CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to lay upon the table of the house the report of the Chief Electoral Officer, made in pursuance to section 58 of the Dominion Elections Act, chapter 50, 24-25 George Y; also extract from the report on the eighteenth general elections held in 1935, published in advance by the Chief Electoral Officer, giving list of names of candidates; also the report of the Chief Electoral Officer made in pursuance of section 4 of chapter 54, 23-24 George Y.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved, seconded by Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East):
That 1,000 copies in the English language and 500 copies in the French language of record of proceedings of the dominion-provincial conference, 1935, be printed forthwith, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.
Hon. members will have observed that I have already tabled the report in printed form. I took the liberty in advance of the meeting of the house of asking the King's Printer to have the report printed, believing it would be the wish of hon. members to have it available at the earliest possible moment. The motion will permit of the bill for the printing being sent in to the House of Commons.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to amend the Railway Act (rates on grain).
He said: The proposed bill seeking to amend the railway act has for its object the granting to the province of British Columbia of the same rates on grain and flour for domestic use in that province as are in existence from the prairie provinces to Fort William.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Will the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenize King) lay on the table copies of orders in council passed by His Excellency the Governor General in Council which relate to the imposition and enforcement of sanctions against Italy? I would like to have copies of the original orders in council laid upon the table, and also any departmental instructions which were issued in pursuance of the terms of those orders.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr, Speaker, it is my
intention to present to the house very shortly a white paper which will contain the essential documents with respect to sanctions and allied matters which have been before the govern-[DOT] ment in regard to the Italo-Ethiopian war. The white paper will, I think, include what my hon. friend has requested. If, after looking over his remarks anew, I find it does not, I will carefully consider what he has proposed, and if it is appropriate to do so, will see that his request is met.-



IMPERIAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg-North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
Prime Minister what commitments, if any, have been made by Canada with regard to imperial defence?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would have to have a
conference with my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) before I could answer my hon. friend. At the moment I am not myself aware of any commitments.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of the speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session.
Mr. A. G. SLAGHT (Parry Sound) moved:: That the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, to offer the humble thanks of this house to His Excellency for the gracious speech which he has been pleased to make to both houses of parliament: namely,-
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Baron Tweedsmuir of Elsfield, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Member of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Governor General and Commander in Chief of the Dominion of Canada.
May it Please Your Excellency:
We, His Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada,
The Address-Mr. Slaght

in parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both houses of parliament.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne this year, as we all should expect, contains the following special references in its opening: first, to the loss our empire has sustained in the death of His Majesty King George V, an expression of sympathy to our young king, to Queen Mary and all the royal family, and an expression of our loyalty and devotion to King Edward VIII.
On Friday last the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) seconded by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in very simple and touching addresses, expressed for us the thoughts that were in our hearts, therefore my task on this occasion, in reference to that portion of the speech from the throne, will be limited indeed. May I recall and quote to you, from among the many beautiful expressions that have come from public men throughout the empire, just two lines which seemed to me the most impressive in that address delivered by the British Prime Minister, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, who said:
King George, it, is true, inherited his position on the throne-he won his own way to the hearts, o-f his people.
If one might be permitted, sir, to speculate as to which of his varied activities His late Majesty was most happy to perform, I would suggest it was not when he wore the crown and the ceremonial robes of office but rather when he went in his own simple, human way to the hospitals of the motherland and, with a friendly arm around their shoulders, cheered his wounded men and those who were unfortunate enough to be disabled in the war. I think another duty which he and the gracious queen delighted to perform was when they went to those functions at which little children gathered. There, I believe and feel, he was often most happy in the performance of his public duties. If I might revert to schoolboy days I should like to quote you something that comes to my mind from the fourth reader of those days; I should like to give you four lines which seem to me perhaps better than any we could find to exemplify the two outstanding traits of our late beloved king. They are as follows:
For whatever men say in their blindness And in spite of the fancies of youth
There is nothing so kingly as kindness And nothing so royal as truth.
To our new and beloved King Edward VIII we of this house affirm our loyal allegiance, and in the storm of controversy and the heat

of debate throughout this eighteenth parliament I think we cannot do better than always remember those lines, which have been left as an example to us, that there is nothing so kingly as kindness and nothing so royal as truth.
Before I proceed, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the speech, majr I extend to you my congratulations upon your election to the office of Speaker of the House of Commons. I feel that. I can do this with double sincerity because for some years past I have enjoyed the privilege of your personal friendship. I feel also that your long experience in this house and your knowledge gained from participation in the debates eminently fit you to uphold the traditions which we heard so well expressed last week and to carry out with fairness and impartiality the duties of the high office to which you have been called. I desire to express to you, sir, the hope that for many years to come you may preside over the deliberations of this house and continue, as you have begun, to perform in a fine and noble way the duties that fall to your office.
I understand that it is the privilege of the member performing my task to have a word to say about his own constituency. May I first offer to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and to his cabinet, on behalf of my constituents of Parry Sound, their most sincere thanks for the honour you have done them In selecting me to move the address. The Parry Sound district which I have the honour to represent, I need scarcely tell you, is one of the most important districts in the Dominion of Canada. My people are engaged in the basic industries of agriculture, cattle raising, fishing and lumbering, and the district, which as you perhaps all know is some six thousand square miles in area, is situate on Georgian bay, with one hundred miles of waterfront, the beauty and scenic grandeur of which cannot be surpassed. The district is dotted with a myriad of small and sparkling lakes, with four great rivers which empty into Georgian bay. Because of the industries I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, my district of Parry Sound will be particularly and specially benefited by the cattle and lumber provisions of the treaty which will be submitted to this house shortly and as to which I shall have a word to say later on.
May I say also, Mr. Speaker, that because of its scenic grandeur and its wonderful fishing and hunting my district enjoys a great influx of tourists from both Canada and the United States. Not only are we blessed by the provisions of the new treaty; our blessings in Parry Sound do not come singly.

The Address-Mr. Slaght


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: My hon. friend apparently appreciates, as all hon. members may not appreciate, that I have the privilege of claiming as one of my constituents, and I believe even a supporter, the famous Doctor Dafoe, and just a mile outside the little town of Callander, w'here he lives, the five Dionne babies are nestled in their hospital. So I ask you, sir, if any constituency in our broad dominion could be more appropriately honoured on this occasion than my own constituency of Parry Sound. And lest I should be thought lacking in hospitality I convey to you now, sir, and to all hon. members of this house, an invitation to come to my beautiful riding this summer, to come to Callander and visit us. I desire to single out and render a special invitation to four members of this house in the persons of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). I assure these hon. gentlemen that if they will do us the honour of paying us a visit this coming summer I shall be able to introduce them to five of the most charming young ladies in the Dominion of Canada.
It is also with real sincerity that I desire to congratulate the right hon. former Prime Minister, the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) upon his return to this house apparently greatly improved in strength and vigour. Sir, I count the house and the country fortunate that in the years immediately ahead of us we are to have the benefit of his courage, his industry and his wide experience in framing the law's of our country. It has been said that laws are best made when there is a strong and virile opposition. While the opposition in this house may not be numerically as strong as the right hon. gentleman would wish it to be. I am sure that in the able and brilliant veterans w'ho survived the late struggle, and in the new blood which he finds added to his party, any lack in numerical strength will be fully compensated by their capable support.
Permit me also to felicitate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) on his return to this house at the head of his party. It is true that he has returned writh a progressively diminishing following, but that I feel sure will not affect his indomitable optimism, his sincerity, and his fighting qualities, all of which are so well established.
I desire. Mr. Speaker, to make a reference to His Excellency the Governor General. In the speech from the throne His Excellency
declared himself honoured by having been chosen to represent the king in Canada. We in turn feel that for us the choice has been a singularly happy one.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: It is indeed a privilege to
be permitted to voice through you, sir, to His Excellency the Governor General in the person of Lord Tweedsmuir, a warm and most sincere welcome from the people of Canada on this auspicious occasion. Even before His Excellency reached our shores we knew we were receiving not a stranger but a friend. His distinguished career in the service of the motherland w7as known to us. The work he did while attached to the British headquarters in France and the unostentatious but very valuable service he rendered to our empire was a matter within our knowledge. And in another way we felt we knew him. His contributions to the field of literature have been read and reread in Canada, and both before and after his coming to us have been literally devoured in the homes of the Canadian people. These sparkling and vivacious stories of the secret service have charmed us all from youth to mature age. I must confess that when I came upon Green-mantle I sat up until the small hours of the morning bound to finish it. The King's Grace is a work of classic rank, and in the light of subsequent sad events it was given to the empire at a time of startling appropriateness. The sane, clear, inspiring literary works of Lord Tweedsmuir in their effect upon the building of the national character of Canada go far to justify the statement that the pen is mightier than the sword. And wherever he has so far been able to journey, whether it be the historic city of Quebec or my metropolitan city of Toronto or the outskirts of our mining fields of northern Ontario or Quebec, he has endeared himself to all our people. May I say that we look forward to a span of unusually happy years under the regime of His Excellency and his gracious and charming wife, the Lady Tweedsmuir.
I desire to congratulate the right hon. the Prime Minister on becoming Prime Minister of Canada for the third time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: May I add to that the
distinction that our Prime Minister holds office by the mandate of the people of Canada expressed in more overwhelming terms and supported by a greater majority than that accorded to any prime minister since confederation. Not the least of the reasons for congratulation is the high quality and per-
The Address-Mr. Slaght

sonal character of those ministers of the crown he has selected to assist him in governing Canada. It may be truly said also that no political leader ever sought office on fewer preelection promises. No overnight policies were issued next morning; the Prime Minister in his campaign adhered steadfastly to the policy of his party. It was no one-man policy but the considered policy of the party enunciated by him as its leader in February, 1933, and adhered to by him throughout the campaign.
With equal truth may it be said that no political leader ever entrusted with office has made such a remarkable record of accomplishment in four short months or less. May we pause for a moment to see what I mean by that. The government has successfully concluded a reciprocal trade agreement with the United States of America, which is to be of far reaching benefit to our basic industries and to Canadian primary producers. The conclusion of this treaty is, I suggest, a personal achievement of our Prime Minister, of which he may be justly proud. I cannot but remind the house that he has brought to pass a measure which was very near the heart of a beloved former leader of my party. Just before entering this chamber I passed before the portrait of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I bowed my head, and the thought came to my mind that if he had been spared to see this day, and the consummation of a measure which with his clear prophetic vision he declared twenty-five years ago would come to pass, what warmth of emotion would stir him to know that his pupil in public life, his chosen successor as leader, if I may be so bold as to say so, had as a personal achievement brought his cherished dream to reality.
Next, the government has brought to a successful conclusion the trade dispute with Japan; normal trade relations between the two nations have now been restored. This is bound to be of great advantage to all of Canada and perhaps particularly to the great province of British Columbia.
Recently the government convened the most important federal-provincial conference in history, at which questions of profound national importance were considered, including methods of amending our constitution, our financial relations and responsibilities, the great problem of unemployment, problems of agriculture, problems of mining development, and the development of the tourist traffic. Then, again, a very important conference, one not so widely known, has been held in Ottawa. This was a conference of departmental experts convened to consider the possibilities of

developing a system of transatlantic airways transportation. The experts of Great Britain, Ireland, Newfoundland and Canada agreed on representations to be made to their respective governments, and a subsequent successful conference was held in Washington. In other words the government has realized the national importance to Canada of this new and wonderful development, and due to the foresight of the right hon. gentleman's government we are taking our place and recognizing Canada as a pivotal point in the air transportation of the world.
Continuing committees have been set up by the federal-provincial conference. Under the guidance of the government many of them have come to well defined conclusions with respect to financial problems and constitutional amendments.
Reference of legislation passed at the last session has been made to the Supreme Court of Canada. Hon. members will recall that several measures as to the validity of which doubts had been openly expressed were placed on the statute books. The supreme court was directed to deal with these measures at the earliest possible moment, and they are now before that court for determination. Surely it should be a principle of law making that at least parliament be assured of the validity of its laws when they are enacted, no matter to what extent legitimate difference of opinion might arise as to the desirability for such laws. The present reference therefore is to remove uncertainty and to make for stability.
Again, a royal commission was promptly appointed and speedily solved a very serious unemployment situation in the textile industry.
All these matters have been actually accomplished in less than four months, and accomplished in addition to the heavy departmental business of the country, which is being carried on by sixteen instead of twenty-one ministers of the crown. Am I not therefore fully justified in pointing with pride to these achievements of the Prime Minister and his cabinet?
But hon. members have not yet heard the whole story. The speech from the throne outlines several important matters to be dealt with at this session by legislation.- because they can be dealt with only by legislation. May I- refer only briefly to these matters of unemployment and relief? One would expect no difference of opinion concerning the statement in the speech from tlhe throne indicating that unemployment continues to be our most urgent national problem. There can be little room for difference of opinion when I state that heretofore the difficulties which beset this problem have been

