action, the government ought to have taken at previous sessions some steps to provide short term and intermediate agricultural credits.
But that is not all. The speech has reference to one other measure by which the government proposes to help agriculture. It is spoken of as the wheat agreement. It refers to the wheat agreement in the following language:
My government, acting with representatives of other wheat exporting countries, as well as representatives of wheat importing countries, have entered into an agreement for relieving the world market from the disastrous pricedepressing influence of abnormal surplus wheat stocks. It is a matter of satisfaction that the parties to this agreement are cooperating with a degree of effectiveness which is already reflected in improved prices. The agreement will be laid before you.
What is this so-called wheat agreement, Mr. Speaker, and how is it going to help the agriculturists of this country? I think I am right when I say that first of all it is in effect, an agreement to reduce the acreage of wheat production. There is no mistake about that. In other words, the government, having destroyed trade, is now seeking to destroy production as a means of solving the problem with which the country is faced at the present time. They propose to relieve the unemployment problem lay reducing the areas of employment-


Jean-François Pouliot: And now they propose to sterilize wheat.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I ask, Mr. Speaker, was there ever an agreement which, in a situation such as faces western Canada at the present time, could mean less of service to the agriculturists, or if you like more in the way of irony. What is this agreement? Apparently representatives of four or five of the wheat exporting countries met with the Prime Minister of Canada at the office of the High Commissioner for Canada in London, and along with them were representatives of a considerable number of wheat importing countries. They discussed the wheat situation throughout the world and drew up an agreement to the effect that certain of the exporting countries would limit their exports of wheat. Canada, as one realizes when one begins to study the figures, has to make the largest sacrifice because we have the largest amount of exportable wheat. We have to cut down our exports very considerably. We have to do something further. For the next year or two we have to keep down our export of wheat, in the only possible way we can do it, unless the government itself is to purchase it- by reducing the total area of wheat production. What is Canada going to get in return? The wheat agreement says that the wheat importing countries have undertaken that they will encourage the consumption of wheat. They will not encourage increased production in their own countries, and once the wheat produced by these exporting countries has risen to a certain figure, which comes to about ninety-eight cents or one dollar in terms of Canadian money at the present time, and remains at that figure for several weeks the wheat importing countries will consider lowering their tariffs to admit more wheat from the wheat exporting countries. Is there any guarantee that wheat is ever going to rise to that figure? And if it does, is there any guarantee that these other countries will carry out what they have undertaken?
May I point out this in connection with the wheat agreement? Some who signed the

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
agreement have reserved the right to have the matter settled in the first instance by their respective parliaments. They draw attention to the fact that they cannot speak for their parliaments, that legislation may be required to implement the agreement, and that, therefore, they cannot undertake to carry out a promise they have given conditionally. But suppose they could make a promise; can anyone say how they are going to control intensiveness of cultivation even if the areas are kept the same? And suppose these wheat importing countries were to reduce their tariffs, the tariff being excessively high, 180 per cent in one case, they might bring down their tariffs by a very large percentage, say 50 per cent, without its having much effect so far as Canada's wheat exports are concerned. It is for that kind of bargain we are to undertake to limit wheat acreage in Canada, and up to the present time wheat has been regarded as the very gold of our country, as its most essential product. All our efforts in past years have been towards helping to settle the prairies with those who will grow grain, because Canada grows the best wheat in the world.
I want to ask the Prime Minister a question which is being asked throughout the three western provinces. I know that this question is being asked because I happened to be there at the time the wheat agreement was being discussed. By what authority does he bind this country in the matter of any agricultural policy without allowing the House of Commons to have a single word to say in regard to it? That is the question western farmers are asking themselves, and which Canadians generally are asking themselves. What is the good of having a House of Commons if a prime minister is to be free while abroad to call together the representatives of different countries and enter into an agreement on behalf of Canada which alters our whole agricultural policy and without the House of Commons of Canada having any say in the matter one way or the other? We hear about emergency measures and the government having been given authority to deal with emergent conditions. How long is this emergency going to last? It started in 1930 and everything done in that year was along emergency lines. The government had to be given exceptional powers because there was an emergency. The same thing occurred again in 1931, again in 1932, and again in 1933. Now, in 1934, we are to have more emergency measures proposed by the government. They are proceeding as though they were an executive endowed with special authority because

of an emergency equivalent to war. It is time we should realize that what there is of an emergency in Canada has arisen because of the government's own policies. We have this emergent condition because of the policies the government has been putting in force. Before new policies are decided upon, this House of Commons should have the right to discuss them to the fullest possible extent.
I want to go a step further. How is the agreement to be carried out? As I have pointed out, its terms are absurd enough in themselves. Some of the countries which have signed have not entered into any real obligation. There is one country which has refused to be bound in the matter of its exports. What country is that? It is the country from which we have been told we have the most to fear, namely, Russia. Russia is to be free to export to any other country, but Canada is not. Russia is to be free to develop her wheat lands while the people who have settled upon our western plains have to cut down their cultivation. I ask if this is the way in which Canada is to hold her place among the nations of the world? I ask is Canadian agriculture to be handicapped to the advantage of agriculture in Russia, of which we have heard so much from hon. gentlemen opposite?
Where did this idea come from? It is an imitation of legislation which has been enacted by the country to the south. The United States has had a policy of restricting production.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Copying Washington.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Copying
Washington-imitating them, however, m regard to the worst features, and carefully avoiding what to the agriculturists in the United States is the best feature. What is the position in the United States? In that country something like eighty per cent of the wheat grown is consumed within the country itself. It is possible to regulate conditions in the United States. Eighty per cent of our grain is exported. What has the United States done? It has placed a tax upon wheat milled in the United States and is giving the proceeds of that tax to the farmers as compensation for their losses through a reduction in their areas of production. Is anything of the kind proposed by the present administration? Are our farmers to be compensated?
Is the administration going to levy a tax in some direction and give the proceeds to the farmers of western Canada or of other parts of the country whose production areas are being reduced? Are they going to compensate

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
the farmers out of such a tax, or are they going to compensate them at all? If they do not compensate them, then they are confiscating; it is either compensation or confiscation. Confiscation of the products of a man's labour is the last word that should be suggested to those who are struggling with conditions as they are in this country to-day. I should like to know from the Prime Minister when he rises to speak -I think the farmers of this country want to know-whether he is going to compensate the farmer and, if not, how he can justify the policy he is proposing.
May I ask this further question which I consider is pertinent? What has been the justification for the great agencies of transportation and communication which we have in this country, for the moneys which have been spent upon railways, canals and other facilities for transportation and distribution, if it has not been to make possible in very large measure the export of this one particular commodity above all others? At this very moment this country is committed by the government to a St. Lawrence waterways treaty. Why are we going to be put to the expense of developing a great waterway to permit ocean liners to come from the sea to the head of the lakes when the policy of the government is to cut down the area of production of the very commodity which above all we want to export? May I draw attention to this circumstance: At the present time the members of congress in the United States are debating the merits of this agreement. They are to have the opportunity of deciding the question in the light of all the conditions set forth in the agreement. They will be able to carry on their discussions quite freely and in the knowledge of how this agreement will serve their ends at the present time. If the agreement is not acceded to, no one will suffer politically so far as that aspect of things is concerned. The administration will still retain office, meanwhile members of congress are free to debate the question and to have its merits fully disclosed. Has this House of Commons been given any opportunity to discuss this agreement? Will it be given any chance to discuss its provisions except upon the basis that the fate of the ministry is bound up with the acceptance of an agreement which it has already signed? Since the present government came into office there has been no discussion of the waterways question in this House of Commons. The government signed the agreement without presenting even a resolution to parliament along lines which might
have furnished the basis of a treaty. After the agreement has been signed-we will be bound by it in the event of the United States agreeing to it-the strongest argument of all for the deep waterways will have been taken away, by the new policy on agriculture which hon. gentlemen opposite are putting into force, a policy of restriction rather than encouragement of production.
I venture to say that, so far as western Canada is concerned, there will not be much approval of this wheat agreement. May I point out the manner in which my right hon. friend proposes to have the agreement carried out? If I were to state to the house what has actually taken place and to show the means by which it is proposed a great measure of this kind is to be carried out, I think I would be laughed out of the house. I wish, therefore, to put on record exactly what has appeared thus far in the press as to what the government purposes to do with respect to the carrying out of the wheat agreement. I quote from the Ottawa Citizen of January 20, as follows:
Immediate steps towards fulfilment of Canada's obligation to reduce wheat acreage under the world wheat agreement wrere agreed upon at a conference between Premier R. B. Bennett and the premiers of the three prairie provinces last night.
The meeting was held just after the close of the dominion-provincial conference and questions of wheat acreage were thoroughly discussed.
In the next few weeks the wheat-growing provinces will supply the dominion government with estimates of the acreage likely to be sown to wheat next spring and also an estimate of the amount of damage likely to be caused by grasshoppers.	_
During the winter the governments will carry on propaganda among wheat farmers to induce them to cut down their wheat production.
On its part the dominion government, when it gets the estimates, will draw up legislation to meet the problem and submit it to the provinces for approval.
Owing to low prices and lack of machinery on the part of hard-pressed farmers it is expected somewhat less wheat *would be sown on the prairies this year in any case. By means of a propaganda eompaign it is hoped to induce the farmers to make a further curtailment voluntarily. _
The propaganda will likely stress the advantage of a higher price and the possibility of attaining it through a slight reduction in production.
Under the world wheat agreement concluded last summer at the time of the world economic conference in London, Canada agreed to reduce acreage by 15 per cent.
What is to be done? This government proposes to get from the provincial governments estimates with respect to the extent of the acreage likely to be sown and the extent to which grasshoppers are likely to operate in the course of the next year. Well, that may
32	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
be one means of furnishing employment to a large number of persons; I have no doubt that a good many investigators will be engaged. But, if it is necessary to obtain estimates with respect to grasshoppers, are not estimates equally necessary with respect to other factors which contribute to reduce the total crop that will be produced? Why are not estimates equally necessary with respect to cutworms, estimates with respect to caterpillars? Why are there not estimates with regard to all insect pests? Why not estimates with regard to the possibility of drought, which is one factor that alfects total production? Why not estimates with regard to hail and frost? All these latter are determining factors and equally as important as grasshoppers.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, could anything more absurd be conceived? But my hon. friends opposite go a step further. They are going to send out an army of propagandists, and what will these propagandists do? They will preach the doctrine of the rise in price through the reduction of acreage-good Tory protectionist doctrine; increase price by limiting supply. They are to go abroad throughout the west preaching a new creed, I suppose, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) will no doubt furnish something in that connection. It will be all along the line of Tory propaganda to show the importance of restricting supply as a means of obtaining high prices; it will be to show what tariffs have done with respect to increasing the price of manufactured goods, in the hope that in some way this tariff protectionist propaganda may gain a foothold also among the farmers of the west.
It seems to me that a policy of that kind, in the light of what a bountiful Providence may provide, and what people have been accustomed to understand as the duty of a government, namely, to further the prosperity of the country, is little short of blasphemy itself-a policy of scarcity instead of a policy of abundance.
What are the words that appear in the Book of Common Prayer used in .the Church of England in this country?
0 most merciful Father, Who of Thy gracious goodness has heard the devout prayers of Thy Church, and turned our dearth and scarcity into cheapness and plenty; we give Thee humble thanks for this Thy special bounty; beseeching Thee to continue Thy loving kindness unto us, that our land may yield us her fruits of increase, to Thy glory and our comfort.
That is the prayer that hitherto has been going up from homes all over the country,

but it is to be changed, and the very opposite is what we are now apparently to ask of Providence. The very opposite is what the government in office would seek to bring about. I suppose that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in getting out the new creed, will have the prayer worded somewhat as follows:
O most merciful Father, Who of Thy gracious goodness has heard the devout prayers of Thy government, and turned our cheapness and plenty into dearth and scarcity; we give Thee humble thanks for this Thy special affliction; beseeching Thee to continue Thy loving scarcity unto us, that our land may yield us ever less of her fruits of increase, to Thy glory and our discomfort.
That is the policy of the government.
Mr. BENNETT; That is as near blasphemy as this house has ever heard.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING; The Prime Minister need not get excited. This, he says, is as near blasphemy as this house has ever heard. I wish the Prime Minister would try to be a little more composed-there, that is nicer. I venture to say that when the propagandists get busy with this policy they will find they are unable to make much headway in persuading western farmers it will serve their interests. But has a government any right to engage in propaganda of the kind? The Prime Minister speaks of using the tariff as an instrument of national policy. He has done so to raise the prices of manufactured goods in order to help the manufacturing interests. May I suggest that a most effective way to help agriculture in this country would be to use the tariff as an instrument of national policy, but to use it to serve the interests of agriculturists as well as those of manufacturers-use it as an instrument to reduce production costs and the cost of living by lowering the tariff in regard to some of those things which will enable the western farmer to reduce his costs of production and to obtain the necessaries of life at less cost, thus assisting him in finding a way into the markets of the world with the products which he is best capable of producing. Anything more in the nature of a defeatist policy than the policy here indicated it would be impossible to imagine-the policy expressed in the wheat agreement. Can anyone imagine a business house that found it had a large quantity of merchandise available suggesting, through its head, that what should be done would be to begin destroying what hitherto had been its main source of wealth? Should not an effort be made, no matter what it might involve by way of endeavour, to search for markets in all parts of the world and so

