Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that His Excellency the Governor General has approved of the appointment of Major Milton Fowler Gregg, V.C., M.C., and Bar, as Sergeant at Arms of this house.



PRICE SPREADS AND MASS BUYING

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That the Hon. H. H. Stevens and Messrs. Banbeau, Bell (St. John-Albert), Boulanger, Edwards, Factor, Usley, Kennedy (Peace River), Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre), Senn and Young, form the committee appointed on Friday, the 2nd of February, 1934, to inquire into the causes of spread in prices of commodities, the system of distribution of farm, natural and manufactured products, etc.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 13, respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company.-Mr. Stinson.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Camrose):: I rise to a question of privilege. Yesterday, on the orders of the day, I quoted from a Canadian Press dispatch to the effect that several conferences had been held between the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), on the one hand, and sundry officials connected with the Canadian Bankers' Association on the other. The dispatch also further implied that as a result of the said conferences the proposed banking legislation had been redrafted several times. On the basis of this dispatch I then asked what I considered to be a perfectly proper question, and one which was intended to be neither humorous nor offensive. I inquired whether interests other than those connected with banking institutions were being consulted on this important ques-

Privilege-Mr. Lucas
tion. I was unable at the time to hear the Prime Minister's reply, but later on reading Hansard and also the press, I discovered that that reply made an unfavourable reference to my conduct in this house. The Prime Minister's remarks will be found on page 460 of Hansard as follows:
If the hon. gentleman was as assiduous in the discharge of his duties as in endeavouring to make unnecessary trouble it would be really better for this country.
I might pass over the suggestion about my being a trouble maker, but the implied statement by the Prime Minister that the member for Camrose is negligent in the discharge of his duties is one which I am not prepared to accept, even from the right hon. gentleman, and I demand that these remarks be withdrawn.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that
the statement which the hon. gentleman has made is a correct statement of what transpired; the question that he asked was somewhat different from what he has just stated. He read an extract from a newspaper-which is against the rules of the house-and made this observation:
That is all I wish to quote. I want to ask the Prime Minister, because I do not want to give a wrong interpretation to the article, is this Bank Act being revised and the legislation for a central bank being drafted to suit the bankers only or are other interests being considered ?
Obviously that question did not require any serious answer, and the answer was:
If the hon. gentleman was as assiduous in the discharge of his duties as in endeavouring to make unnecessary trouble it would be really better for this country.
That is a fair statement, and it represents no aspersion on the hon. gentleman; because, to suggest that the government was legislating for the bankers only and not for the people, is something which no government would have the right to treat as a serious question, based on a newspaper article which itself should not have been read.


William Thomas Lucas: I am not prepared to accept
that explanation. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to standing order 41, paragraph 297. The Prime Minister distinctly implied that I was not assiduous in my duties in this house-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a bit.


William Thomas Lucas: Yesterday, on the orders of
the day, Mr. Speaker, one of the members supporting the government appealed for your decision against the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir), in relation to a similar
occurrence, and that hon. gentleman was asked by Your Honour to withdraw.
Mr. BENNETT The two things are not the same at all.


William Thomas Lucas: Mr. Speaker, I ask for your
ruling.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: What is the point of
order raised by the hon. member?


William Thomas Lucas: On a perfectly proper question which I asked in the house yesterday and which called for a civil reply, the Prime Minister stated as reported on page 460 of Hansard:
If the hon. gentleman was as assiduous in the discharge of his duties as in endeavouring to make unnecessary trouble it would be really better for this country.
He has distinctly implied something against my conduct as a member and which is contrary to the rules of the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question as asked was undoubtedly out of order and the fact that the Prime Minister chose to make the reply that he did to the hon. member asking the question is a matter for the right hon. gentleman; if he is of opinion that another hon. member is making unnecessary trouble, it is not out of order to say so.


William Thomas Lucas: I insist that the Prime
Minister was imputing improper motives to myself as a member of this house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member may
not agree with the statement of the Prime Minister, but there was nothing out of order in it nor any point of order under the rules of the house. The question undoubtedly was out of order and would have been so ruled by the chair had not an answer such as that quoted been given.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: I
rise to a question of privilege in regard to this matter. You, sir, stated just now that the question which the hon. member for Cam-rose (Mr. Lucas) asked of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) yesterday was out of order and that because it was out of order, I take it from your statement, the Prime Minister could make any answer he saw fit. It would appear to me that if the question was out of order, it was your duty so to state at the time without permitting the Prime Minister to reply, but in his reply, if anyone reads the statement, he would lead the public to believe the hon. member for Camrose is not assiduous in the discharge of his duties in this house. I protest against that attitude, because I know my hon. friend discharges his parliamentary duties just as
Privilege-Mr. Lucas

well as does any other hon. member and there should be no reflection made in that regard. I protest against your ruling.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understood the Prime
Minister this afternoon to say that there was no intention on his part of implying impropriety on the part of the hon. member who asked the question.
Mr. BElNNETT: Except in asking a question which in itself imputed wrong motives to a government-that was what I tried to say. It was a question which as it read imputed wrong motives to the government and it was out of order.


William Thomas Lucas: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member must
not continue this discussion. The question was asked and answered. As I said a few moments ago, the question in the first place was not in order and nothing in the Prime Minister's statement of yesterday was out of order.


William Thomas Lucas: I must appeal against your
ruling.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There must be no more discussion; that is my ruling.


Mr LUCAS:: Might I ask just what your ruling is on this question?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My ruling is that the hon. member is out of order.


William Thomas Lucas: I am sorry, but I must appeal against your decision, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Camrose has appealed against your ruling. Will you please put the question?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would ask the hon. member for Camrose to put the statement of his appeal in writing so that I may know what it is.
On February 12, on the orders of the day being called, the hon. member for Camrose quoted from a Canadian Press dispatch in that morning's paper, as follows:
Mr. W. 1. Lucas (Camrose) : A Canadian l ress dispatch in this morning's paper states: hanking legislation occupies the Dominion government almost exclusively at a three hour session of cabinet council Saturday, and it is anticipated the bills to authorize establishment of a. central bank, and to revise the Bank Act will be brought into the House of Commons this week.
Several conferences between Prime Minister R- B. Bennett and Hon. E. N. Rhodes, Minister of Finance, and officials of the Canadian Bankers' Association have taken place in the past fortnight and the draft bill has been revised several times since it was printed.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member proceed to ask his question?
Mr. Lucas:	That is all I wish to quote. I
want to ask the Prime Minister, because I do not want to give a wrong interpretation to the article, is this Bank Act being revised and the leg^Iation for a central bank being di afted to suit the bankers only or are other interests being considered?
Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Prime Minister): It the hon. gentleman was as assiduous in the discharge of his duties as in endeavouring to make unnecessary trouble it would be really better for this country.
To-day the hon. member for Camrose complains of this statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister explained that he had not intended to cast any reflection on the hon. member for Camrose, and the hon. member for Camrose continuing to discuss the matter, he was ruled out of order 'by the Speaker, on which ruling the hon. member appeals against the Speaker's ruling that he was out of order.


Mr. MURPHY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr.   BOAVEN@: I was paired with the hon.
member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.



BRITISH COLUMBIA COAL IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni
(Mr. Neill) made an inquiry the other day, and I promised I would reply yesterday. By an oversight the matter was not then dealt with. I find on investigation that the rule has been that when questions are asked the
answer to which would disclose the business of an importer, such answer has not been given. That has been the rule. I see no reason why it should be departed from. I am not expressing any opinion with respect to this particular case, but I promised I would indicate to the house what the rule has been so far as I can ascertain.



WHEAT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: I would
like to address a question to the Prime Minister. On Friday last Mr. Sanford Evans made a speech in the Manitoba legislature in which he dealt with the wheat agreement, and stated that besides the main contract a supplementary agreement existed but it had never been made public. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if there is any other agreement in existence except the one we have in our possession.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for AVeybum (Mr. Young) probably knows that the Prime Minister of Manitoba sent a telegram, to which an answer was sent. I have not the telegram before me, but the sense of it is this, that there is no agreement entered into that has anything to do with the question of production. It was agreed that 560,000,000 bushels would be required to meet the demands of the importing countries, and of that quantity 200,000,000 bushels were allocated to the Dominion of Canada. But although Russia signed the agreement it was not determined what the quota of Russia should be. That was to be settled by the importing countries. That was the only point left unsettled, and at the meeting of the advisory committee in London a few days ago the matter was still under consideration, and has not yet been finally settled as far as I am aware. Russia claims that their available quantity of exportable wheat amounts to more than in the opinion of the representatives of the other exporting countries was available. The result is that no final arrangement has been arrived at. There is no agreement that in any sense affects the production of wheat, supplementary or otherwise. The only question was, and I suppose that is what Mr. Evans had in mind, what the allocation should be with respect to the 560,000,000 bushels that were agreed upon as being the requirements of the importing countries. The 200.000,000 bushel allocation to the Dominion of Canada was not in any sense called in question nor is it callable in question.
The Address-Mr. Lapointe



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gobeil for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: (Quebec East): Mr. Speaker, I find it a little difficult to speak immediately after this family quarrel we have just witnessed, but you may be sure that we who have voted for the general rule that the rules of this house should apply to all in an equal manner, had no intention of taking away the support of the almost consistent supporter of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett).


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any rule, Mr. Speaker, that permits the hon. gentleman himself to violate a rule by making the statement he has just made? He voted against a ruling of the chair-mark you, a matter that is ended-and with his large experience he has now said that he did so in order that the chair might give equality to all. That is an insult to the chair and a direct reflection upon the rule of this house which was just adopted by a majority of G6. As a matter of order, if the hon. gentleman is going to be tenacious about questions of order, let him observe the rules and discharge those amenities in the house that a majority of 66 have said should be discharged.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has developed the habit of considering as an insult every opinion we have held which differed from his own. I have differed with the ruling of Your Honour, but certainly my vote cannot be considered at all as a reflection, an insult or anything of the kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Good.


Ernest Lapointe: I see the clouds are already disappearing, and I hope my right hon. friend will soon resume his usual good humour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That cheap talk does not go far, you know.


Ernest Lapointe: That would follow the four hour talk of my right hon. friend. I am always pleased to follow the remarks of the right hon. gentleman in complete silence and even with admiration, though with disapproval most of the time. I only ask him to reciprocate, and if he cannot approve of what I say at least he might remain silent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As long as the rules of the house are not disobeyed.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course my right hon friend always upholds the rules of the house.
I have seconded this amendment, Mr Speaker, and that is my justification for taking part in this debate before the motion comes to a vote. As a general principle I believe everyone will agree that confidence is the bond which must exist between governments and those they rule. Confidence is what gives strength and success to their undertakings; confidence is the mainspring, the breath of life of governments, and without it no legislative, administrative or executive act of a government can carry any weight.
Especially is this so at a time of trouble and unparalleled difficulty. To-day many nations are fighting depression and ruin. Peoples with their backs to the wall have been attempting new and startling experiments. In his address the right hon. gentleman referred to President Roosevelt of the United States having been given dictatorial powers much greater than those which the House of Commons has conferred upon the Prime Minister. He forgets, however, this vital and fundamental difference between the two cases. Have you noticed, Mr. Speaker, that in every country where unprecedented powers have been granted leaders, whether it be in Italy, in Germany or in the United States, those leaders have behind them the solid support of the country. Do you believe that President Roosevelt would have been able to enlist what appears to be the unanimous support of the United States in the great initiatives he has taken in order to fight the depression in the United States if he had not had behind him the support of that nation? Opinions may differ as to whether he will succeed, but everyone agrees that he is fighting courageously and that he has the confidence of the masses in the policies he is trying to carry out, because he has proved himself independent of all controlling interests whether social or financial and because he is fighting the battle of the people. He has created a spirit, a state of mind and a national will in his country to try to come out of the abyss. He acts; he has done something, and even that is better than paralyzing inactivity.
In Ottawa, unfortunately, confidence is lacking, and without it nothing efficient can be done. The ship of state does not move.


Mr. COTNAM:: Nonsense!


Ernest Lapointe: Who said that? It must have been an intelligent man who spoke just

The Address-Mr. Lapointe
now. I repeat that the ship of state does not move. At times the engine makes considerable noise, sometimes agreeable and sometimes less pleasant, but somehow it does not seem able to gather headway. The government does not possess the confidence of the people. My bon. friend says nonsense; his electors will show that there is some common sense in what I say.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: My electors will show you, all right.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: I am rather pleased to have apparently injected some life into the corpse. The government is the object of a deep and reasoned distrust, and a little later I will try to explain one or two of the reasons for that distrust. The plain truth, however, is that the government do not possess the confidence of the country, and they know it.


Mr. MALONEY:: How did you find out?


Ernest Lapointe: There are unmistakable
signs of that distress. Find out?-Well, we have had by-elections quite recently, and the verdicts have been both unequivocal and definite.


Martin James Maloney: How about Three Rivers?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, that was in 1931,- three years ago.


Martin James Maloney: And Athabaska?


Ernest Lapointe: Well, what about 1930;
there was no doubt about that. But the verdicts have been most definite and unequivocal. The voice of the people cannot be denied in that regard. Not only in the by-elections have they spoken, but even in the provincial elections where governments have been led by friends of the right hon. gentleman opposite, they have been doomed. The results in Nova Scotia and British Columbia are both unequivocal and definite.


Mr. ERNST:: They are sorry already in
Nova Scotia.


Ernest Lapointe: Federal issues have been discussed generally in all those elections. Even the government of the hon. member from Ontario who has just spoken is shivering on the brink.


Mr. GOTT:: The Liberals will not elect
twelve members in Ontario; they have no leader, or followers.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must ask hon. members not to interrupt.


Ernest Lapointe: I like it, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I know the hon. member addressing the house is quite able to take care of himself, but he should not be interrupted.


Ernest Lapointe: The government in Ontario exists only because it has extended its life for a number of years longer than the electors had in mind when electing it to power. The result in one by-election, namely that in East Kent, shows the trend of public opinion in the province of Ontario.
In his address the right hon. gentleman opposite suggested that defeat is the fate of all governments in times of depression. Well, it is not the fate of the government in the province of Quebec. In that province quite recently there have been three by-elections. One was contested and the Liberal candidate was elected by an increased majority. The two others were unopposed. One vacancy was in the constituency of Jacques Cartier, a constituency which in this house is represented by the general organizer of the Tory party in the province of Quebec. He allowed a man who at the last general election was his opponent to go unopposed to the provincial legislature.


An hon. MEMBER:: Wait and see.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, wait and see. That is the great cry for victory in every battle. Hon. gentlemen coming from my province know that in every instance federal issues were discussed. Their friends bitterly resented those discussions in the by-elections.
The Prime Minister and his government have been on trial everywhere, in every part of the country, in every agricultural, industrial and mining constituency throughout Canada. East and west, north and south there has been a united verdict. I have too great personal admiration for the right hon. gentleman leading the government-and he knows it-to believe for one moment that he will force himself upon an unwilling country, despite the advice he receives from those around and behind him. Let him not be deceived 'by the cheers with which he is acclaimed and by the interruptions with which I am received when speaking. The most powerful force in the consolidation and support behind my right hon. friend opposite in this House of Commons is the terror of a dissolution. Their cheers, and my right hon. friend knows it, have the same value as the musical expressions of those timorous people who sing when they pass a cemetery.
I have this further to say: Some people appear to be under a delusion that when a

The Address-Mr. Lapointe

government is elected for five years it must go to the limit of its term. The other day the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) stated that his reason for opposing the amendment is that this house was elected for a term of five years, and that it must go to the limit of its term of office. Last week one of the newspapers of my own city in a well written editorial took the same stand, and said that the Prime Minister must not mind the demands for a dissolution, that he had been elected for five years and that he should stay for that length of time. This is a mistake. The American constitution provides for the election of a president for a fixed number of years. The British or Canadian cabinet has no such term of office. Its life depends on the confidence of the people and the country. It is in direct violation of the principles of our constitution that a parliament should continue its existence when it no longer commands the support or enjoys the confidence of the majority of the people. This government to-day is in as humiliating a position as was the Conservative government, or whatever its name was, in 1921. At that time all the by-elections had gone against the government when my right hon. leader moved an amendment to the address similar to the one we are now discussing. On that occasion I quoted statements of British statesmen and British constitutional authorities in support of the views I have just expressed. Time does not permit me to quote all of them in this debate, so I shall refer to only one or two. When Mr. Gladstone had dissolved parliament before the expiration of his term of office because of the fact that by-elections had gone against him, and when he had been reproached in the British House of Commons for having taken such action he said:
I think he-[DOT]
Meaning the gentleman who had spoken.

fundamentally misunderstands the constitution of this country if he supposes that the actual majority that a government may possess in an existing House of Commons is sufficient to give it more moral and political strength for the discharge of its arduous duties, after it has become apparent or when it is becoming clear that the possession of that majority is not agreeable to the sense and the convictions of the country.
And he added:
. . . and the mere possession of a parliamentary majority, satisfactory as it is when it is a true indication of the actual current of feeling and opinion of the country, is no adequate support and no adequate warrant for the continuance of a government in office if it has become clear, or when there is reasonable
[Mr- Lapointe.]
ground for supposing that the desires of the country are in an opposite direction.
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1905 took the same stand. At that time his remarks were:
The moment the House of Commons gets out of touch and harmony with the country, then that plea for retaining office dissolves; and the right hon. gentleman has no right to entrench himself behind the confidence and support of his friends here after it is known to all mankind anid to himself, as well as to any of them, that he has lost the confidence of the country.
I should like to quote Professor Dicey in his Law of the Constitution and what Sir William Anson says in his Law and Custom of the Constitution, but if any hon. gentlemen would like to see those quotations I would refer them to the Hansard of 1921, page 464 and following pages.
We are moving this amendment because it is the right and the duty of the opposition to protect as far as it can the constitutional doctrine of the responsibility of parliament to public opinion. The Prime Minister has lost the confidence of the country largely because of his unredeemed pledges, his broken promises, and the facility with which those promises were repudiated by one who had represented himself in 1930 as having found the key to an earthly paradise. I shall not refer to those promises as they have been quoted quite frequently in this house, but one cannot help remarking the singular similarity between the way the right hon. gentleman emphasized those pledges and the way Herr Hitler in Germany speaks to his people. The Prime Minister used to finish his sentences by saying, "or I will perish in the attempt." Hitler, in his momentous address to the German people on the eve of the so-called elections a few months ago used the following language, "If I fail, hang me to the gallows." Mr. Speaker, we are not cruel on this side of the house and the only thing we want to hang my right hon. friend with is the ballot boxes of the electors of Canada.
The public distrust which is shown everywhere in the country is largely" due to the failure of all the policies which have been initiated by this government, and which have almost ruined our trade and made our agriculture destitute. At every meeting where it was my privilege to speak, either at by-elections or elsewhere, I have asked the friends of this government to name a single one of its policies which has been successful. At last one of the ministers seemed to take up the cudgels and discussed at length the reduction of the expenditure of the Canadian National Railway. What a tremendous achievement!