The Address-Mr. Slaght
greatly magnified by the lack of cohesion and cooperation among federal, provincial and municipal governments. Where responsibility for spending money is divided it is almost an axiom that what is everybody's business seems to be nobody's .particular business. In other words, in the past there has been too much scrambling to place the load on the other fellow's shoulders, and too little union of responsibility tending to bring about a strict and businesslike administration of the millions of dollars which unfortunately muslt be spent each month in Canada on some form of relief. After all, whether funds be supplied by the federal, the provincial or the municipal government, there is only one source from which they may be secured, namely out of the pocket of the taxpayer.
What I am about to say is not said in criticism of tihe late government or of the right hon. gentleman now leading the opposition, because I believe the provinces, the municipalities and perhaps to some extent the federal government have all been a bit to blame, perhaps innocently enough, for the condition which has heretofore existed. I suggest that if a citizen from Mars had looked down upon Canada's method of dealing with relief and unemployment during the past three years, he would have been reminded of what Lord Chesterfield said to his son: "My son, you will be amazed with how much ignorance the world is governed." The proposals outlined in the speech from the throne with regard to this all important problem seek to remedy the existing lack of cooperation. A representative national commission assisted by a representative advisory committee is to be set up. May I express everybody's hope that with the cooperation of hon. members opposite both the commission and the committee may be truly representative and accomplish great results.
The transfer of camps for single homeless men from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Labour is a reform which is perhaps long overdue. Last year I visited some of those camps, and I believe any hon. member who took the trouble to do so must have come to the conclusion that certain changes were necessary.
Further, we find outlined in the speech from the throne proposed changes to the Bank of Canada Act. Those changes foreshadowed in the speech from the throne are not new to the. people of Canada. The Prime Minister, before taking office and as leader of the Liberal party, made it clear that in its present form the Bank of Canada Act was not acceptable to that party. The reasons were fully laid before the people as an issue upon which
the major parties were clearly divided during the last campaign. The proposed legislation is in accordance with the platform laid dowm and insisted upon in order that these two important functions, the control of credit and the issue of currency, shall be administered by a Bank of Canada in which the government as owners has a predominant interest, and over which it has effective control.
The speech proposes an amendment to the Canadian National Railways Act whereby the government of the day may be responsible to this house and there will be a greater measure of control on the part of parliament over this publicly owned work, in which such an enormous amount of public money is invested and the financing of which has become a major problem. This amendment involves a serious question of policy. The question of employment is to some extent wrapped up with the problem of the Canadian National Railways. Under the present method of administration government authority and responsibility to parliament in connection with this great railway have been greatly lessened. The proposal is to restore them to a marked degree. The time at, my disposal on this occasion does nat permit me to deal further with this important problem.
Then we find a proposal to create parliamentary secretaryships, and this proposal will, I hope, meet with the approval of every hon. member of this house. It is established in the mother of parliaments and I believe is fully approved by British statesmen regardless of party affiliations. It should create the building up in this house of a body of men who because of the experience gained as under secretaries will be better able in the future to carry on the responsible duties attaching to cabinet positions. I fancy that the right hon. leader of the opposition and some of those who sit beside him will agree with me that it will afford a measure of relief to the ministers of the day who can very properly turn over some of the exacting details of their offices to under secretaries, and do so without impairing the . efficiency of their work. From every viewpoint I submit to the house that this administrative reform is one that will be found of benefit to Canada.
May I crave the indulgence of the house for the imperfections of my presentation of this important motion. May I add that the government, and we its supporters, enjoying as we do a very large majority, carry with that privilege a very grave responsibility, a responsibility not to abuse the power that we possess, but to see that support is thrown
The Address-Mr. Slaght

behind only those measures which are believed to be for the benefit of the whole Canadian people.
In closing may I quote two lines from that much beloved and lately departed English poet, Rudyard Kipling, to whose memory I am sure this house will concur in permitting me to pay tribute. The lines to which I refer are from the poem "If", and perhaps they will serve as an admonition to our government with its vast majority, as well as a comfort to our friends of the opposition with their small minority. They are:
Jf you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
I have pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in moving the resolution which I gave to you in opening, expressing the hope that the measures dealt with in this our eighteenth parliament may be of great benefit to Canada, and that better times may come upon our country, perhaps brought by providence, but by a providence assisting a government of which providence approves. May I conclude by expressing again the hope that in our deliberations and conclusions during this parliament we may bear in mind1 the fact that there is always a far horizon for onward looking men.


Mr. SARTO FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rosemount) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, this parliament has opened in an atmosphere of mourning. In losing George V, we have lost a prince in whom all was kingly. Like Charlemagne, he deeply loved his people and his people deeply loved him. And what of his paternal solicitude for youth? Never shall we forget it. History will assuredly perpetuate the recollection full of love, admiration and gratitude in which we hold him.
Edward VIII succeeds him. He is known to all and all agree that he is a young man in whom high intelligence is combined with a deep knowledge of men and of things. On his head the British crown has lost nothing of its splendour, of its authority in the empirS and of its prestige in the world.
I am certain. Mr. Speaker, that I interpret the sentiment of all your colleagues when I warmly congratulate you on your election to the speakership of the House of Commons. The difficult task you have assumed requires your fine qualities of heart and all the resources of your ability and of your great experience. May I beg of you to grant me your good will? I have such great need of it, especially at this moment.
Our acquaintance, becoming daily more intimate, with His Excellency the new representative of His Majesty in Canada, Lord

Tweedsmuir, whose life is a continuous ascent, and of his gracious consort, Lady Tweedsmuir, convinces us once more of the great care London takes to send to us men who bring us their services, leave with us something of themselves and return home with our friendship.
When a patient realizes that he has made a mistake in changing his physician, he returns to his former one. After five years in opposition, the Liberal party is back in office. This was to be expected. The recollection of the past, the difficulties of the present, the uncertainty of the future, the increasing popularity of the Liberal leader, together with the excellence of the program which he put forth and which we upheld before the electors, all that explains the fortunate defeat of the other parties and the magnificent triumph of ours, to which my distinguished colleague from Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) has just referred. There was no misunderstanding. The nation had to make its choice. It pronounced itself decisively and, in handing us the reins of power, it recognized and sanctioned once more the essentially liberal principal of freedom of trade, which has figured for forty years in the first article of the program of the Liberal party and which is founded on the reciprocal need that peoples and individuals have of each other.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: Hear, hear.


Sarto Fournier: Governments whose
names are linked with periods of prosperity were composed, as ours is, of men who understood that the interdependence of individuals and classes of society, the international solidarity of peoples, becoming closer and closer according as the obstacles of time and place diminish, make it impossible for prosperity to be a local phenomenon and the exclusive lot of a single nation.
The disregard of this principle has led to the extreme nationalism that has brought us to our present sorry pass: a bitter experience that history will record as one of the greatest humiliations of the human mind. The government, as is proved by the speech from the throne, of which my distinguished colleague from Parry Sound has just proposed the adoption in a remarkable piece of eloquence that has shown him to be a master of the art of expressing his thought, the government, I say, has avoided falling into the error, of this eccentric theory of ultra-protectionism and other similar doctrines that may come to us from the opposition and which sanction in their laws the vices that nature prescribes in hers.

The Address-Mr. Fournier


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, bear.


Sarto Fournier: If our civilization
threatens to become synonymous with depression and misery, it is probably because it has called up more problems than it could solve; and the great error of the government which preceded the present one was to believe itself capable of solving them all at once and in a short time. Time has worked its revenge upon those who would proceed without its aid and, to-day, everything has to be begun all over again.
Among the problems that we are faced with to-day, the most important and most urgent one, to my mind, is the economic problem. The speech from the throne announces the government's determination to facilitate, in an effective manner, the economic recovery of the country in every sphere of activity, while taking into consideration all requirements of a natural, economic, social and political order.
The natural order requires that nations have economic relations with each other; that is why, I believe, they have invented and are constantly improving their methods of production and their means of communication and distribution.
Commerce has ever been the livelihood of peoples, a universal provider of employment, a valuable source of revenue for the state, as well as a serious guarantee of peace and prosperity. This theory is not a dream of things that are to come; it has borne the test of time and has become truer than ever. Prosperous years are always attended by great economic activity.
The treaty of reciprocity which the dominion government has just concluded with the United States the settlement of our difficulties with Japan and the negotiations which the government intends entering upon with other countries are steps that cannot but produce good results and that prove the perfect agreement to be found between what is said and what is done on the Liberal side of the house.
(Text) The government, Mr. Speaker, understands that if we want to keep Canada busy, if we want to realize that most marvellous formula of the Conservatives, "Canada First," the first thing we have to do is to step on business and; do business with everyone who wants to do business fairly with us. This is the very condition on which we shall succeed in finding the proper solution of most of our national problems-unemployment, railways, trade and commerce, revenues and taxation, and so forth. And to make it easier and safe, as the speech from the throne indicates, the government is providing for the organization of the national 12739-3
condition on which we shall succeed in finding of Canada a national institution.
(Translation). But it would be truly regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that the government's efforts to insure increasing welfare to the population should redound to the exclusive advantage of a group of individuals who have no need of them. The government is guarding against this danger by warning all shameless exploiters that it will use the power of the state whenever it may become necessary to do so to protect the interests of the weak against the encroachments of the powerful. For its courageous and timely intervention in that regard, it deserves special congratulations.
Why should there be so much misery in the world at this time when the only change in the quantity and quality of goods has been for the better?
It is because too many of those who monopolize production and distribution commit grave abuses which they should hasten to correct, because to-morrow, should the misery that has existed in this country for five years continue, it will be too late; and that to-morrow is perhaps nearer at hand than we think it is.
It is not the government that threatens, it is circumstances that warn-circumstances that could easily be dispelled by the good will of those who create them if they would refrain from abusing the liberties provided for them by the system, if they would moderate their thirst for profit, if they would declare to the state their total income and pay to the treasury all they owe in taxes, in order that others may not have to pay in their stead; if they would be content with moderate profits, if they would pay reasonable salaries to their employees, in a word, if, instead of seeking power and admiration, they tried to make themselves better liked. It would be an honourable sacrifice, and I ask it of them in the name of the youth of my country; for if there is in our society at the present time a class of people who are to be pitied, it is the young people. The past has left them practically nothing but debts and obligations, and their future outlook is not much better. Most of them do not know what to do with their time. They stand before life mistrustful of everything, with nothing to hope for, somewhat as if they found themselves at the brink of a river waiting for it to dry up in order to cross it. We follow a generation that has done great things, but that has made serious mistakes, the most memorable of which is a war, a war, as some one has said, in which "man almost lost his name of man," a war that was more costly

The Address-Mr. Fournier

to the victors than to the vanquished, a war that profited only those who lived from it, a war that was to insure peace, but that has sown the seeds of war.
Such things sometimes inspire us with much bitterness. We know thar, the depression has been hard on everybody, but its after-effects, if we do not exert ourselves to soften their blow, will mean disaster and the triumph of anarchy and of communism. Five years ago, such a thing was possible; to-day it is probable, and the day when it will have become an established fact it will be too late to think of making amends and of consenting to the necessary sacrifices.
The Liberal party has always shown us a great deal of sympathy. The presence in this chamber of a score of young Liberal members and the government's intention to initiate us, in a serious and practical manner, to public administration in our country is further proof of this sympathy which the Liberal party has never withheld from us. It behooves us now seriously to prepare ourselves and to try to deserve it as much as possible.
The other reforms that the government intends to accomplish in the field of social and political economy, that is the establishment of a national and representative commission to supervise the distribution of work to the unemployed and the payments of direct relief, the amendments to the Canadian constitution intended to adapt it more closely to the present needs of the nation, which has grown in the last thirty years, especially when the Liberals were in power, are steps that will largely facilitate the return to the land and to a proper equilibrium. And further, Mr. Speaker, history will record that in 1935, as in 1896 and in 1921, the coming to power of the Liberal party, the true party of restoration, marked the end of a period of misery and the beginning of an era of prosperity, of justice and of peace. Thus, Mr. Speaker, the facts continue to vindicate the ability, the good sense and the spirit of enterprise of our two great leaders, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the right honourable the present prime minister.
Your patience, Mr. Speaker, has no doubt been tested by such a lengthy speech. Anybody else could have made it shorter and better, but certainly not more sincere.
It is with these sentiments that I have the pleasure and honour of seconding the motion of my distinguished colleague from Parry Sound.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I very heartily congratulate the mover (Mr. Slaght)

and the seconder (Mr. Fournier) of the address for the speeches with udiich they have favoured this house this afternoon. The generous references of the mover to the leader of the opposition and the leaders of other parties were in the best form of those who practise at the bar; and the seconder's speech gives evidence of his having inherited a great name in law circles and indicates that he must, if he is given health and strength and opportunity, play a great part in the service of the state.
I could not but be impressed with the mover's speech when he referred to the glories of the community which he represented. I felt perfectly certain that he was contemplating a discontinuance of his service there as a tourist and taking up his permanent residence at Parry Sound, a contemplation which I am sure will be received with great joy by those who call him their member. But he fell into one grievous error, and one into which many members of this house have fallen during recent months. Not content with referring to the very great majority that the government has, a majority that I venture to think will become somewhat troublesome as the months go by, he also referred to the fact that it had behind it a support unprecedented in the history of this country since confederation. Surely he has not read the returns. I wonder if the hon. gentleman realizes that the government that sits opposite me to-day, with 171 members out of a house of 245, has been placed there by less than 35 men and women out of every hundred of the population of Canada who had the right to vote on the fourteenth day of October last. I wonder if he realizes that, according to the figures supplied by the chief electoral officer, 5,917,387 persons had the right to vote in October last.


Mr. BRADETTE:: The dead and the
duplications.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were none. The list was issued on the first day of May, and is the most up to date list this country has had in recent years. In addition to that, of that number, out of every one hundred persons, men and women in Canada who had a right to vote, only thirty-five voted for the government-including the independent Liberals- that sits here with 171 members. That is an anomaly that cannot possibly endure if democracy is to last, for it has been said so frequently that majorities are the indications of a sound democracy; in other words that where the popular will is not represented there can be no sound or enduring democracy. That is a commonplace; it is said in every text book; it is spoken of on every husting; it is

The Address-Mr. Bennett
the philosophy of democracy, and yet the fact remains that there are 171 members in this house supporting a government representing only thirty-five out of every one hundred who had a right to vote in October last.
I do not mention that for the purpose of complaint, far from it, but for the purpose of indicating that the observations that were made a few moments ago by the mover of the resolution have no support in fact. It is one of the most precarious conditions confronting this country at this time, when we have grave and serious problems to engage the attention of the people, that the government of the day, entrenched in power in the way it is, not only does not represent a majority of those who did vote but has only a little more than one-third of the support of those in this country who were entitled to vote in October last. That means nothing as far as this opposition is concerned or those who sit to the left of the Speaker; it is not said for that purpose. I do say, sir, however, that it is a matter of profound significance as affecting the welfare of this nation; for there is a tendency to use the power of a majority which has manifested itself already and which was disclosed in this house the other day by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe): "Well, call up the guards." That is all; "call up the reserves; look at our majority. In a few minutes we are going to do so and so. We have the votes; we are going to do it. Never mind; call up the guards."