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
to shape our policies that other nations, instead of trying to exclude our commodities, would be persuaded to trade with us and make exchange possible?
The next subject referred to in the speech from the throne is that which relates to banking and currency. I shall not take the time of the house to read through the paragraph which appears in the speech in this connection. The essence of it is obtained in the assertion that legislation will be introduced to create a central bank in Canada. Here we find on the part of the administration a very different attitude from ithat taken in previous sessions. As I recollect the subject of a central bank and banking reform has been under discussion in this house every session since tihe present government came into office. The attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite, and of the Prime Minister in particular, has been that a central bank could serve no useful purpose, that the purpose to be served by a central bank was already being served by the Department of Finance under the Finance Act. I believe that almost the last words the Prime Minister used in reference to this matter were to the effect that something might be said for a central bank and a great deal against it. But so far as this 'house has discussed the matter on previous occasions, the government's attitude has been, if anything, one of opposition to a central bank; and, where it expressed any real opinion it was to the effect that it was a very debatable question indeed. Now apparently the view of the government has changed, and there is to be a central bank.
By way of contrast with the position taken by hon. gentlemen opposite may I assert the position taken by the Liberal party? There was no equivocal note in the statement of our position; the position of the Liberal party was made quite plain session after session. Speaking in the South Huron by-election in September 1932, I stated that the time had come when a central bank should be established in Canada; that credit should be viewed as a social matter and not one purely of concern to the chartered banks; that there was need for social control of credit, and that this could be effected only through the machinery of a properly established central bank. That position was repeated in the house in the debate on the address in October of that year; it was repeated again in the house in very emphatic words in a speech that I made on February 27, 1933, setting forth the position of the Liberal party on certain immediate problems. I then stated that the Liberal party believed that credit was a public matter, not of interest to members only, but of direct concern to the 74726-3
average citizen; .that the party stood for the immediate establishment of a properly constituted national central bank to perform the functions of rediscount, and the control of currency issue, considered in terms of public need; also that a central bank was necessary to determine the supply of currency in relation to the domestic, social and industrial requirements of the Canadian people, and also to deal with problems of international commerce and exchange. Other leaders of prominence in the party have made similar assertions of our policy at different places throughout the country, so that there has never been any doubt about our position..
But hon. gentlemen opposite, evidently seeing that once again they were behind the times, are now trying in this as in some other matters to take what was part of the policy of their opponents and to make it their own. I shall not at the moment say anything about the legislation proposed with respect to a central bank, because we shall have to wait until the legislation comes in to see exactly what is proposed. What I know hon. members will wish to be assured of is that whatever bank is established as a central bank is a one hundred per cent Canadian bank, that it is Canadian controlled; they will be anxious to ascertain by whom the shares of this bank are to be owned, by whom the directors are to be appointed, in other words what the real control is to be. All these are matters which will be no doubt fully discussed when we come to study the legislation.
What I wish to speak of at the moment is this: last session we were told that a commission was to be appointed for the purpose of deciding upon the advisability of creating a central bank.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not for the purpose of
deciding that. That is not what was said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have under
my hand the speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) at the time he announced the decision of the government. In the house on March 21, 1933, the minister said:
Speaking in this house more than a year ago, the right hon. the Prime Minister raised the question as to whether or not a central bank should be established in Canada. In recent months the question has been widely discussed, but it must be recognized that it is a highly technical matter, upon which conclusions should be reached only in the light of the fullest enquiry into all aspects of the problem. The government proposes, therefore, to appoint a royal commission to study the organization and working of our entire banking and monetary system, to consider the arguments for and against a central banking institution-



The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King	,


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not deciding.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and to make recommendations for revising or supplementing our existing banking and monetary legislation.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
at six o'clock I was speaking with reference to the paragraph in the speech from the throne which refers to the proposal of the government to establish a central bank. I stated that I thought the government had announced, near the close of last session, that it intended to appoint a royal commission for the purpose of considering the advisability of establishing a central bank.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word the right hon. gentleman used was "decided." I took objection to that word.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the
government had decided to appoint a commission?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that the commission was to decide.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what my right hon. friend said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend is quite wrong. I am sorry if he misunderstood me, and I am sorry if I was not quite clear. There would be no sense in my saying that the government appointed a commission that was to make a particular decision. What I said was that the government decided to appoint a commission to consider the advisability of establishing a central bank. That such was the intention of the government, I think, is quite plain from the order in council which appointed the commission, a copy of which appears in the report of the Royal Commission on Banking and Currency, which was tabled in the house by the Prime Minister on Friday last. I will read just a paragraph or two from the order in council, which is dated July 31, 1933:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated July 31, 1933, from the Acting Prime Minister, representing as follows:-
That it is desirable that the approaching periodic revision of the Bank Act, which will precede the enactment of a measure to continue 
the charters of the existing banks, to which said act applies, and which expire on July 1, 1934, shall be based on a complete and detailed examination of the provisions of said act and of the functions and operations thereunder of the banking system thereby established;
That it is also desirable that such examination should include a study of the facilities now afforded by the Finance Act and a careful consideration of the advisability of establishing in Canada a central banking institution, and, if so established, of the relation of such central banking institution to existing banks and its proper authority and function in the operation of the banking system of Canada;
I direct the attention of the house particularly to these words:

and a careful consideration of the advisability of establishing in Canada a central banking institutionand the further words:

if so established, of the relation of such central banking institution to existing banks and its proper authority and function in the operation of the banking system of Canada;
The order goes on to mention other subjects that might be included, and in the second paragraph it again stresses the words:
-the advisability of establishing a central banking institution-
As I have said, the order in council was passed on July 31, 1933. The commission itself reported on September 27, 1933, and in a conclusion the commission set forth its recommendations, of which there are only two. Therefore it is pretty clear what the commission considered to be its main function. I shall read the two important conclusions. They appear at page 81 of the report:
Our operative recommendations are consequently few in number.
By a majority ... we recommend that a central bank for Canada be forthwith established.
We unanimously recommend that an inquiry be instituted by the Dominion government, preferably with the cooperation of the provincial governments, to investigate the existing organizations for the provision of rural credit with a view to the preparation of a scheme for the consideration of parliament.
These are our two recommendations with regard to the improvement of the Canadian financial structure.
I wish now to direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of the house to what was said by the Prime Minister after his return from the economic conference and before the report of the commission was made public. The Prime Minister made a trip to western Canada and in Winnipeg on October 10 delivered an address to the Winnipeg Board of Trade, in the course of which he expressed some views in regard to the necessity of establishing a central bank in Canada. I

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
will read the dispatch as it appeared in all the Canadian newspapers, as sent out by the Canadian Press from Winnipeg on October 11:
The Winnipeg Free Press, in its report of Premier Bennett's speech last night, quotes Mr. Bennett as follows:
"The resolution at the London economic conference regarding the establishment of a central bank was made from the standpoint of this country. I voted to make it unanimous and it was unanimous, so that undeveloped countries need not be dependent on any foreign money power. A central bank is the only means by which we can accomplish certain undertakings in the future and extend our credit in keeping with conditions. While our banks have given admirable service in the past and have emerged from this great crisis better than the banks of any other country, nevertheless the fact remains that an undeveloped country such as Canada will reap a tremendous advantage from the establishment of a central bank in London."
" In London " was the way the dispatch went out, and there was some confusion in the public mind as to just what the Prime Minister meant. He was interviewed as to whether he really meant a central bank in London and the information he gave the press, as I gathered it, was that he did not think it quite proper to say anything about a central bank until the royal commission had made its report and the report had been made public, but that as far as London was concerned that, of course, was an error, that it was a central bank in Canada to which he had reference. The point which is very apparent, however, is that, in informing the country as to the basis upon which a central bank was to be instituted in Canada, the Prime Minister made it quite clear that it was upon a resolution passed by the monetary committee of the economic conference that the action of the government was to be based. Also that, he said, he had been responsible at least for that resolution being made unanimous; that it had been drafted with special reference to Canada; and that, if we were to have a central bank, it would be on the basis of that resolution.
That was the position as stated at Winnipeg. But the Prime Minister made other speeches, one of them in London, Ontario, on December 7, when he addressed the Conservative association of western Ontario. At that time he was even more pronounced in his advocacy of a central bank. He even went the length of saying-and here perhaps he will not mind if I use the word-that the matter was "decided" in his own mind as long ago as 1931.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: And the Prime Minister now says "hear, hear." The Canadian Press despatch, which gives an account of the Prime Minister's speech, is as follows:
London, Ontario, December 7.-In September, 1931, Premier R. B. Bennett decided Canada should have a central bank. The conviction arrived at when the United Kingdom went off the gold standard would bear fruit at the coming session of parliament, when legislation to establish a central bank would be introduced.
Mr. Bennett revealed this as he addressed the annual dinner of the Western Ontario Conservative Association here to-night. The dinner, attended by 1,500 people, was also addressed by Hon. George S. Henry, Premier of Ontario.
When the United Kingdom left the gold standard and the exchange and money markets of the world were thrown into confusion, Mr. Bennett said he summoned the bankers of Canada to meet him in Ottawa.
And it will be remembered that at that time, September, 1931, the Prime Minister was Minister of Finance as well. The Prime Minister continues, as quoted:
Then I learned to my surprise that there was no direct means of settling international balances between Canada and London, that the only medium was New York, and the value of the Canadian dollar would have to be determined in Wall street. I made up my mind then and there that this country was going to have a central bank because there must be some financial institution that can with authority do business for the whole of the Dominion with the other nations of the world. If Canada was to be finally independent there had to be a means of determining balances, of settling international accounts, and a central hank would provide this.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Financially independent" was the expression-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The word
"financially" is not here, buit I have no doubt my right hon. friend used it.
There is one section of that paragraph to which I should like to refer before dealing with the main feature of the Prime Minister's remarks. I turn to what he said as to having learned for the first time that there was no direct means of settling international balances between Canada and London. He said that the only medium was New York, and that the value of the Canadian dollar would have to be determined in Wall street. Surely the Prime Minister, who for over a year had held the portfolio of Minister of Finance, must have -had a knowledge of the situation wider than that which he led the young Conservatives of London, Ontario, to believe; if he had not, it is a very great surprise. At any rate, one point is clear, namely that while Minister of Finance in the year 1931 he had decided that this country was to have a central bank.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Should have.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If that was the decision of the Prime Minister why was he
36	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
not frank with this House of Commons? After all, he is the leader of the House of Commons, and derives his position from the confidence the house reposes in him. Why was he not frank with hon. members when in 1931, 1932 and 1933, we were discussing the question of a central bank? Further than that, why was it necessary to appoint a royal commission to consider the advisability of the establishment of a central bank if, as a matter of fact, the Prime Minister had already decided there was to be one? But, more extraordinary than that, if the Prime Minister had not only decided in 1931 that there was to be a central bank, but, while at the economic conference in London, was able to bring about the passing of a resolution dealing particularly with Canada and giving reasons why a central bank should be established, why was it necessary, after the passing of such resolution, to appoint a royal commission for the purpose of finding out whether or not a central bank in Canada was advisable?
I should like to draw the attention of the house to the dates of the various statements concerning the consideration of the advisability of establishing a central bank, because these dates are of importance. It was on July 27, 1933, that the world economic conference approved the resolution embodied in the report of the monetary and financial commission. Let me read the resolution, because the reasons for the establishment of a central bank, from the point of view of the Prime Minister, do not appear to be the same as those set forth in the royal commission. I read from page 13 of the conference report:
The conference considers it to be essential, in order to provide an international gold standard with the necessary mechanism for satisfactory working, that independent central banks, with the requisite powers and freedom to carry out an appropriate currency and credit policy, should be created in such developed countries as have not at present an adequate central banking institution.
So it would appear from what the Prime Minister has said, that the purpose of forming a central bank in Canada is that of restoring the gold standard, and that it is not so much the purpose of providing the necessary means for controlling credit, from a social point of view, which, I imagine, is the point of view from which most of the people in Canada would expect to see a central banking institution established.
That resolution was adopted on July 27. It was on July 31, some days after the passing of the resolution by the world economic conference, that the order in council establishing a royal commission in Canada to con-

sider the advisability of establishing a central banking institution, from which I have quoted, was passed. The report of the royal commission was signed on September 27, and was not made public until November 13, though,
I assume, its recommendations were made immediately known to the Prime Minister and his colleagues. Between those two dates the Prime Minister announced in Winnipeg that the London conference had passed a resolution, for which he was responsible and as a result of which we were to have a central banking institution. I confess I find great difficulty in ascertaining what the Prime Minister had in mind when he made that statement, unless it was to make perfectly sure that the royal commission would not receive the credit for the establishment of a central bank, and to make certain that no other political party or parties which had advocated such establishment would receive credit, but that the credit should go to the decision he himself had made in 1931, though not made known to others at the time Great Britain went off the gold standard, to have a central banking institution established in Canada. I repeat that if the Prime Minister, while he was Minister of Finance, had determined that such was to be the government's policy, he should have taken the house into his confidence. More than that, I suggest a very different order in council should have been passed with respect to the commission which was appointed. If the matter of the advisability of establishing a central bank was settled then, it seems to me, if a commission were appointed, it should not have had to consider the advisability of establishing a central bank but should have directed its attention to the particular functions such an institution would have to perform and kindred subjects. I submit that the parties who appeared before the commission were misled by the action of the government. The commission itself was misled. At the end of the report of the royal commission there is a list of institutions and individuals who made submissions to the commission. Most of those representations related to the advisability of establishing a central bank, and not to the particular manner in which a bank might carry on its business when established. These individuals and institutions went to a great deal of trouble and expense in their submissions; different communities retained solicitors to prepare their briefs. All these efforts would have been wholly unnecessary had it been known that the government had already decided to establish a central bank. This is only one more instance of the extent to which the present Prime Minister takes the House of