The Address-Mr. Lapointe
The trade policies of hon. gentlemen opposite have inflicted a death blow to our national railways. Our railways do not carry any more freight; some stations are closed; shops are inactive; men are dismissed or suspended, and others have had their wages cut; and then the government is proud of that record of having reduced the expenditure on the Canadian National Railway. The government deserves as much credit for that reduction of expenditure as an inefficient and unsuccessful merchant deserves who, when he is on the verge of bankruptcy, dismisses his employees, closes some of his stores and buys no more goods. He also reduces his expenditures.
We have been told every session to wait. At the first session we were told to wait until the imperial conference took place in 1930. In the following session we were told to wait until the Ottawa conference took place. Then afterwards we were told to wait until the world economic conference took place. Well, it has taken place, and the best that can be said about this lasrt conference is that its failure did not cause the tremendous consequences which had been predicted that lack of success would hring about. Every statesman, everyone who had anything to do with that conference from the illustrious personality who opened it down to the humblest delegate, all stated that the strongest reason for the success of the conference was that the peoples of the world could not face the result of failure. But fortunately the breaking down of that conference does not seem to have been followed by anything more disastrous than what preceded it. We would be justified, however, in believing that sooner or later the world will suffer greater material harm if there is no international agreement as to trade, and if the nations do not begin to realize that they cannot all of them tiy to sell the same things in the same market at the same time. They must try to cooperate and exchange goods with one another and modify tariffs,, quotas, embargoes and so forth.
That conference served to emphasize in a most glaring manner what is 'the real trouble in almost every country in the world. On the first day the delegates were all unanimous as to the changes that had to be made. They all deplored the economic situation brought about by the policies of the individual countries. Secretary of State Hull, of the United States, summarized the evil in this way:
Economic nationalism as practised since the war comprises every single method of obstructing international capital and trade, such as 74726-33 i
high tariffs, quotas, embargoes, exchange restrictions and depreciated currencies.
Everybody seemed to agree that something must be done, but immediately after the real work started, the fight began so that the coming changes should not affect the respective countries of the delegates. The same condition exists in the national field. Everybody in Canada seems to admit the necessity of reforms, but those who seem to have most to do with the government of the country are not willing that those reforms should affect themselves or their respective industries.
The Prime Minister, of course, had disqualified himself from assuming any position of leadership in the promotion of needed reforms at the conference because as soon as he took office he summoned parliament for the purpose of erecting a wall around Canada, a wall of tariffs, high duties and embargoes. What moral authority could he have, then, to preach the return to economic sanity and cooperation? The Prime Minister now gives as his justification for his tariff policy of 1930 that we had then an unfavourable balance of trade, and that had to 'be changed. I do not, wish to express any opinion as to the merits or demerits of a favourable balance of trade, but I remember many hon. gentlemen opposite who said in my presence in this house that it did not mean anything. Further, during all the years when we had an overwhelmingly favourable balance of trade, the right hon. gentleman and his friends were just as vociferously clamouring for higher duties and higher protection in this house.
May I also say to the Prime Minister that what the people of this country are most anxious for is not a favourable balance of trade, so far as the trade of the country is concerned. What they do want is a favourable balance of trade in their own business, and that balance has been unfavourable because of the policies of the administration. The Prime Minister has been most unfortunate in translating patriotism into tariff barriers. In 1930 he erected that barrier of the tariff just before he went to the imperial economic conference, where he proposed to lower our tariff by ten per cent to the countries of the empire in exchange for a preference in the British market. But, of course, they all realized over there that when a wall is so high that it is impossible to get over it, it does not mean much to have it cut ten per cent if you cannot get over the wall even then. And that is why one of the fellow delegates of the Prime Minister qualified his proposal in a way which, in this parliament, we are too courteous to describe.
The Address-Mr. Lapointe

Following this we had the Ottawa conference. This conference has been described as a great achievement by the mover and seconder of the address. I consider it another link in the chain of harmful policies which are hampering world trade. As the right hon. gentleman had tied his hands in advance, before he went to the conference in 1930, so he tied his hands in advance, by the Ottawa agreement, before he went to the world economic conference of 1933. We have higher tariffs against all nations on a large number of articles, and he bound us by treaty not to change those tariffs, before entering into negotiations and common agreement with other nations.
In the Contemporary Review of January, 1934, Sir Archibald Sinclair gives the reasons why he has crossed the floor in the British House of Commons. At page 4 he says:
It is true that the economic situation remained grave, but in the Hew of the Liberal ministers it was being aggravated by the protectionist policy of the government, and from their standpoint the only possible justification for remaining in the government was the hope that the world economic conference would result in an, abatement of economic nationalism throughout the world and the restoration of world trade.
This hope, however, was impaired, if not destroyed, by the Ottawa agreements. If international trade was to be restored, one of the primary objectives which the British government were bound to pursue at the conference was the abolition of quotas which Mr. Runciman, the President of the Board of Trade, described at St. Ives on February 2, 1933, as "insane" and "the curse of European trade." Yet as a result of Ottawa we should be adopting quotas in this country at the very time when the Prime Minister, as chairman of the conference, would be appealing to other nations to relinquish theirs. Similar exhortations would be delivered by leading British ministers to foreign nations to lower their tariff walls: yet at the same time, as a result of Ottawa, large increases of British tariffs were in contemplation.
My right hon. friend can see therefore that we are not the only ones who deplore the trend that matters commercial have taken as a result of the Ottawa conference. My view is that economic imperialism as initiated by the Ottawa conference is not much better than economic nationalism as practised by the right hon. gentleman in 1930.
I am afraid that the forty minute rule will prevent me from saying all that I should like to say with respect to trade and similar matters in relation to the economic conference, because there is one question in particular on which I desire to say a word or two. I refer to the question of titles. I do not wish to discuss this matter at any length, but merely to defend the action of the House of Com-

mons of 1919 and to repel the charge of the Prime Minister that it was an affront to the King on the part of those who voted for that resolution. It is true that the resolution was not an act of parliament. The right hon. gentleman has built up a man of straw in order to knock him down when he says that only an act of parliament could abolish the prerogative. Nobody ever said that the prerogative did not exist; nobody ever said that this resolution of the House of Commons destroyed or abrogated the prerogative. It did not abolish it, nor was it intended to abolish 'it; it merely conveyed the will of the people of Canada, through their elected representatives, that this prerogative should not be exercised so far as Canada was concerned. The right hon. gentleman knows very well that, either by statute or by the conventional rules of the constitution, the King's prerogatives have been transferred to the ministry. Many people have queer ideas regarding the royal prerogative. In the exercise of the prerogative the crown acts on the advice of its ministers, who are responsible to parliament for the proper exercise of the authority. There is in fact no executive act of the crown for which some member of the ministry or the ministry collectively is not responsible. Things which the King formerly did by virtue of his prerogative he now does by virtue of the advice of those to whom the discretionary power has been transferred. And so, as Dicey states in his Law of the Constitution, eighth edition, page 421:
We may use the term "prerogative" as equivalent to the discretionary authority of the executive.
Ridges, in Constitutional Law of England, fourth edition, page 167, says:
The prerogative is no longer the personal prerogative of the king but the privilege of the executive.
Of course, everyone knows that honours are not bestowed by the King but by the Prime Minister. When His Majesty the King is mentioned in the resolution of 1919 it is His Majesty the King in the constitutional sense, namely, the authority that has discretionary power, the executive. I have no objection to the change which my hon. friend from East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) is making in his resolution in order to meet the views of the Prime Minister and take away from him an excuse for opposing the resolution, but I still believe he was right in the way he had originally proposed it.
The Prime Minister suggested that his predecessors and those who were here in 1919 had no time to see his point because of

The Address-Mr. Lapointe
pressure of business. Let me tell him that the question was studied and considered and discussed for two consecutive sessions. A strong committee of the house was appointed and it sat for a long time. Strong men were on the committee, and the resolution was drafted as the result of the work of that committee. The resolution was voted for and approved by gentlemen who would not agree to anything which would have been an affront to the King. And I may say to my right hon. friend that there were men on this committee who would have been able to see whether or not there was an affront to His Majesty. The Hon. N. W. Rowell, present president of the Canadian Bar Association, was one of those who voted for the resolution, and he does not deserve the imputation conveyed in the words of the Prime Minister. So was the Right Hon. W. S. Fielding, and he did not deserve this imputation. So was my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), so was my hon. friend from Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. MoGibbon), and so were many others who voted on that resolution, as I did.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to explain-


Ernest Lapointe: If my time is extended I have no objection. It is not at all an affront to the King to say that honours in the old country have been sold time and again and have been a source of corruption; nor was it an affront to the King to say that in this country titles were granted in a most tactless way. And that was the reason why the institution had become so discredited in Canada. We offer no affront to the King when we say this. It was the ministry that was responsible and it was the ministry that deserved the imputation. With reference to the speech of His Excellency, I have even heard some say that it was a stupid document. Surely nobody means that as an affront to His Excellency; it is because His Excellency has the misfortune of receiving bad advice from those who are responsible for the drafting of that document. May I say at this point: Why throw this bone of discussion into the arena at the present time? Why divide the people on the question? Who asked for it? Were we not happy without it? Was there any body of public opinion anywhere clamouring for this obnoxious practice? I have heard it said that because of this restraint, Canada was on a footing of inferiority with other British countries; indeed, that Canada was not equal to Newfoundland where there are more knights to the square mile than anywhere else in the world, that
Canadians have an inferiority complex when they think or speak of the ancient colony. This alleged wound to the national dignity is sheer nonsense, to use an expression that has been used by the other side this afternoon. Canadians have never been prouder of their country than they have been since 1919. May I mention the Peace treaty, the League of Nations, higher constitutional development, the conference of 1926, the Westminster Statute, and to please my right hon. friend I shall even include the Ottawa conference. Canada is a nation. We may have no ribbons or medals, but we have pride of country; we have national dignity; we have love of service for what service carries in itself for those who devote themselves to it.
Let me say, though, as regards those who were selected this year to receive titles, that no better persons could have been found in Canada. But do hon. members think the prestige of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, one of the greatest legal men of the world, has been enhanced because he has been given this little word before his name? The same is true as regards the Chief Justice of my province; no better man exists in the world, but he did not need that title. In my city of Quebec I know a good lady who really deserves anything in the world, but the OJ3.E. or C.M.G. or whatever the letters are does not add anything to the prestige of that lady; she does honour to the order she has been given; the order does not add anything to her.
Before I conclude, there is one thing I should like my right hon. friend to tell us as soon as possible. In western Canada on two or three occasions and even in the house last session he stated that there are some distinguished Liberals who have told him they approve his policy. Everywhere I have spoken, I have asked the right hon. gentleman-probably he did not read my speeches -to tell me who that most distinguished Liberal is? Where does he live? Surely he is not in Restigouche-Madawaska or in Mackenzie. Is he in Nova Scotia? Is he in British Columbia? Let him tell us the name of that most distinguished Liberal who has the confidence of the Prime Minister. Surely we are entitled to that disclosure.
While my right hon. friend is in the mood of taking us into his confidence I would like him to tell us where Canada stands as regards the advances or guarantees we have given in connection with wheat. This question has been discussed vaguely each year for the last two years, but so far nobody has been able
The Address-Mr. Manion

to find out where the country stands financially so far as the wheat question is concerned. We would like also to have all details as to the guarantees that have been given to the railway companies or other corporations or other people. We want light during this session of parliament.


Mr. CANTLEY:: The hon. gentleman
needs it.


Ernest Lapointe: I hope so. My concluding words are these:	We are not the
majority of this house, but we represent the majority in the country and as such it is all the more our duty to require all information and to defend the rights of the people during the present session. Nothing will prevent us from doing so. Hon. gentlemen opposite have a majority in parliament, it is true, but I would not change with them because we have the majority in Canada.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, in a sentence I should like to join with those others who have congratulated the mover and the seconder of the address on the splendid way in which they carried out that always difficult duty. We have been sitting in the house now for something over two weeks listening to a so-called debate on that motion, and I have noticed that practically all of the debate has been carried on by the official opposition. I had my secretary yesterday count the number of speeches and he informed me that the government had made eight; the C.C.F. had made eight and the Liberals, counting my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) who has just taken his seat, had made twenty-eight speeches. I have been sitting in this house now for nineteen sessions and I say in all sincerity that this has been the dullest, the most destructive and the most useless debate I have ever heard in the House of Commons. In a last minute effort to resuscitate the body which they have practically killed, my hon. friends are, I understand putting on three of their headliners to-day, the hon. gentleman who has just spoken being the first. Without meaning to say anything offensive to him,
I do not think he has raised the average at all. In his speech he had but one good word for anybody and that was for President Roosevelt. His leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) preceded him in the same attitude. All I have to say about that is that if my leader had dared to take the arbitrary course that President Roosevelt has taken on many questions on many occasions, I can just hear the purple being torn off the skies by the leader 
of the opposition and the ex-Minister of Justice in accusing my leader of being a tyrant and an autocrat.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat says that we have not the confidence of the people and that therefore we should go to the country. Well, we shall be taking a vote on that question very shortly and perhaps this afternoon we shall know whether we have the confidence of the people. The only way in which one can judge of the confidence of the people of this country is to judge by the confidence of the house. It is rather a new doctrine that the hon. member for Quebec East is putting forward to-day that the opposition is the party which should fix the time for an election. I have never before noticed my hon. friend when he was a member of a government asking our opinion as to when an election should be called and I can assure him that we shall not ask his. His statement that the majority in the country is supporting them will have to be proved on the next occasion that the majority in the country get an opportunity, but I well remember during the last election in 1930, not only he but all the other followers of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) including the right hon. gentleman himself, insisted that they had the majority supporting them then, although, as the result showed, that was not the case.
I am sure my hon. friend from Quebec East will pardon me if I do not spend any more time on his speech. I endeavoured to jot down any real points he made so I could deal with them, but as he made very few there is almost nothing for me to deal with. I am. however, going to deal with some points made by some of the other lieutenants of the right hon. gentleman. My hon. friend, the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) and my hon. friend, the member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) recently visited my constituency, and I thank them for doing so, because never did I have such meetings there as those I have had since then. The hon. gentlemen in their speeches, which I am sure were very well received, because I know they had good crowds, made some statements which I intend to deal with 'because they illustrate the high, wide and handsome way in which the lieutenants of my right bon. friend are going to deal with the issues in the coming election. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre made the statement-I quote from the Times-Journal which, not being one of my active supporters, I hope quoted him correctly, as they usually even quote me correctly-

The Address-Mr. Manion


Mr. HANBURY:: But not your loader.


Robert James Manion: I do not know what my bon. friend is referring to. The hon. gentleman made the statement that Canada's debt was slashed in the five years of the Liberal regime by 8257,000,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: More than that.


Robert James Manion: That is the figure quoted in the Times-Joumal. I wish to point out that that may be correct as far as the direct debt is concerned, but my hon. friend, like the right hon. gentleman himself and other lieutenants of his, forgot the indirect debt which was added to this country during their regime. From 1923 to 1930 the railway debt of Canada was increased to -the extent of 8461,000,000, just about double the amount of the decrease as given by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. And the interest on the railway debt was increased by 820,000,000 per annum. That is the indirect charge that is being paid by the people of this country through taxes at the 'present time. So they are not fair in stating that they cut down the debt of this country at all.
Then another statement my hon. friend made, in speaking of the wheat marketing policy of the government, was that the people have already suffered a loss of $30,000,000 by the action of this government. I merely say that the people of this country have not yet at any rate suffered a loss of one penny. The deal is not completed and no one knows at this moment whether we will suffer a loss at all or reap a profit.
Speaking of the royal commission on railways, my hon. friend said its recommendations were for a policy of amalgamation. That is absolutely untrue, they absolutely declared against amalgamation. Then he went on to say that by this amalgamation the government was trying to effect the absorption of one of Canada's great transportation systems, and an accounting would 'have to be asked for this effort to destroy public ownership. That is so plainly a misstatement that I do not intend to deal with it except to say that for the right hon. gentleman to say,-and he is supported by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) on every platform on which he goes-to say that this government is attempting to bring about amalgamation does not alter the fact that the law of this country to-day, introduced by the present government, prevents amalgamation. The last clause in the act to which he refers reads as follows: Nothing in this act shall be deemed to authorize the amalgamation of any railway company which is comprised in National
railways with any railway company which is comprised in Pacific railways nor to authorize the unified management and' control of the railway system which forms part of National railways with the railway system which forms part of Pacific railways.
So that amalgamation is absolutely forbidden by the law of this country. There are two distinct and separate managements for the railways, there is no hint of amalgamation. There has been some pooling of passenger traffic and probably there will be more, but as far as amalgamation is concerned there has been no hint of it and there will be none under this government.
Then the hon. gentleman brought in a subject which I say should not be brought into politics at all, and which up to his coming into this house was kept out of politics. He spoke of "another gross breach of faith by this government" towards the returned soldiers. There has been no breach of faith towards returned soldiers by this government, and I will be fair to the other side and say that there was no gross breach of faith by the late government towards returned soldiers. All the governments of this country from 1919 on have been eminently fair to the returned soldiers, and I make the statement now that I have made many times, that the returned soldiers of Canada have been treated better than the returned soldiers of any other country in the world.


Wilfred Hanbury: By legislation, but not in operation.


Robert James Manion: It is possible that by some rigidities of the pension commission, if you will, there may have been an occasional injustice done. These injustices, if they exist, can be corrected, and as far as I am concerned and this government, we are anxious to correct any injustices, as anxious as my hon. friend who has just spoken and as all hon. members on this side or the other side or the third side have been in dealing with questions affecting returned soldiers in the soldiers' committee. But I suggest to my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre that when he or his friends attempt, as I am told they are doing, to inject this question into politics-


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: That is
absolutely incorrect.