Ernest Lapointe: The Minister of Justice never said that; those were Conservative words.
Mr. B'ENNETT: I thought the hon. gentleman would become a little excited. "Never mind; call up the guards." The hon. gentleman is waving his arms unnecessarily.


Ernest Lapointe: That is
past language.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, it was used as late as Thursday last. I mention this again because there is a tendency on the part of some members, especially the younger members, to think that because there is a vast majority you necessarily have the popular majority behind you. That is not so. Not only is this government without a majority of the popular votes in Canada, which is the negation of democracy; as I said a moment ago it has the support of only slightly more than one-third of the electors of this country who voted on election day.
What is to be done about a matter of that kind? In Australia they had this question to deal with and they dealt with it by compulsory voting. They increased their votes up to
12739-3i
ninety-one per cent of the total vote in the first election after they enacted1 the compulsory voting measure, and they brought it up to ninety-five per oent at the next election. I have not the figures of the total vote oast in the last election, but I mention this because it is not a difficulty singular to Canada; it is a difficulty that has to be met with in new democracies. In the older countries the situation is not so acute; the difficulties are fewer, but in this and in other new democracies such as Australia these difficulties have to be met and overcome.
There is another method to which we will have to have recourse in this country, which has been found most satisfactory in Great Britain; that is the limiting of the cost of an election in each constituency. That will have to be provided for by some method such as that adopted in Great Britain to attain that end. When you look at the returns and see the avowed cost of an election-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say the avowed cost; the smiles and laughter of hon. gentlemen opposite indicate that they know perfectly well that their returns do not show what their elections cost. In England the judges have been very careful, in administering the law, to insist that the slightest deviation from the rules laid down shall constitute an offence vacating the seat. There was one case in particular, shortly after the law came - into effect, that had the result of vacating the seat. The admitted expenditures were a little too large, but they were able to show much larger expenditures in the end. As a result conditions are much improved as compared1 with those prevailing before this act was passed.
I mention these things on the threshold of my observations because I hope they are not wholly controversial. After all, when one has had experience one realizes that there are some questions that far transcend mere party considerations. I say to this chamber to-day that the result of the election, not viewed from the standpoint of party but viewed from the standpoint of its effect upon democracy, having regard to the number of votes cast, the number of those who had the right to vote and the cost of the election even as indicated by the returns, presents a situation that calls for a remedy. The two remedies I have indicated are those applied in Australia and Great Britain to improve the conditions that there existed. In England they had far worse conditions, before they remedied them, than we have had in this country. Sometimes we compare conditions in England to-day with conditions in Canada to-day. If we are to com-
The Address-Mr. Bennett

pare we must compare democracy at the age it was in England with the age it is in Canada, in order to arrive at a fair judgment, and I think it may be said that democracy in Canada has given a fair account of itself under the conditions that existed. But it is reasonably clear that there are improvements that should be made, and I merely suggest these two. In France they are severely logical; I remember on the last occasion I was there inquiring with great care as to how they carried on their elections. Strange as it may sound, sir, the truth is that in France no chamber of deputies is ultimately elected that has not been so elected by the majority of the electors. They have their vote; if there are three or four candidates and one candidate does not secure a majority there is a second polling, after those who are low drop out. If at the end of the second polling the majority has not selected a candidate there is still another polling. So in every case in France the member elected to the chamber of deputies is a member who represents the majority of the electors of that division, though it may be necessary to have several pollings before that end is attained.
I merely mention this in passing because of the observations made by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) with respect to the support the government received throughout the country at the last election.
I desire now to point to what I conceive to be a somewhat more painful' matter. We have endeavoured, with doubtful success, to do something in this country to attain a measure of unity. We have not always succeeded. There have been times when the representation from one great province was wholly for one party. In this very parliament there are provinces represented by members of only one party and none others. What I deprecate is the appeals that were made in the province of Quebec in connection with the war. "Canada to enter war." There is the sheet that on Saturday was circulated throughout that province. I should say further that I have before me the handbill that was circulated in the constituency of Argenteuil. This statement that Canada was to enter a war is supplemented by a dispatch not unlike the dispatch that appeared in 1930 with respect to the war in Egypt. "Canada can mobilize a powerful and fully experienced army within twenty-four hours," stated this official. This is from Ottawa, dated October 11, special:
Canada will probably be drawn into the European war if Great Britain is forced in, and irrespective of what politicians, statesmen and economists say, the dominion will not be able to help herself.
[Mr. Bennett.}
Then follows a statement as to Canada's preparation for the war. It is quite at variance with what has recently been said. This is an indication that Canada is already prepared in other provinces to send its troops into the field.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: What
paper?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is called the Montreal Reporter, and is dated October 12, 1935. That is only one; I have others. This handbill for instance was circulated in a little community in the county of Argenteuil. I have many others circulated in other parts of Quebec.
But there is something more to which I regret I have to direct attention; I refer to observations made by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in that campaign. Some few years ago, when the government of that day came into office, the leader of the opposition spent much time reading into the record many statements and extracts from my speeches. To-day I shall content myself by referring to one made by the Minister of Justice at a meeting at St. Roch market on September 7:
Before 1930 the province had in Ottawa a unanimous representation. We did not disgrace the French Canadians. We had influence in the cabinet; I do not wish this influence to diminish. I want to be with Mr. King and I want the whole province to be behind me. I ask you to give me this support.
Further, when visiting his committee room on September 16, he is reported to have said:
That's why I ask again our friends to unite, to put aside their petty quarrels, to assure us of a majority like the one we had in the parliament from 1921 to 1930. There is no question, it is we from the province of Quebec who led in the parliament during that period. It -has not been the same thing since 1930.
That form of insularity does not make for national unity. And when the hon. gentleman refers to the united front of Quebec prior to 1930, and then says their voice was not as powerful because twenty-four voted for candidates of the then government in 1930, and appeals to them to strengthen their influence and their power by uniting and forgetting petty things-when they are not petty-I think it is doing an injury to the commonwealth. I leave it at that. But before I proceed to the next point let me say that what was so with respect to Quebec in this particular was so in other parts of Canada as well. The effort was made wherever it was thought it would be effective to have men and women, women mostly, believe that the Conservative party had wedded itself to war at the earliest possible moment. Mr. Speaker,

The Address-Mr. Bennett
that may have temporary success. It may. But there are not lacking to-day signs that the effect of those very appeals has been to lessen the strength of the bonds of confederation and to weaken the position of this dominion as part of the empire.
Once the party came into office, when the Prime Minister was called upon to form a. government, we had evidence of the success of the appeal made by the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of Justice. When the government was first formed the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) was not allocated to the position he at present holds. He w'as to be sworn in as Secretary of State. But the little corporal from Sorel was not thus to be denied. The support the party had received from the province enabled the little corporal to train his guns upon the Prime Minister, and in the words often quoted by Abraham Lincoln, "the coon came down." For we find that the little corporal had been able successfully to maintain his position. The little corporal from Sorel had become the emperor of the day. Quick advancement! But what was yesterday was yesterday, to-day is to-day. He was quite right. So you have the result that followed from the appeal thus made. Then of course there were other difficulties to overcome. The minutes passed into hours before finally my friend the hon. member for Richelieu-Ver-cheres (Mr. Cardin) became Minister of Public Works. In that position I am sure he will, in the words of the Minister of Justice, cast no reflection upon the people he represents and will discharge his great duties with fairness and with a sense of obligation that comes to one who is from a province that took the lead from 1930 and is now able to enforce its will upon the Prime Minister.
Then, of course, there are other striking changes. For instance we welcome the face of my genial friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). Of course, the general elections did not .bring him into the house; he had retired from politics. He has assumed another role. But think of the value of his experience to us now. He returns to the Department of Finance, and that genial smile comes only from the fact that for years he was manager of a very well known hostel of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which means of course "service," therefore a smile for all the guests. And then he has learned what many men have yet to learn, what my hon. friends from the west, one of them no longer here, have told us; as a director of a bank he would be able to tell you how every loan creates a deposit. That would meet with the warm approval of those hon. gentlemen,
some of them at least. Of course there would be no difficulty at all in explaining the condition of the investments of insurance companies, because in the position of director of an insurance company he had great opportunities to that end. Then there was another matter which was somewhat interesting; he was the chairman of a reconstruction committee-no relation of course to the party of that name. As chairman he perhaps may be able now to enlighten us on what became of Laurentide. There are a lot of investors in England who would like to know.


Mr. DUNNING:: It might embarrass you if I did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it would not embarrass me, thank fortune. What became of Laurentide would be an interesting study, because these were purely provincial companies over which the dominion had no control.


Mr. FACTOR:: He found the national debt increased by almost a billion dollars.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hon. gentlemen have a
tendency to speak just low enough to be heard by me, but not by others. If their courage is as great as it should be, if they desire to ask a question, let them stand up and ask it, and I shall endeavour to answer at once.
The administration having thus safely been launched and the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Crerar) having once more found himself, not Minister of Railways as heretofore but in the possession of a combined department, he will I am sure be able to explain to the satisfaction of the house the operations of the grain exchange, his best beloved child, and how they are able now to sell on that exchange wheat that is supposed to be maturing in October next but which has not yet been sown. Perhaps he will be able to explain that to the satisfaction of the people of this country, but there is some doubt even as to that. I will deal with that presently.
Having thus established his government we are told by the mover that the Prime Minister at once began to show such action that in three or four months he did more than had ever been done in this country before. In so doing he made new trade agreements; he broadened human liberty, extended freedom to the downcast and depressed throughout the world, and gave to the name- of Canada a place amongst the nations of the world that had never been dreamed of before. Well, it was a great achievement-a great achievement, as the hon. member for Parry Sound has said. Let us examine it for just a moment. The press indicated-and the
The Address-Mr. Bennett

press is always well informed as to the movements of the right hon. gentleman-that he was to leave for Georgia for his health, but that he would stay for a day at Washington. In twenty-four hours a trade agreement is made with the United States, and upon returning to Canada, after a session with the cabinet lasting a couple of hours on Armistice morning, all is over. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that it is no wonder men smile. Either one of two things had been done; either the agreement in its essential terms and details had been done before, or it is an improvident one -one or the other. No man, however great he may be, can in twenty-four hours, forty-eight hours or seventy-two hours complete a trade agreement with the United States. And if he does-or did-it would have only one result, that he has been properly trimmed. I think the latter alternative will be the one which history will show fits the case.
Then there is the settlement with Japan. I am going to say only a few words in that connection, and they are these:	We have
not the papers before us, and therefore I shall reserve any lengthy observations until later, but if press reports are accurate, two years from now whoever lives that long will see the most humiliated government, if this government still survives, that there has ever been in this country. I say that with respect to the agreement. That is all. I have made a prophecy, an ordinary prophecy,-and you may mark it down.
These observations are merely of a preliminary nature before proceeding to deal with the speech from the throne as a whole. The document is wonderful, in one sense: dt is going to restore responsible government for which our grandfathers died. It will bring to the people of Canada a freedom which they have never possessed, and parliament is once more to emerge in all its past- power and greatness. Could anything, Mr. Speaker, be sillier than that? No wonder that intelligent men who have read that paragraph in the speech from the throne are asking themselves why any prime minister could ask a representative of the crown to make a statement of that kind. Does any one for a single moment say that at any time there has been enacted in Canada by order in council any legislation which had not been warranted by parliamentary action?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes, the. loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does any one say that
this parliament-the Senate, the House of Commons and the Crown-have not agreed

in enacting laws to enable any executive action which was taken by the late government? If so, name it. What was it? Wherein has the executive ever acted, except it had parliamentary power and authority given it to warrant the action taken? Name it. Here is the sentence:
It is proposed to restore to parliament its control over taxation and expenditure by ending all measures which have deprived members of the House of Commons of this control, and which have served to invest the executive with unwarranted arbitrary powers.
Is that fair? It is proposed " to restore to parliament " its power-when, sir, since October this very government has been carrying on by executive action, sanctions, extensions of power, great extensions and alterations in our fiscal system, as declared by the Prime Minister himself. , All these things have been done by executive action. Why? Because it is said there was parliamentary sanction for the action taken; because it was stated parliament had given power to the executive to do it. I ask again: Name a single instance in which the late executive passed any order which parliament had not given it power to pass.
I have no doubt that at the moment there may pass in the mind of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley) the thought that the court has held as invalid an order in council in connection with dumping duties imposed upon certain importations from England. The court did hold that that was improper, and I am glad to say that the minister has taken an appeal. Why? Because once parliament confers upon an executive the right to pass an order in council upon any subject, and that order in council is passed, then the action thus taken is in many instances changeable or alterable only by parliament itself.