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Commons into his confidence, or regards himself as responsible to the house and through the House of Commons, to the people. I do not wish to dwell unduly on the matter, but I do submit his action constituted a discourtesy to the commission, to the House of Commons and to the public of Canada. It was a matter of grave discourtesy, I believe I am using a very mild term, for the government to appoint a commission, to spend the public money on the work of that commission, and money for the printing of the report, in connection with a matter which, in the mind of the Prime Minister, had been decided long ago.
I shall now refer to the one remaining subject in the speech from the throne, namely, the one which might be called the government's policy with respect to labour and unemployment, if, indeed, it can be said the government on these has any policy. The government's position has changed so often that we find it difficult to know its position; one year it has taken one stand, and another year another. We have in this speech from the throne a statement of the government's present intention of the coming year. From the beginning the government has not had what could be called a labour policy, a policy for dealing with the unemployment situation in the period of distressful conditions which have prevailed ever since this administration came into office. In the United States the president, I think everyone will say, has been courageous and emphatic with regard to the policy which he has put forward for dealing with industrial recovery. The National Industrial Recovery Act of the United States is only part of a large scheme of national recovery which has been put forward in that country. One feature of the N.I.R.A., as it is called, is that which relates to wages and hours, a rather important factor to labour- the hours of labour and the wages to be paid for labour. That policy is well known so far as it has been in practice in the United States. It is a policy which aims at effecting certain standards for labour throughout all parts of the country. Advantage is being taken of the fact that the government in dealing more or less with an emergency has been clothed with quite exceptional powers and is in a position to do things which at another time it might not be able to do, just as our government here is in a position to do them. In the United States the president has evidently proceeded on the theory that, given very wide powers to deal with an emergency, in view of the large sums of public money to be spent, that at least some effort should
be made simultaneously to improve the conditions of labour in a way which will result in their permanent improvement. So in the United States an effort has been made to establish certain definite standards for labour. The abolition of child labour and the abolition of sweating-getting rid of paying wages that are too low, and of working labour excessive hours, these are means being taken to bring about a condition in industry whereby competition as between different firms will be regulated on some uniform basis in a way which it is hoped will prove to be to the advantage alike of employers and employees. There being many hundreds of thousands out of employment, the government of the United States has thought it advisable to make regulations with respect both to hours and to wages, which have had the effect of raising wages in some of the trades where labour was more poorly paid, and of shortening hours of labour where it has been necessary to spread the available employment over a larger number of persons.
After the Prime Minister and the government had done about all it was possible to do by way of destroying the export trade of this country by raising tariffs so high that in many articles trade with other jountries became almost impossible-trade 3annot be carried on indefinitely in a onesided way; there has to be a willingness and possibility to exchange commodities-a change in point of view seemed to come about. After as I have said, the government had impaired so greatly our export trade, and our trade generally had fallen to the figures which I gave the house this afternoon, the Prime Minister, returned from England, where for a time he had been moving in a world atmosphere. He delivered an address at Montreal, the first address I think he made to any public body after his arrival in Canada from the world economic conference the first address in which he seemed to have discovered that export trade was an all important factor for Canada. I had the pleasure, as I think many here had, of hearing him speak over the radio. I do not know the impression that his speech made on others; I certainly was amazed, however, when I heard, as his first pronouncement on reaching Canada, that, so far as this country was concerned, this new discovery meant that at least, we were not going to have any experimenting with higher wages or shorter hours of labour. I want to be exact in my quotation, and so I will read the Canadian Press despatch as it found its way into most of the papers. I am quoting from
38	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
the Ottawa Journal of September 1, 1933, and giving the Canadian Press report of the Prime Minister's board of trade address on August 31:
Continuance of Canada's national life depends upon maintenance of her position as a great exporting nation, and therefore this country cannot experiment with shorter hours of work and higher rates of pay.
In other words, the Prime Minister seemed for the first time to have wakened up to the fact that Canada's real basis of prosperity was her export trade-something that apparently he had not in all his policies heretofore recognized. But the remarkable fact in regard to that discovery was, not that it seemed to supply him with a reason for the lowering of tariffs which would help to reduce the costs of production of our exports, and thereby help to make possible a wider exportation of the merchandise of Canada, but that it afforded him a reason why Canada was not to experiment with shorter hours of work or higher rates of pay that might increase the costs of production and so impair our export trade, and Canada's position as a consequence. The despatch goes on to say that this declaration was interpreted by his hearers as indicating how far Canada might go in following the recovery plan of the United States.
I just wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that while the government has failed in most, if not in all, of its policies to achieve even in a slight measure what it said it was going to achieve, it has failed more lamentably in what it promised to do for labour than in any other field excepting agriculture. Coming at a time when we have half a million men unemployed and over a million people on relief, the pronouncement to the effect that we were not going to experiment with anything that meant higher wages, even when people were getting no wages at all, and that we were not going to experiment with anything that meant shorter hours, even when there was great need for distribution of work among as large numbers as possible-this pronouncement came as a shock to many who heard it. It disclosed how completely the government has failed to grasp what is the essential feature of the unemployment situation in Canada at the present time, and shows how completely it is out of touch, if it ever was in touch at all, with the labour point of view on industrial problems.
What does the government propose in the way of dealing with the situation this year? We are told in the speech from the throne that, as a result of the conference which was held between the provinces and the dominion, the government is going to continue a little longer the system of giving money to the
^Mr. Mackenzie King.]
provinces to spend as direct relief. Speaking at Vancouver before the conference, the Prime Minister said he thought the time had come when the federal government would have to look after its own moneys and supervise their expenditure, that we had about come to the end of direct relief. So the position which the ministry had taken a few months or a few weeks before the conference met was evidently changed at the conference. Whether what was agreed to at the conference will be changed in a few weeks or not, no one can say until the time passes. But now the policy of the dole, as we said would be the case if it ever were started, is to be continued. Hon. gentlemen opposite, when they began to deal with the problem of unemployment, were told time and again from this side of the house that the only policy that would really be of effective service to the unemployed in this country and which would help to relieve distress in a way at all satisfactory was one which would help to provide work, and that under conditions where public expenditures would be carefully controlled and supervised both in the matter of their appropriation by parliament and in the close supervision of all expenditures of public moneys.
In its first year of office the ministry began the assistance of the provinces and municipalities in their construction of public works. It did so from what it claimed to be an understanding of the situation very similar to that which is now being put forward as the reason why the government itself should undertake an extensive program of public construction work. The reason given by the Prime Minister when he made the announcement of the government's present policy was that the government believed that very shortly conditions were going to begin to improve and that we should soon be on the way to better times, and having reached that period we could well go in for a system of public works on a large scale.
I do not know whether hon. gentlemen recall what was said in the speech from the throne delivered on March 12, 1931. If they do not, when they read what was said in that speech they will be struck by the similarity of the policy of the government based upon what the government believed conditions to be in 1931 with what it is to be to-day based upon conditions as they are believed to be in 1934. In the interval this old policy, the one to which we are returning at the present time, was for a considerable period abandoned. Quoting from the speech from the throne delivered at the opening of

The Address.s-Mr. Mackenzie King
the second session on March 12, 1931, I read in a reference to the government's policy that it:
. . . has resulted in the institution of a nation wide program of public undertakings, each one a unit in the scheme of national development, which have collectively provided work for the greatest number of men who have ever been employed through the direct efforts of the federal government.
Immediately following this paragraph, there appears the following:
The policies and measures I have outlined are based upon the firm belief of my government that this country is soon to enter upon a new era of prosperity.
On March 12, 1931, we were told that the government believed that the country was soon to enter upon a new era of prosperity and therefore had established a great national scheme of public works with the different provinces as units but working together as one great whole. What faith can we put in the governments present intentions and present policies when viewed in the light of a statement of that kind and what the government has since done? The statement which has been given to this country to-day is to all intents and purposes identical to that given in March, 1931, with this one additional fact: In 1931 the government had not as yet introduced the policy of the dole. We told them at the time that if they started that policy they would not be able to give it up. We now have two policies, the policy of the dole which is to run side by side with a policy of national public works to be constructed on a vast scale.
There would appear to be something significant in the time at which the government proposes to end one policy and to begin the other. We are told that this great scheme of public works is not to go into effect until late in the spring. In other words, some time before the end of the session we are to have introduced into this house another bill or estimate which will oblige the house to vote a large sum of money for a scheme of construction of public works. Let me say that if these public works are necessary it is essential that they be started now when there are large numbers of unemployed, rather than four, five or six months from now, when, according to the government's own statement, the number of unemployed will not be so large. Why is this not being done, if the primary aim is to help to solve unemployment? When one stops to consider the matter one finds oneself inevitably driven to look for some other explanation. What does one find? In regard to unemployment relief
the government says, "We will continue this for a certain length of time subject to negotiations with the provinces." They do not say how long, but it will be until they begin to put this larger scheme into effect. I do not know whether the circumstance that there is to be a general election in Ontario some time this spring, that there is probably to be an election in Saskatchewan this year, and possibly one in New Brunswick, which with Prince Edward Island are the only provinces in which there remain Conservative governments, has anything to do with the proposal of the government to continue to give direct relief to these provincial governments, at least to a time which would seem to synchronize with that at which their elections are to be held, but it would appear to be so. I make no charges but I do say that apart from some such explanation there is nothing to account for the government selecting the time it has for the ending of one policy and the beginning of the other.
What about the great expenditures to be made on public works? I suppose toward the end of this session the government will have pretty well made up its mind whether it is worth while trying to hold on any longer, and whether it will have a general election in the summer or in the fall of this year. At any rate, it would look very much as though this program of public works were being fashioned with relation to what might come in the course of the year in the way of a general election. Prom one end of Canada to the other large amounts of public moneys will be spent on public works at a time just prior to or during a general election. Everyone who knows what has taken place with respect to relief moneys in the provincial elections which have been held is aware of the manner in which public moneys have been used by the governments of these provinces or of the dominion in order to give e: nploy-ment to large numbers of men durii ig the period of the elections. The day after the elections the work in large part has been stopped; it had served its particular purpose. That kind of thing has happened all over the dominion where there have been political contests with Conservative governments in or seeking office. I do not think it is creditable to any administration to permit that sort of thing. I do not think it is going to help in the public life of our country, and it is certainly not going to save the life of this government.
May I say this with regard to a program of the kind? If large sums of public moneys are to be spent for public works, this House of
40	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Commons should have the same control over these expenditures as it has over the ordinary expenditures of government. We should not be asked to vote to the government a lump sum of money for the purpose of carrying out public works wherever and whenever it pleases during any portion of this year or next. The government have submitted to the House of Commons the estimates for the coming year- I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) upon having his estimates down ait the time he has-and the claim is made that there have been certain reductions in the estimates. In such a claim the government is not playing wholly fair with the house or with the country, because these estimates do not include any considerable amounts for public works which amounts would otherwise be included but for this large sum which is to be voted later for the alleged purposes of industrial relief. We should know whether the moneys are being used for the purpose of relief, or for the purposes of furthering the general service of the country. If we need public buildings to serve public purposes they ought to be voted in the estimates in the way in which we are accustomed to vote the items for the various public works. If that method had been followed in the past the government and the country' would have been saved a very large sum of money indeed. This question can be further discussed when we have the government's program before us.
May I draw the attention of the house to the fact that little by little the government is giving evidence of having begun to see that the measures advocated from this side of the house are the ones which they ought to have accepted at the outset. If they had been accepted three years ago a very great deal of money would have been saved the country.
I have said that the government has not had any labour policy. The Prime Minister, speaking in Toronto the other evening, said that the Liberal party had offered nothing of a constructive character.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: "Hear, hear," hon. gentlemen say. Let me remind hon. gentlemen opposite of some of the things that have been consistently and persistently advocated from this side of the house. In the first place, when the special session was called to deal with the problem of unemployment, the opposition stressed emphatically the necessity first of all of a dominion-provincial conference to consider the financial relations of the prov-

inces and the dominion. AVe pointed out that in all probability, inasmuch as the depression would extend over a lengthy period, large sums of money would have to be granted and guaranteed to the provinces by the federal government and that it was desirable therefore to have at once a dominion-provincial conference to deal with the question of finances. More than that, the attention of the government was drawn to the fact that the previous Liberal administration had placed in the estimates a sum of money for precisely such a conference. The money had been voted and the conference could have been called immediately, and we directed the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to the inadvisability meanwhile of continuing grants in aid to the different provinces, because they were forcing many of the provinces and many of the municipalities to make expenditures which otherwise they would not undertake. AAre said that these grants in aid should be discontinued until the suggested conference had met and some agreement had been arrived at between the provinces and the dominion.
Hon. gentlemen opposite paid no attention to that suggestion, but to-day they are beginning to regret it. They are seeing that there should even now be taken steps which should have been taken four years ago. What has happened in the interval as a result of the government's failure to adopt that proposal put forward by the opposition? The dominion-provincial financial conference was not held but the government proceeded instead with legislation increasing grants for example in connection with technical education. They found later they had to regard the statute as a dead letter. The law stands as evidence of what they were determined to do. On the other hand, increases of public debt stand in the Dominion, in the provinces and in the municipalities as evidences of the wrong course which the government has pursued.
Moreover, the opposition asserted that unemployment was Canada's most urgent national problem and advocated very strongly that there should be a representative national commission to have charge of the superintendanoe of all work relating to unemployment relief, a commission that would be able to coordinate effort from the Atlantic to the Pacific, to cooperate with the different provinces and municipalities in the administration of unemployment relief, in an endeavour to find work for the unemployed and to see to it that federal moneys were spent in the most economical manner possible. We also advocated that there should