Robert James Manion: I am glad to have that
statement. At any rate he did throw it into politics in this statement in Fort William. When he or any hon. member brings the returned soldier question into politics he is doing the greatest disservice to the returned soldiers of this country that he or any man
The Address-Mr. Manion

can do. No body of men stand to suffer so much by bringing the returned soldier question into politics as the returned soldiers themselves. I suggest to any of those who think of bringing .it into politics, whether they are within or without this house, that they should be very hesitant about making such a move.
I do not intend to deal any further with my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre; I wish now to deal with statements made by the hon. member for Melville. He made a speech at Fort William, and like the hon. member for Vancouver Centre he was very well received, they all liked him very much. I do not think they took him very seriously, because one man said he was the most comical man who had ever come to Fort William. The hon. member for Melville said that the whole bonus policy on wheat was asinine and stupid. I suppose he does not find any fault with that quotation?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I think that yet so far as the government's policy related to those who had no crop.
Mr. MAiNION: What puzzles me is that when that policy was being put in force the hon. gentleman was sitting in this house and I do not remember that he took any such attitude then. I remember standing in this house and daring any hon. member on the other side to stand up and oppose the wheat bonus policy, and not one rose to oppose it. Certain hon. gentlemen over there took the attitude that some details should be changed, that it should be carried out in some other way-


Mr. HEPBURN:: You are quite wrong. I opposed the wheat bonus policy and spoke against such policy.


Robert James Manion: Yes, I think that is correct, I think the hon. gentleman who now leads in absentia the Liberal party in the Ontario house did.


Wilfred Hanbury: What was the vote reported in Hansard?


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman said Canada got no preference out of the imperial economic conference whatever-


William Richard Motherwell: For wheat.


Robert James Manion: That is not what the paper quotes him as saying. But we get six cents a bushel on wheat, if you limit it to that.


William Richard Motherwell: The Prime Minister
does not say so.


Robert James Manion: This paper quotes the hon. gentleman as saying we get no preference
[Mr- Manion.]
whatever. On wheat we get six cents; we get a preferential quota on bacon and ham; a most substantial preference on cheese, apples, etc., and on copper, and a ten year preference on Canadian grown or manufactured tobacco. These are among the preferences we get.
Then the hon. gentleman spoke of the price of wheat, and he said that my right hon leader had driven down the price of wheat to the lowest it had been in three hundred years. Well, I do not need to deal with such a statement as that, because I do not think that even my hon. friend would seriously contend that the Prime Minister of Canada has the power to drive down the world price of wheat to the lowest it has been in three hundred years. The only thing I have to say in regard to the hon. gentlemen who were in my constituency-and whom I will be happy to welcome back before the next election because if they come at that time I think I will get an acclamation-is that when a new edition of Baron Munchausen is published, I hope their speeches will be included.
My only reason for making these references is that they illustrate the attitude the hon. gentlemen take when they get away from Ottawa, in places where they think-wrongly, I am sure-that the people do not understand these questions. I have a particularly cultivated and highly educated constituency, and I suggest to my hon. friends that when they try to put over this sort of stuff they should stay away from Fort William; my constituents have had a good member too long to be uninformed on any of the public questions of this country.
Now I should like to deal for a little while with my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) who spent four hours and twenty minutes, covering forty-two interminable pages of Hansard, weeping and wailing and gnashing his teeth about the terrible conditions in this country and the way the government is forgetting to do anything, not to help the country on the up-grade because he does not admit there is any up-grade, but to prevent the country from going further down-grade. Jeremiah, I think, was a cheerful optimist compared with the right hon. gentleman in his four hour and twenty minute speech the other day. What I should like to ask my right hon. friend is why he took four hours and twenty minutes and why he covered forty-two pages of Hansard in order to say what he could have said completely in one sentence; that is, that he had no use whatever for this government or any of its works, and that he would not admit of an improvement in business conditions in Canada, even though that

The Address-Mr. Manion
improvement had already taken place. That was the attitude taken by my right hon. friend. The fact that the improvement has taken place did not affect him in the least except in reference to the coming election. He wants the election sooner, because he is afraid the improvement is coming too quickly. He does not like our tariff policies, our trade policies and pacts, our agricultural policy, our wheat agreement or our unemployment measures.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Or titles.


Robert James Manion: I am not sure about that; he said he had nothing against titles. I think perhaps he is looking forward to the next time he gets in power. He objected to titles from their constitutional aspect but not from their personal aspect. He does not like our railway policies, and for that matter he does not like any of our policies. The impression I got from his speech was that he does not like the government, but the things that depressed him most were the Prime Minister's speech and the Prime Minister's optimism. As a matter of fact the right hon. gentleman objects to optimism of any kind; he does not think there should be any optimism at all. He thinks this government caused the world depression, and I think if he told the truth he would say that in his opinion we caused the war. Travelling home the other day, in company with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart), I looked over his speech; I spent my time reading the whole forty-two pages of it. I belong to that religion, Mr. Speaker, which believes in purgatory, and since reading that speech I have come to the conclusion that when I suffer in purgatory for my sins I am going to be forced to do my suffering in reading the right hon. . gentleman's speeches.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I hope my
hon. friend does not flatter himself by thinking he will get off with purgatory.


Robert James Manion: Well, I am even more
convinced, Mr. Speaker, that if I go to hell I will be reading his speeches all the time; yes, and the Prime Minister suggests, that I may even have to listen to them there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend might be happy, even where he suggests, if he did not have to listen to the right hon. Prime Minister.


Robert James Manion: knows that n-o government can carry on at any time without orders in council totalling five or six thousand in a year. There never is a time when orders in council are so necessary as in a time of crisis and emergency such as that through which we have just passed. I say to the house now that had it not been that this government had power to pass orders in council not only would some of the western provinces have gone into insolvency, not only would they have repudiated their debts, but thousands of people would have starved to death before we could have come to this house for the necessary legislation.
Those were the constructive suggestions advanced by the right hon. gentleman. I do not see very much in them to help the situation. In another part of his speech he went on to say that he is going to support the formation of a central bank, and that he is going to support very strongly the establishment of agricultural credits and the institution of unemployment insurance. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I have been in this house for nineteen sessions, and I think in each of those sessions the question of agricultural credits has been one of the live topics of the day. The right hon. gentleman was in power for nine years. Why did he not put some system into effect? So far as the central bank is concerned, now that we are bringing in legislation to create the central bank he is a great supporter of the idea but, like agricultural credits, this question might have been dealt with also when he was in power.
Finally he declared himself in favour of unemployment insurance, and so did the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. They want it forthwith. I say to the hon. gentlemen that unemployment insurance could not be instituted in any country in the midst of a depression such as we have been passing through; at a time like this it would be impossible to create such a scheme. A time will come without doubt when this subject will have to be considered, and either insurance or something to take its place instituted in order to look after unemployed people in times such as these. But again I must point out to the right hon. gentleman that not only did he neglect to initiate any scheme of unemployment insurance during the nine years he was in power; the right hon. gentleman said at that time what has been so often quoted, that there was no unemployment, though that was almost a year after the depression had begun, for the depression began in October 1929. The right hon. gentleman went on to say that he would not give a five cent piece to any Con-

servative government in this country for unemployment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: Did I hear my right hon.
friend say he did not make that statement? I thought I heard him say so, and I have here the extract. I carry these things with me now, so I was prepared if the right hon. gentleman had denied it.
For four hours and twenty minutes, for 42 pages, the right hon. gentleman gave us defeatism and gloom. He forgot to mention, of course, some of the other promises which he made so enthusiastically; one thing he forgot to mention was his promise that if he was elected to office he would bring about Senate reform. He gave us defeatism and gloom; he had no commendation for anything, no kind word for anybody, and he showed no sign of cooperation. Even the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) who has never been noted for his cooperative policies, twitted the right hon. gentleman the other evening for not giving more evidences of his willingness to cooperate with the government in a time like this. I am going to give the house one instance of something done entirely by the Prime Minister, for which he should have been given some commendation, though so far as I know that has not been done. I am going to put it on record. Back in September or October of last year there was threatened in this country a railway strike. The men on the Canadian National railways and the Canadian Pacific railway were not satisfied with the proposal of the management that another ten per cent be taken off their wages. They protested against this, and they were in a deadlock with the management. When the Prime Minister returned from England they were still deadlocked. Upon that occasion the right hon. leader of the government insisted upon the two of them getting together, and as a result a settlement was brought about. In that connection he received the following letter, and as it is of interest I wish to put it on record. Up to the present I do not think it has been placed on Hansard. Written in Montreal on October 28, it is not marked personal and was addressed to the Prime Minister as follows:
We are pleased to advise that a satisfactory settlement has been reached to-day in the wage controversy long existing between the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways and their engineers, firemen, conductors, trainmen and telegraphers.
We appreciate your kindly interest in this matter, and feel that your good offices were largely responsible for the amicable settlement arrived at.

The Address-Mr. Manion
By whom was thait signed, Mr. Speaker? It was signed by Mr. H. B. Chase, assistant grand chief of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; by H. H. Lynch, vice-president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engineers; C. S. Montooth, vice-president of the Order of Railway Conductors; W. J. Babe, vice-president of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen; and A. H. Phillips, vice-president of the Order of Railway Telegraphers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not hear the name of Jim Murdock.


Robert James Manion: Let me read again this particular section of the letter:
We appreciate your kindly interest in this matter, and' feel that your good offices were largely responsible for the amicable settlement arrived at.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who took his seat a few moments ago, namely the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) asked hon. members on this side to name one policy carried out which has been of use to this country. I say to him that the policy described in this letter prevented a railway strike which, had it taken place would have been, a catastrophe to Canada. Yet, my right hon. friend opposite must have known that that threatened strike was impending. Up in Lau-rier house he sat and not a chirp came out of him in regard to that possibility-not a word, despite the fact that the right hon. gentleman wrote a book which solved every railway question which has existed in the past, exists in the present or may exist in the future. But the right hon. gentleman had no suggestion in regard to this situation.
I can imagine the ranting which would have taken place in this house had my right bon. leader not done something to prevent the strike when he came back.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: It was not a policy, it was kindly sentiment.


Robert James Manion: But my hon. friends did not express even kindly sentiment. They have not even that. The railway question is one which the right hon. gentleman opposite has evaded, because it does not reflect any great credit upon the Liberal party. When one looks back to the year 1903, a time when the Liberal party held office, and learns that up to that time only one transcontinental railway existed across the Dominion o<f Canada, and when one realizes that before they left office in 1911 they originated the second and third transcontinental railways one may in these days know the reason they have not so much to say. They are responsible for
bringing about the duplication of railways Which exists in Canada at the present time.


Wilfred Hanbury: Did you oppose that policy?


Robert James Manion: I was not in this house at that time. Had hon. gentlemen had the vision they could have connected up the Grand Trunk in the east with the Canadian Northern in the west, and we would have had a second transcontinental and probably no present day railway problems. When we remember that in connection with the third transcontinental the then leader of the Liberal party took the attitude that a railway from Moncton to the Pacific coast would cost $13,000,000, and when we couple with that the fact that the real cost of the railway-not to the Pacific coast at all, but from Moncton to Winnipeg-was $173,000,000, we cannot help but believe that hon. members opposite are the ones to blame for the railway problem which exists in Canada to-day.
When we come up to a more recent date, to 1929, a pre-election year, and learn that the right hon. gentleman and his party either permitted or forced the late management of the Canadian National railways to make commitments of $250,000,000 on hotels at Halifax and other places, on steamships, terminals, the purchasing of branch railway lines and the building of others-I say when we realize that they permitted or encouraged the management to make those commitments amounting to $250,000,000 in a pre-election year, when they passed around the railway pork barrel from coast to coast, we know that they should leave the railway question alone. We have had to clean up that mess, and we have cleaned it up.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member who has just taken his seat belittled our efforts. I say here, without fear of contradiction that anybody who knows what he is talking about will realize that we have saved the people of Canada about $15,000,000 per year in extravagant management which obtained under the late government, but which does not obtain to-day. I say, further, that the Canadian National railways are just as efficient to-day as they were when hon. members opposite went out of power. If I have ever in my life done any good work for my country it was when I helped to clean up that mess. We carried on and appointed the Duff commission. Then we appointed Mr. Fullerton, Mr. Morrow and Mr. Labelle to the railway board. I believe the railway history of this
The Address-Mr. Manion

government will stand the test of time far, far better than will the railway history of hon. gentlemen opposite.
Then, in regard to trade, the right hon. gentleman abused the present government. He compared the trade of to-day with that of a few years ago. He knows, of course, as well as does any other hon. member in the house, that the whole story of world trade is different to-day, that the trade of the world has gone down sixty per cent, and that the trade of Canada went down as did that of other countries.


Mr. EULER:: The same is true of the railways, is it not?


Robert James Manion: Yes, but the same is not true of the railways in regard to the $15,000,000 we have saved in unnecessary extravagances which were being indulged in under the late government.


Vincent Dupuis: The same is true for 1929.


Robert James Manion: The right hon. gentleman also spoke of our trade with the United States. He forgets to mention that when he was Prime Minister of this country the United States were selling us two dollars worth of goods for every dollars worth that we sold them. In addition to that, they were putting up barriers against every line of goods we exported to them, particularly agricultural products. When we sat in opposition, as does the right hon. gentleman to-day, and suggested that the government of the day should retaliate, the only reply was that we must do nothing "to provoke" the United States. That was his attitude. While the Hawley-Smoot tariff was being put up against us and while the Fordney-McCumber tariff was working against our interests he sat quietly and said, "We must not provoke the United States." This government has dared to do that. We raised the tariffs where necessary. We treated the United States the way they treated us, and as a result we have the respect of that country. If there is to be a treaty made between this country and the United States I say that the government which has the respect of the United States would be the best government to bring it about.
I have only a few minutes left in which to speak, and in that time I shall sum up what I have said. May I point out that the truth of the whole matter is this-something which hon. members opposite do not choose to recognize when discussing present-day conditions-that the world has been going through four years of the most terrible depression it has ever known, and as a result Canada has suffered its share. There were

in industrial countries of the world 30,000.000 unemployed people. In the great rich republic to the south there were 12,000,000 or 13,000,000 unemployed. During that depression period many of the banks in the United States went into insolvency, but not one bank in Canada refused to pay one dollar to a depositor. Throughout the world debts were repudiated. Most of the European countries, if not all, have refused to pay interest on their debts, and some have refused to pay the capital. The South American republics were in the same position. Most of them are not paying interest on their bond debt, so that their bonds are selling at $6 and $7 that were originally purchased at $100. In Russia, that country which some of the bon. members in this house and elsewhere suggest we should copy, millions were starving, while not one person in Canada had to go without food, lodging or shelter-not one. That is the picture which hon. members opposite ignore. Not only did Canada share this condition, but we had such a drought throughout the western prairie provinces that as a result in Saskatchewan alone 300,000 men, women and children would not have been able to live without assistance from this government. They were carried through the winters of 1931 and 1932 by us. I say that no government and no country in the world could have prevented these conditions which were world wide. We had a crisis in the last four years which was just as great as the crisis of the great world war, and my right hon. friend was just as useful to us in this crisis as he was in the other. We have had no cooperation from him, no constructive advice. We have had only criticism, gloom and defeatism, and I should add, the offer of an election. It is often quoted against Marie Antoinette that shortly before the revolution when she was told that the people were crying for bread and could get none, she said, "Why don't they eat cake?" My right hon. friend in offering an election to the people at this time is suggesting something akin to the cake of Marie Antoinette.
Without doubt this government has faults and has made mistakes. We do not deny it. A government that does not make mistakes does not make anything, and a government that does not make mistakes in times like these would do nothing at ail, but I submit with all due respect to my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. La/pointe) who boasted so confidently that his party has the confidence of the people, that this country will not throw this government out to take his leader to lead them. I feel almost constrained to say