Mr. ILSLEY:: The appeal is not on that ground at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, it should be. At any rate that is one of the points upon which the appeal should be made. For instance we will say that a minister issues a proclamation stating that a certain act shall go into force on proclamation by order in council, that the order in council is passed and the statute comes into being: do you mean to say that by cancelling the order in council the statute ceases to be and is repealed? No one would suggest for a moment that that is so. And so when action is taken which imposes a given duty or price upon a certain commodity, under authority granted by parliament, the mere repeal of the statute cannot affect that item which has become an item in the tariff or one to be dealt

The Address-Mr. Bennett
with, as I have indicated. I mention that in passing, because to most- people it seems rather strange, but it is in keeping with the statement made by the right hon. gentleman on the night of the election. I do not think I shall do it, but I shall ask some hon. member sitting behind me to read the statement made by the right hon. gentleman upon his assumption of office. When that is read I think it will be regarded at least as an ungenerous document. However, leaving that for the moment I suggest this can be said about it., that he there indicates the matters concerning which he has had a mandate to deal and with which he must deal in accordance with the mandate he has received. Before the debate is concluded at least I shall ask to have that read and placed upon Hansard, so that it may be recorded as an indication of what the leader of the government regarded as his mandate, and the matters of importance which would engage the attention of this parliament.
At this time I think it is not necessary to make further reference to the death of His late Majesty King George V. That was done only a few days ago by the right hon. gentleman and myself, and it would seem unnecessary to make any further reference than that in the speech from the throne we might expect to find, and do find, reference to the universal sorrow of Canadians and people in all parts of the world at the death of the late king, and a further reference to the sorrow we have for the surviving queen. With that would1 go our earnest hope that His Majesty King Edward VIII may be long spared1 to reign over a free democracy, and to carry forward the great reforms which during the last twenty-five or thirty years have been made in every part of the British empire. I make only brief reference to this matter, and do not go into it in detail this afternoon because I believe anything which might appropriately be said has been said.
There is one point however I should like to make, and it is this: Nothing has more clearly indicated that our imperial existence-and I use that word deliberately-as a commonwealth of nations freely associated together is bound up with the monarch. Without the monarch there could be no common union of commonwealths such as we have in the British empire. The freedom and ease with which the change was effected is a striking tribute to the simplicity and strength of our institutions. Nothing I believe better indicates the strength of our great institutions and, if you like, our monarchical democracy, than the change which took place-the king is dead; long live the king. There was continuity and certainty, no
fuss and no trouble. Everything went on regularly in every part of the world1 and in each of the hemispheres as though it had merely been something of a domestic nature, such as the vacating of office by a mayor. It was a wonderful tribute to the strength, the simplicity, the power and the continuity of our institutions as we now have them.
I will reserve what I have to say with respect to the League of Nations until the end of my remarks, but this I think should be said: It is very much to be deprecated, as the right hon. gentleman said the other day, that chance remarks should be made at this particular time by those who hold important places without due appreciation of their seriousness. When passing through the Panama canal I received the first news of conditions in Canada from a paper printed half in Spanish and half in English. I read of the rejoicing in Italy because of the statement made by the Minister of Justice. I wondered what it all meant. I confess that I would rather have read thait there was rejoicing in Australia and Great Britain and New Zealand over those remarks than in Italy. I wondered why it was necessary to make the observations that were made. I made inquiries as soon as possible and I found that, as usual, the sub-' committee of the League of Nations, eighteen in number, were discussing the question of sanctions, and the Canadian representative, than whom I have known no one in all my existence who was more careful not to take action without having authority to do so, had suggested, not for publication, that if Canada had to lose nickel, copper and various other things of this sort., why not put oil and steel and the like on the prohibited list? It at once became bruited abroad and the ungenerous suggestion was made that our representative in Geneva was acting at the instance of some of the representatives of the British government, that he was being urged to do something that the British government would not do but thought he would be a useful person to do. That sort of thing leaves a very bad impression in the minds of .people abroad as to what really is the position of Canada. Twice on that steamship representative men who happened to be passengers asked what it meant that they had read in the press. Two days later at sea a radio despatch was received indicating what the Prime Minister had said, and there I think he must be doing himself an injury too that he did not object to what was done, but did object to Canada being regarded as having taken the initiative with respect to this matter.
The Address-Mr. Bennett

Now, sir, let us examine our position. The Dominion of Canada is a member of the League of the Nations and was a member when the league came into being. It was one of the charter members of the club. The rules of the league provide that if one of its members is found to have been guilty of an act of aggression against another member, certain results follow. Some call these results punishments, some call them sanctions, some call them penalties, but the fact is that the league with practically no dissenting voice decided that Italy had been an unwarranted aggressor against Ethiopia, also a member of the league. I say practically unanimously decided, as there were two or three members who did not so decide because of reasons which they then gave. That being so, it was not for the league to impose the punishment because the punishment followed. Sanctions followed just as when a jury brings in a verdict of murder against an accused it is the duty of the judge to sentence him to the only penalty the law provides, just as when a verdict of guilty is brought in for assault or shooting or any other offence. Upon a verdict being recorded the duty of the judge is to award punishment. What that punishment shall be is defined by the criminal code of Canada. In this case the provisions of the league provided what the sanctions might be, not necessarily should be. A committee was set up which determined what the sanctions would be and we as members were bound to take appropriate action. It was not a case of whether or not we wanted to, we either had to be welshers or nobly keep our word. We had either to repudiate or to sustain our position, we had no option.
We have been going about this country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, talking about the glories of the League of Nations. We have been appropriating moneys in this parliament and contributions have been made for the purpose of maintaining the League of Nations. In every part of Canada little organizations have grown up. Any man who understands anything about it realizes that being a member of the League of Nations is just the same as belonging to a club. A member is bound by the by-laws. If I do not like the club's by-law that provides for my being posted if I do not pay my bills, it is my duty to resign and leave that club. There is no sounder law than that laid down by Lord Elgin, that you cannot reprobate and approbate at the same time. We cannot talk about the glories of the League of Nations and our position in it, how great we are, the part we play in it; we cannot go there from year to year and take part in its deliberations, and yet when a crisis arises where one member is an aggressor
IMr. Bennett.!
against another, where one member has gone to war against another and has 'bombarded his towns and cities, fail to take the action which we ourselves have agreed we would take in that eventuality.
Why are we endeavouring to belittle our own position? Why are we not saying frankly to all the world, "Yes, we are members of the League of Nations and as members of it we have asked the Canadian people, in and out of season, during successive governments, to stand behind us." What results follow from finding Italy guilty? The results are written in the covenant itself; they are economic results. There are provisions for other results. It is true, as the Minister of Justice has pointed out, that Canadians should not be called upon from time to time to take up arms for the purpose of maintaining the territorial integrity of other members of the league. But we remained in the league, that is the answer. We remained in the league and having done so we must support the league or be regarded throughout this world *as repudiators. That is the position; we have no option.
I regret more than I can say that the Minister of Justice saw fit to make the observations he did. They were made in a moment of crisis, at a moment of great difficulty, at a moment when we should have stood with every other member of the league. It weakened our position to give succour and support, not physical but moral, to Italy and she was not slow to represent our attitude to all the world. I wonder if the hon. gentleman has seen the editorial that appeared in one of the leading journals of the city of Rome, a journal supposed to speak with great authority for the government of the day. In that journal it was pointed out in terms clear and certain that all Canada was doing was repudiating Mr. Riddell, that he had overstepped the bounds of his authority and was being used merely as a tool by the British authorities for the purpose of doing something which they did not care to do. Obviously that is the wrong impression to have abroad, and that more than anything else is an illustration of just what the right hon. gentleman said the other day, and with which I agreed, as to the impropriety of statements such as that being made by one of his ministers in his absence. Not only the great impropriety of it, but the great injury it did to this country in the minds of people who had seen us as a young and vigorous power on the American continent, a member of the League of Nations which came into being with the idea of the United States being a member but which is now bereft of

The Address-Mr. Bennett
the membership of the United States, of Germany and of Japan. We occupy, therefore, a position of singular difficulty on the northern half of this continent, and that position has been made much more difficult by the fact that the Acting Prime Minister, in the absence of the Prime Minister, made a statement which Italians have taken as giving them succour and support-succour and support, not physical but moral, enhancing their spirit and morale at the expense of blame being attributed to British statesmen, when they had nothing more to do with it than children on the street. I made some inquiries. I spoke to Mr. Ferguson, who headed our delegation at the time, and what I have recited to this house as to the circumstances, I believe correctly represented the facts. I want to say this about Mr. Riddell. AH the time I was in office he was at Geneva. He was, so far as I know, appointed, not by the late government but by my right hon. friend opposite. I think that is correct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: By the Union government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, he was retained in office by my right hon. friend. I was not sure whether he had been appointed by the right hon. gentleman, but I thank him for the correction. At any rate, Mr. Riddell was retained in office by the right hon gentleman, as he was retained in office by the next administration; and the records will show that, with regard to every matter that came up, Mr. Riddell was so extremely careful about his vote that he wired for instructions to the Department of External Affairs, at times, I thought, in respect of matters which really did not necessitate such action.
Now, in this instance I believe I have correctly stated what really took place; and the fact that Mr. Riddell, in that committee, said, "Why not oil and steel?" should not have put Canada, through the humiliation caused by the statement made by the Minister of Justice, and in the position with the world, that we were really apologizing for what had been done and repudiating Mr. Riddell and his action with respect to this matter, the government of the day stating that he had acted wholly without auhority. I think that was calculated at that moment to have other than a beneficial effect upon the strength of our position at Geneva.
I shall not do more than say that I agree with what the right hon. gentleman has seen fit to say, in the speech from the throne, as to the seriousness of the unemployment problem. The number has decreased from a maximum of nearly 800,000 to possibly 400,000. Seasonal
unemployment, of course, increases the number of the unemployed. The number was at one time 783,000; it fell to less than 400,000, and at the moment it is considerably larger than that by reason of winter conditions. But what is this commission going to do? I have read and re-read that paragraph in the speech from the throne and I am wondering just what this commission is going, to do. At the last session of parliament we passed a statute providing for social insurance, and before we left office we appointed as chairman of that commission Colonel Harrington, who had a large experience in these matters-that is to say, in the principles involved in such matters -while Mr. Tom Moore, who was also appointed, had perhaps a wider experience of unemployment conditions in Canada than any other man in the country. These gentlemen we asked to take a census and they were organizing for the purpose of doing so. Well, all I can say is that the government of my right hon. friend saw fit to prevent this being done.
I repeat; what is the proposed commission going to do? What is the commission's power? Is it to be a commission that will have control, or is it merely to act in an advisory capacity?
The speech from the throne declares:
As a means of dealing with present emergency conditions, you will be asked, with the approval of the governments of all the provinces of Canada, to make provision for the establishment of a representative national commission, which will co-operate with the provinces and municipalities in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed, and the supervision of unemployment relief.
Can they lessen the amount paid? Have they power and authority to determine how many shall be on relief? Have they power to appoint officers and to say who shall or shall not receive relief? Shall they have power to go into municipalities and provinces and do that? I do not know; but this I do know, that the provinces in days gone by distinctly and positively said that they would not agree to any such action; that so long as their provincial organizations existed, just so long did they themselves propose to determine these issues. And I repeat that unless a commission has power to deal with facts and not merely to give advice, to deal with realities by doing something instead of by suggesting something, that commission will not accomplish anything. It cannot, in the very nature of things.
How did we meet that matter? We met it by asking the provinces to appoint commissions, and in some instances they did so.

The Address-Mr. Bennett
In a number of instances these commissions functioned successfully with the aid of the provincial governments. What will be done now? I should like the right hon. gentleman to explain whether this commission, when it comes into being, can determine as a matter of decision just what amount is to be paid for relief purposes to Halifax, for instance, or London, or Winnipeg, or Calgary. Is it going to determine the standard of relief? Will it see that there is uniformity in that standard? Will it determine how much milk will be given per head? Are these matters to be determined by the decision and under the authority and direction of the commission, or will they be left in the hands of provincial and municipal authorities, the commission simply giving advice? This paragraph does not make that clear. The house has a right to know; and if all the provinces have agreed, there is one province which in days past, represented by the government of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and sometimes by himself, certainly did not take that view. That is all I have to say in that regard.
With respect to the camps, I read the other day a report made by a committee appointed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) to report upon them. I wonder whether he does not realize that the report they submitted was the expression of the very purpose for which the camps came into being. Why did they come into being? For some .permanent purpose? No. Did they oome into being to provide homes? No. They came into being for .the purpose of providing places where men might find food, clothing and shelter until they could obtain employment; and, What is more, up to the time we left office the average period of -time during which men stayed in these camps was ninety-five days. They passed through the camps until they got employment, and the greatest number in the camps has been only between 20,000 and
25,000.	In the summer the number dropped to between 12.000 and 13.000, and when I last spoke in this house it was, I believe, 12.800 or 13,000. The very purpose is that which these gentlemen explain in their report- as being, in their opinion, desirable; the only difference being, apparently, that they propose to make some payment to the men for the work they did, which it is true was not obligatory; in the sense in which that term can properly be used it was merely for the purpose of furnishing them with some exercise to enable them to live healthy and decent lives. One of the gentlemen on that committee was connected with Frontier college, which did a great deal of work in connection fMr Bennett, l
with the education of men in .these camps. I have already explained, from another place in this house, what- was done with respect to giving thorn religious services, in both the Catholic and non-Catholic faiths; I have pointed out that chaplains had been appointed and that an effort had been made to look after their morals and health and happiness. Magazines were collected to give them reading matter, and the camps, those at least which I visited, were decent and well conducted. But they were not permanent; they were intended merely to help the provinces, to relieve them of difficulties in relation to these younger men seeking employment. I shall speak of this later. At any rate, because of influences that got abroad in the camps, their value became less and less, as everyone knows; and these influences were such as to induce men to leave their work. I had evidence of men having left their work and I took the trouble to ascertain the circumstances under which they had left. They had been misled by agitators into believing they should make this concerted move against these camps. The hon. gentleman knows that since he came into office there have been evidences of the same thing. In the camps there have been strikes that have to be quietened, and the method by which they have to be quietened we can deal with when we gelt to the estimates; it is not well that we should refer to it now. In any event it is dear that these camps to which references have been made were camps that came into being for one purpose and one only, to provide temporary shelter and food and clothing to young men who were not able to take care of themselves and whom the provinces said they could not take care of, and .the average period of time that they remained in the camps, ait least until the end of the last administration, was something less than 100 days; ninety-five,
I think, was the exact number, to be correct about it.
The next point made is the royal commission that the mover of the address said had already settled some textile difficulties in Sherbrooke. I think perhaps he read his brief rather hurriedly and overlooked the fact that it is not indicated that the difficulty has been settled but that it is to be settled.
I wonder whether the Minister of Justice has given any attention to the legal side of the matter. I wonder whether he realizes that the set-up of a commission under the Dominion Inquiries Act to inquire into one industry in one province is beyond our powers. I wonder whether he has looked at a case in the privy council that came up