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
be an audit by the federal government of all expenditure of federal moneys, a step which was denounced by the Prime Minister at the time as an insult to the provinces. I notice however that he himself has since been saying that he will not give further grants to some of the provinces unless they allow his auditors to satisfy themselves on many matters of expenditure. He is beginning to take the position to-day-I hope he will carry it out-that there is necessity for auditing public funds going to the different provinces from the federal treasury-a very obvious thing.
Another course we of the official opposition advocated was that all moneys for relief purposes should be voted in parliament, subject to the control which well known parliamentary methods of procedure and practice have thrown around the appropriation and expenditure of public moneys. We contended that the moneys should be voted for specific purposes and that the government should discuss in detail on the floor of the house, with its own members and with the opposition the advisability of such expenditures as it proposed to make.
Again, we took exception to the voting of public moneys in lump sums, and above all we took exception to giving to the administration a blank cheque-something which they were determined to have and which has resulted in colossal waste of public money. More than that, we opposed giving to the executive the power of legislating by order in council with respect to matters relating to peace, order and good government, which power they took to themselves by use of the closure. Under this power they have been giving guarantees of public moneys, or special privileges of one kind or another, to banks, railway companies, insurance companies and other corporations, using the moneys intended for relief purposes, not to relieve the unemployed but to help large corporations to meet some of the obligations with which they are faced. I do not say that these corporations should not have been assisted, but I do say that they should not have been assisted out of unemployment relief moneys, and I say that parliament should have been apprised in advance of what was proposed. We contend, if there were to be assistance given, parliament should have been informed, and such assistance given as the result of a direct appropriation by the House of Commons.
In all that the government has done in dealing with the problem of unemployment relief, there has been complete indifference to the relationship that should exist between the House of Commons and its obligation with respect to the control of public moneys.
Another measure we advocated from the outset was a national system of unemployment insurance. Certain measures we proposed to deal with existing emergent conditions, but we stressed a national system of unemployment insurance as something that was necessary as a measure of a permanent character. Nearly four years have gone by-we are nearing the end of the fourth year-and notwithstanding the hundreds of millions spent nothing as yet has been done to accumulate information that would be of service to the House of Commons in dealing with this great question. Among the various statements in the speech from the throne you will find no reference to an unemployment insurance measure. I think the working men of the country were expecting at least that much as a result of the conference between the dominion and the provinces last year and again this year; they have been expecting a pronouncement that the government would begin at any rate to pave the way for an inquiry into or study of a permanent scheme of unemployment insurance. But there is not a word in the speech from the throne in this regard.
These were all concrete measures which the Liberal party put forward as part of a recovery policy. In addition, we advocated, as the only real basis on which recovery could be hoped for, the introduction of policies which would serve to provide employment by reviving industry and trade, and which would make for the liberation of trade, both external and internal. In addition, we advocated very strongly the development of the basic industries as another way of furnishing employment. Along with all that, there were advocated measures for the control of credit and the democratization of industry. If these proposals are gathered together the government will find that they constitute a fairly comprehensive constructive program for the relief of unemployment and for the recovery of industry in the country. Had that program been put into effect step by step, as it might have been in the last three years, we should have had a very different condition in Canada to-day; we should not now be in the position of having over a million persons on relief and over half a million or more unemployed.
The government has failed absolutely to deal with the question of unemployment; it has failed completely in effectively improving conditions, notwithstanding that it has had a perfectly free hand, having been given all the powers asked for, powers greater than those which any government anywhere at any time has ever received from a House of Commons

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Notwithstanding all this, however, we find to-day a situation which is not even comparable to that which existed a year or two ago, but which is very much worse.
The government's indifference to the House of Commons in respect to unemployment relief and other matters is only characteristic of the attitude of the present Prime Minister.
I have concluded for the moment all that I wish to say with respect to the speech from the throne, but before I resume my seat I should like to say a word or two with respect to one or two matters that are in the minds of hon. members and which are conspicuous by the absence of any reference to them in the speech from the throne. It will be realized that in what I said this afternoon there has been constant reference to the fact that the government has proceeded, in practically everything it has done, as if it were an executive wholly independent of the House of Commons, rather than an executive which derives its powers from and is responsible to the House of Commons. Indeed, the House of Commons has come to be, in the phrase used by the Prime Minister himself not so long ago, a sort of rubber stamp for what the ministry may choose to do, regardless of how its own wishes and desires may be expressed, and regardless of how much those wishes and desires may represent the wishes and desires of the people at large.
In 1919 this House of Commons approved of an address to His Majesty the King praying that His Majesty should thereafter refrain from conferring titles and titular distinctions upon Canadians or persons ordinarily resident in Canada, and in accordance with this expressed wish of the house an address was presented to His Majesty. The resolution approving that address has stood upon the records unamended, unqualified, unchanged in any particular, it has not been rescinded; it is there to-day, and I believe from the time it was passed until practically the concluding hours of last session, every government, every parliament, every hon. member of both houses of parliament believed that resolution to be binding upon the ministry of the day. But at the conclusion of last session, the Prime Minister made in the house a surprise announcement with respect to the resolution which gave, not the opinion of the law officers of the crown or of the House of Commons, but his own opinion on the matter, which was to the effect that the resolution was not valid, and had no legal effect. Since that time the Prime Minister himself has recommended to His Majesty the conferring of certain titular distinctions and titles upon certain Canadians, and he has done

so in defiance of the resolution as passed by the House of Commons.
In speaking on this subject I wish in the first instance, to make clear that I am not at this time going to discuss the merits of titles in themselves. This is not the time to discuss that phase of the subject. There is on the order paper a resolution which relates to the question of titles, and when that resolution comes to be discussed will be the time to debate the merits of the question. But this is the proper time to discuss the rights of and privileges of this House of Commons in respect to resolutions which it may pass and the extent to which such resolution may be binding upon the ministry.
Let me make clear one other point. In what I am about to say in this debate, I have no intention of in any way discussing the royal prerogative, beyond considering how the prerogative with respect to honours is to be exercised in the conferring of titles on His Majesty's subjects in this country. The question of the prerogative is not at issue at all. The royal prerogative is unquestioned. The question at issue is the conditions under which and the advice upon which the royal prerogative is to be exercised in this dominion, and that is the essence of the resolution which was passed by this house. It was in reality a direction to the ministry of the day as to how the commons, as representing the people of this country, believed it should exercise its power with respect to the advice to be tendered to His Majesty in the exercise of the royal prerogative as respects the conferring of titles on Canadians.
Perhaps it will facilitate debate on the matter and help to make clear just how definite and strong the trend of opinion has been, if I say a word or two about the way in which the prerogative with respect to titles has been exercised in Canada in the last fifty or sixty years. From the time of confederation down to 1902, I think one may say, the question of how titles were to be conferred, by whom the recommendation was to be made to His Majesty, was one that was more or less undefined. That I think is the simplest way in which to state the matter. There were at all events two points of view. One which I think I may say has since been wholly discarded, but which was held by the British government, was that, with respect to titles, it was the duty of the Colonial Secretary to make the recommendation to His Majesty. The Colonial Secretary in making his recommendation might do so entirely on his own initiative, getting his information from such sources as he thought best, or he might do so

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
more directly on the recommendation of the Governor General sometimes in consultation with, sometimes without consultation with, the Prime Minister. So far however, as the Prime Minister or the ministry of the day was concerned, until 1902 neither figured very largely in the mind of the British Government as having any real control in the granting of titles.
In 1902 the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier passed an order, in council which was communicated to Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, and in which the government set out what it believed to be the correct practice with respect to conferring titles upon Canadians domiciled in Canada. For the purpose of accuracy I shall quote from the communication two or three paragraphs which I think are of special significance. Before doing so however, there is one other point which at the moment I should like to make clear in connection with this discussion.
In speaking of titles in this debate, I am referring only to such titles as were taken cognizance of by the resolution of 1919. That is the only resolution which is before us for consideration; it is the one instruction binding upon the ministry in addition to the orders in council that bear upon the subject. The resolution of 1919 was quite specific in certain directions. It did not touch certain classes of recognition at all; in fact certain classes of recognition were specially exempted. It made no reference whatever to titles that appertain to an office, titles in the nature of professional or vocational appellations; it left those to one side. The committee which dealt with the matter and which made to the house the recommendation upon which the resolution was based, had considered, for example, the question of the title of "right honourable" as applied to a member of the Imperial Privy Council, and the title of "honourable" as applied to members of the government. It decided that those particular titles or designations should not be included in the address to be sent to His Majesty, and they, therefore, do not enter into the present discussion at all. So far as decorations are concerned, I have not any desire to bring into this debate the question of what are commonly called decorations.
The feeling against titles in this country is I think directed against one particular style, of title, namely, that which carries with it the prefix "Sir" before the Christian name of the person on whom the title is conferred, and, by courtesy, the title "Lady" before the name of the wife of the recipient of such an
honour, thereby serving to set up in this country an exclusive social class. There is where the main, in the case of many the whole, objection to titles in Canada arises: it helps to create a class which, in virtue of the manner in which its members are to be addressed by their fellow citizens, are set apart in the dominion, as a separate, exclusive class of knights and ladies. The feeling in a democratic country like Canada is very strong against that sort of thing, and that feeling has found expression in this House of Commons many years in succession, and concretely in the resolution to which I have referred. It is to that class of title I am referring. There is no necessity to refer to hereditary titles; I think that matter has been definitely settled, but the survival here of the old feudal order of knighthood, given to certain chosen individuals nominated at the instance of the Prime Minister, and which cannot be ordinarily supported without a certain amount of wealth is the kind of thing of which the people of this country want as little as possible.
I should now like to read part of the text of the order in council passed by the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier on February 19, 1902. The paragraphs that are significant are as follows:
On a report dated February 15, 1902, from the Right Honourable the Prime Minister submitting that the exercise of the royal prerogative conferring honours and titular distinctions upon His Majesty's subjects in Canada is one which has not hitherto been brought into harmony with the principles of parliamentary government, of which it is an important part.
The Prime Minister further submits that the great development of Canada, and the high position which she has now obtained, render it advisable that upon this subject, as upon all others, the exercise of the royal prerogative shall conform to the well understood principles of ministerial responsibility.
There, as long ago as 1902, in an order in council which is still of record and in the files of the council, emphasis was laid upon bringing this whole matter into harmony with the principles of parliamentary government. Do the principles of parliamentary government permit of a ministry doing what it pleases notwithstanding the known will of the members of the House of Commons, as expressed by them, no matter what justification it may find or seek to find from other sources? Is there conformity with the well understood principles of ministerial responsibility when the ministry, at a time when parliament is not in session, does a thing which without the House of Commons altering a decision which it had previously reached by way of instructions to the ministry it would hesitate to do

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
and could not and would not do, were parliament in session? I mention these points because they have stood from 1902 to the present time. This is 1934; we are talking about custom and tradition and the rights of the commons. This affects every hon. member who has a seat in this house; it affects his right and privilege as a member of parliament whose constituents have strong feelings on these matters, to have his rights and privileges protected against any ministry or any prime minister. The order in council goes on to say:
The Prime Minister states that in practice, since the establishment of confederation the granting of honours and titular distinctions upon the subjects of the crown in Canada has been the result of correspondence between His Excellency the Governor General and the colonial office, and of recommendations made by the former, usually yet not invariably after consultation with the Prime Minister but not in conformity with any settled principle and without constitutional responsibility.
The practice is not in harmony with the principles of our constitutional system.
There again the same note is being emphasized. Then a little further down the order goes on:
The Prime Minister submits that while His Majesty may take the initiative in respect to the bestowal of honours and titular distinctions the minister should be none the less responsible for what may be - done. To the ministers of His Majesty at Westminster responsibility attaches for every reward conferred for public service within their sphere of action. In Canada a government similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom has been established, and the advisers of His Majesty in Canada are the proper advisers of His Majesty for every kind of reward bestowed upon His Majesty's subjects for services performed within the legal and constitutional sphere of Canadian jurisdiction.
I direct attention to those words because the Prime Minister himself, speaking to this House of Commons towards the close of last session, presented the view that His Majesty was free to confer honours on his own initiative, that such was a part of his prerogative. I say that while that may be a part of the prerogative of His Majesty in the old coimtry, thought that I do not admit for a minute so long as this, and another order in council to which I shall refer a little later stand, in Canada the prerogative cannot be exercised by His Majesty on his own initiative. His Majesty's prerogative with respect to the granting of titles in Canada is restricted by this order in council, which is part of the law of the land, and which sets forth the necessity of that prerogative being exercised on the advice of his ministers. Let me read the words again, because I think probably 
we will find that the leader of the government may take issue with them:
The Prime Minister submits that while His Majesty may take the initiative in respect to the bestowal of honours and titular distinctions the minister should be none the less responsible for what may be done.
It can only be on the responsibility of a ministry, and of the Prime Minister in particular, that so far as Canada is concerned, the prerogative may be exercised. The concluding portion of the order is as follows:
-and respectfully ask that the royal instructions be modified to the effect that the same rules which apply for the exercise of the royal prerogative in granting honours and titular distinctions to subjects of the king in the United Kingdom be made likewise to apply to all recommendations by the Governor General for the exercise of the prerogative to the king's subjects in the colonies, and that all such recommendations by the Governor General to the sovereign in such matters be made upon the advice of his responsible ministers.
One would have thought that the order in council would have met with immediate acceptance in the old land, but that was not so. The British government of that day and particularly Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, took the position that it was not for the Canadian government to say what should be done, but that, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with respect to imperial orders such as that of St. Michael and St. George should make recommendations to His Majesty; that with respect to distinctions which concerned science, literature and the like, the Governor General should form his opinion and communicate with the Secretary of State for the Colonies; but that, in regard to political honours, the Prime Minister or the government of the day might of course take the responsibility of making recommendations.
I need not stop to read further from the despatch from Mr. Chamberlain, as I have outlined its main features. To some extent the matter rested at that point for a number of years. Evidently, Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not wish to be involved in a controversy; I think he was fortunate in being associated with governors general who were very like himself in their desire to work in harmony in all matters, and I believe he had no difficulty on the score of agreeing with the Governor General of the day in the matter of such recommendations as were made.
. The next important stage in the consideration of this subject was in 1918. In that year the question came up because His Majesty did confer certain distinctions which proved to be most unpopular, whether or not on the advice of the Canadian government, I am not