The Address-Mr. Marion
that before they would take the right hon. gentleman they would take the leader of the C.C.F. in the corner, and God knows they would have to be desperate to do that, Mr. Speaker.
What is the purpose of the right hon. gentleman's desire for an election at this time? It is for the purpose of capitalizing the discontent which exists and must exist at times like these not only in Canada but in every country of the world. That is the purpose, and his fear is that the country is going ahead and will continue to do so and get back to its path of progress and prosperity before an election takes place.
In brief, what is the record oif this government? During that time of crisis, which was as severe a crisis as the world war, we attempted in every way to relieve the conditions in many wavs by the construction of pulblic works in the beginning, and assisting the provinces, the municipalities and the railways to do likewise. We instituted camps for young unemployed homeless men. We have given loans to the prairie provinces, thereby saving the credit of those provinces, and in addition saving the credit of this dominion. We have saved the credit of the bonks and of the railways as well. We have given direct relief when we could do nothing else, and no one in this country has starved despite the fact that in Russia millions have starved. It has cost this country $160,000,000 to do these things. But that is not all.
This government put into effect the empire trade agreements, to the credit of my right hon. leader, which increased our trade with the empire last year by $37,000,000 as compared with the year before. We corrected the adverse trade balance which was affecting our exchange, and we have kept our place as fifth among the trading nations of the world, being outdistanced only by Great Britain, the United States, Germany and France. In addition, the Prime Minister settled a threatened railway strike, which I think was one of his major achievements, and much to his credit.
That is the record of this government, a record that is equalled, I think, by no other government in any other country in the world in these times. Canada has come out of this depression in at least as good a condition as any other country of the world with the possible exception of France up until a year ago. France profited by the fact that she was rebuilding her devastated territory, and she was able to hold out against the depression longer than any other country in the world, but France to-day is in difficulty.
In this country we have started on the upgrade. Every index points to it. The world is coming back to its own, and unless the so-called civilized countries of the world are so foolish as to go into another war, the world will shortly be back to where it should be, and Canada will be leading the way. Let us keep our heads. Let us keep steady. Let us as Canadians stand shoulder to shoulder in a time like this in an effort to put this country back on its proper track. This is not a time for demagogism, but a time for leadership, and after the leadership of this government carries Canada back, as it will, to normal conditions, then we will correct other evils. We will deal with such questions as unemployment insurance and planned economy, for I personally believe that we shall have to deal with these matters. But when your house is on fire you do not stop to argue about loans or taxes. The first thing you do is to put out the fire, leaving other matters to be dealt with later.
The Prime Minister has offered a program of public works, which, of course, cannot give employment to every unemployed man in this country, but remember that for every man who is given employment directly on public works, two or more men are also given employment indirectly.
So in conclusion I make this appeal to the whole house, that the whole house help Canada upon the upgrade at this time. Look about at the condition of the world. Look at France, at Austria; look at conditions in the West Indies and in the far east, and tell me, is this a time for partyism, for strife of that kind? I say that this is a time when we should stand side by side, when we should stop reviling our country, stop preaching pessimism, defeatism and gloom. It is a time when every hon. gentleman should stop attempting to hold back the progress of this country and should stand by us and help us in getting this country started on its way forward. We have weathered the worst economic hurricane that this world has ever known and it is our duty as Canadian citizens to endeavour to bring the ship of state into a safe harbour and then, after that is done, we can go back to party strife again if necessary.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the house
will permit me, even after the characteristically fiery and ebullient speech of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) to refer to a matter which he says, and I thoroughly agree with him, must be kept out of party politics. I want to say to my hon. friend and to this house that I am
The Address-Mr. Ralston

referring to it now because I consider, and I think he and the government will agree with me, that it is a matter which requires the early attention of this house and of the government, being what I regard as a serious injustice in connection with ex-service men that should be righted.
I preface my remarks by saying that I am not making it a matter of party politics. I agree thoroughly with my hon. friend the Minister of Railways in saying that this country should congratulate itself on the fact that the problems of the ex-service men have been dealt with by this House of Commons in a non-partisan manner. Time after time we have had committees of this house appointed, with strong partisans on both sides, and these committees have brought in unanimous reports in the interests of exservice men.
If the house will permit me for a moment, I want to bring to its attention a matter which I believe cannot stand without comment and which should be put upon record in order that the legislators gathered here may have a conception of what is going on in regard to the administration of the Pension Act in connection with the particular cases to which I refer.
I am calling attention to a practice which has grown up in the administration of the Board of Pension Commissioners whereby this board has assumed the right to determine the validity of marriages. I have a number of cases, but I shall mention only two or three. The situation is this:	A man has a
disability. He is pensioned for that disability. Under schedule A of the Pension Act, if he is married he gets additional pension on account of his wife, and if he has children he gets further additional pension on account of the children. The Board of Pension Commisisoners within the last year or two at least-I do not know whether this practice existed before-have instituted the practice of ascertaining whether or not the soldier who happens to be getting a pension was previously married or whether his wife was previously married, and if that is the case the board has required definite legal evidence that the previous spouse, either of the husband or of the wife, as the case may be, was dead at the time of the marriage or is dead now. That practice is different from the practice in the courts of this country. In the courts of this country there is a presumption that if a person is not heard of for seven years, by persons with whom he or she would likely be in communication, and if inquiry has been made un-
successfully to locate such person, that person is dead. Under the criminal laws of this country a man or a woman cannot be convicted of bigamy for marrying believing that the former spouse is dead, even if seven years have not elapsed; and if seven years have elapsed, then the onus is on the crown to prove that the former spouse has in fact been heard of. Now what has the Board of Pension Commissioners been doing? I will give three cases by way of illustration.
First I will cite the case of a man with a disability-gunshot wound in the arm, fracture of both bones, arm deeply scarred, through and through bullet wound in the thigh. This man is receiving a 55 per cent pension, which entitles him to $37.50, and having a wife and six children he is entitled to an additional sum of $42, making in all $79.50. The board discovered that this man had been previously married. The circumstances were these. He was married in 1917 and lived with his wife for one week, after which time she deserted him, moving away to Toronto, and he had not since heard of or from her. He signed what he thought were papers which, as he believed, completely annulled the marriage, and in 1923 he was married again by a Protestant clergyman in Nova Scotia. With the wife of this second marriage he has lived ever since, and they have six children. They are recognized in the community as man and wife, are moral and respectable in every particular, and yet the Board of Pension Commissioners, upon finding out about the previous marriage, sent him in effect a bill for $3,000 for the money they had paid him on account of this second wife and the children, taking the view that this marriage was bigamous and that the children are consequently illegitimate. They have sent him a bill for $3,000, saying to him, "Until you pay us back to the full that $3,000 we shall not pay you one cent of the $37.50 pension." That is the practice in this particular case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Without disclosing the name, the hon. member might put the man's number on record.


James Layton Ralston: I can give it to my right hon. friend. This man writes me:
I was a whole day signing papers in Halifax clear from my previous wife.
I have six small children suffering from cold and unnourishing food. Can't my children claim their part of my pension either? If not, couldn't you get me relief for the winter months anyway. I have tried fishing and my arm gave out on me so please do something for me if you can. If I could keep my family together for a few more years I would have lots of help then. Kindly do what you can for

The Address-Mr. Ralston
me. My wounds cause me sufficient pain but watching my family suffer causes me more pain so please help me.
I have in my hand the letter of the Board of Pension Commissioners, in which they say:
As the statute makes no provision for the payment of additional pension for an illegal wife or for illegitimate children the board had no alternative but to cancel the allowances from date of award.
In other words, the Board of Pension Commissioners, sitting in their judicial capacity, simply bastardized these children and declaring the marriage bigamous, without affording the man an opportunity to present his case. His pension is out off and afterwards, if he wishes, he can make representations.
The second case is that of the wife of an ex-soldier. She was married in Ireland in 1884 and lived with her husband a year, when he deserted her. She never heard from him and believed-in fact was told-that he had died in the United States; and seventeen years afterwards she married another man in Scotland. This man is now refused a pension on account of his wife because forsooth the Board of Pension Commissioners say that there is no proof of the death of the woman's former husband, notwithstanding that the common law, as the Prime Minister and other lawyers in the house know, presumes under such circumstances that the previous spouse is dead.
The third case is perhaps the most serious, that of a man with hip amputation. This man was married in 1906 and his wife deserted him. He pursued inquiries for fifteen years but could not find her; he had no word of her. He got an order from the chief justice of a court of one of the provinces in this dominion that the first wife was presumed to be dead. Yet the Board of Pension Commissioners has reduced the pension of this man with a leg off at the hip. He was getting, I believe, something like S99 and they have taken all but $5.31 a month in order to repay what they say was an illegal payment of pension.
I mention these cases because in my opinion they are matters that should be taken up immediately by the house. I know that the government has them under consideration now, but the point is that time is running and these cases are urgent. They are all quite old, and still no action is taken by the board. I can only say that in cases of this kind, where good faith is shown, where people marry believing that they have the right to do so, and perform the duties of husband and wife, raising children and supporting them, the country, to say the least, should not fine
them if something is discovered to be wrong with their marriage. The state should not take away under these circumstances what had already been paid, particularly when the Pension Act, under section 2 (c), recognizes that "children" includes illegitimate children, and when the act in another section recognizes that a widow, even though there has been no proper marriage service, was the wife of the man concerned for the purposes of pension. The rule of the board is harsh and unjust and remedial measures should be taken in connection with this matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has
followed pension matters with so much more attention than most members of the house that perhaps he will answer this question. Does he think that there is any power under the statute to compel the Board of Pension Commissioners by executive action? I have been unable to satisfy myself, though I have spent a good deal of time trying to find a means of meeting the situation.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think there is.
I think the decision is purely with the board under section 5, which gives them the right to adjudicate. But the right to adjudicate includes, I submit, the right to be heard on the part of the person affected, and the board should not sit in their office and make an order for a deduction from a man's pension without giving that man-or woman as the case may be-an opportunity to be heard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I share the hon. gentleman's views entirely, but my difficulty has been to deal with the matter by any method short of amending the statute, because we cannot compel the pension board to do anything.


James Layton Ralston: Then it is all the more
necessary that the house should take cognizance of it, because grave injustice is being done.
Now, there are other pension matters to which I was going to refer but I shall not be able to do so because my time is going. I did wish however to bring this particular question to the attention of the house.
I am afraid I cannot attempt to follow the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) in the peregrinations of his speech, but I will deal as I proceed with a few of the points he made. He did not answer, as I thought he would, my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) with regard to titles, and it seemed to me that the criticism which was made by the hon. member for Quebec East to the effect that the Prime Minister had taken an hour and a half mouthing legal technicalities in connection with a matter that does not present
The Address-Mr. Ralston

any legal difficulties but is purely a question of policy, as to whether the wishes of the people's representatives in this country were to be observed, was a subject to which the right hon. gentleman might have given more attention. The Prime Minister discussed the legal aspect of the question. He read speeches by Lord Reading in the House of Lords, he quoted Mr. Justice Patterson and other constitutional authorities. But that is not the question which the people of this country are asking. The people of Canada are asking this: When the Canadian people through their representatives in the House of Commons in 1919 put on record a respectful request to the sovereign asking that titles be not granted and when that resolution stands on the books of this country to-day unchanged except that it is confirmed by a resolution in 1929 refusing to reopen the subject, why do you, Mr. Prime Minister, in the face of that, recommend titles and, in effect, affront, to use my hon, friend's word, the House of Commons? His answer was, as the hon. member for Quebec East indicated; I want to deliver the House of Commons from the charge of having affronted the sovereign.
I have not time to read more than just the first paragraph of the resolution which was passed in 1919 and which, it seems to me, was a fairly respectful one. It states:
We humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that Your Majesty hereafter may be graciously pleased to refrain from conferring any titles upon your subjects domiciled or living in Canada.
Could anything be more respectful than that? Oh, but, my right hon. friend says, that was interfering with the prerogative of the crown. Who, as the hon. member for Quebec East suggested, forwarded that resolution to Downing Street and through Downing street to Buckingham palace? Was it a gentleman accustomed to affronting the crown, a gentleman unversed in constitutional law? He was a gentleman who, I think my right hon. friend himself will admit, knows as much about constitutional law and practice as he does; it was none other than the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was directed by the House of Commons to do so.


James Layton Ralston: I do not care whether he ,vas or not, but my right hon. friend says that the right thing to do is to fly in the face of the House of Commons and not to do as it directs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was not here himself.


James Layton Ralston: I did not hear the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden suggest that he was affronting His Majesty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was not here.


Ernest Lapointe: He was leading the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No-Sir Thomas White.


James Layton Ralston: Sir Robert Borden was no doubt communicated with when the dispatch was transmitted. That is the only excuse my right hon. friend gives. The question is not what Lord Reading said in the British House of Commons or the Hansard case which has nothing to do with it at all. The Hansard case was one where it was decided that the rules of the House of Commons did not protect a person outside the house from some action an individual might bring against him; it had nothing to do with this question at all. But my right hon. friend took about an hour and >a half to deal with those various learned authorities. The whole question the people are asking is this: Is the Prime Minister going to pay attention to the wishes of the House of Commons as expressed and as never amended, or is he not? My right hon. friend says that this was an affront to the sovereign. He knows quite well who was addressed by that resolution. As he himself has said many times, the sovereign is represented in this country by his advisers and that resolution was in effect a request to the advisers of the sovereign asking that they should not recommend titles.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What nonsense.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend
knows quite well the sovereign never exercises that prerogative without ,the advice of his advisers. Therefore on this matter of titles we still come 'back to the question: Why did he do this? We can make 'any guess we like. I do not know whether it was an error of judgment on my right hon. friend's part or a determination to fly in the face of the widhes of the people. It is difficult for one to find any reason for it. In the answer he has made he certainly does not give any reason and, in dealing with the matter as he did the other night, he completely sidesteps the real issue.


Mr. CAHAN:: If we consider the many resolutions passed by the House of Commons in the last fifteen or twenty years, does the hon. gentleman suggest that those various resolutions are binding upon a new parliament and a new government?

The Address-Mr. Ralston


James Layton Ralston: In the first place, to give my hon. friend a direct answer, I say that they are binding as an expression which has never been changed of the judgment of the Canadian people. That is the way in which they are binding. They are not binding in the sense that one could get an injunction against some of the recipients of titles preventing them from using the prefix "sir."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should like to have a more definite answer. Numerous resolutions have been passed in the house in the last fifteen or twenty years and appear in the votes and proceedings. They are an expression of the judgment of the members who voted in favour of them, many, if not the majority of those members have passed away. Are those resolutions still binding upon this parliament?


James Layton Ralston: They are binding as resolutions of this house. My hon. friend knows that we are to-day acting on statutes-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is another matter.


James Layton Ralston: -that were passed by people who are dead and gone-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly.


James Layton Ralston: -and approved by
sovereigns who are dead and gone. That resolution, passed in the house in 1919, even if every man jack of the members voting for it then were dead, would, as a resolution, be as binding as a statute enacted in former days would be, as a statute, although the members supporting it were since dead. It is binding as a resolution, as an expression of the judgment of the people upon the Prime Minister-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: An expression of the opinion of the Commons of that day.


James Layton Ralston: -and he himself admits that he derives his authority from the House of Commons. I say to my right hon. friend that he cannot get out of the difficulty by saying: Oh, this house did not pass the resolution. Have we at every session formally to pass a resolution confirming all the resolutions that have been passed previously? The resolution stands and nobody recognized that fact more clearly than the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) who in 1929 introduced a resolution for the purpose of reporting upon the advisability of amending, rescinding or qualifying the resolution of 1919 which he then regarded as binding. But what is the use of talking about something being binding? We are talking about the Prime Minister flying in the face of what he knew to be the registered wish of the people through their 74726-34
representatives and a wish not yet changed. He has not so far given an answer that will satisfy the people as to the exercise of that right.
This brings me to a matter concerning which the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) had considerable to say, and that is the subject of railways. My hon. friend cannot resist discussing railways and as usual his enthusiasm quite carries him away. My hon. friend has not made a very careful study of the history of railways in this dominion.


Robert James Manion: Yes, I have.


James Layton Ralston: If he has, he concealed the fact very well to-day. I cannot take the time of the house or my own to go into the matter in detail, but let me make this statement-and my hon. friend can verify it for himself-first, that the party of my hon. friend supported the proposition for a second transcontinental railway in 1904 in the form or a resolution sponsored by their leader the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, who proposed an alternative transcontinental railway to the Grand Trunk Pacific which was proposed by the government of the day; second, that in 1912 the Conservative party, led by the Right Hon. Sir Robert L. Borden, in conjunction with the government of British Columbia, by making a vote of $6,000,000, put the last spike into the transcontinental nature of the Canadian Northern Railway. The Prime Minister, speaking in Montreal the other day, made a very good non-partisan speech except for one thing; he tried to leave the impression that it was due to the subsidy granted by British Columbia that the Canadian Northern Railway was made a transcontinental road in 1912.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So it was.


James Layton Ralston: It was not due to the
subsidy granted by the province of British Columbia any more than it was due to the government of which my right hon. friend was a supporter at that time, which provided the money for the extension of that road from Edmonton through the Yellowhead pass, and the province of British Columbia carried it the rest of the way to Vancouver.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I must rise again to a
question of privilege. I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he must know that the contract between the Canadian Northern British Columbia and the province of British Columbia was to build that railway under guarantee of bonds. All that was done by this government was to give a subsidy in aid, and the road was partly built when that, subsidy was given.

The Address-Mr. Ralston


James Layton Ralston: That is what I am saying. I say my right lion, friend's party supported the making of the Canadian Northern a third transcontinental railway. And I am not sure that my right hon. friend did not suppoi't it too. At any rate my right hon. friend had no objection to it then. Reading the debates at that time I find that he frequently interrupted to give informative explanations-I say that with all seriousness- particularly with regard to the law in the matter. The Liberals pointed out that we had no business paying money to a road the rates on which were controlled not by the Board of Railway Commissioners but by the province of British Columbia. In the speech of my right hon. friend the other day he referred to Sir Wilfrid Laurier as having committed a grave error in connection with the matter of railway policy. He said:
Every morning as I go to my work I pass the statue of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and I pay tribute to the fact that his disinterested patriotism was known to all men; he desired to do what was best for Canada. But the fact is that he did not foresee, when he and his government pledged their support to the construction of two transcontinentals in addition to the one we then had, that this meant certain and sure insolvency to the roads themselves.
As I have pointed out the Conservative party were equally strong in support of the two additional transcontinental lines. Let us compare that statement made by my right hon. friend in 1934 with a statement made by him in this house in 1912 at page 11776 of Hansard, with regard to the necessity and desirability of a third transcontinental road. I find here that the Hon. Frank Oliver was speaking. He said:
The Canadian Northern railway, in that part of its line which lies between Winnipeg and Edmonton was a pioneer enterprise, but that part of its line from Edmonton to the Pacific coast, and that part of its line proposed by this resolution to be aided from Port Arthur to Ottawa is not a pioneer enterprise to anything like the degree that either the Canadian Pacific railway or the Grand Trunk Pacific was.
The hon. gentleman who answered him was Mr. Bennett, and this is the answer:
Mr. Bennett: Do not we require a third transcontinental line-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Go on and finish it.


James Layton Ralston: -as a spout for western grain? And hence is not the construction of the road from Fort William to the seaboard absolutely essential if the value of the other lines is to be maintained?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is so.


James Layton Ralston: This is the gentleman who salutes the statute of Sir Wilfrid LaurieT, but feels that he committed his country to a policy of certain and sure insolvency of the roads themselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend was in a quite different frame of mind in 1912 regarding the desirability of a third transcontinental railway. Hon. gentlemen know the history of that road after the act was passed in 1912 and the assistance given by the Conservative government whereby the road was extended to Vancouver-$45,000,000 guaranteed in 1914 and the transcontinental nature of the Canadian Northern recognized. Then the Drayton-Acwortih report came, and in 1917 the Dominion of Canada paid $10,000,000 for worthless stock of the Canadian Northern under my hon. friends opposite. That ought to be enough as far as the three transcontinental roads were concerned. My friends were for a second road in 1904, they completed the third road in 1912 and then bought it in 1917.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of privilege I will have to correct the hon. gentleman again. In 1917 it was the Union government.


James Layton Ralston: I leave the country to make the distinction. It sounded to me as if the Minister of Railways was sending out another wail and appeal for Union government in the concluding part of his remarks. Be sure of this, that when my hon. friends ask for cooperation, whenever they want help, it is a sure sign that they are in pretty sore straits. No party has been more independent than that of my friends opposite. They have had a majority of about forty in this house, they have had the Whole treasury of Canada at their backs the last three years, they have had for a good portion of the time all the powers of parliament, but now in 1934 they call on the Liberals, whom they have despised up to date, to cooperate because they are getting in a bad hole.