The Address-Mr. Bennett
from Australia. I wonder whether he has read the judgment of the court of appeal of Manitoba in connection with the grain inquiry, in which matter I was greatly interested, because I was then occupying the position which he now does. An injunction was obtained in Manitoba against the commission proceeding with their work. Mr. Newoombe, then Deputy Minister of Justice, went to Winnipeg and argued the case with great oare; and the court decided the case after reviewing all the authorities, including authorities in their own court and one in British Columbia, and a privy council case in which Lord Haldane delivered the judgment, in connection with a sugar plantation, as to the right of the federal power to issue a royal commission to deal with purely state matters, and pointed out the difference between our constitution and that of other federal unions. I had not been following the case in the press at all, but when I read this in the speech from the throne I looked into it with some degree of care. There are two or three points in that paragraph which should not be overlooked:
A royal commission has been appointed to inquire into conditions in the textile industry, as the result of the closing down on January 18 of one of the textile plants in the city of Sherbrooke, thereby occasioning, in mid-winter, and at a time of unemployment, great hardship to hundreds of employees and their families. My ministers are of the opinion that industries should recognize an obligation to cooperate in every manner possible in continuing and providing employment, and that labour and consumers have a right to have their voice heard, and influence felt, in the control of industrial policy. Where these ends cannot be effected through voluntary cooperation of all parties to industry, my ministers are of the opinion that there are the strongest of reasons for state intervention.
And so at last we have reached it-the point where the party opposite takes this attitude, the party which, sitting on this side of the house, in season and out of season condemned state intervention, condemned interference with anything that had to do with business. "Leave business alone," was the cry. That was the point: "Leave it alone." I know my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) smiles when he recalls how those vivid sentences of his found echo against the wall: "Leave business alone; give business a chance;" all those cries that went on from day to day. And now we are told that not only must there be influence felt in the control of industry', but where you cannot effect it through voluntary co-operation you are going to have the strongest reason for state intervention. I will give hon. gentlemen
something to "state intervene" about. Why limit it to the textile industry at Sherbrooke?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is not necessary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It says here "the textile industry." I will give him something else for state intervention. I suppose one of the most powerful contributors to the Liberal cause and the success of the Liberal party was Mr. Burton of the Simpson company, during the last election and the preceding one. All I can say is that during the two months of January and February the employees of that organization are to lose six days without pay, in order that the profits may be satisfactory. Six days in the two months of January and February each employee is to lose pay, which the S12.50 a week people find a little difficult. I suggest to the Minister of Labour that he extend the commission to cover that. Let us see what this means:
Where these ends cannot be effected through voluntary cooperation of all parties to industry, my ministers are of the opinion that there are the strongest of reasons for state intervention.
Was this government consulted about that? Did they know it? Did the Minister of Labour know of it? He should. Does he know that these employees dare not complain because their places would be filled by others? Does he know that last summer this very same firm took advertising away from one newspaper because it dared to publish the truth as it came out before one of these commissions that have been sitting here? I suppose now these facts will not be known through the newspapers. That is the reason I am stating them here; they will be on Hansard at least. I suggest to the right hon. gentleman, a former Minister of Labour, with all his love of humanity, that he at once begin to care for those who are losing six days. They are no longer to find employment, but their work is to be done by their fellow labourers, that much extra. Six days in two months is to be lost. Not much, I suppose, at $12.50 a week; it is a good deal less than at 875,000 a year, but there is the principle. Let the commission be extended to cover that. Let it cover that if it is legal at all, and let the Minister of Labour inquire into it. Let him get busy on the telegraph and telephone wires and find out about it.
Further investigation with respect to the monopoly in coal meets, I think, commendation from everybody in this country, but how it is going to be done in Canada any more than it has been, I do not know.
The Address-Mr. Bennett


Mr. DUFF:: Take the duty off; that would be one way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is another way altogether. I quite agree with what the hon. gentleman has said that that might or might not, I do not know. I cannot say as to that. But this I do say: As far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned, there has been the fullest possible investigation in this country with respect to the anthracite coal industry. As a result papers were sent to the attorney general of Quebec; a prosecution was carried on; convictions were secured; appeals were taken to the privy council, which of course were disallowed and the convictions sustained. Now I do not know whether or not it is suggested that in those criminal trials something was left out that should have come to light; I am in no position to know, but I think there will be no difference of opinion on the part of anyone in this house as to the desirability of any action being taken that will safeguard the interests of consumers with respect to these matters.
The next question raised in the speech from the throne has to do with the references tc the Supreme Court of Canada as to the validity of a number of statutes that were enacted at the last session of parliament. Well, Mr. Speaker, I find it a little difficult to understand just why, suddenly, all these cases are referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. Was the Lemieux act referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, or was it on our statute books for ten, fifteen or twenty years? Was there a lawyer of repute who did not believe it was ultra vires of this parliament? Yet it was acted upon until a case was heard, and then it was decided alike in Canada and Great Britain that the act was unconstitutional. Why should these statutes have been thus referred? Let us see. In the United States they have a rule that you cannot refer a theory to the court; it must be an actual case under the act. In all their statutes that were declared unconstitutional there was no reference to the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States. The cases originated by the proper action of somebody alleging a grievance; they were heard by judges in the first instance; the evidenoe was produced and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States passed upon their validity. In this country we have a statute that permits a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. In most of the provinces they have statutes that permit references to the provincial supreme courts of doubtful questions in order that the executive may be advised. But long years ago some 
of the provinces maintained that it was unconstitutional to do this; that no such reference should be made of hypothetical cases. Lord Loreburn, speaking for the judicial [DOT]committee of that day, decided that the point was not well taken, and he used these words:
-but the answers are only advisory and will have no more effect than the opinions of the law officers.
He made it quite clear during the course of the argument, as well as in the judgment, that the court would not feel bound entirely by mere advice given in hypothetical cases that perchance might be modified by reason of the facts of a particular instance that might be brought before them for consideration.
Now what have we? Just let us look at the spectacle we have. Last year, standing here on this side of the Speaker, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) denounced these statutes as being unconstitutional. The privy council have said that is just as legal as the opinion of the court in a hypothetical case. He comes into office and he takes the very statutes that he said were illegal and sends them down to the Supreme Court of Canada, asking that court to say whether they are legal or illegal after he has said they are illegal. That is the position. I am bound to say that the argument of the cases was not left to the hon. gentleman himself; that they were argued with great care, great ability and great thoroughness by representatives of the federal power supporting the statutes. In other words we have this anomaly; on his reputation as a lawyer the Minister of Justice denounced the validity of these statutes; speaking as a lawyer he said, " These are invalid and unconstitutional." Now, as a minister, he employs counsel to go down to the Supreme Court of Canada and say they are legal in every particular.


Ernest Lapointe: I have so much admiration and respect for the legal acumen of my right hon. friend that I wanted the court to decide the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is an old saying,
" Beware of the Greeks when they come bearing gifts," and when the hon. gentleman gives that as his reason I think he is pretty hard put to it for reasons. Here is the position: Will the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada end the matter? Will there be an appeal to the privy council? Hon. members will remember that representatives of at least two of the provinces appeared and said, "We want only to preserve our right to appeal." They did not argue; they reserved their right to appeal. That is what they said.

The Address-Mr. Bennett
I do not know to what extent that meant that they had antecedently determined that the statutes were valid qua this court and that they were going to take an appeal in any event, but I do say that we have a very anomalous situation and one that has never arisen in this country before.
The Lemieux act, which is a striking illustration, was discussed in this parliament by eminent lawyers. Its constitutionality was always in doubt, but it never reached any reference to the Supreme Court of Canada or, in fact, to any court until a case came up in which the defendant pleaded the unconstitutionality of the statute. The judge of first instance, the late Mr. Justice Orde, decided that it was invalid, and the privy council ultimately upheld that view. Would that not have been a much nicer way to proceed? There would have been no difficulty in having a case brought up; there were those ready and willing to bring up a case. There were employers ready and willing to test the constitutionality of these statutes. It would have been a very simple thing to do, and then you would have had the facts developed, facts of which the judges may not take judicial notice. One of our great difficulties, as lawyers well realize, is that courts cannot take judicial notice of everything. There is a limited number of matters about which courts may take judicial notice, and the fact is that a court, having no knowledge of particular facts in a case, is unable to guess as to what the facts may be. Therefore the courts object strenuously to giving judgment in hypothetical cases. Shortly put, the case before the court is: is this statute constitutional in whole or in part? There might be illuminating circumstances brought out in the course of the examination of witnesses that would indicate that some of those statutes that upon their face might look invalid were valid and, conversely, there might be statutes that on their face looked valid which, by reason of circumstances and facts that might be developed in the examination of witnesses, would appear to be otherwise in point of law.
I only protest against this wholesale reference to the courts of large numbers of statutes when it is possible to determine their validity in the light of real circumstances. I am forbidden by the rules of this house, or at least by a precedent in Great Britain which, I take it, is binding here, to discuss cases which are sub judice. I would like to say something, for instance, as to the evidence that might have been forthcoming in connection with any case brought up under the marketing act, the evidenoe of those who had to do with the
marketing act in British Columbia, the utilization of a dominion officer as an agent, the utilization of a provincial officer as the agent of the federal authority, and so on. All those matters lend themselves to exact evidence, as these were not statutes under which cases did not arise. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) knows quite well that out in Vancouver there has been a very great deal of difficulty in connection with matters that arose out of the provincial statute, and that the operation of the provincial and federal statutes together brought about a condition which many people thought highly acceptable, while othens were equally strong in their view that it was undesirable.
I mention these cases; I think they indicate a willingness to refer to the court matters that are purely questions' of theory, that should be tested in the light of facts. I need give only one more illustration. It will be remembered that the Canada Temperance Act was a statute about which there was great controversy. Finally in Russell and the Queen the privy council decided that the act was constitutional. You will remember, however, that the provisions of an act passed by this parliament at the instance of Mr. McCarthy, providing for a federal licensing system, were held1 to be ultra vires. There was no judgment given because the form of reference to the privy council was under an imperial statute, the provisions of which were availed of. On the other hand you had the provincial statutes with respect to licensing that were tested in litigation, not by the reference of theories but by real oases that had to do with the real judgment of the matters.
I wish to make two or three observations with respect to the paragraph dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board:
You will be pleased to know that the policy of the Canadian wheat board in selling wheat at competitive prices is bringing satisfactory results.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think in fairness I must deal with that matter now rather than wait until the questions come up for consideration in committee of supply. Mr. McFarland, Mr. Grant, and Mr. Smith were removed from office by order in council. The Canada Grain Board Act passed this house, and the right hon. leader of the government, or at least his party organization, expressed approval of the act in part, because it represented a statute which had been dealt with by a committee of the whole house, which had been substantially amended by the committee, and which afforded an opportunity to the grain exchange to exercise
The Address-Mr. Bennett

the functions which they said they could exercise if they only had a chance. The new government came into office. They appointed a subcommittee consisting of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler). That committee made a report to council that there apparently was under the then wheat board a distinct sales resistance to our wheat; that, in other words, Messrs. McFarland, Grant and Smith were persona non grata to the buying world, and that these three Canadians must be removed from office because their very presence developed a sales resistance on the part of prospective purchasers. That is the story that was recited in the order in council. That is the cause for which these three Canadians were removed from their position and Mr. Murray-the grain exchange Murray-Mr. Mclvor who had been working with the pools and Dean Shaw were appointed in their places. Now is that statement true? If not, a grievous wrong has been done to three Canadians to please the grain exchange of Winnipeg.
Let us look at the facts. I am leaving out of the story altogether the fact that Mr. McFarland had served without pay up to the time the wheat board came into being, and that he was then to receive $18,000 a year, the vice-chairman getting $15,000 and the other member $12,000. I am leaving out any reference that may be made on the street corners or elsewhere to the fact that Mr. McFarland had bought some speculative oats that he owned when he took office, and that he lost some money on them; but he never owned a bushel of wheat, he promised he never would and swore he never had. But he did own some oats and barley, and that has been bruited around the street comers in the various parts of Canada in an effort to discredit him, because he owned some when he took office and he added to them and sold and lost money.
Let us look at the importance of this matter before I come to the facts. I wonder whether it is realized in this house that the average wheat crop in Alberta during the last ten years has been worth more than the entire gold production of Canada last year at $35 an ounce. I have not the inclination at this time to deal in detail with what other countries did, but why is wheat so valuable in Canada? It is because it is the easiest method known to produce new wealth. You sow in the spring and the new wealth is reaped in the fall. Gold, oil, minerals, metals, coal-all these

things involve enormous outlays and long years of waiting for results. Cattle involve long years of waiting. But with respect to grain the situation is entirely different if the market is available. That is something important to keep in mind. I am not going over the ground I traversed last session, but under the conditions that have existed there has been a lessening of Canadian wheat sales abroad. Opinions differ as to that, but I shall show that this lessening has not been as suggested on the street comers nor by that order in council. I am going to point out what was the condition in November, 1930. At that time the reservoir of unsold wheat amounted to 1,325,000,000 bushels. I wonder whether the true significance of that is apparent. Including the quantity in ocean transit in November, 1930, there was on hand in Canada, Argentina, Australia, the United States of America, Russia and the Danube,
1.325.000.	000 bushels, and four months of the crop year had passed. How many bushels were on hand on November 30, 1935, in those same countries? There were 625,000.000. That is, at the end of four months of the 1935 crop year the reservoir, which had contained 1,325,000,000 bushels of wheat, had been so diminished that it contained only
625.000.	000 bushels. And from that reservoir all the purchasing countries of the world must buy their supplies for the next eight months. That is, if we assume the figures given by Broomhall as to Russian crops to be correct, the entire quantity of wheat in the reservoir to supply the wants of the importing countries of the world during the next eight months is 625,000,000 bushels, or 700,000,000 bushels less than it was in 1930.


Charles Avery Dunning: For the next eight
months?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, .December to July; that is eight months of our crop year. We say the crop year ends July 31, and make our computations accordingly, and Broomhall makes his accordingly. July 31 is the governing date with respect to these matters. Of course Australia comes in-[DOT]


Charles Avery Dunning: And Argentina in
February.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that crop has already been anticipated in the statement, for it does not become marketable during that crop year.