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
in a position to say. At any rate honours were conferred which served to arouse feeling, particularly as they were of a hereditary character; and the House of Commons concerned itself with the matter.
I want to direct the attention of the house immediately to this point, that, whenever in these discussions the question has come up for consideration in parliament it has come up in the House of Commons. It is not a matter which has greatly concerned the other house of parliament, it is one which is primarily the concern of the House of Commons. This House of Commons is the body to which the ministry is responsible, and in all matters relating to the exercise of the prerogatives of the crown it is the House of Commons which asserts its rights in terms of how the prerogative is to be exercised.
In 1918 Mr. Nickle of Kingston introduced a resolution, seconded by Mr. McMaster, to the effect that all hereditary titles should be abolished. An amendment to the resolution was moved by Mr. Richardson of Lisgar to the effect that no titles should be granted. Sir Robert Borden, who was leading the Conservative party and the government of the day, stated to the house that a short time previously the government had considered the matter and had passed an order in council in connection therewith, which had been transmitted to the British government. He said that, inasmuch as his government had set forth its position with respect to titles, he felt that the House of Commons should take no further action in the matter at that session, especially in view of the fact that there was to be a conference in England that year which he, Sir Robert, would attend and upon which occasion the whole matter would be discussed with the British government. He gave the assurance to the House of Commons that, if the matter were allowed to stand over for another year, he would see to it that at least in that year no titles of any kind would be conferred. He carried out his promise to the extent of declining even to recommend decorations during that time, although there was nothing in the resolution or in the discussion which had touched that phase of the matter.
The order in council which Sir Robert brought down is a very important document. From it I should like to quote two or three paragraphs, because I believe they make very clear Sir Robert Borden's views. He indicated that he was dealing with a matter of concern not merely to the House of Commons but to the whole country, and that the purpose was to direct the ministry with respect to the exercise of the prerogative and
not in any way to seek to restrict the prerogative of the crown, as such. The order in council is dated March 25, 1918, and is as follows:
The committee of the privy council have had under consideration a report dated March 9, 1918, from the right hon. Prime Minister touching the procedure for conferring titles of honour upon subjects of His Majesty ordinarily resident in Canada.
Submitting that the subject demands consideration and attention, the Prime Minister observes that the royal prerogative of conferring honours and titular distinctions for important public services is unquestioned, but that it is necessary to consider the conditions under which and the advice upon which it should be exercised within this dominion.
I ask hon. members to note those words. That is in the order in council which remains and governs the present ministry. The order is to-day part of the law of this country.


Hugh Guthrie: What gives it authority of law?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I regard an order in council which has not been repealed-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it has to have authority.


Hugh Guthrie: It is merely an expression of opinion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe hon. members in this chamber will feel that a statement of authority which is set forth in an order in council by a prime minister in office is something which unless the order which contains it is repealed ought to bind all subsequent ministers.


Hugh Guthrie: But that has not authority of law. The right hon. gentleman said it had authority of law. I took exception to that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This whole
business of titles apparently has hereafter to be dealt with in a quibbling manner. Whatever has to be done, is to be done on a technicality. I shall not use the expression "authority of law"; I Aall say authority of government.


Hugh Guthrie: Of the government of
that day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And binding
the government of the day until it is rescinded. I have just been reminded that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), who has been interrupting me, was a member of the government which passed the order to which I am referring, and apparently shared its views.


Hugh Guthrie: That is an expression of
opinion by a government; I have said that.
46	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
My right hon. friend stated it had authority of law, and I asked him how it got that authority, because unless it is contained in a statute it has no such authority.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has the
authority of a government of which the minister was a member. It is a policy which he endorsed and approved. I am directing the attention of the house to the view as expressed by the leader of the then Conservative party, who was in office at the time, and I am outlining its contention as to how titular distinctions should be dealt with. Let me continue:
It is necessary to consider discussions under which and advice upon which it should be exercised within this dominion. He submits that the bestowal of honours is a matter of concern to the whole community and has a direct relation to the orderly government of the state.
There, Mr. Speaker, is a clause to which I wish to direct the attention of the house. The government of Sir Robert Borden solemnly declared, and the Prime Minister speaking for the government and for himself declared, that the bestowal of honours is a matter of concern to the whole community. I wonder if the Prime Minister of to-day will deny that such is the case. He certainly denied it when parliament was not in session; in the face of the resolution which was passed in 1919, he recommended to His Majesty the creation of certain titles. I submit that this House of Commons, representing the community, is entitled to very special consideration of any matter which a Conservative Prime Minister has said he regards as a matter of concern to the whole community. To continue reading:
Having regard to the firmly established principles of self-government in Canada the Prime Minister is of opinion that no title of honour or titular distinction should hereafter be conferred upon any subject of His Majesty ordinarily resident in Canada except upon the direct advice and responsibility of His Majesty's Canadian government. Such an assumption of control by the government of Canada follows the natural course of constitutional development in this country as the tendency has invariably been in the direction of complete control of every function of government.
In the light of the Prime Minister's apparent belief that such is not the case and that, so far as Canada is concerned, His Majesty is free, on his own initiative, to make recommendations or appointment, I submit that, from the point of view of constitutional practice and procedure and of methods which have governed in the past and still govern in connection with the exercise of this prerogative, it can be exercised in Canada only in the

manner indicated in the passage I have read from Sir Robert Borden's order. Let me read one further statement:
The Prime Minister is not aware of any other prerogative of the crown which in its relation to Canada is not exercised on the advice of His Majesty's Canadian ministers and he is unable to agree that a different principle should be maintained in the exercise of the prerogative of conferring honours.
There is the following statement in the substantive part of the order:
No honour or titular distinction saving those granted in recognition of military services during the present war or ordinarily bestowed by the sovereign proprio motu shall be conferred upon a subject of His Majesty ordinarily resident in Canada except with the _ approval or upon the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada. The government of the United Kingdom shall exercise the same authority as heretofore in determining the character and number of titles or honours to be allocated to Canada from time to time.
I believe the last clause will be regarded as out of date now, in view of the fact that we have the statute of Westminster governing in matters of this kind. The point I wish to make clear, however, is that at the time the matter was under discussion, Sir Robert Borden and his ministry made it perfectly clear that the question of titles is one affecting the whole community and for that reason one of special concern to the House of Commons ; and that the ministry could constitutionally and properly make recommendations only in the light of what it knew distinctly to be the expressed wish of the House of Commons.
That was the position in 1918. In 1919 the subject was again discussed. In the meantime Sir Robert Borden had visited England; in fact, he was in England at the time. In 1919, a new resolution was brought in, again by Mr. Nickle, this time recommending that no titles of any kind should be recommended. An amendment was proposed to that resolution to the effect that some provision should be made with respect to hereditary titles in this country which would prevent their being continued upon the death of the then holder. In the absence of Sir Robert Borden, Sir Thomas White, who was then leading the government, suggested the appointment of a special committee of the House of Commons to inquire into the whole matter and to make a recommendation to the house. A special committee was appointed which made its recommendation and it was the recommendation of that committee which was endorsed by the resolution passed in 1919. I shall read just a paragraph from that resolution:

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that Your Majesty may be graciously pleased:-
(a)	To refrain hereafter from conferring any title of honour or titular distinction upon any of your subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada save such appellations as are of a professional or vocational character or which appertain to an office.
(b)	To provide that appropriate action be taken by legislation or otherwise to ensure the extinction of an hereditary title.
The committee in its report says:
A suggestion was made that the titles of "right honourable" and "honourable" be discontinued, but the suggestion did not meet with the approval of the committee.
The committee in its report also went on to say:
Your committee, however, do not recommend the discontinuance of the practice of awarding military or naval decorations, such as the Victoria Cross, Military Medal, Military Cross, Conspicuous Service Cross, and similar decorations to persons in military or naval services of Canada for exceptional valour and devotion to duty.
That is the substance of the resolution of 1919. That resolution clearly was taken by the government of the day and by all subsequent governments to bind the ministry. As I have said, that resolution was not a resolution which could affect the prerogative of the crown as such. The prerogative remained as it was, and as it is to-day, and) as it will continue; but what it did affect was the powers of the ministry in advising His Majesty how that prerogative should be exercised.
Just to show the house how completely public opinion as expressed in this House of Commons has been opposed to any restoration of titles, I might recall that in 1923, on March 19, Mr. Ladner, one of the Conservative membei-s in the house of that day, introduced a resolution which would have permitted decorations-not titles, but simply decorations-to be given in recognition of services in literature, art or science. That resolution was negatived by a vote of 121 to 14, indicating very clearly what the House of Commons of that day felt about any attempt to reintroduce titles even by this seemingly innocent means.
In 1929 the present hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) introduced a resolution in the house which showed very clearly, so far as he was concerned, that he believed the government of the day to be bound by the 1919 resolution of the House of Commons, and he sought to have that resolution qualified or
amended or rescinded. I think those words were carefully chosen, and I must say that I like very much the form in which my hon. friend introduced his motion. I think he went the right way about it. That was in 1929, ten years after the resolution of 1919 had been passed. My hon. friend the present Secretary of State, at that time sitting on this side, asked the house to appoint a committee to consider whether the resolution of 1919 should not be qualified, amended or rescinded. As Prime Minister of the day I had to take a . position with regard to my hon. friend's resolution. I tried to give him as open a door as I could to get the matter considered. I believed that any committee that dealt with the matter would reach the decision that the resolution of 1919 should stand, but, nevertheless, I was glad to have a committee appointed, if the house were willing to appoint it, and I so stated. I said that I did not think the matter should be made a party issue in any sense of the word, but that members should be free to vote as they pleased, and I supported my hon. friend's motion. True enough the hon. member from North Huron (Mr. Spotton) sought to have the impression conveyed that, in even allowing a motion for a committee to investigate the matter as Prime Minister at the time, I was favourable to titles. However, Mr. Dunning, the then Minister of Railways, made quite clear that the government itself, if it had to take a stand in the matter, would oppose titles, but that some of its members were prepared to have a committee of the house consider the matter if the house itself was willing to have its own committee look into it. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) says to me not to include him, that he voted against the appointment of that committee.
Let me now read the resolution of the present Secretary of State as it was moved in this House on February 12, 1929:
That a special committee of this house consisting of eleven members be appointed forthwith, to investigate and report upon the advisability of qualifying, amending or rescinding the address to His Majesty the King, which was adopted by this house in May, 1919, dealing with the conferring by His Majesty of titles of honour or titular distinctions upon His Majesty's subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada; and also to consider and report upon the appropriate action, if any, which the parliament of Canada should take with respect to the acceptance, enjoyment or use by persons domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada of titles of honour or titular distinctions or decorations conferred by any foreign government, governmental authority, potentate or power; and also to consider and report upon the advisability of instituting orders of merit,
48	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
distinctions or decorations, which may be conferred by His Majesty upon persons domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada, on the advice of the government of Canada, in recognition of distinguished public services; and that such committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time to this house.
That was the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. Cahan), a very modest and, as I have said, an excellently drawn resolution. How did the house receive that motion? It negatived the motion by 114 to 60. The house would not even permit the consideration of the question of qualifying or amending the resolution of 1919. My hon. friend the Secretary of State to-day is a member of the government which is responsible for having recommended to His Majesty the giving of titles to one or two gentlemen, notwithstanding that his belief in 1929 clearly was that the resolution of 1919 was binding upon the government of the day.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I fail to see any inconsistency whatever.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: More than that, the Prime Minister himself was in the house at that time, and if one reads the debates one will not find in anything the Prime Minister then said the ground he is alleging to-day for recommendation being made by the ministry to the sovereign. He himself accepted the view of the house as it was held at that time. So it is quite clear that, from the time that resolution of 1919 was passed, right down until the last session of parliament everyone believed that the resolution of 1919 was binding upon the ministry.
Now what took place last session? It is interesting to note that this matter was not brought up in the first session, or the second or the third or in the fourth session of this parliament until its very end; the government waited until almost its last chance had arrived, to take any action in the matter. What was done in the last session? As will be recalled, my right hon. friend from Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) had received a promotion in the honours list of the previous New Year. He had been a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, and he was made a Knight Grand Commander. That was an innocent sort of thing, and I must say that all of us who are so fond of him were pleased to see him get the promotion. But I think it would have been much finer if he had waited to receive it until after the House of Commons had rescinded the old resolution and then to have obtained it by going in through the front door instead of by one at the back.

Shortly after the house resumed in the New Year, a question was put upon the order paper by the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier) asking, among other things, whether this promotion meant that we were to have titles restored.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was another one associated with it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my right hon. friend says, some reference was made also to other honours which had been conferred upon certain individuals, I think by His Holiness, the Pope. As far as this country is concerned we have no state church, and, so far as honours conferred by any church are concerned, they lie altogether outside the control of the House of Commons or the ministry. There is no established church and the country does not receive nuncios.