Robert James Manion: Call on them to play the part of Canadians.


Ernest Lapointe: Red-blooded 1


James Layton Ralston: Now let us take another step in regard to railways. So far ownership; now regarding amalgamation of the roads making up the present Canadian National system. My hon. friend talks about this great conglomeration of roads which was

The Address-Mr. Ralston
foisted on them and which caused such a serious increase in the debt and such heavy inroads on the expenditure of Canada. I have not time to go into details further than this, that my hon. friends-I will say the "Union" government in deference to my right hon. friend-put Mr. Hanna in charge of the Canadian Northern and the Canadian government railways in 1917, including the Intercolonial; they put Sir Joseph Flavelle in charge of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk soon after, and they ran these two disjointed roads under an advisory committee headed by Mr. Kelley. They passed the Canadian National Railway Act in 1919 but did not have the courage to declare that act; the succeeding government found it on the statute book in 1922-


Mr. CHAPLIN:: That is not correct.


James Layton Ralston: -and the government found that system of roads, as Sir Henry Thornton said, like an orchestra out of tune-


Richard Bedford Bennett: On a question of privilege again, the order in council was passed after the decision of the privy council in the Grand Trunk case, and recites that fact.


Ernest Lapointe: Is this a debating
society?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but misstatements
cannot be allowed to pass.


James Layton Ralston: On what question of privilege my right hon. friend is rising, I do not know I am sure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question as to a
misstatement of fact. It is always competent to correct a misstatement of fact.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend knows the rules of the house, and knows that there are plenty of hon. gentlemen on that side who are quite capable of dealing with the facts. What I say is that although the Canadian National Railways Act was passed in 1919, the then government did not declare the act but ran this bundle of roads in a disjointed fashion until 1922, when under the King government Sir Henry Thornton was put in charge. My right hon. friend seems to think that all the expenditure was incurred under the Liberal administration. Does he forget that they themselves assumed an indebtedness of $1,700,000,000, on account of these roads? Let him compare that sum with the $461,000,000 which he says was spent under Liberal administration. Let me tell him now what happened with regard to the administration of these roads under governments of
which he was a supporter and under Liberal governments. First take the amount earned by this system of roads and available for all interest; from 1919 to 1921 there was nothing whatever available, but there was an average deficit of $22,000,000 yearly. From 1922 to 1930 there was an average surplus of $24,000,000 per annum. For 1931 there was a deficit again of $5,000,000; I have not the figures for 1932. Secondly, I make the same comparison, after paying interest to the public: from 1919 to 1921 the annual deficit was $53,000,000. From 1922 to 1930 the annual deficit was only $15,000,000, whereas, as I say, in the regime of my hon. friends opposite, in the three years they had it before 1921, the deficit had been $53,000,000, and in 1931 the deficit was $60,000,000. To sum up, the total deficit in the management of this system of roads called the Canadian National, from 1919 to 1931, was $351,000,000. In the nine years from 1922 to 1930, years of Liberal rule, the total deficit was $132,000,000, while for the four years of Conservative rule from 1919 to 1921, and for 1931, there was a deficit of $219,000,000.
Let me read from that oft-quoted speech of the Minister of Justice in which he told us what a wonderful road this is. On March 7, 1929, speaking on this question, he said:
Let me say, in concluding my remarks on this phase of the subject, that the National railway system in this country constitutes a lasting monument to the ability and statesmanship and determination of a single man, 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.
That is the situation, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the railways, I hope my hon. friend the Minister of Railways will just curb himself in future and deal with the facts when he comes to consider who is responsible for the railway situation in this country.


Robert James Manion: To keep the record straight, would the hon. gentleman just add that his government increased the interest charges by $20,000,000 annually?


James Layton Ralston: Certainly I will, but I say that is a mere bagatelle compared to the seventeen hundred million of my hon friends.


Robert James Manion: The seventeen hundred million takes in the intercolonial and all the old railways.


James Layton Ralston: Now my hon. friend is beginning to find out that a number of old roads were included. He is anxious to get out from under.
The Address-Mr. Ralston


James Dew Chaplin: Would the hon. member permit-


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will pardon me, I really have not time. This railway story has been told very often, and my hon. friend does not stick any too closely to what are the real facts in connection with the case.
I should like to deal with another matter mentioned by the Prime Minister and also by the Minister of Railways; that is, these figures with regard to the improvement in conditions since the spring of 1933. Heaven knows no one is suggesting that there is not an improvement in conditions since the spring of 1933,


Robert James Manion: Yes, your leader did.


James Layton Ralston: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon; my right hon. leader suggested that it was not necessarily evidence of permanent improvement, as stated in the speech from the throne. My hon. friend did not get that. Everyone knows there has 'been improvement since the spring of 1933. You must improve; you must go higher after you get into the subcellar, and that was where we were, absolutely down to rock bottom. We have improved, and I hope sincerely that we may keep on improving. But what my hon. friends have not told us yet is what they have done to bring about that improvement. That is the real question. They have done everything possible to cripple trade and increase the taxes in this country. They speak about the Ottawa agreements, and I am going to deal with those in a moment, but I have not seen any trade arrangement made by this government which has perceptibly accelerated the normal increase of trade which has taken place in all the countries of the world.
My hon. friend the Minister of Railways spoke of wholesale prices. Well, in wholesale prices I think he will find very little comfort, because the United States is considerably ahead of us in regard to increases in wholesale prices. But my hon. friend just tosses that to one side and says, "We have increased wholesale prices." Of course we have; let us take what comfort we can out of it, but there is not much credit to the government in that fact. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister put on Hansard the increase in steel production since the beginning of 1933, but the percentage of increase in the United States was far greater, and that jumble of figures which he put on Hansard and which appears at pages 75 to 79 fails to show anything which any reasonable man could say was done by the present government to assist in producing any increase.

Then my right hon. friend spoke about the increase in Canadian exports to Great Britain since the spring of this year. We are glad there is an increase, but does my right hon. friend realize that the pound, which was $3.84 last January, had risen to $5.09 in December, and that the buying power of the pound in the Canadian market was increased accordingly? Naturally under those circumstances the British people would buy more from the Canadian market. Does my right hon. friend realize that conditions have improved in Great Britain, which surely ought to have something to do with the increase in exports by the Dominion of Canada to the old country? That was not mentioned at all. On reading the Prime Minister's speech one would think that the sole cause of this increase was the Ottawa agreements fostered by himself and his government.
Then my hon. friend the Minister of Railways said that imports from the United States had decreased perceptibly. That is quite so, but is that a matter for comfort? Is that a matter for congratulation? Generally speaking our imports from the United States are producers' goods and producers' equipment, goods which we use in manufacturing, and if our imports go down it means that our industrial activity has been curtailed by just that much. If my hon. friend will look at the trade returns for 1932 he will find that 65 per cent of all our imports from the United States were producers' goods and producers' equipment, or in other words things we needed to work with or work on. In those things our imports have gone down considerably, but I do not regard it as a matter for congratulation at all; it seems to me that decreased imports of raw material and of equipment simply mean that our national activities have declined. If we do not import that material it means that our producing industries have slackened accordingly.
My hon. friend quoted some comparative figures, and then he went on to say that we must not run down our country. I wonder if he has read the speeches delivered by his right hon. leader from one end of the country to the other during the summer of 1930: for instance "The cries of women and little children calling to us to ease their pain." That is just one sample; they will be found in Hansard. At the risk of incurring my hon. friend's displeasure, but in order to place the facts on record so that we may not try to fool ourselves about this situation, I should like to quote a few comparative figures also. The Prime Minister said we had improved

The Address-Mr. Ralston
more than any other country in the world; at least that was the gist of his remarks. I have made a comparison of increases in the trade of Canada as compared with increases
in trade in the United Kingdom as between 1932 and 1933, converting sterling into Canadian dollars at current monthly rates of exchange. They are as follows:
	Percentage increase		Percentage increase	
		of imports	of domestic exports	
	1933 over 1932		1933 over 1932	
Canada	United Kingdom	Canada	United KingdomApril	
-31.3	- 3.1	-25.7	-23.May	
-25.8	+ 10.6	+ 12.6	+ 10.2J une	
-17.5	+ 1.8	+ 12.5	+ 5.1July	
+ 0.1	+ 25.2	+21.3	+23.3August	
+6.1	+28.2	+ 8.3	+30.7September	
+12.2	+ 34.	+ 37.	+ 54.5October	
+10.7	+ 30.7	+ 6.3	+44.2November	+ 40.	+ 31.4	+49.7December	
+22.1	+ 40.1	+ 19.5	+26.2
Those increases in the United Kingdom are rather surprising, because we must remember that the United Kingdom got into her stride before Canada did, and therefore she was up the scale a considerable degree when these increases of 1933 came to be recorded. In spite of that, however, she made greater increases than Canada made both in imports and exports, taking them by and large, except with regard to exports for the first two or three months.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Railways tried to find some constructive act of statesmanship on the part of this government, and he trotted out a letter from a trade union, an "unsolicited testimonial" you might call it, to the work done by the Prime Minister. I noticed that the Prime Minister rather modestly hung his head; I do not believe he knew that his colleague was going to read that letter.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman has
spoken for more than forty minutes.


James Layton Ralston: If I might have the indulgence of the house for four minutes I believe I could finish my remarks.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member was interrupted for at least that time.


James Layton Ralston: That was the outstanding thing to which the Minister of Railways called attention as the headliner in government activities. On this side, while we do not boast about it or read letters about it, we at least can remind the house that the right hon. leader of the opposition was deputy minister of labour for some years and I am sure that the sheaf of letters which he would have in his possession and which, if he were in that frame of mind, could be produced, indicating the services which he rendered from time to time in settling labour difficulties, would rather put in the shade this one letter over which the minister has made so much fuss.


Mr. DUFF:: What about services during the war?


James Layton Ralston: I do deprecate the insinuation by the Minister of Railways concerning the action of my right hon. leader during the war.


William Duff: It was rotten.


James Layton Ralston: It was unworthy of him or of any other hon. member in this house.


William Duff: It was rotten.


James Layton Ralston: I wish to say only this, that the Minister of Railways-and I wish he were in his seat-might have attended a ceremony in which the Canadian Legion presented my right hon. leader with a life membership in recognition of his services and interest in the welfare of ex-service men and their dependents. That subject should not have been brought up in debate in this house and I do not think hon. members opposite, generally speaking, have any more approval of it than I have.


Ernest Lapointe: It is dirty fighting.


Wilfred Hanbury: But it is typical.


James Layton Ralston: I suggest that what my right hon. friend opposite really does as he goes to bed at night-and I hope he will not accuse me of being blasphemous-is to fall on his knees and thank God for Roosevelt, thank God for Great Britain and thank God for a situation around us whereby our condition is being stabilized, and improved notwithstanding the inaction of this government. All they do is to tell us to tighten our belts, to remember the traditions of our forefathers, to have patience; and may I add that the people of Canada are getting mighty tired of it. This government has done its best to discourage industry, so far as primary producers are concerned. For example, let us consider the fishermen. The duties on
The Address-Mr. Ralston

gasoline, on oiled clothing, on rubber boots, on food, and on many other commodities have been increased, and there is the tax on sugar. Everything has been made more expensive, but the fishermen has to sell in an unprotected market and at the same time has to beg this government for a little relief -not a big amount-a little relief, in the way of small public works and facilities in order that he may be able to pursue his calling in comparative-and only comparative-safety. Imagine a fisherman out on the Atlantic in this winter weather following his vocation in order to make new W'ealth for Canada and paying increased taxes on the things he uses and at the same time getting little consideration from this government when he asks for comparatively insignificant assistance which would help him in connection with his work.
I say to you this, Mr. Speaker,-and this is my last word-notwithstanding the fact that my right lion, friend's promises have been unfulfilled, notwithstanding the increase in taxation, notwithstanding the tremendous increase in debt, notwithstanding the broken pledges regarding employment, notwithstanding the banders which have been placed in the way of trade, notwithstanding the handicaps under which this government has placed this dominion, Canada is coming through, and we all are profoundly thankful for it, but I say it is not because of, but in spite of the administration of the present government.
My hon. friend the Minister of Railways has pictured the ship of state. The ship of state is manned by a crew scared to do anything; they are so fearful that they will not even touch the sails. They say, "Be cautious, be careful." They are even afraid to stand by the wheel and steer a definite course. They cannot even make up their minds to avail themselves of the auxiliary power. Canadians, the passengers, say to them, "For heaven's sake do something and get us out of the storm." This crew's only reply is, "Be patient, the storm is passing." But suddenly the captain has a bright idea; he says, "There is something we can do; there is a bronze tablet on the companion way with the names of the great and the illustrious on it. Let us polish up the bronze tablet." That is the best he can do in the way of seamanship. What I mean is that the right hon. gentleman does not attempt to tackle and solve the pressing problems for the welfare of the Canadian people but busies himself instead with the matter of titles.
I submit that this government has done at least one thing: it has proved Canada's inherent soundness, because a country which can weather the conditions of the past three

or four years with a government like the one sitting opposite to manage its affairs need have no fear for the future.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 9, to incorporate The Bishop of the Arctic.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 10, respecting a certain patent owned by The Firth-Brearley Stainless Steel Syndicate Limited.-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre).
Bill No. 12, respecting patents on certain inventions of which Duplate Safety Glass Company of Canada, Limited, is entitled to the benefit.-Mr. Lawson.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gobeil for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with previous speakers in this debate in extending my very sincere congratulations to the mover (Mr. Gobeil) and the seconder (Mr. Barber) of the address. Unfortunately _ at the commencement of all our sessions the leaders of all parties in the house find it necessary to pay tribute to those who have passed the great divide since the house prorogued. May I in a very humble way this evening be permitted, sir, in this house to try to express the great loss which the Dominion of Canada has sustained since last we parted on account of the death of that great and distinguished Canadian, Sir Arthur Currie. I think, sir, that I am voicing the sentiments of every hon. member on the floor of this house when I say, without at all presuming to add to the marvelous tributes that have been paid to his memory, that he was great in war, great in peace, and great indeed in the heart of his country. May I also be permitted to place upon Hansard a quotation from one of his recent speeches, because it deals with a subject which I intend to present to the house this evening, and which has already been

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
referred to by two of the speakers this afternoon:
Our hope in war was to salvage the old moral values of civilization. Our hope in peace when we came home was to use our influence and strength for the placing of our country on a little higher plane.
Our determination was to see that our broken comrades-the shattered wreckage of the war [DOT]-and the dependents of our dead comrades should never want nor suffer need. Our intention was to prove to our country that grief and hate were not the only results of the courage and the death of ten million men but that mutual help and service and sacrifice were still alive in our country.
I desire, Mr. Speaker, to use those words by way of a preliminary towards the consideration, of a discussion in regard to pensions, but before I pass along, may I refer by the way with the utmost commendation to the appointment made yesterday, I understand by the government of the new Sergeant-at-Arms of this house. I think that appointment reflects great credit upon this administration, that it is one of the finest appointments they have made during the last four years, and I commend that appointment very heartily.
My honourable, temperamental and rodomontade friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), speaking din the bouse this afternoon, had the supreme, the sublime yet customary effrontery to say that I had suggested the injection of the pensions question into the arena of party politics. I think, Mr. Speaker, that my bon. friend has forgotten my attitude in this house during the last three and a half years. He surely must have forgotten my attitude on this question last year in this house. If he had only consulted his own colleagues in the administration I am sure he would have been told that when the pensions question was before this house last year I assisted the hon. Minister of Pensions (Mr. MacLarein) in piloting that legislation through this house in a non-partisan way when there was some criticism coming from my own side of the house. So I want to tell my hon. friend the Minister of Railways that I resent and I repudiate the suggestion that he made. In my experience in this house in the last three and a half years he is the only one, Mr. Speaker, that has ever suggested or insinuated that any hon. member of this house had ever endeavoured to bring the question of pensions into the arena of party politics.


Robert James Manion: I quoted the hon. gentleman's speech in Fort William, not in this house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: All that
I said at Fort William I am going to repeat
on the floor of this house to-night-every single word'-and if my hon. friend will not agree with my conclusions when I am through, then' I shall be glad to withdraw anything that I said at Fort William or here to-night.
May I be permitted the indulgence of the house very briefly indeed to traverse the history of pensions legislation in this dominion?
In the first place, after the armistice we had the appointment of the Board of Pension Commissioners, with their exclusive jurisdiction, with no right of appeal to any body existing, with the statutory appointment of the commissioners for ten years, and with ministers of the crown having no authority whatsoever over the board, and with the right of decision retained by the commissioners sitting here in Ottawa. We recall the widespread dissatisfaction that existed in the dominion. We had parliamentary committee after parliamentary committee appointed from the floor of this house, and eventually we had that royal commission presided over by my distinguished and able colleague the hon. member for Shelburme-Yarmouth (Mr. Hairston) which considered the whole question in the year 1922. As a result of their recommendations, in the first place, that some form of appeal tribunal should be set up, in the second place that an opportunity should be provided for the appearance of the applicant before the body making the final decision, we bad set up in 1923 the federal appeal board.
We had further dissatisfaction existing throughout the dominion, coming down to the appointment of the special committee appointed by this house in 1929-30 and presided over by my hon. friend the member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). As a result of the recommendations of the latter committee we had established in this country the pension tribunals system, numbering twelve, with wide powers of jurisdiction, with an extensive pensions advocate system being set up, with commission counsel appointed to represent the state, with automatic reference to the pension tribunals of many cases, and the establishment of a final court, the pension appeal court. It transpired after these courts commenced to function that about fifty per cent of the applications heard by the tribunals were being allowed, that these favourable decisions were being appealed in wholesale fashion to the appeal court by the Board of Pension Commissioners, and that the great majority of the appeals entered by the Board of Pension Commissioners were being allowed by the pension appeal court. So then we had
536	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
the appointment of the Audette committee, formerly the Rinfret committee, which reported to the administration last year, with three separate reports made to the minister, and presented by the minister to this House of Commons. As a result of these reports the Minister of Pensions introduced in this house last year Bill No. 78, under which new machinery was going to be set up. At my suggestion a special select committee of the house was formed to consider the subject. On that committee were several members on the government side of the house, some on this side and some from the far corner to my left. After a good deal of hard work and careful deliberation the committee presented its report to the house. May I quote very briefly what was said on that occasion by three of its spokesmen. The hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) said:
In conclusion, I think I voice the opinion of every member of the committee in saying that the work was done by your committee most earnestly and with no desire except to serve the interests of the public and at the same time the interests of the returned men.
Personally, these were the views I expressed :
I wish to make one observation, that we have adopted in the first place the principle of merger between the Board of Pension Commissioners-
And this is the part I wish to emphasize:
and the tribunals. . . . We have endeavoured to ensure that the personnel of the tribunals [DOT]>'*<1 of the Board of Pension Commissioners shall have equal chances in the discretion of the governor in council, and also that the clerks and under-staff shall be in the same category, so that the objections which we have all been receiving from our various ridings have been as far as possible met by your committee.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man), speaking in the same debate, in order to make the representation complete said:
I hope they will also keep in mind, as they undoubtedly will, the personnel of the pension tribunals. Apparently these men have achieved a unique success, something rarely accomplished. They reviewed many cases, some of which they accepted and some of which they refused, but I have heard only of a few cases of dissatisfaction in connection with unsuccessful applicants whose cases were heard by these tribunals.
Now let me say here that an agreement was reached by the members of the committee last year-and I am in the judgment of hon. gentlemen who are supporting the government -that equal representation would be given the personnel of the pension tribunals in the formation of the new Board of Pension Com-

missioners. That pledge was given the committee; otherwise there would not have been a unanimous report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not communicated to the government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
probably where the fault lies; but I state on my honour, and I am within the judgment of the members who served on the committee, that such an understanding was reached, because otherwise there would not have been a unanimous report. My hon. friend from Ottawa can back me up and substantiate every word I say. That legislation would not have been submitted to the house by a unanimous vote of the committee had there not been such an understanding, and I so stated when I supported the hon. member for Barry Sound and the Minister of Pensions in piloting the legislation through the House of Commons. The only thing that I said in Fort William was that someone broke faith with the committee of last year, and I repeat it on the floor of the House of Commons. What happened? This measure was proclaimed on the 1st day of October. Look at the personnel of the new commission-and I am not criticizing them individually; I mention them merely to show that someone broke faith with that committee which comprised members from all parts of the house, members supporting the government, my friends to the left of me and members representing his majesty's loyal opposition.