Charles Avery Dunning: The anticipated figures are included in your reservoir.


Richard Bedford Bennett: These are the figures supplied by Broomhall in his estimates, with

The Address-Mr. Bennett
which the hon. gentleman is familiar, for as indicating his improved fitness for his great position I omitted to state that he had also been president of a milling company. I express my regret.


Charles Avery Dunning: I only yield to my right hon. friend in the amount of money he made out of the grain business.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think there is not much doubt that the Maple Leaf did not make much for its shareholders.


Charles Avery Dunning: But the Alberta Pacific did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It certainly did. I sold my shares at S325. But that was not nearly so good as the shares of Canada Cement.


Charles Avery Dunning: I never had any of those.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now let me go a step further with this little story to show how these gentlemen were removed from office. I am now going to show the number of bushels that have been sold during the five years as compared with the preceding five years under hon. gentlemen opposite. I think perhaps they will afford rather interesting reading, because they will show that the sales resistance existed only in the minds of those who alleged it. It may be necessary to say, before I proceed to a further discussion of the matter, that during the five year period from 1930 to 1935 the Dominion of Canada produced two thousand million bushels of wheat. That was its production in the period I have named. That has been marketed at what has been described by those who criticize the late government at a price in excess of world prices, ensuring the farmers of the west a very much greater sum of money than otherwise they would have received.
Next we have to inquire as to the number of bushels sold in the period from 1930 to 1935 and from 1925 to 1930. Those figures are extremely interesting because they indicate that there was no sound basis for the action taken by the government. I do not suppose Mr. McFarland, Mr. Grant or Mr. Smith is particularly concerned about a job, but they were concerned about concluding a work which they had begun. They were concerned about having their reputations blasted by statements to the effect that because they were who they were they were obnoxious to people who had to buy something. I ask this House of Commons whether or not it is decent treatment of a Canadian to say that he is offensive to Joseph Ranke of England, and therefore that he has to be removed from his office if Joseph Ranke wants to buy wheat.


Mr. EULER:: Nobody said that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is exactly the effect of it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I have the order in council.


Charles Avery Dunning: Read the exact words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wish to follow the thread of my discourse, and I shall read it when it suits me.
I say that this country produced two billion bushels of wheat in the period from 1930 to 1935. I say further that the figures supplied by the external branch of the bureau of statistics indicate that in the first five year period, namely from 1926 to 1930 inclusive, of a ten year period extending from 1926 to July 31, 1935, only thirty-two per cent of the total wheat imported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was from Canada, and that in the last five years of that period, from July 31, 1930, to July 31, 1935, Canada's percentage of United Kingdom free imports had increased to thirty-four per cent. Those are the figures supplied by the department here in Ottawa. That was the increase, despite increased production in England for which the English taxpayer had paid in the neighbourhood of 8100,000,000 in that period of time. Further, the United Kingdom actually imported 40,000,000 bushels more of Canadian wheat during the last five year period than it did in the first five year period. Never mind our percentages; never mind them. The fact is that during the time Mr. McFarland operated, from July 31, 1930, to July 31, 1935, the United Kingdom imported from this country 40,000,000 bushels more wheat than it did during the time the right hon. gentleman opposite was in office, namely, from 1926 to July 31, 1930. Those are not my figures; they are supplied by a department in Ottawa which prepares external trade figures.
Does that warrant the statement that buying resistance had been set up against these men? Does that warrant blazoning to the world that to appease and please people, comprising three great concerns, you are to blast the reputations of three Canadians as decent as any who may sit opposite me? I ask you: Is that fair treatment? Is that right treatment? Is that just treatment? Why should we endeavour to appease-and I will point out in a moment what has been done-why is it suggested that we should appease these alleged patriots who are clamouring to buy Canadian wheat if we would only give them a proper bow, a
The Address-Mr. Bennett

proper way or a proper person to deal with, and not the person now there? Is that not absurd?


Charles Avery Dunning: It certainly is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Sure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: An hon. member says, "sure." I thought so. That is sales resistance, is it?
I am coming now to another side of the matter, to a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture during a by-election as to the quantity of wheat taken over from the cooperative organization, and the amount of available wheat in the country. I am asking him where -the short interest is. Who benefited by the action taken on the grain exchange when Argentine wheat went up twenty cents? Who had the short interest on that day? Who had the 30,000,000 bushels of wheat that are not in the country, and which were taken over by the wheat board from the cooperative organization? Who were they?
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was pointing out that when the wheat board took over the available wheat held by the cooperative selling agency, according to the statement made in western Canada by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) they had to purchase

298.000.	000 bushels of wheat. When I say
298.000.	000 bushels, I refer to the wheat and the contracts for wheat making up that total. The documents issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce presided over by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) indicate that at that time there were only
265.000.	000 bushels of Canadian wheat, including feed wheat, in commercial channels on this continent. I wonder if the minister was aware of that fact when he made that statement? Was he aware that the farmers then owned about 5,000,000 bushels of that wheat in public storage? Was he aware that the public, about which they speak so frequently as being buyers of wheat, were the owners of many millions of bushels of that
265.000.	000 bushels which they had bought for future delivery? Yet in spite of all that we have 298,000,000 bushels of wheat and futures contracts taken over by the wheat board at an average price of about 85 cents. I think that was the blackboard price at that time. I ask this house and I ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Crerar), who more than anybody else is responsible for the present condition, whether or not an explanation can be given of what became of the difference between the 298,000.000 bushels of wheat and futures and the 265,000,000 bushels which was the total quantity on the American continent, and which, as I say, included 5,000,000 bushels in the hands of the farmers and many millions of bushels in the hands of the public.
Why? Of course there was a short interest. There were people who had sold wheat that they did not own upon the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. That is a matter known to everyone. And what happened to them? In December last the Argentine raised the price of wheat over night by 20 cents per bushel. What happened to your short friends then? Were they protected on the Winnipeg market? How were they protected? Did they suffer? Did they cover? What happened? In Chicago the maximum price was increased the full five cents allowed by the exchange. Three cents was the limit fixed in Winnipeg by the exchange as the amount prices could rise in a day. As a consequence of a rise at Buenos Aires of 20 cents per bushel for Argentine wheat, wheat in Winnipeg rose a maximum of three cents per bushel. That did not represent its value; that represented an arbitrary rule passed by the grain exchange as to the maximum it could rise. Under those circumstances the shorts were protected. That is the position.
I put this further statement to the house. I wonder if hon. members of this house recall

The Address-Mr. Bennett
the investigation that took place in the railway committee room last spring. Do they recall the prices of Argentine wheat then? Do they recall the prices of Winnipeg wheat? Do they remember that because the spread between Canadian and Argentine wheat was so great it was said that the wheat was not being marketed as it should be, for the benefit of Canadians? Let us look at what the facts are now. I have here the prices of Argentine wheat at Buenos Aires. When I read to the house the prices in January of this year I think perhaps it will rather interest the house to see why it is that to-day Canadian wheat is being sold for less than the price paid for Argentine wheat. Let us see what the figures are. In January, 1935, the price of wheat in Buenos Aires was 57 cents per bushel and at the same time the stabilized price of wheat on the Winnipeg market was 84 cents. It will perhaps be recalled by hon. members from western Canada who listened to what took place in that committee that the contention was raised that the spread between Argentine and Canadian wheat was too great. The prices of Argentine wheat were given over a long period of years, not for just a few months but for a long period. So far as I have been able to ascertain there never has been a time that Canadian wheat did not command higher prices than Argentine wheat. Its value is greater. Its food value is greater. It is greater from any angle from which you may consider it. What is the position to-day? I gave the figures for 1935 when Argentine wheat was selling at 57 cents per bushel and Canadian wheat at 84. Now we find that the price of Canadian wheat on the Winnipeg market is around about 874 cents to 88 cents per bushel while Argentine wheat was sold in January, 1936, for 93 cents per bushel. In other words the spread to-day in favour of Argentine wheat is five, cents per bushel. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) shakes his head, but all I can say is that there are the figures taken from an official source to show that Argentine wheat was selling at 93 cents-the price fixed at a minimum of 90 cents-while Canadian wheat was selling-


Charles Avery Dunning: In Buenos Aires.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I said that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Quote the prices in Liverpool where the two wheats compete.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am talking about the price in Buenos Aires and the price in Winnipeg. Those are both points of origin as far as the farmers are concerned. I will 12739-4
admit that for the moment I am not talking for the millers, I am talking for the farmers. That is the position, if the hon. gentleman wants to know.


Charles Avery Dunning: Cheap.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not cheap at all, because I shall show conclusively in a moment just what was behind the removal of these three men from their office and the substitution of three others whose position with relation to at least one or two members of the government is not unknown.
Let us go further. Here is -the story. We here have the Winnipeg price less than the price in Buenos Aires for the first time, so far as I have been able to ascertain, in our history as exporters of wheat. But that is not all. I pick up the paper -to-night and I read:	Price3 gell off
A minimum of selling sufficed to send wheat prices lower in quiet, early trading on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange to-day. Unexpected weakness at Liverpool was bearish. Values near mid-session were three-quarter cent lower, May at 844, July 85i, and October 84f cents.
October wheat, 84$ cents. Representations made last year to the government on behalf of -the farmers were to the effect that October wheat should not be quoted on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. We told the grain exchange that it was not to quote October wheat, but since January of this year wheat not ye*t sown, wheat for which the seed has not yet been bought, is being sold on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, and the price is 84$ cents per bushel. That is the blackboard price for wheat to be delivered in October, 1936, from a crop that is not yet sown. Travelling over western Canada to-day the grain exchange have a paid advocate going about defining the difference between speculation and gambling. He is saying that gambling consists in taking a risk for the risk's own sake, but speculation is when you take a known risk in a commercial sense. It is no wonder the hon. gentleman la-u-ghs; that is -calculated to make even angels laugh and the hon. gentleman is not- -that. At any rate, be that as i-t may, the fact is that here y-ou have the situation I have described. Lectures are being delivered to service and other clubs in Vancouver, Calgary and other parts of the country by a paid advocate of the grain exchange who is pointing out that they do not have anything to do with prices, that they are noit gamblers, that they a-r-e only speculators, and a speculator is one who accepts a commercial risk that is already existent whereas a gambler is a chap who takes a risk for -the risk's sake and has nothing to do with commerce or anything else.

The Address-Mr. Bennett

Day after day last year in this house the wheat board was denounced for its stabilization operations in connection with wheat, but to-day October wheat is being quoted on the blackboard at Winnipeg, a price is being marked up for wheat which has not yet been sown. Is that gambling or speculation? What effect is that going to have upon the crop, upon the future, upon the prospects of this country? The answer to all this, made by some hon. gentlemen, is, "Well this is what has existed all these years; this is what worked so satisfactorily in- days long since past." That might well be, but we are not dealing to-day with conditions that existed in those years. Today there is no such thing as a world wheat market, and almost everyone except those who desire to obscure the issue knows that fact. England, producing only sixty million bushels of wheat, has paid to date 8100,000,000 or thereabouts as a bonus to her farmers, in addition- to what has been done in connection with the processing taxes. In the United States stabilization operations have resulted in the expenditure of a couple of hundred millions, in addition to the processing taxes. In Germany, in France, in Italy, in all these countries, three of which used to buy 200 million bushels per annum, we find duties ranging from 85 cents to SI.35 per bushel. Therefore there is no longer a world market in wheat; there is no longer a free play of supply and demand, no longer the operation of that rule to which reference has so often been made; but we have on the one hand, on the part of people who are prepared to grow their own requirements, and on the other, on the part of those who have to do with the sale of wheat, the endeavour to sell against the bonused product of other countries.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Finance says that is right.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is one statement that is absolutely correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, if they were statements made on the other side I would say that is a high average. Be that as it may, however, I desire to point out that in Australia, with a depreciated currency of 25 per cent, there has been a bon-us that has cost them altogether about 860,000,000. I have pointed out the situation that exists in the United States; I have shown the state of affairs in other countries, and I will not do more than make this observation, that so far as the world is concerned, so far as dealing with wheat is concerned, there is no such thing as a world prioe and there never can be so long as the

price is controlled, as it now is, and regulated by subsidies. About that there can be no doubt.
Under these circumstances the government came into office and desired to get rid of the wheat board. There would have been no difficulty if they had said to Mr. McFarland and those associated with him, "For political reasons we desire you to get out." They could have been frank, open and aboveboard about it. Mr. McFarland wrote a letter to that effect: "Say that you want to get rid of us for political reasons and we will go." But what happened? In the first place, having indicated their desire to get rid of these gentlemen, they gave reasons; and the chief reason they gave was that sales resistance had developed against the sale of Canadian wheat, attributable, according to the view held by the minister, to one thing, and that one thing was the personnel of the board.
I submit that that is not borne out by the facts, and I have already indicated the reasons why. They are contained at greater length in a communication which was sent to the minister by Mr. McFarland and his associates, and they indicated the figures as I have already given them. I brought them down to a little later date. The total sale of wheat in North America, excluding the quantity of 19,500,000 bushels bought by the United States, nearby neighbours who, knowing these gentlemen, bought that wheat from them, was 62,647,000 bushels, or something more than the ten-year average. Yet, notwithstanding that explanation and the objection made to the terms in which their end was sought, an order in council was passed on the third day of December, 1935, reading:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 3rd December, 1935, from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, stating that the problem of the marketing of the Canadian wheat surplus has been engaging the earnest consideration of the subcommittee of the privy council, consisting of the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable the Minister of the Interior, and the Honourable the Minister of Finance, together with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which sub-committee was authorized to review and advise upon the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The minister further states that his opinion, concurred in by the other members of the aforesaid sub-committee, is that a definite and persistent resistance against the sale of Canadian wheat has existed and now exists in the world markets, which resistance is based on antagonism to the members of the present Canadian Wheat Board.
If they had stopped at sales resistance and said, "We desire your heads on a charger