Jean-François Pouliot: Might I remind my hon. leader of one thing? If these promotions came through the back door they were put at the front door by being published on the first page of the statute book of last year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The exact date the question was asked is of small importance, but my recollection is that it was some time in January or February. However, it was well on in the month of May-right at the end of the session-before the question was answered. To the surprise of everyone, the Prime Minister in making reply made the statement that he did not regard the resolution of 1919 as binding upon the ministry in any way, that it was a resolution of a House of Commons in one parliament and did not bind subsequent parliaments. That is at best questionable. I notice that May, speaking of resolutions, says that some resolutions are held to bind subsequent parliaments although passed by one only; that the matter is more or less one of custom. So far as custom is concerned, it certainly had become the custom here to hold that the resolution was binding. The Prime Minister knew that hon. members felt strongly on the subject either one way or the other, and I think he must have known that they would wish to express themselves with respect to the matter in an open and straightforward way before any action should be taken by the ministry. He made that statement, and as was my duty in following parliamentary practice, I asked the Prime Minister if in view of the lateness of the session, he would not see to it that the government did not

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
make any recommendations to His Majesty between the close of that session and the opening of the present session. It is perfectly true that the Prime Minister replied that he would give no such assurance. That was characteristic of the sort of reply which he makes to most of the questions I put to him; I took it as such and I think most hon. members thought the same. I was not speaking for the opposition alone; I was speaking for hon. members on his side as well as hon. members on this side who wished to be given an assurance in this regard. I do not think any hon. member thought that before parliament re-assembled the Prime Minister would take action contrary to the letter and spirit of the resolution. At that time he told us that the time was too short to hope to discuss the matter at that session. If that was the case, surely there was good reason to wait until this session before taking any action. There the matter rested.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister did not object to any motion of censure or otherwise being moved by the opposition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That sounds very well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he did not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my right hon. friend well knows, it was only ten days before the close of the session and at that time we of the opposition were doing what we could to help to shorten the session.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We were doing what we could to shorten the session in order that my right hon. friend and his colleagues might be free to go to the world economic conference. But that is the extent to which courtesies from this side of the house are appreciated by hon. gentlemen opposite. The Prime Minister knows very well that, when he waited until the very end of the session to answer that question, and when he gave the answer he did, he was taking a step which made impossible any discussion. However, I say to my right hon. friend that if he thinks that a question which affects so largely the feelings of the people can be solved by such manoeuvres, to use a mild expression, I believe he will find he is greatly mistaken. If he really had desired to put an end for all time to titles in Canada, he could have adopted no more effective means than to flout as he has the opinion of this House of Commons which expresses the opinion of the country generally.
As I say, that was the position when parliament adjourned. What was the next thing that happened? To the surprise, I think of everyone, on the Friday night before New Year's, an announcement was made that the government or the Prime Minister had decided to recommend titles. I will read the statement which was given out to the country at that time by the Prime Minister. It is an important statement and I think it should appear fully upon the records. Having been asked by the press for a statement, the following was given by the Prime Minister on the evening of December 30:
As I intimated at the last session of parliament, the resolution passed in 1919 by the House of Commons, being one branch of parliament, is without validity in either restricting the royal prerogative or amending or repealing the existing law. It will readily be recalled that proceedings were taken many years ago against the publisher of the debates of the House of Commons in England, in which it was alleged that a well known citizen was libelled'.
The publisher sought to justify his action on the authority of a resolution passed by the House of Commons, but the courts decided that "the House of Commons is not the parliament, but only a coordinate and component part of parliament. The sovereign power can make and unmake laws; but the concurrence of the three legislative estates is necessary; the resolution of any one of them cannot alter the law or place anyone beyond its control. The proposition is therefore wholly untenable and abhorrent to the first principles of the constitution of England."	_
The resolution passed by the Canadian House of Commons in 1919 was transmitted to the Sovereign with great formality, but that could not give it validity, and I believe it is now generally realized that the resolution was * invalid for the purposes indicated by those who promoted and supported it.
Since that date Canadians have accepted honours from the heads of foreign states, and the government is of the opinion that the traditional custom of submitting recommendations to His Majesty for the bestowal of honours and awards should be resumed, and the Prime Minister has acted accordingly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I direct the right
hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that that part of the quotation with respect to the constitution should be in quotation marks.
I was quoting the words of Lord Chief Justice Denman. I do not know whether the quotation marks appear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Which part
is that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reference to the
constitution.


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: I am glad the Prime Minister has indicated that because the whole four paragraphs are in quotations. That part is not singled out as a quotation



The Address-Mr, Mackenzie King
within the quotation. There, for the first time, the Prime Minister gives any reasons to substantiate the action of his government. Four reasons are mentioned. The first is that the resolution passed in 1919 by the House of Commons, being one branch of parliament, is without validity in either restricting the royal prerogative or amending or repealing the existing law. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the House of Commons and the House of Commons alone should direct the ministry with respect to all matters appertaining to the royal prerogative. It is not for the other house to direct the ministry regarding the prerogative. That is the duty of the House of Commons. It has always been so, or at any rate, for many years, it has been regarded by the House of Commons as one of its rights and privileges, and the House of Commons in Great Britain has been unwilling to admit that a statute is necessary to control the prerogative.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the contrary, it was
so declared in the House of Lords within this last month.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had not intended going into the matter, but seeing that the Prime Minister has raised the point I may as well go somewhat farther. In 1870, the government of Mr. Gladstone had endeavoured to abolish by statute the system of purchase of commissions in the army, but . the bill was obstructed or defeated in the House of Lords. Mr. Gladstone thereupon advised the sovereign to cancel the royal warrant regulating the sale of commissions. Queen Victoria, recognizing that the ministry, which was responsible to the House of Commons,	was	the	source	from which	thesovereign should be directed in the matter of the exercise of the royal prerogative, acted upon the advice of Mr. Gladstone and issued a royal warrant cancelling the warrant regulating the purchase of commissions in the army,	and	the	system	of purchase	was
effectively disposed of in this way.
There is another case that came still later, in 1890. At that time a statute had been introduced by Lord Salisbury for the cession of Heligoland to Germany in consideration of Germany's having recognized the claims of Britain to Zanzibar. When the bill was before parliament Mr. Gladstone, ably seconded by Sir William Harcourt, took the view that the government, by making the treaty a subject of legislation, had abandoned the treatymaking prerogative of the crown. He pro-

ceeded to show that the prerogative of the crown, exercised by the ministers of the day, was subject to review by the House of Commons and by the House of Commons alone, whereas a bill required the sanction of the House of Lords. Mr. Gladstone pointed out that the commons, in countenancing such procedure and sharing its jurisdiction with the House of Lords, was halving a right which was peculiarly its own, namely, controlling the exercise of the royal prerogative. That position I think is the sound one-the position that the ministry is responsible to the House of Commons, and that the Commons should direct the ministry in this particular. That, I submit, is the true position to be taken with regard to the exercise of the royal prerogative.
The Prime Minister raises a very grave issue, an issue which is entirely new and which deprives this House of Commons of rights and privileges it ought zealously to maintain, when he states that, with respect to the exercise of the prerogative, the House of Commons must share that right with another house of this parliament. The control of the exercise of the royal prerogative in Canada is the peculiar right of this House of Commons, and I am amazed that one who is the leader of the House of Commons, deriving his authority from the House of Commons, should take any view to the contrary. If the House of Commons ceased to support him he would cease to be Prime Minister, notwithstanding all that the other house might seek to do for him, notwithstanding that every member in the other house might be a follower of his own. His power is entirely dependent upon the support he receives from this House of Commons. In the matter of the exercise of the royal prerogative, one of the most vital of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons is that of directing the ministry with respect to the manner in which it is to be exercised.
Take the next point. He says:
It will readily be recalled that proceedings were taken many years ago against the publisher of the debates of the House of Commons in England, in which it was alleged that a well known citizen was libelled.
I think I am right in saying that the case upon which the Prime Minister relies to support his position is that of Stockdale vs. Hansard-he says yes. Well, that case was decided in 1839, nearly one hundred years ago, and the Prime Minister tells us that it is in virtue of that decision given nearly a hundred years ago that he and his government to-day have taken the action they have. Now, what was that case? Stockdale was a publisher of
JAiNUARY 29, 1934
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
books and magazines, and one of his books had been referred to in a parliamentary report as being obscene, and on that ground he brought an action against Hansard Brothers, who were the publishers of the government reports, for having libelled his firm in giving publicity, in the way in which it was done, to this characterization of a particular book. Hansard Brothers set up the defence that they had been ordered by the House of Commons to publish its reports, and the courts very rightly held that an order of the House of Commons was not superior to the law of the land and that it could not protect Hansard Brothers in that libel action because a resolution of the House of Commons did not run beyond its own membership, and the law of the land was supreme. That is perfectly sound; certainly the law of the land is supreme. But that case, far from supporting my right hon. friend, does the very opposite. All that it does is to say that, outside of this House of Commons, no subject can plead a resolution of the House of Commons to protect him in an illegal act. What my right hon. friend overlooks however is the fact that a resolution passed by the House of Commons is binding upon those within the house, is binding upon the ministry, which is responsible to the House of Commons. It is not with respect to what lies outside of the House of Commons, but with respect to what takes place within the house, that the resolution has its force. The case of Stockdale vs. Hansard has no bearing on the question before us.
If my right hon. friend wanted constitutional authorities he would have been better advised to cite the case of Bradlaugh vs. Gosset, in which it was made perfectly clear that the courts could not control the Commons in the matter of their resolutions, and that the Commons could take action with respect to matters of concern to itself, which no court could interfere with. And that is what this House of Commons did when it passed the resolution of 1919. It was not trying to override the courts of the land or to circumscribe the royal prerogative by resolution. What the House of Commons was seeking to do was to restrict the powers of the ministry with respect to the advice to be given the sovereign in the exercise of the prerogative of conferring honours, and I say that in this regard the grounds which the Prime Minister has given in support of his position are untenable. At any rate, he should have waited until they were debated in the House of Commons before advancing them as a reason for the action which the government took.
What is the third reason he gives? He says:
I believe it is now generally realized that the resolution was invalid.
I take the opposite view. I think it is now recognized that the resolution was valid and that every hon. member had so believed for a period of ten or fifteen years. The governments of Sir Robert Borden, of the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen, and the late Liberal administration, and the last four parliaments as well, all believed that the resolution was valid.
The last ground is that Canadians have accepted honours from heads of foreign states which simply amounts to saying that two wrongs make a right. I agree that, if honours are not to be accepted by Canadians from the sovereign of our own country, certainly they should not be accepted from sovereigns of other countries. But the resolution of 1919 was not a controlling factor in that situation; it could not bind the ministry of the day with respect to foreign sovereigns and what they could do; the ministry had nothing to do with advising foreign sovereigns. To control a situation of the kind a statute would be necessary which would restrict the rights of Canadian subjects. But, in respect of advising our own sovereign, the ministry had full power and will continue to have it. In view of these considerations I say that the action of the Prime Minister was nothing short of an affront to the House of Commons; it was, to say the least, an act of discourtesy and I am not giving these words simply as my own. I have in my hand an editorial of the Winnipeg Tribune, which is a strong supporter of the administration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it expresses pretty well the view that the press of Canada generally have taken when it says, referring to the Prime Minister:
To say that he has affronted parliament is to state the fact mildly. He has treated it with disrespect.
But may I draw attention to one other fact, namely that His Excellency the Governor General had already summoned this House of Commons. The question I should like the Prime Minister to answer is this: After His Excellency the Governor General had summoned parliament to consider matters of concern to the country, and after members of parliament had been advised of that summons and were preparing to come to Ottawa, why was it necessary for my right hon. friend, in the interval between the time of issue of
52	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
this summons and the assembling of parliament, to take this step in defiance of the resolution of the House of Commons? There was, furthermore, the notice of a resolution of which the Prime Minister had knowledge, and which would come up for consideration immediately the house reassembled.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And which is not violated. Look at the resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not care whether it has been violated or has not; it relates to the subject of titles and thus brings up the whole question. The Prime Minister knows this. Another small technicality-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No technicality.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -in dealing with a large subject. I should like to know the reason the Prime Minister found it necessary to do that. In taking the step he did, he was as discourteous to the crown's representative in this country as he was to the House of Commons. When the crown's representative summoned the commons here to discuss public business, I think the commons had a right to expect that they would be free to discuss matters which they knew were coming up for immediate consideration, and to do so without their position being handicapped or circumscribed or altered in any way, as it certainly has been by the action of the Prime Minister.
Let me go one step further. The Prime Minister on the day of the opening of parliament, before making his motion that the speech from the throne should be considered on a certain day, introduced a bill relating to oaths of office. At that time I asked the Prime Minister what the purpose of that bill was.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, to explain it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Pardon?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was asked to explain.
Those are the words.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, the Prime Minister was asked to explain, and I continued to ask him whether the purpose of introducing that measure was not to assert the right of the Commons to deal with matters of concern to themselves before taking up matters of concern to the crown. He, as I recall, replied that I, having been prime minister, ought to know the purpose as well as he did, seeing that this had been a custom for fifty years. May I point this out to my right hon. friend: not only has it been a custom for the last fifty years; it has been a custom from the reign of Queen Elizabeth, for the Commons to

assert its right to take up matters of concern to its members before dealing with matters of concern to the crown.
What is of more intimate concern to the Commons than the question of the prerogative of the crown and how the royal prerogative is to be exercised? Seeing that the governor General had summoned parliament and that the Prime Minister himself knows the tradition of the House of Commons with respect to the assertion of its right to deal with its own matters before taking up questions of concern to the crown, why did my right hon. friend take the step he did at that time? There can be only one of two explanations. One is that he must have anticipated that, if he did not take some action at that time, as soon as parliament met, the resolution of the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) would come up, the whole question would be open for discussion, and that a course would be adopted similar to that which was proposed by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), namely, that a committee should be appointed to consider the matter and bring in a resolution and that the Prime Minister believed that, if any such committee were appointed, it would bring in a resolution praying His Majesty not to grant titles to Canadian subjects. If the Prime Minister knew or believed anything of that kind would occur, he was doubly wrong in taking the course he did, because he was going diametrically opposite to what in his heart of hearts he must have known was the feeling and wish of the House of Commons.
On the other hand, he may have feilt that if he could change the issue in some way, if he could bring it about that when the subject came up for discussion the position of the government would in consequence of their action be at stake, then, the question would be, not so much with respect to titles, as to whether or not hon. members opposite would retain their seats for the remainder of the present and possibly another session. In that way he may have thought the question of titles would be sidetracked and the real issue never faced. Here again if he entertained any such belief the Prime Minister was doubly wrong in the course he took. Those are two possible explanations; if there is any other, I hope the Prime Minister will give it to the House of Commons. The point that needs to be emphasized at the moment is that, in so far as the Prime Minister's action is concerned, we have to all intents and purposes been told that the question of the prerogative of the crown and the manner in which it is to be

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
exercised is of no concern to the House of Commons. That is one of the largest issues that can be raised. In taking the stand he did, he is entirely wrong. He has against him public opinion, as well, I believe, as hon. members of the house as a whole if they were free to express their own convictions.
I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion by making a reference-


Mr. GOTT:: Four hours.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says: "four hours".