Mr. MacLAREN:: The chairman of the
committee informs me quite differently.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
within the judgment of the members of the committee.


Mr. GEARY:: The hon. member's recollection is entirely different from mine, and I was on the committee. How could that committee make any arrangement about who should be appointed? I want to tell the hon. member that my recollection is entirely at variance with his.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Nevertheless I am in the judgment of those who were present at the committee hearings representing all the ex-service associations of the dominion, and whose considered conclusion was that that bargain would be kept, that pledge honoured. In the formation of the new board, the personnel of the old Board of Pension Commissioners has been retained, with the chief medical adviser, with one of the old commission counsel, with one of the

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
medical advisers from the Montreal unit, with a gentleman from Toronto whom I do not know but who was not with the old organization; while the only one appointed from the pension tribunal, as recommended by us on this side, who endeavoured to bring about a non-partisan conclusion, was Sir Richard Turner. All the rest, with the exception of that gentleman from Toronto, were identified with the old Board of Pension Commissioners before this new legislation was passed.
I wish now to discuss for a moment a matter referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth. Last year this question came up before the same committee, and we put a special section in Bill 78 to provide that where any pensioner's entitlement was in question he should be given ample notice of hearing. I -understand that the act was not proclaimed until the first day of October, with the result that practically all the work of reviewing, as I am informed, was completed under the old machinery before the precautionary section which we inserted came into force. I am not blaming the administration in this regard, but to-day there is widespread feeling throughout the community, and that is all I said in the city of Fort William.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to do the
hon. gentleman any injustice; I quoted the paper in which he was reported as having accused us of a gross breach of faith.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I still say that there was a breach of faith in regard to the promise given that committee last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No such pledge was given that I had knowledge of, nor bargain, and the members of the committee deny it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can only say to the Prime Minister as frankly as possible that it was my understanding, and I am sure it was the understanding of the member for Ottawa; it was the understanding of every single one representing ex-service associations present before the committee..


Murray MacLaren: I have come in very
close contact with the situation and I can say that there was no understanding, so far as I know. To the best of my knowledge there was no understanding in regard to the appointments.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
glad to accept the minister's assurance, but I repeat it was the understanding arrived at by the committee. I so stated myself in discussing the bill before the house, and it was certainly understood by all those present in the committee; and from that position I refuse to
recede one iota. Now, in regard to the cases referred to this afternoon by my hon. friend, my understanding is that a very serious situation is developing throughout the dominion so far as dependents of soldiers are concerned. My information is that some thousands of marriage cases have been already reviewed, and in about six hundred, as the result of some irregularity of procedure discovered, very drastic action has been taken. I am informed that there are twenty thousand investigations pending along this line, and in this connection I would make a constructive suggestion. I do not believe for one moment that the review of these cases should be left to Colonel John Thompson, the chairman of the board. I have more faith in the Minister of Pensions and more faith in the president of the appeal court than I have in Colonel John Thompson, and I suggest to the minister, inasmuch as this is a very live question throughout the dominion, that he himself, the president of the appeal court and the chairman of the commission, review all these cases and if there is fraud institute prosecution; if not, then the pensions should be reinstated on a meritorious basis if no other way is possible. I make that suggestion in absolute good faith.
I have from Winnipeg a case of which the minister may know where in 1933, twenty-seven years after the wife had disappeared, an order of the court was obtained from the chief justice of Manitoba, presuming the death of the first wife. It is this sort of thing done by the pension commission that defies a reasonable presumption of justice on their part. This man with an 80 per cent disability from overseas service and with his leg off, receives sixty-one cents a month and $4.60 for clothing allowance, as a result of his pension being absolutely obliterated by officials of the commission who are over-riding the concrete conclusions of the chief justice of Manitoba.
I agree entirely with the Minister of Railways when he suggests that on these questions of pensions there should be cooperation. There always has been by all parties in the house. That is why I felt that last year the understanding arrived at was not lived up to and that under false pretences we agreed to the principle of the legislation on the understanding that equal consideration should be accorded the pensions tribunals as would be shown the Board of Pension Commissioners. If there is a conflict of opinion between my hon. friends opposite and myself in regard to what happened there, I can only regret it but my recollection is very definite. Parliament has always put humanity before ruthlessness in the administration of our pension system
538	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
and has dealt with the question regardless of any partisan consideration. I am sure the genius of parliament can still rise above the ruthless administration of any commission and see to it that we combine and cooperate as between the great interests of the ex-service men and their dependents and the interests of Canada as a whole.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might I say to the hon. gentleman that the government has already determined, as I indicated in part this afternoon, that in all those cases where men's pensions were taken from them without notice, they should be restored. That has been decided. The method by which it is to be done, whether by legislation or otherwise, is a matter on which I ventured to ask the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) about to-day. I believe under the provisions of the Relief Act we may be able to accomplish it. It is proposed to be done if it can.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I certainly thank the Prime Minister for that statement. 1 am sure that ex-service men throughout the dominion will greatly appreciate it. As I said at Fort William, so I say here, that I believe one man is responsible for most of the grief and pain we have had as regards the situation in Canada.
May I now pass on to a consideration of the resolution before the house, moved by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) and seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber)? We have had an amendment moved by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) and seconded by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). If I am not out of order, we had for a few inglorious days a subamendment moved by those glorious gentlemen in the corner, for a vote of no confidence in His Majesty's loyal opposition. I want immediately to place myself on record by saying that it was the most vexatious, facetious and stupid thing ever done in the Canadian House of Commons. When I saw my hon. friend the sardonic member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), seconded by the greybearded, ascetic member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) suggesting no confidence in His Majesty's loyal opposition, I wondered whether this was the crowd that ever aspired to share in the government of the Dominion of Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member can slap them all he likes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
Robert James Manion: No, but my hon. friend cannot tell either whether there has been anything lost or something gained.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must
say my facilities for suppression cannot possibly equal those of my hon. friend. When he accuses me of giving improper information he may be right; my figure of $30,000,000 may be wrong. If so, will he take the house into his confidence now and tell us what is the exact situation, what is the extent of the loss or gain?


Robert James Manion: On what?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the
gamble of this administration in wheat futures in western Canada. Will he tell me now?


Robert James Manion: No, but I will tell my hon. friend that he had no right to make the statement he made.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will mj hon. friend correct me?


Robert James Manion: I did.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He die not and he will not. Then I will pass tc another item, under peace, order and good government. This item is in the department of the Minister of Railways. Here we have the famous order in council No. 2719: 2,000,000 railway ties at a price not exceeding 65 cents each. No tenders were called for. I ventured to ask the details of this transaction, and the minister said: "No, no; this is secret; this affects the Canadian National Railways." All this secrecy and suppression in the name of peace, order and good government!


An hon. MEMBER:: Bad government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Then we come to 1933, the last session of parliament. The same policy is pursued-For unemployment nothing but the dole. On relief in February last 1,357,562; heads of families, 252,000, and I think about $140,000,000 expended by this administration on relief; the municipalities and provinces facing a condition of virtual bankruptcy. This is the record of this government in regard to Canada's biggest problem. In September, 1930, 117,000 unemployed; at the present time 500,000 to 600,000, after the expenditure of these vast sums.
Then take the question of our debt: in three years of their administration hon. gentlemen opposite have increased the national debt of Canada by over $455,000,000. Do they deserve the confidence of the Canadian people?


An hon. MEMBER:: They have not got it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Take our trade-down $1,717,000,000 in the space of three years. Yet the Minister of Railways thinks this government deserves the confidence of the Canadian people! My hon. friend mentioned France this afternoon; well, she did something the other day; she changed her prime minister, and I think it is time Canada did the same thing. Take the expenditures, mounting by $159,000,000 in the last few years. Our business men are enduring enormous taxation, customs and excise taxes which are much higher than they
10	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
were in the old days; business profits tax, income tax and sales taxes dwindling; customs receipts down from $156,000,000 in 1928 to $104,000,000 in 1932; excise from $57,000,000 to $48,000,000; income tax about the same; sales tax from $70,000,000 to $41,000,000.
Take the debt of Canada; what are they doing about it? The trouble is that the Prime Minister is deafened by the clamorous voices of conventional finance. His fetish has been sound money. I say to my friends that the first duty of any administration in Canada is to meet with courage and determination the challenge of our public debt. In my humble opinion no party can long survive in this dominion unless there is a recasting of the entire debt structure, both of the provinces and of the dominion. Last year a committee of the house held an investigation into the question of interest. But has anything been done in a big way? The government have been nibbling at it, but what has been done in a big way towards the reduction of interest rates in Canada in the last four years? The federal government since the close of the war has paid out $1,900,000,000 in interest alone-an exorbitant figure. There must be a recasting of this whole question, in my humble judgment, as was done in Australia, by a combination of voluntary and compulsory conversion. There must be a writing down of interest rates on public and private obligations all across the Dominion of Canada. That is the only way that we can meet the question of unemployment. We have had suggestions from our friends to the left in regard to shorter hours; I agree with them. We have had resolutions in regard to unemployment insurance; I agree with that. We have had various schemes to remedy unemployment, but in my judgment we can never cure the unemployment situation that prevails to-day until we solve two great problems, the problem of our trade and the problem of finance. In my humble judgment those two great questions are indissolubly intertwined. Some hon. members believe that the tariff affords a panacea for all our troubles. There are others, sitting to my left, who believe that monetary reform is the panacea for all our troubles. I agree with the remarks made by Lionel D. Edie in his great book on banking and credit, in which he says that the economic theories of the industrial equilibrists dovetail into those of the school of monetary reform. The trouble with Canada has been that both major parties have been deliberately directing their trade policies towards the empire-and I am not criticizing or complaining of that-but the financial policies of this dominion have been linked with the 
great republic to the south. Canada must Wake up to the fact that financial policies and industrial policies cannot be kept separate. It is one of the important functions of governments in the future to recognize that these two must be linked up. A solution of our unemployment problem is impossible until we have arrived at the answer to these two great questions.
We have had discussed also the question of note issue and metallic coverage. Two years ago in this house I suggested action on this subject, and it is strange to find now so many reformers in the house, on both sides, who were not so keen on these ideas two years ago, but who are so ready to proclaim these theories to-day, when the government is facing defeat and disaster before the country. In regard to the note issue, the view of some of the best economists, including John Maynard Keynes and the English Macmillan committee, is that a metallic coverage is not necessary for internal currency. Even at the world economic conference they reduced the required metallic coverage from forty per cent to twenty-five per cent for external obligations. The Macmillan committee went further and assessed the scientific basis for a managed currency as one-fifth of the bank deposits. In Canada this would be one-fifth of $2,000,000,000, or $400,000,000, leaving the way open, in my judgment, for a safe addition to our present note issue of over $200,000,000. That is without considering at all the appreciation in value of our present gold reserve. So I say that instead of drifting idly and uselessly as this administration is doing, it should be facing these questions of our financial structure, our public debt, our interest obligations, and a comprehensive public works program.
In regard to that may I make this observation ; I believe a public works program carried out by a government to be too expensive to justify itself. I Should like to see a great scheme by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works to co-operate with industry throughout Canada so that we will have the most effective results from whatever scheme of public works they intend to carry out.
My time is getting short. I had intended paying some floral tributes to my hon. friends on the left, these wild-eyed socialists who gave us such a very interesting time in the province of British Columbia. My hon. friend the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) was boasting the other night because they are the official opposition there:	My bon. friend
the Minister of Trade and Commerce will remember as I do that we had socialists in opposition in British Columbia thirty years

The Address-Mr. Stevens
ago, four of them; since they have increased from four to seven in thirty years I desire them all good luck in thedr progressive acceleration in future years. Possibly when the Woodsworth resolution comes before the house I shall be able to tell this House of Commons and the country what some of their spokesmen said in regard to the compulsory teaching of socialism in schools, and in regard to the dismissal of teachers who would not teach socialism in the schools of British Columbia.
The Liberal party, Mr. Speaker, will go to the country as a centre-forward party with a definite policy. I believe the people of Canada will reject the reactionary toryism which they have had for four years and also the wild radicalism of the socialists in the corner. We have a policy and we have a mandate. I want to tell my garrulous friend opposite that in the last eighteen months practically every province of Canada has spoken. Manitoba spoke very definitely in accents of victory in favour of Liberalism eighteen months ago. Then South Huron spoke in accents of victory about fifteen months ago. Last summer Nova Scotia spoke, also in accents of victory, and returned a Liberal government to power. On October 23 last we had three by-elections in which the policies of this administration were strongly condemned, and in which the policies of the would-be administration in the corner were repudiated. Then we had British Columbia, which to-da-y has a legislature consisting of 34 Liberals and 7 C.C.F. members, with the Tory party shattered to pieces. In addition to that we had a by-election in the city of Calgary the other day, at which the Liberal party was returned by a majority of something like 2,000 votes.
I say to my right hon. friend, the Prime Minister, who is getting so impatient now: let him take heed of what I have said. I say to my right hon. leader, and to all my colleagues around me: be of good cheer; Liberalism is on the march and the heather is on fire.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, from the ^ remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Mackenzie) I would gather that he is not quite satisfied with the present government. It rather dawned upon me that in some ways the government, and particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), had not conducted the affaire of the country just to the liking of the hon. member. Though
I followed him carefully I could not discern anything constructive or helpful either in his address or in that of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), which preceded his.
I must confess that I have been torn between two opinions, two tendencies: the one, that which quite naturally impels anyone sitting in a party government to reply to the attacks that are made by those opposite; and the other, the fact that I am conscious that this country is not tolerant of the time of parliament being expended in party vituperation and recrimination. I believe the country would prefer that the problems facing it should be discussed in a dispassionate manner. On the other hand, however, if we were to remain silent we should likely be reminded, as we were reminded by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) on one occasion, that, in the classical language of the hon. gentleman, we were a bunch of mummies. So, Mr. Speaker, if I fail to follow the hon. gentlemen in that vociferous vituperation which characterized their remarks this afternoon, and rather trust to facts to answer their arguments, perhaps the house may at least acquit me of any lack of seriousness or courage.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat spent a considerable portion of his time dealing with the problem of pensions. I shall not continue that discussion beyond saying this to my hon. friend: He made a statement which I think he ought not to have made quite in that form; he charged bad faith on the piart of the government and members on this side of the house in regard to appointments to the pensions commission, and stated that a definite undertaking had been made in the committee to allocate the appointments on a fifty-fifty basis as between the board and the tribunals. The chairman of the committee later will have an opportunity of replying, but he advises me that there was no such understanding. Apparently my hon. friend became confused in what was said at the time; I will not say that he has intentionally done so in order to charge us with bad faith, but the fact is that there was no such understanding. I will leave the explanation of the details to the chairman of the committee.
I should like to deal with some facte, if I may put it that way, in connection with statements brought forward by hon. gentlemen opposite. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), the
The Address-Mr. Stevens