The Address-Mr. Bennett
for political reasons in order that we may appoint our friends to these positions," one would have understood that. But that is not what was done; the basis was antagonism to the members of the present Canadian wheat board, not to a member but to the members.
Where was the antagonism? Was it in the United States, which paid duty on 19,500.000 bushels, or among those who bought 5,000,000 bushels that had not gone into commercial channels but was still afloat? Was it in Europe? If so, by whom? It is an elementary rule that when a charge is made against a man who holds office under the crown he has a right to be heard in his defence; he has a right to know the charges levelled against him. There is a decision in the privy council in a case that went from Australia. There is the case of a judge who was dismissed from his high office because he had declined to deal with cases against himself where he had given promissory notes he would not pay, and notwithstanding his bad conduct the privy council decided that he had a right to be heard.
In the present instance, on whose part was there antagonism? In a later letter Mr. McFarland refers to the fact that but one name was given to him by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and he deals with that phase of the matter. Now, I ask, can we hope to have any sort of public service in this country where men are to be thus pilloried without having an opportunity to be heard, and when they are heard and put up their case, containing as it does a complete refutation of the facts as stated, they are just simply told to get out? The order continues;
The minister is of opinion that it is inimical to the best interests of Canada in the circumstances that the present members of the Canadian Wheat Board should continue in office and, therefore, recommends that the said members. namely, John Irwin McFarland, Esquire, Chief Commissioner, David Livingston Smith, Esquire, Assistant Chief Commissioner, and Henry Clark Grant, Esquire, member of the board, be retired, the said retirements to take effect on the 3rd day of December, 1935.
The minister further recommends that the following persons be appointed members of the Canadian Wheat Board in place of those retired, namely, James R. Murray, Esquire, George Mclvor, Esquire, and Alexander Malcolm Shaw, Esquire, and that James R. Murray be appointed Chief Commissioner, and George Mclvor be appointed Assistant Chief Commissioner of the said board, the appointments aforesaid to take effect as of the said 3rd day of December, 1935.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendations and submit the same for approval.
12739-ii
It must be within the mind and knowledge of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) at least, the law officer advising the crown, that the wheat act provided, at the instance, to a very substantial extent, of members of this government, that the existing channels were to be utilized for the sale of wheat. They were to sell the wheat; and they were doing it. The wheat board had no agencies doing that at the moment, beyond the general way in which they were continuing to offer wheat for sale. These men were carrying on their business through the channels provided by statute, an act placed on the statute books last session, at the instance of, and if that expression is too strong, then with the approval and consent of the gentlemen who now occupy the treasury benches. How then could these men be guilty of sales resistance, when the business was being carried on through the constituted channels of trade, the men in the business, the elevator companies, the brokers, the great grain dealers? They were the people who, by statute, mark you, had to have an opportunity to sell the wheat of the country, and they were doing it; and notwithstanding that, in order to accomplish their purpose, hon. gentlemen make this statement against these three men, Who could no more be responsible for sales resistance than a page in the house, seeing that the sales were carried on through channels provided by statute.
What follows: There is a communication in which these gentlemen present before the government the facts with respect to sales, telling them what the sales have been and what has been done. And then, when they find that they are about to be removed from office, they send the following telegram to the government, to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) on the 2nd December, the day before they are removed from office:
Since receipt your telegrams of Nov. 29th by Smith and Grant we have jointly considered your letter of same date to McFarland. We deny that a sales resistance ever existed or now exists in world markets based on antagonism to the present board. We are of opinion that there is no evidence upon which the government could come to the opinion expressed in your letter and telegrams and that in fact all available statistical evidence is definitely to the contrary. If your request for our resignations were based on the desire of the government to have a board of members appointed by it and if the government will agree to pay to each of us in lieu of salary which otherwise we should have earned a sum to be agreed upon we are prepared on that basis and when such agreement is arrived at to tender our resignations but only if the statement in the second paragraph of your letter which in our view contains a serious reflection on the ability and integrity of all of us is withdrawn.
McFarland Smith Grant.
The Address-Mr. Bennett

That paragraph was the one to which I have referred with respect to definite sales resistance in consequence of the personnel of the board. That was the 2nd December. On the 3rd they were removed, and the minister so advised us. Now I put it to this house, sir, whether or not that is the sort of treatment that any one of you would like to receive at the hands of anyone? Just put the matter on that basis and no higher. The right hon. gentleman has frequently said that we should consider these matters on the basis of doing to others as they would do to us. How many members in this house would regard themselves as being treated with decency if they were treated in that way? And when the Minister of Trade and Commerce secured an order in council to pay to McFarland $9,000, the latter sent it back with a communication that he could not accept it with that reflection against his honesty and honour and integrity.


William Daum Euler: The others accepted it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, but he did not. They were men who had not been in this country during the preceding twelve months. Mr. Grant had been, of course, but he was connected with his university, and Mr. Smith had been in London. How could there be sales resistance against Smith who had been carrying on business in London, or against Grant, who had been connected with the university, or against McFarland, who is not allowed under the statute to carry on business. otherwise than through the channels which were heretofore provided for the sale of wheat?
The Minister of Trade and Commerce, on the 4th, instructs Mr. McFarland, and, I assume, the others:
By order in council yesterday December third you were retired from membership in the Canadian Wheat Board and Mr. James Murray appointed in your stead change to take effect immediately.
Mr. James Murray was president of the Alberta Pacific Grain Company. Be is a man who is, and has been for years, closely in touch with the operations of the grain exchange. He represents, if any man does, opposition, violent, unquestioning, to what is known as the pool interests in western Canada. Was Lamont sent to England for the purpose of having it made clear that the pool would never more function? That statement is made as having come from a minister of the crown himself. I pay no attention to street gossip, but those are the facts as related.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles Avery Dunning: May I ask my right hon. friend why anybody who sold at 83 cents would want to buy at 83i?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may be the other way about, but in any event they are guaranteed that they can buy it at a quarter of a cent above the previous day's closing market. They are able to fill orders for wheat, buying it from the board under the arrangement they have made with Mr. Murray, on terms that involve this country in financial loss. Is that the deliberate policy of the government? Is it done for the purpose of casting disrepute upon a former administration? Is it done for the purpose of casting disrepute upon the pools? Is it for the purpose of trying once and for all to finish cooperative selling in western Canada? Is that the reason? Men are asking everywhere: is that the reason? I simply mention the boast that was made by * the grain exchange and the members of it before the last election, a boast which was known to me', of course, as to what they would do in western Canada. They were going to see to it that Liberals were returned in those constituencies, and they saw to it wherever they could. And I would like to know if this is the price we have to pay for it; that is what I want to know. That is what the people, that is what everybody, wants to know. There you have, against all precedent, October wheat, not a seed of which has been bought, offered for sale for gambling purposes, and we have this arrangement made with this combination headed by a farmer president of that great grain corporation, the Alberta Pacific Grain Company. That is what is going on. That is what is being carried on in western Canada; and as Mr. McFarland says in his letter, and as these men say in their telegram: If you said you wanted our jobs and asked us to resign, we would do it; but when you say you are going to force it because of sales resistance developed out of personal antipathy to us, we cannot as self respecting men do it. For the first time in the history of Canada, so far as I know, a government that appealed to western Canada on the platform it did and that supported the wheat act as it did, have, because of the deep-rooted sentiment they have in their hearts against those who
tried to protect Canadian farmers from exploitation, from gambling and from all the evils connected with it, openly sacrificed these men at the whim of those people abroad, the continental grain companies, the Dreyfuses and the millers of England, to make a holiday. I hope the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Crerar) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) are proud of their work; I hope they are pleased and proud of their operations in that regard.
Now we come to the next item in the speech from the throne, the conference between the provinces and the federal government. I am indebted to the first minister for his courtesy in furnishing me with a copy of the report, which was tabled to-day. It is a statement of speeches of good will, of loyal devotion to one another and to the cause of liberalism that would be amazing if it were not amusing. Let us look at it. I will say this about Ottawa and the Ottawa conference. The Ottawa conference deserves to be remembered by all men. The hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) was right; it was a great conference and hereafter Ottawa will always be remembered as the greatest health resort known in history, for while the first minister was bewrailing the illness of the first minister from Ontario, the minister from Queen's Park was certainly enjoying himself in other parts of this country. With such a revival of health on a scale unprecedented, this city becomes the greatest known health resort. Those who are far removed in fancy find themselves suddenly in better health and able to take part in all the festivities connected with the gatherings without any difficulty at all. It is an amazing illustration of what unremitting toil will do in the way of restoring to health'those who have thus found themselves overtired.
Perhaps that is the greatest tribute that can be paid to this conference. Then, of course, there was that delightful interchange of compliments between the Minister of Finance and the first minister of Ontario. Their unanimity of feeling and their common sentiment crystallized into that expression that, when my hon. friend came down to Ontario to find a seat, there was one province in which he would not be able to get it, as far as that other gentleman was concerned. All these things express that spirit of comradeship and loyal devotion to one another that indicates the unanimity of eight provinces of Liberal thought and a federal government of the same complexion.
It is an amusing story, but what have they accomplished? There is a printing bill charged to the House of Commons; we were
The Address-Mr. Bennett

told that this afternoon.. There were glorious speeches of good will, but what has been accomplished? The British North America Act has not yet been amended; it is going to be, but the method has not been settled. There are differences of opinion with respect to that. What has been accomplished by this government? The loan council, is that in being? Perhaps before the' debate ends the Minister of Finance will tell us the position of this young child. The hon. member for Parry Sound referred to the quintuplets. Perhaps he will be able to refer to the octuplets or something like that, because there were eight, not five, in this particular gathering, or nine if you include the federal government. But what has been accomplished? Look at it. Well, you know, it is an illustration of what can be done by just making and printing speeches.


Ernest Lapointe: We are having that just now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And judging by the very little impression it seems to make upon the hon. gentleman, I should judge that he would rank it on a par with this report of his conference. At any rate, I fail to find in this report any concrete proposals; I fail to find any resolutions agreed upon. I remember a conference at which we agreed that we would have a uniform companies act. Everybody agreed to it, but we did not get it. We did not print anything about it afterwards; we did not have any speeches of good will or otherwise.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They were not allowed to speak.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will come to that presently; I have that before me to deal with. The only difficulty I see fe to find out exactly what is the net result of this conference. At one place I notice that, providence being their guide, they builded better than they knew. Let us hope they have some epitaph better than that in view, for certainly there is no present realization of it. We will await developments in the future before we endeavour to make any Observations upon concrete proposals, because it would be idle to discuss these speeches. When there is some crystallized legislation to consider, it might be useful to discover just what has been done.
One feature of this conference, however, involves a second paragraph in the speech from the throne, dealing with financial problems. We are going to deal with our difficulties with the provinces, and a committee is now engaged in consideration of a method of procedure in order to effect constitutional

amendments. Obviously before one sees those amendments it would be improper to deal with them, but here and now I desire to say to the Minister of Finance that any assistance that can be given to him in dealing with the complex financial problems of this dominion we will give to him with the greatest possible alacrity and vigour, for we realize indeed that the problems of finance in this country are of the first magnitude. I cannot overestimate the seriousness of the situation. It is idle to try to make it appear to be simple; it is quite the opposite; it is complex and difficult, but there is one phase of it that I should like to urge upon the government. It is that by those well known methods of diplomacy of which they have so frequently held themselves to be masters they should induce the province of Ontario to realize that, from its size, its wealth and its importance, legislation that repudiates contracts, however trifling it may be apparently, has the effect of injuring the whole body politic. In other words it affects the national credit as distinguished from the provincial credit. If by the exercise of those qualities of heart and mind of which we are so constantly reminded the government is able to effectuate that purpose, it will not have lived in vain, and I do commend to it the desirability of endeavouring to accomplish that end, for never was there greater need for it.
I sometimes wonder whether our friends who have to do with local politics realize just how great the real effect upon our credit has been and will be of action taken by any province to repudiate its obligations, and I do urge upon the government that by the means I have indicated, if sterner means be not at hand1, they endeavour to accomplish the end I have suggested. Any Canadian, I care not what his politics may be, I care not who he may be or where he may reside, who takes the trouble to familiarize himself with the whole problem of public credit, the sensitiveness of it and the effect upon that credit of actions, however trifling they may seem to be, that deprive men of the right to go into the courts t-o assert their rights, knows that such action is fraught with the gravest possible danger to our whole body politic. I say that with great seriousness, without in any sense desiring to become embroiled in any quarrel there may be between the provinces and the federal power, because I realize that "provincial rights" are very sacred words. But there was a government the minister of justice of which saw fit to disallow a statute from Nova Scotia because he felt it undertook to do something that was not essentially just and proper