Eccles James Gott: Four hours and twelve
minutes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I were to
attempt to catalogue the sins of omission and commission of this government, I should have to talk for forty hours. I believe it is important at this time, to place before the house some of the reasons why not only hon. members on this side, but the country generally feel that the present ministry have lost all authority to continue to govern in this dominion.
Mr. Speaker, I would have concluded at this point, but for the fact that, for reasons best known to himself, the Prime Minister thought well on the eve of the reassembling of parliament to deliver in the city of Toronto an address about as offensive in the tone of its utterance and the extent of its misrepresentation, as any public speech could possibly be. I do not intend to let that Toronto speech pass without making some reference to it, even if it takes another hour to do so.
Let me read a few extracts from what the Prime Minister said, and in this connection I should like hon. members to consider the body that he was addressing. It was the annual banquet of the Federation of Conservative Young Canada Clubs of Ontario. We have in the Prime Minister's utterances the example which the present Prime Minister of Canada is setting young Canada of the manner in which public issues in this country are to be discussed. This is the way in which politics are to be kept upon a high plane in our country, and the manner in which national righteousness is to be upheld in the dominion. Let me read the first paragraph of the report as it appears in the Ottawa Journal of January 22, from Toronto by direct wire by Canadian Press. These are the words of the Prime Minister:
"The Conservative policy since confederation had been to keep faith with the best traditions of the past and to build a better and more
united Canada to pass along to posterity." the Prime Minister said. "The Liberal policy had been to seize upon every opportunity of suspicion and unrest, to tear down and destroy."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I expected some hon. gentlemen to say "hear, hear"; it is what I would expect from some of them. It was not what I would expect from many, and it did not come from many, I ask hon. gentlemen to listen to this:
Those who profess the Conservative faith art responsible for this great dominion. In time oi suspicion, doubt and unrest it has been to this great party that the people have always turned.
" Those who profess the Conservative faith are responsible for this great dominion." I cannot imagine that a more ungenerous, a more unchivalrous and a more untrue statement could possibly be made by any public man in Canada than what is expressed in those words. I should like to know whether in the Conservative party has been included all those early pioneers who settled this country, first of all those from France who settled in Quebec, and later those who settled this old province of Ontario. I should like to know whether in the Conservative party of Canada has been included all those who pioneered in the great west and out on the Pacific slope. I should like to know whether in the Conservative party has been included all those who sought in one way and another to serve their country in these halls of parliament. If it has not been so, the statement of the Prime Minister is as untrue as it is unchivalrous and ungenerous. Yet these are the words which he addressed to the youth of the Conservative party; this is the example he set for them in discussing the public issues of the day. To-night I am not going even to attempt to refer to what has been done in this country by great men of both political parties, but I will say that, so far as the upbuilding of Canada is concerned, any man who is patriotic in the true sense of the word will be only too ready to share with men of all political parties the praise that is to be given to those who have taken part in this great work.
Now what is the next statement, Mr. Speaker? It has reference to preferences. Here is what the Prime Minister is reported to have said to the young men who are coming on:	"For thirty-five years the
country laboured to undo the wrong done by the Liberal party in regard to preferential tariffs and reciprocal trade within the empire," he declared, recalling Laurier's assertion in
51	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
London that " what we give we give you freely," and without hope of return. " In 1932 this situation was rectified, and preferential, reciprocal trading agreements with all parts of the empire were negotiated."
For thirty-five years, the Prime Minister said, this parliament laboured to undo the wrong done by the parliament of Canada in regard to preferential tariffs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not this parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To undo the wrong done by the Liberal party in regard to preferential tariffs. It was parliament that enacted the preference. In making this statement apparently the Prime Minister forgets that Sir Robert Borden, as leader of the Conservative party, held office in this country for many years and that Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, as leader of a Conservative administration, also held office in Canada for some considerable time. During all that period of time when the Conservatives were in power, the British preferences introduced by Sir Wilfrid Laurier remained on the statute books to all intents and purposes unchanged. Yet the Prime Minister tells these young men, who are to be trained in accuracy and truth in discussing public matters, that for thirty-five yeare the country has laboured to undo the wrong done by the Liberal party in regard to empire preferential tariffs.
What is the fact with regard to preferential tariffs? When Sir Wilfrid Laurier introduced the preferences he did so because he believed that by giving a preference to Great Britain he would encourage trade both ways across the Atlantic; that, by giving a preference in our markets to some British goods, a greater demand would be created in Britain for the products of our farms, fields, forests and mines, and that a larger amount of trade would pass between this country and the old land, also that consumers in Canada generally would benefit. What was the result? The Prime Minister tells us to-day that the way to find out whether or not a country is prosperous is to look at its balance of trade. What is the result when we look at the balance of trade over that period? Taking it from the time the British preference was introduced down to the time of the United Kingdom-Canada agreement, there was a favourable balance of trade so far as Canada was concerned every year. This is the wrong that the Prime Minister says the Conservative party of Canada has been trying to undo. In those thirty-four fiscal years, the total of Canada's favourable balance of trade with the United Kingdom amounted to $5,978,000,000.

That was the result of the British preference as introduced by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and this benefit to Canada's trade is the great wrong which the Conservative party has sought to undo by means of this United Kingdom-Canada agreement.
But that, Mr. Speaker, was not the only subject on which the right hon. gentleman touched. He had a word to say about the depression, and here I think he was running pretty true to form. His utterances reminded me, as I think perhaps I will be able to show him, of some of the things he said in the last campaign. What do you imagine the present Prime Minister said to these young men, Mr. Speaker, of the attitude of his political opponents towards the existing depression. Here are his words:
"And while those of Conservative faith have been working with high courage and unstinted effort to bring an even keel, what do we find' on the Liberal side," he asked. "We find unrest capitalized, suspicion capitalized, distrust sown, efforts everywhere to tear down the faith of the people by teaching strange doctrines and the worship of stranger gods. They have indulged in a campaign of reckless, harsh, unending criticism, fundamentally directed against our basic institutions and the foundations on which they are built."
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, of any government that has ever been given quite as free a hand in carrying out its policies as has the present administration. I do not believe there has been a leader of an opposition at any time in this parliament or any other parliament who has been more generous to his opponents than I have been in the matter of criticism in these trying times. If any complaint has been made against me by my own friends, it has been that I have not spent more time in condemning the government in all parts of the country. But I have recognized the difficulties with which they have had to contend, and I have felt that the country would feel it was reasonable to allow the ministry as free a hand as possible, though in this parliament I have not hesitated to say quite frankly what I thought when I believed their policies were doing more harm than good and when I felt they were exceeding all rights, even under the pretence of their doing so in order to meet an emergency. When the Prime Minister uses language like this, I am obliged to recall to him some of his own words, in order that the young men of the country may see it is the sort of thing he is accustomed to say. He said that the Liberal party had been seeking to capitalize unrest and suspicion, to sow distrust and to tear down the faith of our people. Listen to this, Mr. Speaker:

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Here is what the same gentleman said in an address to the electors of this country in the city of Winnipeg on the -occasion of his opening a great political campaign the result of which was to bring him into office. The right hon. gentleman accuses the Liberal party of seeking to tear down the faith of the people. Let me read some of his statements; first in reference to the government of the day:
This group of mercenaries holding office by sham and subterfuge, look upon them as treacherous to you, self-confessed, deserving of your passionate condemnation.
Then, speaking at Regina:
Now we have unemployment, people walking our streets, men and women hungry. We have all these things in this great rich country.
-Of course there is no effort in those expressions to capitalize unrest and sow dis-distrust! Then, listen to this:
They play with the lives of men and women. What for? Do they realize there are lives that they are playing with, food for wives and children, hunger. Nine years of wasted effort before the great betrayal. It did not take Judas that long.
No capitalizing of unrest in that; no seeking to raise suspicions; no sowing of the seeds of distrust; no effort to tear down the faith of the people in their institutions or their leaders in expressions like that-no.
Referring to myself, he said:
However blind he may be to your future and deaf to your present needs surely he cannot stop his ears with smug complacence and self-esteem, to the cry that carries across the nation, the cry of the destitute and hungry, the cry of mothers and fathers and little children who call to us as Christians and as Canadians to heal their pain.
No sowing of distrust or suspicion or capitalizing of unrest in these words. But by way of recognition of the moderate attitude which his political opponents have taken toward him and his administration, he tells the young Conservatives of this country that it is in language such -as this they are to learn to speak of their political opponents. I shall say no more upon that subject. I submit however, that something better than that might have found expression from the lips of one who has been holding and still holds the office of Prime Minister in Canada. Something better than that should have been forthcoming and was due the type of audience the Prime Minister was addressing.
The next subject to which the Prime Minister referred was that of the railways. For some reason or another he keeps reverting to the question of railways, always Striving to make it appear that the railway problem in Canada
to-day is due exclusively to the policies of the Liberal party, and that anything the Conservative party has done is in no way responsible for railway difficulties. In regard to the railways the Prime Minister said:
The Conservative policy has been constructive and it left a legacy of a united dominion with one transcontinental railway binding its scattered provinces together. The Liberal party left a legacy of two transcontinental railways in addition to the one already in existence, and impaired our financial resources for generations to come that two might exist in order to destroy all three.
Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? That is an exact quotation from a press report. The statement is that, first of all, the Liberal party constructed an additional two transcontinental roads, and did so why? They did it, the Prime Minister says, so that the two might exist in order to destroy all three! To continue the right hon. gentleman's remarks:
To-day we have $1,000,000,000 of indirect debt to bear witness to their shortsightedness, costing us $1,500,000 a week in interest charges alone.
Legacy of debt, perpetual deficits and duplication of railway facilities left by the Liberals when they stepped down from power.
No doubt the railways to which my right hon. friend referred were the National Transcontinental and Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk system which has been taken into the present Canadian National Railway system, the Intercolonial and the Canadian Pacific Railway. May I remind the right hon. gentleman to begin with, that the Intercolonial and the Grand Trunk railway were constructed before the Canadian Pacific railway had been thought of. The Prim-e Minister knows that the construction of the National Transcontinental and Grand Trunk Pacific was the subject of discussion, the main issue in fact, in two- general elections. One party alone did not have to do with that matter. The Canadian people as a whole approved of the construction of that railway. As my hon. friends well know, they approved of it in two general elections.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nonsense.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I remind the hon. members who have interrupted that when they criticize the Liberal party for having constructed the transcontinental road, which is now government owned, they must remember that the leader of the Conservative party took issue with the Liberal government when it proposed to have part of the transcontinental system-the Grand Trunk Pacific- controlled by a private corporation, and took
56	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
the position that the entire transcontinental road ought to be government owned. On May 26, 1904, Sir Robert Borden, leader of the Conservative party, moved a resolution which, while differing from the proposal of the Laurier government, was equally a proposal for a second transcontinental railway. Let me read Sir Robert Borden's motion as it appears in Hansard of May 26, 1904:
The house is of opinion that _ instead of ratifying the proposed agreements it would be more in the public interest that the dominion should assume the whole obligation necessary for extending across the continent the. present government system of railways thereby completing a transcontinental railway from the Atlantic to the Pacific entirely owned by and under the control of the people of Canada.
I wonder how it is that the Conservative party is to share no responsibility for the construction of a second transcontinental railway when that is the policy enunciated in this house and upon which it based its claim to power in a general election.
Then, what about the Canadian Northern Railway? That railway was begun as a local underbaking in the province of Manitoba, and extended over the prairies. The Canadian Northern management came to the Liberal administration and asked for a guarantee of a loan of $35,000,000 to enable them to connect their western lines with the centres in the east. That guarantee was given by the Liberal administration very largely in order to help the farmers of western Canada. The Liberal administration was also asked for a guarantee of a loan to make possible the extension of the road to the Pacific ocean. That request, however, the Liberal government refused; but the application was granted later by a Conservative government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By a provincial government.