hon. member for Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) and others have definitely charged that this government has done two things: first, closed the markets of the world, and, second, raised the rates of duty in this country to an inordinate degree. These two statements have been reiterated so frequently that perhaps it would be well to place upon Hansard some interesting facts in regard thereto.
The first statement was that the markets of the world have been closed. May I say to hon. members opposite that they have made this statement so often throughout the country that I believe a great many people actually believe it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friends confirm that statement now. Will they follow me while I recite just a few facts, and I would not be so unkind or unfair, or so untruthful, as to ascribe to the right hon. gentleman who is now the leader of the opposition and who was then the leader of the government the responsibility for the facts which I am about to place on Hansard. I hold in my hand certain statements which I will hand to Hansard for the convenience of the house and to which I shall refer hastily as I proceed.
The first statement refers to France, and shows the lowest rates of duty and highest subsequent rates between December 29, 1921, and August 7, 1930, when we came into office.
It will be noted that this is the period during which my right hon. friend led the government of Canada, and let me repeat that in what I am about to say I do not ascribe to him any responsibility at all. But I ask him to do one thing; I ask him at least to extend the same courtesy to this government, because neither he and his government nor the Prime Minister of the day and his government can possibly control the countries of Europe in regard to the closing or opening of their *markets.
Here are the facts. We find that in 1924 the duty on wheat entering France was eleven cents a bushel; that was when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office. When they left office in 1930 the duty was eighty-five cents a bushel. Was that market closed? In 1924 the duty on wheat flour was twenty-four cents a hundred, but in 1930 it had increased to $2.28 a hundred. Oats carried a duty of four cents a bushel; by 1930 this had become eighteen cents a bushel. The duty on barley was three cents a bushel; in 1930 it was eighteen cents. The duty on cheese was increased from forty-five cents a hundred in 1926 to $1.78 in 1930, and we find the same condition in regard to lard, fresh apples, zinc, lead, bronze powder, kraft wrapping paper and so on; in every case there was a substantial and in many cases a prohibitive increase in duty during the period my right hon. friend was in office. The complete list is as follows:
France
Lowest rate of duty with highest subsequent rate between December 29, 1921, and August 7, 1930
Article
Lowest Rate
Highest Rate
Wheat	
Wheat flour, 70% extraction and up	
Wheat flour, 60-70% extraction	
Wheat flour, below 60% extraction	
Oats	
Barley	
Cheese, ordinary	
Butter	
Refined lard	
Fresh apples in boxes, etc., up to 44 lbs...,..
Fresh apples in other packages	
Zinc, crude	
Lead in pigs, non-argentiferous	
Bronze powder	
Kraft wrapping paper	'
Reapers	
Mowing machines and combined reapers and
binders, weighing 880 lbs. or more	
Mowing machines and combined reapers and
binders, weighing less than 880 lbs	
Harrows and cultivators weighing 880 lbs. or more Harrows and cultivators weighing less than 880 lbs	
11c. bush. 24c. cwt. 28c. cwt. 34c. cwt. 4c. bush. 3c. bush. 45c. cwt. 40c. cwt. 60c. cwt. 5c. cwt. 5c. cwt. Free 13c. cwt. $4 cwt. 60c. cwt. 48c. cwt.
48c. cwt.
48c. cwt. 90c cwt.
11.14 cwt.
(Jan. 7,1924) (Jan. 7, 1924) (Jan. 7, 1924) (Jan. 7, 1924) (April 7, 1926) (April 7, 1926) (April 7, 1926) (April 7, 1926) (April 7, 1926) (April 7, 1926) (April 7, 1926) (1921)
(1921)
(April 7, 1926) (April 7, 1926) (April 7, 1926)
(April 7, 1926)
(April 7, 1926) (April 7, 1926)
(April 6, 1926)
85c. bush. $2.28 cwt. $2.85 cwt. $3.29 cwt. 18c. bush. 18c. bush. $1.78 cwt. $3.55 cwt. $4.45 cwt. 27c. cwt. 14c. cwt. 25c. cwt. 32c. cwt. $8.90 cwt. $1.43 cwt. $1.43 cwt.
$1.07 cwt.
$1.43 cwt. $1.25 cwt.
$1.25 cwt.
(May 20,1930) (May 20, 1930) (May 20, 1930) (May 20, 1930) (July 19, 1930) (July 19, 1930) (Mar. 2, 1928) (June 3, 1930) (July 19, 1930) (Mar. 2, 1928) (Mar. 2, 1928) (Mar. 2, 1928) (May 17, 1922) (Sept. 6, 1927) (Sept. 6, 1927) (Sept. 6, 1927)
(Sept. 6, 1927)
(Sept. 6, 1927) (Sept. 6, 1927)
(Sept. 6, 1927)

The Address-Mr. Stevens
We now turn to Germany.


James Dew Chaplin: Those goods were our
principal exports.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Czechoslovakia
Lowest rate of duty with highest subsequent rate between December 29, 1921, and August 7, 1930		
Article	Lowest rate	Highest rateWheat	Free (1921) Free (1921) $7.73 per 100 lbs. )1921) 2-6c. per 100 lbs. (1921) 2'6c. per 100 lbs. (1921)	75c. per 100 lbs. (June 5, 1930) $1.35 per 100 lbs. (June 5, 1930) $13.64 per 100 lbs. (Aug. 8, 1927) 8-6c. per 100 lbs. (Jan. 1, 1922) 12-9c. per 100 lbs. (Jan. 1, 1922)Wheat flour	Rubber auto tires	Mechanical wood pulp	Chemical wood pulp	
(Cwt. = 100 lbs.)
Belgium
Lowest rate of duty with highest subsequent rate between December 29, 1921, and August 7, 1930
Article	Lowest Rate	Highest RateCheese	81c. cwt. (1921) Free (1921) $1.01 cwt. (1921) $3.05 cwt. (1921)	97c. cwt. (June 26, 1926) 40c. cwt. (June 7, 1926) SI.68 cwt. (June 7, 1926) $3.36 cwt. (June 24, 1926)Evaporated milk	Condensed milk	Rubber belting for machines	
Then, turning to Finland, we find that the it increased from 48 cents per hundredweight rate increased on wheat flour from $1.03 in to $2.30 per hundredweight. The complete 1921 to $1.83 in 1925. On Aluminum cables figures are shown in the table:
Finland
Lowest rate of duty with highest subsequent rate between December 29, 1921, and August 7, 1930
Article	Lowest Rate	Highest RateWheat flour	$1.03 cwt. (1921) $1.73 cwt. (1921) 48c. cwt. (1921)	$1.83 cwt. (Dec. 18, 1925) $2.75 cwt. (Dec. 30, 1924) $2.30 cwt. (Dec. 13, 1924)Automobile tires	Aluminum cable	
Turning to Japan, I find that while the oatmeal, from $2 to $3.57; on ham and bacon, rate on wheat in 1921 was 18 cents per bushel, from $6.50 to $7.30; on butter, from $10.84 to in 1930 it had increased to 34 cents; on wheat $12.69, and so on down the list: flour it increased from 74 cents to $1.08; on
Japan
-	1921	August 1930
		OJ , , ,
Wheat flour		IOti. L1USHC1	
Oatmeal			
Ham and bacon			W.Oi Cwt.
Butter			.OU bWt.
Cheese			
Condensed milk			
Condensed milk, dried		$2.23 cwt.	
Honey			
Douglas fir lumber up to 2-36 inches thick..	$3.80 M ft. Free Free	$5.30 M ft. $4.55 M ft.
Douglas fir lumber 2-36-7-8 inches...		
Fir lumber, over 7-8 inches..		
		
1921 conversions made at 53 cents per yen.
1930 conversions made at 49-8 cents per yen.
It will be seen the relation between 1921 and 1930 rates would be practically as shown above whether rates are quoted m dollars or Japanese yen.
Comparsion with 1933 rates is affected by the substantial depreciation of the yen As specific rates m yen were increased 35 per cent in June. 1932, to offset some of this depreciation the comparison cannot be exact whether expressed in dollars or in yen.

The Address-Mr. Stevens

Venezuela
	Tariff of April, 1922	Rate in August, 1930
	$4.28 cwt.	$10.28 cwt.
		
Cuba
Rate in 1921	Decree of Oct. 19, 1927	Decree of June 29, 192930c. cwt. all year	91c. cwt. from December 1 to May 31; 46c. cwt. rest of year	$2.27 cwt. from Nov. 1 to June 30; 68c. cwt. rest of year


Henry Herbert Stevens: Apropos of the question
of lumber, this is what Mr. McDonald states: Through the enterprise of our association coupled with splendid help of the federal and provincial governments by way of tariff preferences, subsidized shipping services and financial assistance, we have been enabled to increase our foreign markets from 160,000,000 feet in 1929 to 428,000,000 or nearer 429,000,000 feet in 1933.
Mr. McDonald goes on to say:
Every branch of the industry should be a unit in promoting, pushing and financing an intelligent and unified program of market extension so that reasonable returns can be possible for labour, capital and government exchequer.
Then he sets out a table, the grand totals of which are these:	The export in 1932 of
446,889,543 feet increased in 1933 to 661,921,061 feet-the table sets forth the countries to which it was shipped. I shall set out a few, showing the outstanding increases. To South Africa, due entirely to the Ottawa agreements the benefits of which my hon. friends so persistently deny, the increase was from 5,664,646 feet in 1932 to 18,213,254 feet in 1933. To China, another market which we have definitely assisted by government intervention, the amount increased from 53,341,172 feet in 1932 to 130,596,268 feet in 1933. And, because of the agreements the amount to the United Kingdom increased from 108,314,682 feet to 270,208,051 feet. Then Mr. McDonald goes on with further references to the increases in this industry. I have referred to these figures because hon. members opposite insinuated that because the United States imposed a special tar against Canadian lumber, this government was responsible for it. Further, I have intimated to hon. gentlemen opposite, at least in part, some of the things we are doing to extend Canadian tirade.

These are increases in the duty in many of our best markets, such as France, Germany, Italy, China, Japan and so on. May I say to the right hon. gentleman that the closing of the markets in Europe occurred while his government was in office. I repeat, I am not saying the right hon. gentleman was responsible for closing the European markets, but I submit to him, to the house and to the country that because of the continuance of the duties which we found when we entered office, hon. gentlemen opposite have no right to say that this government and this party by its policy have closed the markets of the world. I now turn to another charge.


Wilfred Hanbury: Would the minister
permit a question? Will he tell us what the duty on lumber going to the United States was in 1929, and what it is to-day?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The duty is exactly the same.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The same as it is now.


James Layton Ralston: There is a S4 excise tax.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, that
is not duty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will answer my hon.
friend's question. The United States government, under its Revenue act, placed a special tax of $3 a thousand upon lumber. I believe that tax was put on in 1932. Apropos of the question, reading from the Vancouver Sun of January 19, I find an address by Mr. McDonald of New Westminster, President of the British Columbia Lumber and Shingle Manufacturers' Association. My hon. friends know that Mr. McDonald while an outstanding citizen of British Columbia and a public spirited gentleman, has always been a prominent Liberal so far as politics are concerned.


Wilfred Hanbury: So far as we know.

The Address-Mr. Stevens
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth stated this afternoon that not only had this government done nothing for trade, but that it had done its best to stifle trade. He nods his head now. That, I say, is a most unfair statement-I was going to say a most untrue statement. It is not in accordance with the facts. However, before I come to that may I refer to the statement that has been made that this government and party have unduly increased Canadian tariffs. That is the statement which is quoted everywhere. The facts will disclose whether or not it is true. I say without fear of contradiction-and I see hon. members opposite whom I could name who know perfectly well that what I am going to say is true-that there are industries in Canada which, had we not taken action to protect them against unfair dumping from other parts of the world, would have gone down and out, and the employment in those industries would have been lost, as well as the industries themselves. There is no question about that. And there is no doubt- as if time permits I shall show later on- that had the right hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition been saddled with the responsibility of facing these issues in the last three or four years he would have done as we have done or would have lost out in this House of Commons, because the sense of the house is certainly behind the protection and the preservation of Canadian industry.
Again let me put to the test of actual statistical facts, the statement that we have unduly-the wTord used by one hon. gentleman was " inordinately "-raised the tariff in this country. Others say that we have raised it to the point of prohibition. Well, here are the facts. The average rate of duty on all goods for the fiscal year 1929-30 was, under the general tariff 15.51 per cent; treaty tariffs, 28.56 per cent; British preferential, 14.1,1 per cent. In the calendar year 1933 the general tariff had been increased to 17.92 per cent, or by 2.41 per cent, or less than two and a half per cent increase; treaty tariffs had been advanced by .45 per cent, or less than half of one per cent; and the British preferential had been advanced .28 per cent, or just a little over one-quarter of one per cent. But the increase in the British preferential was due to the transference of the liquor item from the general tariff under which it had always theretofore been, to the preferential tariff, and if you exclude liquor, the British preferential tariff to-day is on the average 11.69 per cent, or 1.59 per cent less than when this government took office.
74726-35J
So the facts, Mr. Speaker, are that there has been a slight, only a alight, increase in the general and intermediate tariffs, but there has been an actual diminution in the rate of duty under the British preferential.
The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat said a few moments ago that we had raised the duty on two hundred items under the 1932 empire agreements.


James Layton Ralston: Had fixed the duty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He said " raised ". But as a matter of fact we lowered the duty on 136 items which he forgot altogether.


James Layton Ralston: And then added dumping duty.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. The only dumping duty that applied was the exchange dumping duty owing to the dislocation of international exchanges. Does my hon. friend or any hon. gentleman who has given this matter thought suggest that any country can proceed with its trade relations with another country when there is a complete dislocation of international exchanges without taking some measures to deal with the problems that arise out of that dislocation?


James Layton Ralston: Not the measures taken by this government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This situation faced all the world; we had to meet the exigencies of the hour and the day-changes in rates of exchange, very wide fluctuations, creating conditions that simply had to be met. It is true that during the period the British pound was down to $3.29-T think that was the lowest point, or thereabouts-when it was between, we will say, $3.25 and $4, there were certain impositions of exchange-adjusting duties. Nobody questions that. Nobody is apologizing for it or suggesting that we should apologize for it. It was done under necessity, and was recognized by the British authorities as necessary. Not only that, but it was done very skilfully because the way we figured it out was accepted by the British exporters as fair and equitable.


James Layton Ralston: Except that they asked
you to take it off.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, under the trade agreements they did not ask that. My hon. friend cannot interject such statements as that because I happen to have a bit of a memory myself. What the trade agreement said in article 17 was that His Majesty's government in Canada undertook that as early as conditions would warrant the special duties
The Address-Mr. Stevens

and impositions of one kind and another would be removed1. The representatives of the United Kingdom recognized fully in our conferences with them that these things were temporary and that we were dealing with them in good faith.
I wish to turn for a moment to the question of our trade. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that we have lost our trade, that our trade has been dissipated. I have here some rather interesting figures, given by the chief statistician of the League of Nations, which show the fall in world trade. In 1929 world trade amounted to $68,641,000,000; in 1930, to $55,575,000,000; in 1931, to $39,769,000,000; and in 1932 it had fallen to $26,611,000,000. That is the gauge, Mr. Speaker, of the trend of world conditions, and that is the gauge that should be applied to Canadian trade in order to interpret correctly whether or not Canada is suffering unduly in comparison with the rest of the world. My hon. friends, of course, in their party enthusiasm, brush aside all these considerations. They charge us with responsibility for the loss of trade. They totally ignore the fall in the price level throughout the world. I shall show in a moment the volume increase in our trade which I think is very encouraging. But whether we like this government and its policies or not, common decency and fairness demand that we measure the trend of Canadian trade by comparison with the trend of trade throughout the world. What if in 1930 we did have, as everybody had, expectations and hopes that the depression then under way, or the depression which was under way before we took office, would not last as long as it did? Is that a deplorable thing? I remember in the early days of the war how nearly everybody said that it would be over by Christmas of 1914; and there was just an odd person or two who said that it would last a year or two. Lord Kitchener was looked upon as a base pessimist for prophesying that it would last three or four years. But it lasted longer than anyone dreamed of; and so when we entered this depression in the fall of 1929, when the great collapse of the New York stock market occurred and precipitated the period of depression the general opinion throughout the
world was that one year, or peradventure eighteen months, would see the end of the depression, as we had seen other cycles pass in years gone by. But all over the world without exception the depression continued to get deeper and deeper.
Someone referred this afternoon to Great Britain emerging from the depression earlier than we have. That is true, but Great Britain [DOT]was in the trough of the depression for some years before we entered it; and that ought to be remembered. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth was not very fair when he made a point of Great Britain emerging in advance of this country or making more rapid progress, if you like to put it that way, because he ignored entirely the effect upon this country, as upon other countries, of Great Britain's going off the gold standard. I am not questioning the right or the wisdom of that step. As a matter of fact, I belong to that school of thought that believes she was right, but the effect was terrific throughout the world. I do not think that any economist up to the present time has ever properly gauged its effect upon the world. That is a fact over which we had no control and no possibility of control.
Then again there was the economic collapse of virtually all the countries of Europe, as I shall be able to show. My hon. friend points out that Britain is a little in advance of us in recovery, and I glory in the fact; I think it is splendid. But it is due partly to their farsightedness as statesmen and partly to the following of those careful and cautious policies which characterize Mr. Chamberlain as Chancellor of the Exchequer. And may I say to my hon. friend that the Prime Minister has been charged with walking step by step with Neville Chamberlain, the very gentleman who is responsible for the conditions in Great Britain which the hon. member opposite lauded this afternoon. In other words, he condemns the Prime Minister of Canada for following the same policy.
Now let me turn to British trade. I will place on Hansard a statement I have here with regard to Canadian domestic exports to the United Kingdom for calendar years 1931, 1932 and 1933:

The Address-Mr. Stevens
No. 1.-Canada's Domestic Exports to United Kingdom of such items as show an Increase for 1933 over 1932 and also over 1931, both in quantities, when available, and values.
Calendar Years
Articles Exported				1933
		1931	1932	
Total Domestic Exports to United Kingdom	171,534,822	178,171,680	210,414,33190,024,491 1,339,663	102,630,911	105,299,588Apples, fresh	Brl.	1,386,479	2,640,110S	5,300,934	5,639,946	10,061,420Fruits, canned and preserved	Lb.	4,911,926	9,933,100	15,866,493$	299,752	556,113	854,409Apples, dried	Lb.	126,000	256,900	820,100S	8,967	17,369	64,005Pickles, sauces and catsups	$	1,397,224	1,173,459	1,479,245Vegetables, canned and preserved	Lb.	10,188,640	4,536,310	14,673,436$	549,062	179,592	678,030Flour of wheat	Brl.	2,197,217	2,285,951	2,438,447s	7,864,374	7,720,708	8,301,774Macaroni, spaghetti and vermicelli	Lb.	695,957	1,787,188	2,945,263s	29,669	76,845	130,837Cereal foods prepared	$	2,450,825	2,119,066	2,659,466Hops	Lb.	112,177	7,200	594,927$	21,710	360	198,954Agricultural and Vegetable Products-Other than Food..	...*	6,778,269	6,122,749	7,129,192Tobacco, unmanufactured	Lb.	6,220,917	11,084,548	13,722,531S	1,972,484	3,158,184	3,639,094Ton	12,793	5,876	13,918$	147,551	55,306	150,264Fodders, n.o.p	s	89,107	174,415	237,955Senega root	Lb.	44,397	62,851	103,196$	16,618	19,139	36,811Animals and Animal Products	s	31,729,174	28,839,863	38,481,676Cattle, over one year old	No.	27,149	16,568	50,317$	2,218,383	1,257,398	3,198,194Salmon, fresh and frozen	Cwt.	27,430	25,007	49,002$	473,550	352,532	672,568Salmon, pickled	Cwt.	550	1,418	3,211$	9,320	18,563	44,6211,120	17,310$	2,550 6,580,496	37,780Fur skins, undressed	s	6,578,152	7,515,845Furs, dressed, and mfrs. of	s	22,449	15,829	132,990Upper leather	8	1,286,547	1,532,723	2,279,444Leather gloves and mitts	8	123,322	114,528	183,276Leather boots and shoes	Pair	1,206	2,180	7,5708	6,281	6,680	24,052Beef, fresh, chilled and frozen	Cwt.	5,240	14,785	71,732s	31,937	62,116	338,862Bacon and hams, shoulders and sides	Cwt.	109,617	306,934	715,247s	1,493,363	1,010,203	8,071,803Canned meats, n.o.p	Lb.	15,006	373,746	644,446$	4,586	66,363	104,836Soups of all kinds	S	519,344	610,850	696,805Milk, preserved	Cwt.	80,539	153,310	211,356s	623,518	1,003,791	1,348,324Eggs	Doz.	431,070	24,720	1,750,075#	96,911	3,972	363,285Honey	Lb.	1,796,859	2,161,800	2,213,899S	175,247	184,341	254,099Sausage casings	8	41,609	80,681	309,755Fibres and Textiles	$	1,284,772	1,238,597	1,799,169Cotton, manufactures of	S	164,815	217,472	217,591Artificial silk and manufactures of	$	485	858	39,802Felt and manufactures of	8	150,968	127,373	176,247Wood, Wood Products and Paper	8	13,452,882	12,046,263	16,272,657Logs	M ft.	5,010	4,201	6,068$	178,666	144,430	193,102Planks and boards	M ft.	112,038	172,462	450,7068	3,224,901	3,530,639	7,634,723Timber, square	M ft.	20,121	22,709	35,849$	424,441	456,103	1 562,627
The Address-Mr. Stevens


Mr. DONNELLY:: Would the minister tell us the difference between buying futures and gambling in them?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. My hon. friend
knows quite well, as do many other hon. members, that were it not for the purchasers of future contracts on the Winnipeg or *Chicago market, as the case may be, it would not be possible to market in orderly fashion the western wheat crop. No one knows that better than does the western farmer; but it is quite true that the purchaser of future contracts, whether in Chicago, Winnipeg or elsewhere, may be a speculator in wheat. Who
li 52
The Address-Mr. Stevens

buy future contracts? First, the millers for their future use, because millers will buy in October or November for delivery in May or July. That is their regular practice. They thus ensure a certain amount for their requirements. Exporters, in anticipation of their requirements, purchase futures. Futures are purchased for the Scottish Cooperative, which is one of the biggest organizations. Purchasers for the big milling interests in Great Britain, Bunge, Dreyfus, the great dealers on the European continent, all buy futures for delivery at some future date. I am reminded that the Stamp commission which went into this whole question made a decision-and it was accepted-which was distinctly in favour of those who had wheat to sell, namely, the producers. It is vital to the producer of *wheat in the prairie provinces that when his time of delivery in the fall comes, there should be some agency available to absorb the excess of wheat that is offered for sale, and that is all that has been done. If there were no buyer there would be no sale. My hon. friend knows that had Mr. McFarland, the head of the pool selling agency, refused to take up in the fall of 1932 and again this autumn, the excess delivery over purchases by the mills and the exporters, there would have been a wholly disastrous slump in the price of wheat beyond any point to which it actually went. Last fall I pointed out all these facts [DOT]to some hon. gentlemen opposite. Would tny hon. friends now say: You have been gambling in wheat; why have you not come out into the open? Anybody who knows (anything about business knows that if a government were to disclose its hand day by day in regard to these things, it would have ruined the wheat market. There is not a single dealer in wheat, whether he is a producer, or a representative of the pools, or any of the purchasing or selling agencies, but would tell any hon. gentleman that what I have just stated is true. It would have ruined the market.
We have been faced in Europe with quotas, with high rates of duty for which we were not responsible, which were in existence before We took office. Faced with these conditions, not because we have closed markets, we have done everything that ingenuity, skill, foresight and the backing of the government could do to hold the wheat market of Canada steady in the interests of the producers.
I should like to have dealt with a few other questions, but I shall not infringe upon the time of the house. In conclusion let me say this: this is the situation in our great markets, namely, Great Britain and the continent.

Fortunately Great Britain now gives us a 'sheltered market due to our agreement, but in the great European markets of France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Czechoslovakia and so on, due to the disturbed conditions which have obtained in the last few years, unfortunately for us, as well as for others, systems of quotas and high rates of duty obtain, but we hold with the governments of those countries the most friendly relations. I do not know of any of them that are not on the most friendly terms and I am hopeful that as time goes by and as conditions improve, those markets will be an increasing source of absorption of Canadian products.


Mr. EDOUARD LACROIX (Beauce) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, before this debate closes, I wish to briefly discuss the financial and economic situation of the country, such as it appears to me. I disagree, sir, with the views expressed by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) who moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne. To restore prosperity to this country one must, first, desire it, and the government certainly does not. Is it by its policy of indifference or by its exaggerated policy of protection that we shall succeed in restoring prosperity? Prosperity, under the Conservative regime, is like a flower which hardly blossoms, and hon. gentlemen on the government benches must know that they cannot coax it, they must show themselves worthy of it and deserve it. Can we hope that prosperity will be restored to this country?
I fear that we shall never see it again. We shall certainly not prosper before we can improve our situation, federal, provincial or municipal, and put our financial affairs on a sound footing, and, so to speak, make an inventory of the country's finances.
I contend, sir, that we must first know how we stand, salvage the ship of state which is sinking. I, moreover, state, as we are all aware, that Canada will soon be bankrupt. Very soon we shall have to repudiate our liabilities or default, unless we act immediately. Where is the so called government policy of sound money leading us to, where has it led us hitherto? What do the government's followers think of the labour situation? What do they think of the labourer without work who toils for a pittance? The representatives of the counties adjacent to the Quebec district understand what I mean by a labourer working for a pittance. They are numerous in their counties and I wonder why they have

The Address-Mr. Lacroix
not protested hitherto. The farmer, unable to obtain credit, is forced to leave his farm and seek another home on new land. The country merchant has lost 60, 80 and 90 per cent of his stock; the manufacturer, in certain industries, is on the road to ruin. For instance, in the paper industry, 56 per cent of the companies are bankrupt or reorganizing.
The figures which I shall quote, sir, will exactly describe the situation of municipalities, provinces, and Canada as a whole; it will, perhaps, impress many of us who are wondering where we are bound for and when the ship will become stranded? In 1911, the national debt amounted to $340,042,052; in 1921, $2,340,878,984; in 1930, $2,177,763,959; in 1080, $2,599,089,000. While in 1038, the dominion debt for the guarantee of railway bonds-less the $60,000,000 lately guaranteed to the Canadian Pacific Railway-amounted to $996,148,000. In 1930, the provincial liabilities amounted to $1,363,382,000. In 1933 also, indirect liabilities amounted to $215,977,000. In 1933, municipality liabilities had reached $1,584,000,000. The total debt of Canada in 1933, including railway guarantees, not including, however, the $60,000,000 guaranteed to the Canadian Pacific Railway, but including the provincial and municipal liabilities, amounted to the fabulous sum of $6,758,596,000 or $651.33 per capita.
According to the figures I have just quoted, the total debt of Canada between 1930 and 1934 has increased $1,167,236,444. That comprises all the dominion, provincial and municipal liabilities, namely, a yearly increase of $291,809,111 or $29.08 per capita, by which we aggravate the situation of this country.
To better analyse and understand this extraordinary state of things, I took the pains of looking up the United States's national debt and comparing it with ours, seeing that the United States government's policy is striving to wipe out its domestic debt. I find that in the United States on June 1, 1933, the federal, state and municipal governments, including county councils, had a total debt of $42,223,249,000 or $355.10 per capita. In Canada our debt amounts to $651.33 per capita compared with $355.10 in the United States. This means that every Canadian owes the double of what the United States citizen owes. Moreover, the United States have no outside debts, while ours amounts to 40 per cent of the total debt.
Recently, at Vancouver, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) drew the attention of his audience to this fact. In Toronto, he stated that Canada's credit
could not be further extended. In Montreal, he attributed our colossal debt to railway construction. To my mind the responsibility rests not alone on railways, but mostly on the public men who then voted these guarantees to railways. The government in office in 1911, 1912, and 1913, of which the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was a supporter, voted on many an occasion subsidies and guarantees to the Canadian Northern, owned by MacKenzie and Mann; and I could point out many instances where our Prime Minister himself approved these subsidies and guarantees to that railway. In 1914, according to Hansard, did he not state himself that in 1912 and 1913, he had approved of these subsidies? I simply wish to show that if the country's liabilities have reached this colossal figure, all must shoulder their own responsibility and not place the burden on Sir Wilfrid Laurier's administration.
Another event which we have not forgotten and which is the cause of our present plight, is the great war with its enormous waste. One well recalls the memorable speech of the right hon. Mr. Meighen in the course of which he exclaimed, "To the last man and to the last dollar!" Well, sir, the last dollar is gone and no one wants to be reminded of it.


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: Will the hon. member permit me to ask a question?


Édouard Lacroix: Certainly.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: You mentioned a moment ago the country's debt and stated that our total liabilities, including municipal and school debt, amounted to $8,000,000,000.


Édouard Lacroix: $6,758,-
596,000.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Can you
state what is Canada's total assets?


Édouard Lacroix: I shall
answer the question as follows: If Canada's debt amounts to $6,000,000,000 and if we continue to increase our debt by $29 per capita each year; moreover, if lumber continues to retail at $6 per 1,000 feet, b.m., Canada's credit is not worth much.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Will the
hon. member permit me to give him some information? I think it may be useful to him. I shall refer the hon. member to the Canada Year Book.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	That
is not a question.
The Address-Mr. Lacroix


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Is the
lion, member aware that Canada's assets amount to $30,000,000,000, namely $3,000 per capita.


Édouard Lacroix: The hon.
member does not seem disposed, this evening, to settle Canada's debt.
If we desire prosperity in this country, we must first put our house in order and make use of stringent means which the situation demands. Why not forsake this policy of sound money and increase the purchasing power of our people? If the United States have found it necessary to deflate their dollar to 59 cents, and soon to 50 cents, when their debt per capita amounts to only $335-10, why should we, in Canada, strive to liquidate our debt with money of fictitious value and which would not be acceptable to our people?
If the United States find it necessary to stabilize their dollar at 50 cents, and if our liabilities amount to double what theirs are, I state that the par value of the Canadian dollar should be 50 per cent of the value of the United States dollar; namely that we should stabilize our dollar at half of its present value.
Moreover, other countries have set the example. In 1920, France made an inventory of her assets and studied the paying power of her people and came to the conclusion that to honourably meet her liabilities she had to stabilize her franc at 3-92 cents, namely, 19^ cents on the dollar. Great Britain also resorted to deflation on the pound sterling. Sweden, Norway, Italy, Belgium, Japan and many other countries were forced to deflate their currency so as to meet their liabilities.
It may be asked-that is, perhaps, what the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette) wishes to find out-How shall we meet our liabilities abroad? We can do so, if we wish. Canada ranks second among gold producing countries. According to the Bureau of Statistics, in 1933, we produced $60,880,000 worth of gold, reckoning its value at $20.67 an ounce. However, if it is appraised at market value, namely $35 an ounce, the gold production in our country, in 1933, amounted to $103,077,450. Why not fund this foreign debt at fifty years and pay it with the products of our gold mines, and not by crediting the capitalist with a premium on gold as we are at present doing, leaving the impression that we are very wealthy.
Recently the United States revalued all their gold and the government alone were credited with the profits. Even on gold held in reserve by the United States national banks,

the premiums was credited to the government and not to these banks. I wonder why we should pay the premium to gold producers in this countiy instead of crediting it to the government.
We could, sir, utilize another natural resource in order to liquidate our liabilities. The means which I shall suggest may not please every one; however, when one wishes to pay his debts, all legitimate means are resorted to. I refer to gasoline and oils sold in Canada. According to last year's statistics, we consumed 503,800,000 gallons of gasoline. Two years ago the consumption amounted to 100,000,000 gallons more. Why permit this gasoline to be sold from 7 to 10 cents more, per gallon, than it should sell? Who benefits by it? Who are those who are benefited by this 7 to 10 cents margin over and above the cost price? The profits in such a transaction go to Rockefeller, the Standard Oil of New Jersey, the Imperial Oil of Canada, a subsidiary company and other oil companies which are connected with and owned by the Imperial Oil Co. of Canada.
In April last, the Standard Oil and the PanAmerican Oil submitted to me a price for a cargo of gasoline; I wish to quote their figures in order that they may appear in Hansard. For a cargo of gasoline loaded in the Gulf of Mexico, the Standard Oil and Pan-American Oil asked me 3-25 cents per gallon. The transportation company charged 35 cents per barrel for this shipment from the Gulf of Mexico to Quebec, or 0-82 cents per gallon, a total of 4-07 cents per American gallon, delivered in Quebec. Comparing the United States gallon with that of Canada, the latter contains one fifth more. Therefore, in April last, the large United States trusts, owners of the Imperial Oil and other Canadian companies, asked me 4-89 cents for an Imperial gallon, delivered on board ship in the port of Quebec.
What was, then, the sale price of gasoline on tank cars, at Quebec and Montreal? I inquired and found that the Imperial Oil and the Champlain Oil, were selling gasoline at 1-2-5 cents per gallon, at Montreal and that the shipping cost from Montreal to Quebete amounted to 2-5 cents per gallon-


Mr. DUMAINE (Translation):: Shame!


Édouard Lacroix: -namely 15 cents per gallon delivered in Quebec, or a spread of 10-11 cents per gallon between the Standard Oil prices-4-89 cents per gallon- and those of its subsidiary company, the Imperial Oil-15 cents per gallon.

The Address-Mr. Lacroix
Why tolerate such a situation in Canada and thus permit the removal of $50,300,000 of the people's savings, because a group of men known as the gasoline trust are benefited by an exaggerated protection.
This proves how shameful are the profits of the gasoline trust in Canada. Last summer, as you are probably aware, tourists, at Lasalle, Quebec, could only purchase three gallons of gasoline for $1, while, across the border, at Plattsburg, they obtained six gallons for the same price. Yet we do not bestir ourselves when the public debt increases $29.08 per capita yearly! If it is desired that the Canadian people should continue to pay top prices for their gasoline, why not levy an excise tax of 10 cents per gallon? Let us do away with tariff barriers and permit outsiders to sell their gasoline in this country. We shall then soon find out that gasoline will sell less than 30 cents per gallon, even including this aforesaid excise tax and those levied by provincial governments.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that it would somewhat be a great sacrifice for this government to turn against trusts, especially the gasoline trust, the Standard Oil and Imperial Oil. That is why I wanted to explain our financial and economic situation such as I see it and to suggest certain remedies.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Were investigations requested under the Liberal administration?


Édouard Lacroix: If the hon. member will deign to reply to my question, I shall ask him what relief he is giving, at present, to the people of his county who are not earning anything?
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Everybody is earning.


Édouard Lacroix: Steps must be taken, sir, before it is too late, otherwise, we shall have the sorrow of seeing our country pass under the guardianship of Great Britain, just as Newfoundland is, at present. I shall vote, sir, for the amendment and against the main motion.

Is the increase of $11,504,428 in exports a compensation for a decrease of $309,991,661 in British and foreign exports on those Canadian products?
Home consumption year 1932-33 compared with 1930-31
Dressed beef, 89,161,967 pounds less; sheep and lamb, 4,845,080 pounds more; leather, $18,318,887 less; dairy products, 20,841,926 pounds less; peas, 973,616 bushels less; potatoes, 2,284,769 hundredweight less; fish products, $21,847,107 less; grain, 89,403,558 bushels less; wheat flour, 1,689,000 barrels less.
Sir, it is pretty hard for the house to understand the full meaning of figures read so hastily, until they appear in Hansard, but I wish to conclude thus. I have in my hand a book written by a very distinguished member of the press gallery, Mr. Leopold Richer. It is entitled Marche de Dupes? or A Fool's Bargain? This is the only way to describe the agreements of the Ottawa conference. I will say no more, I leave the figures to speak for themselves. I do not wish to offend anyone but lit is a crime to burn incense before the right hon. Prime Minister by telling him that his policy has been a success, when taking one by one the summaries he has given to the house we prove that they mean not only a loss in exports but also a decrease in home consumption. The facts are there; what I have said is not based on imagination; it is not a tale I have told to the house, I have obtained the figures of exports and imports from the bureau of statistics. I have worked on them for three or four days; now I hope there are some gentlemen on the other side of the house who will tell the Prime Minister that he has shot his bolt and it is time for him to remove himself gently from the picture. We might wait another year, for an election- provided that the Conservative party and the government select another leader-and try the administration for a year longer under that new leadership.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by Mr. Gardiner, that the following words be added to the motion:
We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's present advisers have not taken such steps as are necessary to deal adequately with unemployment, to reduce the burden imposed by the public debt, and to put the agricultural industry on a basis that will ensure to the farmer a decent standard of living.
The position of a third group in the house is a somewhat difficult one. If we vote nonconfidence in the government it may be interpreted as indicating that we have confidence in the official opposition. But such is not the

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
case. Hence the subamendment which we introduced at an earlier stage of the debate, which however, was declared out of order. We now seek to place our position before the house.
May I point out that when we vote against the government we do not necessarily reject or disapprove of all the measures mentioned in the speech from the throne. We recognize that there are some good measures indicated in that speech, some things that we may approve. When the legislation is actually brought down and we understand more fully the details of it we may be inclined to vote for certain measures proposed in that speech. But on the whole we feel that the proposals are altogether inadequate to meet the situation with which we find ourselves confronted at the present time. Hence while we join with the official opposition in voting for their amendment, we now put forward our own amendment, and possibly they may reciprocate by voting for it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The family will get
together.


Ernest Lapointe: It is a good amendment.



PRIVILEGE-MR. COOTE

Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege; would you permit me to say that I was paired to-night with the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, February 14, 1934