Mr. DUFF:: What about the $75,000,000?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What are the facts in connection with the actual construction of the mileage of the Canadian Northern? The annual report of the Department of Railways and Canals shows that up to the year 1911 there were 4,840 miles of operated line. In 1914 there were 6,542 miles and in 1920 there were 9,742. In other words, the largest part of the Canadian Northern system was built during the term of office of the Conservative administration, yet the Prime Minister states we have to thank the Liberal party for all the roads in existence save the Canadian Pacific. May I go a step further and remind my hon. friend about some of his own statements. He himself spoke, I do not know

whether it was for four hours, but I think it was about that length of time, on this very matter, vehemently condemning his own party, the Conservative party, not the Liberal party, when in 1914 it guaranteed a $45,000,000 loan for the completion of the Canadian Northern as a third transcontinental. Though my hon. friend says, "hear, hear'' to my remarks, he told the Young Conservatives of Toronto that it was the Liberals they had ito thank for these railways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I come to another phase? My hon. friend speaks of deficits and the like. What did he himself say in this very parliament in claiming credit for the Canadian National once it had got into good running order under years of Liberal administration? Both he and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) tried to claim for the Conservative party the paternity of this second transcontinental road. Let me read the Prime Minister's own words spoken in this house on June 8, 1928:
The consolidation of these roads took place first under the Union government and later under the Conservative administration. The consolidation could not be carried into effect until the judgment of the privy council was delivered, and that judgment was not delivered until after the Conservative administration had been defeated. But the consolidation as such, the framework, the skeleton and the statutes were prepared before the present government took office.	.
That was when the Liberal party were making a success of the Canadian National and the present Prime Minister was seeking to claim the credit for it. What did the Minister of Justice say about the national railway? He did not give credit to his present deskmate, the Prime Minister, but he did give credit to another leader of the Conservative party, and in very emphatic terms. Speaking in this house on March 7, 1929, he said:
The National Railway system in this country constitutes a lasting monument-
Not to the Liberal party, but a lasting monument:
-to the ability and statesmanship and determination of a single man-
Not the present Prime Minister:

a member of a former Conservative government, and subsequently Prime Minister of that government. It is to his ability and foresight, to his statesmanship and determination that the people of Canada are indebted for this wonderful system of National railways.
I might quote at some length to show how the deficits on these roads have mounted up

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
to what they are. I wonder if the Prime Minister has forgotten what was done by a Conservative administration with respect to the stock of the Canadian Northern, how, notwithstanding the report of the Drayton-Acworth commission that the stock of the Canadian Northern was of no value, or in the actual words of the report:
The shareholders of the company have no equity either on the ground of cash put in, or on the ground of physical reproduction cost, or on the ground of the saleable value of their property as a going concern.
-how, notwithstanding that that report was before them, a Conservative government gave a value of $10,000,000 to that valueless stock, thereby adding that much to the debt of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a government but a
commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was a Conservative government that agreed to pay the money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was an arbitration by
a commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I could mention other matters which perhaps the Prime Minister has forgotten. It was the government of 1917, not a Liberal government, that brought down the Canadian Northern railway acquisition bill. When these roads and the Grand Trunk were in a state of bankruptcy it was a Conservative government which, instead of permitting them to go into the hands of a receiver, took over the whole obligations, paid out money and incurred fresh liabilities in taking over these roads and their debts, and making them part of the debt of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I opposed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister says he opposed it, and yet he tells the Young Conservatives in Toronto that the Liberal party was responsible for all these obligations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall not at
the moment take up the time of the house by recalling what was given to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in land grants and in money, exemptions from taxation, and the rest of it. If I wanted to, I think I could show how a very considerable part of our debt has been due to what was given by the Conservative government to the Canadian Pacific Railway.
But there is one order in council to which I wish to refer before I conclude, and that
is a new railway guarantee given by the present government since this house prorogued last session. I have in my hand a copy of an order in council giving a guarantee to the banks of their loan of $60,000,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The loan was made by the banks I believe in midsummer, or an undertaking was given I understand at that time that the loan would be made. On November 29 the government formally by order in council guaranteed the banks to the extent of $60,000,000 in this matter, and Mr. Speaker, this was done under the Unemployment Relief Act. Again this is for the relief of the unemployed. This is the kind of thing that I have been taking exception to all afternoon, the guaranteeing and expending of public moneys for the purpose of assisting corporations, and then allowing it to be understood by the public that these millions upon millions are being spent in order to help unemployed workers in different parts of the country.
I should like to know why the Prime Minister kept this order secret for so long a time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not. It was issued on November 29 when it was passed, and a copy of it was sent to the right hon. gentleman by myself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the early
part of the summer word was current all over the country that the government was going to support the banks in their loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The order in council itself sets out the reasons for it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have the order in council, and as my hon. friend says, and as I expected he would say, he sent me a copy. It is the only copy of an order in council he has sent to me during the time I have been leader of the opposition. The order in council was passed on November 29, and a copy of it was sent to me a few days afterwards, probably because my hon. friend had seen that a month or so before, when it was current rumour that the order had been passed, I had stated that I did not know whether the order in council had been passed or not, but that if it had been passed I thought parliament should at least have been consulted before any guarantee of such an amount should be given to any corporation. The Prime Minister was evidently anxious that I should see that the order in council had not been passed at the time I had been speaking. But the significant thing is that
5S	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
the banks had got their undertaking months before. Why was the credit of this country promised to the banks? They had made their loans under the guarantee of the government, and on the understanding that the government was going to support them, and I cannot understand why the passing of this order in council should have been delayed until November 29. The country's credit had evidently been pledged on the word of the Prime Minister, and without any order in council. Before the session is over we shall doubtless find out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The order in council shows the reason why.
Mr. MACKENZIE KIN'G: The reasons as I have read them are not very conclusive. It was clear at the time they sought it, that the railways knew where the money was coming from and that the government was going to be back of the loans made by the banks. What I do take exception to is that, in these matters which involve an increase in what the Prime Minister has described as a colossal public debt already arising from the railways, we in this House of Commons should be made responsible for another guarantee of $60,000,000 to a railway, and not have an opportunity of even having our voices heard. That is the ground upon which I take exception. This is only one of a large number of orders in council of a similar kind relating to the guaranteeing of millions of dollars of the country's money, millions to guarantee the banks on account of wheat, millions to support railway corporations and assist other corporations, and yet in all of these things the House of Commons, which is responsible to the people for the expenditure of public money and is supposed to exercise some control over it has not had any voice at all and knew very little and in some instances nothing at all about the transactions themselves. The Prime Minister will probably say that the house was not in session when it was necessary to issue the orders. May I say to the Prime Minister that he is able to anticipate most needs before parliament prorogues and that he is always at liberty to call the house into session. If there is a necessity to make a guarantee of $60,000,000 to a railway corporation or to banks that have loaned that amount, that is ground in itself sufficient for bringing the House of Commons together to discuss the matter. We have had special sessions and there is no reason why the government should not in this matter as in many others have consulted the House of Commons.
This enables me to stress the point I sought to bring out with emphasis this afternoon, namely, that in all its major acts this

government has for the most part ignored the House of Commons. We are treated as though we were here simply for the purpose of registering the will of the government, and, as the Prime Minister himself has said, being a sort of rubber stamp.
Mr, BENNETT: What do you mean by that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not only has the House of Commons grounds for having lost confidence in the government, but the government no longer enjoys the confidence of the people. As I said at the beginning of my remarks this afternoon, this lack of confidence of the people in this government has been made abundantly clear by the way in which the people have spoken at every opportunity they have had in by-elections during the last couple of years whether the election has been held in the maritime provinces, in Quebec, in Ontario or in the west. The government's policies have not brought about the improvement in conditions which the government said would come under them. Conditions have become worse instead of better. The government has failed to bring forth any real policy on agriculture * it has failed to bring forth any real policy on finance and monetary matters; it has failed to bring forth any policy on labour matters. It has had no policy except one of restriction in matters of trade. In all these things and in many others, it has been deplorably deficient.
With respect to matters in which this House of Commons is vitally interested in preserving its own rights and privileges, andi thereby protecting the people in their rights, the government has been more than indifferent. It has forfeited every right to continue longer in office. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move an amendment to the address which I believe to be demanded by the people in consequence of the hopeless way in which the government has carried on the administration of the country's affairs during the last three and a half years. It affords the only means of giving expression to their views, the only means whereby the country can expect the change of policies needed in order to get Canada out of this prolonged depression and again on the path to prosperity. The amendment is seconded by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), and is as follows:
That the following be added' to the motion: "We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's present advisers do not possess the confidence of the country."

The Address-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, after listening to
something over four hours of effort on the part of the right hon. leader of the opposition * (Mr. Mackenzie King) one would conclude that we are living in the days of abounding prosperity and that this was a debating society met together for the purpose of having a little friendly discussion. There has been nothing to indicate that the country has been in the throes of the greatest depression of history; nothing to indicate by any stretch of the imagination that we have been passing through the greatest Catastrophe of history. Comparisons have been .instituted of the trade of 1927, 1928 and 1929 with the trade of the most depressing years of which the world has had a record. Incomparable things have been compared, and it has been sought to have the house believe that the conclusion to be drawn from these comparisons constitute good reasons why this government should lose the confidence of the house.
May I direct attention to the fact that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald at the opening of the world economic conference pointed out that during the period of depression the world's trade had decreased to one-third of what it was before the depression began. Was there anything this afternoon that would indicate there had been a world depression in trade? Was there anything from which one could conclude there was anything other than a passing wave of depression in some remote parts of the world with which Canada had no connection? The other day we had the authority for the statement that the world's trade had fallen to $25,000,000,000, although somewhat improved over what it was a few years ago, while previously it had been $69,000,000,000; therefore the fall has been from $69,000,000,000 to $25,000,000,000. The total of the world's commerce for the last twelve months, reckoned from November, was thirty-six per cent of what it was before the depression began. When I say to my fellow Canadians that their country has done just as well as if not a little better than the average in that our trade has remained at least thirty-six per cent of what it was before the depression, I speak but the simple truth. Yet during all of this afternoon there was not a single indication that the Dominion of Canada had been affected by the world depression. Is that fair, especially in view of the declaration of fairness and righteousness to which we have just listened? Is it exactly what we would expect from such a professor of righteousness? We would hardly expect the author of a new prayer to do a thing such as
that. It is a little difficult to think that one who had played with the most solemn things of life by creating a new prayer, especially a member of the House of Commons, would be for one moment guilty of discussing the world's condition without reference to the fact that Canada also had been affected. It is an amazing story. I desire the House of Commons to know that we have passed through a depression and that this story of Canadian trade to which we have listened to-day is the story of all countries of the world, only that our country has been a little better off than most of them.
This afternoon and this evening I was reminded of those speeches to which we used to listen when hon. gentlemen opposite sat upon this side of the Speaker and references to the condition of the country were made by the opposition. We were told that this was the blue ruin tale of Tories. Do you recall them? Do you recall the wailing of Jeremiah which was passed on to the people of this country?


William Duff: The whisper of death.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman should know of the whisper of death. Attacks have been made upon the accuracy of statistics which have been prepared without reference to governments by those who at Geneva and in meetings of the League of Nations have been referred to as the foremost in the science of statistics. Mr. Coats did not consult any member of the government in the preparation of his statistics. The figures of unemployment which were given and to which I shall refer to-morrow were arrived at from returns made by companies and organizations which reported to the government just as they reported in the days when the right hon. gentleman sat to the right of the Speaker. Do you think that by such references as these you improve conditions in Canada? Do you think you do not bring upon yourself condemnation? Do you think men will not say that your one stock in trade is an endeavour to tear down? Do you think it is not an appeal to prejudice and passion? Apart from creating a new prayer, apart from the attacks which have been made upon responsible officials, overlooking the fact that the country has passed through the direst years of which we have any record; apart from all this, tell me what purpose is served by endeavouring to paint, in blacker hues than they appear, the conditions of your native country? What purpose is there in endeavouring to make it appear that things are darker than they actually are? Why endeavour to discourage the hope and confidence of the
The Address-Mr. Bennett

people? Why endeavour to tell a story which is blacker than the real conditions that prevail in the country?
Although in doing so I shall depart from my usual custom, I will take some little time to deal with every point that has been raised to-day, and I will defy the right hon. gentleman, or anyone else who may follow after him, to contend, in the light of the real facts in this country, as recorded by historians and statisticians not only in Canada but elsewhere, that this dominion has not made progress towards prosperity and a return to better days, greater than has been made in most other countries in the world. When I hear held up to high praise, the attitude taken by the president of the great republic to the south of us, whom I see exercising almost autocratic powers under authority from congress, I realize the puny powers which we possess under the Relief Act. I find that on one hand approval is given when someone else exercises authority, while on the other hand there is denunciation when we endeavour to exercise similar authority. If the exercise of executive authority under powers conferred by act of congress is a salutary and good thing for the nation in which such authority is exercised, why does it, when it is north of the forty-ninth parallel, cease to be good when similar actions have been taken by the executive in this country, with results that are comparable in every respect?
To those in this house who entertain other views I commend the reading of an article that appeared recently in the Saturday Evening Post, "North of the N.R.A.", written by Mr. Marcosson, whom I did not see and who did not consult me in any way with respect to it. There hon. gentlemen will find his record, after investigation, of the way in which this dominion, with ten and a half millions and with limited financial resources, cribbed, cabinned and confined financially, has been able to meet the storm of the depression as compared with a nation of one hundred and twenty-five millions south of the forty-ninth parallel, with the Nit.A. In order that ample opportunity may be afforded hon. gentlemen to study that record, I now move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Tuesday, January 30, 1934