The Address-Mr. Bennett
and wise. I am getting letters every day from sources that I had not expected, from people who have placed their money in Beauharnois securities and who, by the termination of that contract for the sale of power, find themselves in a position where their savings are jeopardized and ruin confronts some of them both at home and abroad. It is pathetic that this should1 be so. I say "pathetic" because there is a pathos about a matter of this kind that far transcends any mere party discussion. I assure this house on behalf of those who sit here at any rate that we hold1 the strongest possible view as to the desirability of some modus vivendi being arrived at that will assure the removal of this-the Minister of Trade and Commerce speaks of sales resistance- shall I say investment resistance on the part of those in Great Britain who have money to invest against finding here a home for their investments, by reason of that action that was taken. And to a lesser degree that same feeling obtains in other places.
I have already dealt with the paragraph that refers to the restoration to parliament of its ancient powers and vigour. I shall leave that for the present, and as the measures develop that have to do with the restoration of responsible government and representative institutions to this dominion I shall endeavour to make mySel'f audible in considering and criticizing those measures. .
An effort is to be made to substitute stability for uncertainty in the administration of customs laws. I take it that has something to do with so-called dumping duties and exchange values. Well, Mr. Speaker, I had considerable to do with these matters during a period of five years. It was the considered judgment not only of our government but of other governments with whom we did business that we were compelled by the economic conditions under which we live to take action to secure for Canada some sort of protection against inevitable destruction by the dumping of goods upon our markets at any price. There was no method by which that could be accomplished by an ad valorem tariff that would change from day to day or by specific duties that might or might not apply because of changed price lists from countries dumping goods upon our markets. So we took a method that achieved its end, that accomplished its purpose, and that preserved the integrity of this country. When I look at the trade returns; when I see Canada's position at the end of 1935; when I see Liberal journals rejoicing in the prosperity Canada enjoys and the position we occupy, I should like to ask them what
they were saying during the long five years that we were endeavouring to attain those ends. Little by little, slowly and gradually we improved our standing until we reached the position to which reference is made by financial journals in every part of the world. Read the reports of the great banking institutions of the United States and see what they say about Canada. Read our own journals.
I ask this house, as I have frequently asked other people: how was this accomplished? It was accomplished by meeting every situation as it arose from day to day in the manner we did, preventing dumping of goods upon our markets, maintaining the integrity of our country and the safety of our credit. That is what we did. Let me say this: the main market phenomenon we have to deal with in this country arises from the fact that over half our population is found in the cities and towns. For the first time in Canada's history the last general census indicated such a shift of population. It is no longer predominantly a rural population, the majority has now become resident in cities and towns. Whether or not the policy that we adopted of developing the industrial structure was a right one, I am not here to say; but having once started to develop that structure, having once moved into cities and towns and urban communities over half our population, we could not, in time of great adversity, in days of great depression, unless we wore prepared to go bankrupt, do other than we did.
We pointed out at the time that these were temporary measures, as they were. The tariff was a temporary measure. Would there ever have been any American trade agreement had it not been for the tariff we imposed in 1930? I have it, not from hearsay but from the Americans with whom we ourselves negotiated, that our tariff of 1930 was responsible for the fact that they were negotiating an agreement with us. That is a case in which tariffs fought for Canada, fought for every class in the country, for every part of the country. That is known, it is known to every one who wants to be fair in dealing with this matter. I say that, with this great shift of population, this great industrial structure that we have built up over these years, that successive governments have protected, we could not, we dare not in days of depression let it die. When we imposed dumping duties against Great Britain and fixed the value of the pound at $4.40 because we anticipated that the increased cost of production would bring about a ten per cent reduction in the value of the pound in a short time, we found to our surprise it was not ten but only eight per cent, and we had it from the high com-
The Address-Mr. Bennett

missioner at that time that he thought the rate fixed of $4.40 was extremely fair under the circumstances.
We applied the same principle to Japan. Japan first of all met us with a statement that I think this house should not forget. They said:	We have been buying more
goods from you than you have from us, and that has got to stop. We want from you an assurance that there will be no raising of your tariffs against us. Well, I did what those who live in British Columbia know best. The head of the organization that met me was himself a Liberal and he said he would have done the same thing under the circumstances. During the twelve months ended November, 1935, Japan bought from Canada 23-6 cents per capita in Japanese money. Tor the same period Canada bought from Japan 37-6 cents per capita in Canadian money. If you allow for the difference in exchange you have almost an equilibrium of purchases between the two countries. Yet they said: Because you are not buying enough from us we propose to take the steps we are taking, and they carried on an extensive propaganda hoping that Canadians would support the view thus taken.
Now what is the case to-day? To-day an agreement has been made that in my judgment-I may be wrong; I never undertake to speak with any sense of certainty in these days-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have never undertaken during the last five years of flux and change to speak with any degree of absolute certainty about anything connected with trade, for the situation has changed from day to day and from night to night. I can recall an order taken by a firm in Canada to be shipped to the United States; the goods were packed and when they reached Windsor to go across, the rate of duty owing to another classification had been so increased that it made it impossible to ship them without losing thousands of dollars. These things happen from day to day. I can only say that if we have adopted, as apparently we have, the principles laid down in the papers tabled to-day, we shall find it to be a very sorry day indeed for this Dominion of Canada. For I assure you, sir, that at any time before October it would have been possible to arrive at that arrangement, but I would not make it. I stand here to-night and say that I would not make it; I stand here to-night and say that I condemn it. I believe it to be bad, and I am as certain
(Mr. Bennett.]
as one can be in this changing world that the agreement which has been consummated will bring disaster to Canada.
I turn for a moment to the position in connection with the United States. I must say something in fairness to my colleagues and myself because in the twelve months ending December, 1935, Canada bought from the United States $28.83 per capita in Canadian money, and the United States bought from us $2.23. We had by constant and untiring effort reduced the commodity balance against Canada to the low sum of $34,000,000, at the end of December of last year. If you will allow for gold and silver that went to the United States as commodities you will find that at the end of 1935 there was a favourable balance for Canada of $60,000,000. That is a point of very great importance, and one of the reasons why today our dollar is at par or better; the reason lies in that changed trade balance. Under those circumstances and in view of what had been said we made proposals to the United States government as a basis for negotiations of which I do not believe you will find any similar record ip Canada. I am going to take the trouble to place it upon Hansard, because I believe it is desirable that the Canadian people should realize the basis upon which we were prepared to negotiate.
On November 14, 1934, the minister at Washington sent to the Secretary of State a dispatch which had been prepared with great care not by one man, nor by two, but by the joint effort of those in the permanent Canadian civil service, and had been considered by the* cabinet I believe on three occasions. It is as follows:
Sir, the government of Canada for many months have been giving careful consideration to the means whereby the exchange of commodities between Canada and the United States might be increased, and I have been instructed to present a statement of their views for the information of the government of the United States. The government of Canada believe that the time has come for definite action and that the declared desire of both governments to improve conditions of trade between the two countries should' now be carried into effect by the negotiation of a comprehensive trade agreement.
You will recall that when the Prime Minister of Canada visited Washington in April, 1933, at the invitation of the President of the United States, the development of trade between the two countries was sympathetically discussed. On April 29, 1933, Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Bennett issued a joint statement at the end of their conversations, which concluded as follows:
"We have also discussed1 the problems peculiar to the United States and Canada. We have agreed to begin a search for means to increase the exchange of commodities between

The Address-Mr. Bennett
our two countries, and thereby promote not only economic betterment on the North American continent, but also the general improvement of world conditions."
At that time it was expected that at an early date the President would be vested with special powers to enter into agreements looking toward an increase in the exchange of commodities between the United States and other countries. Since Mr. Bennett's visit, informal discussions have been carried on, and several methods of improving trade relations between the two countries have been suggested and examined.
In the past eighteen months the governments of the United States and' Canada have repeatedly manifested their determination to increase international trade, by declarations of policy and by the conclusion of bilateral trade agreements.
Within that period of time Canada has made trade agreements with several European countries.
The policy of the Government of Canada with respect to trade relations with the United States was again stated by the Prime Minister of Canada speaking in the House of Commons on February 19, 1934. Mr. Bennett on that occasion referred to the fact that the governments of the United States and Canada had agreed to begin a search for means to increase the exchange of commodities between the two countries and thereby promote not only economic betterment on the North American continent, but also a general improvement of world conditions, and indicated that the policy of the government was to continue their efforts to that end.
On July 21,	1933, at the international
Monetary and Economic Conference in London, the policy of the government of the United States was expressed by you in a resolution submitted on behalf of your government. This resolution declared that the governments represented at the conference should forthwith "initiate bilateral (or plurilateral) negotiations for the removal of prohibitions and restrictions and for the reduction of tariff rates; and declare that their aim in these treaties is substantial reduction of basic trade barriers, and not merely the removal of temporary and abnormal restrictions and increments imposed for bargaining purposes." The resolution continued: "In shaping its policy and in executing its obligations under any agreements, each government should direct its first and greatest efforts towards eliminating restrictions and reducing duties w-hich most clearly lack economic justification, particularly:
(a)	Duties or restrictions which not completely or almost completely exclude foreign competition, such as those which restrict importation of particular commodities to less than 5 per cent of the domestic consumption thereof;
(b)	Duties or restrictions on articles the imports of which have been substantially curtailed since 1929, as compared with domestic consumption;
(c)	Protective duties or restrictions which have been in effect a considerable period of time without bringing about a substantial domestic production of the protected commodities (say equal to 15 per cent of the total domestic consumption thereof)."
On December 16, 1933, on your motion, the Seventh International Conference of American
States at Montevideo adopted a resolution which declared that the Governments of the American Republics would promptly undertake "to promote trade among their respective peoples and other nations and to reduce high trade barriers through the negotiation of comprehensive bilateral reciprocity treaties based upon mutual concessions."
On February 22, 1934, the Department of State issued to the press a statement concerning trade negotiations with Canada, which reads as follows:
"The Trade between the United States and Canada is larger in normal times than that between any other two countries in the world, and it is natural that both countries should desire to restore the reciprocal flow of commodities to normal proportions. We hppe to be in a position at an early date to take steps looking to the conclusion of a trade agreement with Canada which will further the interests of both countries. We hope thus'to bring into practical application the 'good neighbour' policy between these two great countries which have so much in common." A few days later, on March 2nd, the President requested the Congress to enact legislation conferring on him authority to enter into trade agreements, in a message which concluded with the following words:
"I hope for early action. The many immediate situations in the field of international trade that to-day await our attention can be met effectively and with the least possible delay."
The legislation in question became law on June 12th. Since then your government has set up the organization necessary for the conduct of negotiations, carried on its preliminary investigations, initiated discussions with several governments, and proclaimed the conclusion of a trade agreement with Cuba. The objective of the United States in entering upon these negotiations was stated by you in a public address on November 1st to be "to break down all the artificial and excessive impediments put in the way of world commerce, not only in our own interests but for the benefit of all others as well, since only by restoring the -whole world can individual countries hope to remain economically healthy long."
It is hardly necessary to stress the importance to both the United States and Canada of their mutual trade. For many years each country has provided the other with either its largest or its second largest foreign market. From 1927 to 1932 and again in the first nine months of 1934, the total trade between Canada and the United States was greater than the total trade between the United States and any other country. In the last ten years, according to the figures of the Department of Commerce of the United States, the aggregate value of the trade between the two countries was more than ten billion dollars, and in the single year of 1929 it reached the great figure of $1,451 millions. During the decade ending in 1933 Canada provided a market for the products of the United States larger by one-fourth than the whole of Asia, about twice as large as Germany or all South America, nearly three times as large as France or Japan, nearly seven times as large as China, and more than ten times as large as the Soviet Union. In spite of the considerable decline in trade from the high level of 1929, Canada still provided a market in the first nine months of 1934 only slightly smaller than all Asia, nearly twice as large as all South America or Japan,
The Address-Mr. Bennett

between two and three times as large as Germany or France, four times as large as China, and twenty-two times as large as the Soviet Union. Over 30 per cent of all exports from Canada are currently sold in the United States, and notwithstanding the great difference in population of the two countries, about 15 per cent in value of all exports from the United States are currently sold in Canada. The relative importance of the market of each country ito the other, and the persistence of trading on a substantial scale throughout the changing phases of the business cycle, as revealed by the trade returns, demonstrate the inherent advantage of this interchange of commodities, and the tremendous potentialities of expansion under favourable conditions. But no useful purpose can be served by calculating the relative shares retained by each country in a total world trade that for four years has been steadily shrinking, until in 1933 it fell in value to approximately one-third of the level of 1929. If peace and prosperity are to be established on an enduring basis, it is essential to increase the absolute volume of world trade. No better beginning can be made than by taking steps to increase without delay the volume of trade between two countries which offer the most notable opportunity.
Recent trends in the balance of international payments emphasize the necessity of increasing the volume of trade between Canada and the United States. There are six major factors which chiefly determine the nature and extent of the current balance between the two countries. These are: (a) commodity trade; (b) interest and dividends; (c) freight payments; (d) tourist expenditures; (e) gold shipments, and (f) capital movements. On the first three items there has been for many years a heavy balance against Canada, which has been met by a favourable balance on tourist expenditures, by the shipment of gold, and by the movement of capital. An approximate annual balance between the two countries is normally achieved on such other items of international payments as insurance, advertising, royalties, and immigrant remittances, when these items are added together.
(a) Commodity Trade.
In no year since 1882 have Canadian exports to the United States exceeded in value Canadian imports from the United States. During the thirty years ending in 1933, Canada purchased in the United States almost 70 per cent of all her imports and sold in the United States only 37 per cent of all her exports. In the last decade, Canadians have spent over $1.60 in buying products of the United States for every dollar spent on Canadian products by purchasers in the United States. Canada has therefore been obliged to meet the debit balance thus arising by other means of payment. In the decade 1921 to 1930, according to the Department of Commerce of the United States, the balance payable by Canada to the United States on exchange of commodities averaged $287 millions a year. In 1932 and 1933-which were the acute years of the depression-the balance was more nearly equated; but in the first nine months of 1934 Canadian imports from the United States have increased more rapidly than Canadian exports to the United States, and the ratio between them currently stands at about 10:7.
[Mr. Bennett.!
(b)	Interest and Dividends.
The long-term investments in Canada of United States capital have been estimated at a total of about four billion dollars, offset by about one billion dollars of Canadian capital invested in the United States.
The interest paid annually by Canada to the United States in excess of the interest paid by the United States to Canada now amounts to about $125 millions, without taking into account instalments of principal payments, *which in recent years have averaged approximately $75 millions annually.
To this should be added an annual sum, amounting at present to between $25 and $50 millions, being the excess derived by the United States from dividends on investments in Canada over dividends from investments by Canada in the United States.
The United States investments in * securities issued or guaranteed by the dominion and provincial governments is estimated at $1,218 millions. During the depression there has been no default in the payment of interest or principal on any of those issues, even in face of the discount on the Canadian dollar which continued from the latter part of 1931 until late in 1933. Interest payments have been, of course, a continuing charge, the real burden of which has increased with the decline in prices. The strain on Canadian economy has been heavy, and it has only been borne by the adoption of special measures for the equalization of exports and imports.
Right there I will point out that that had to do with the very dumping and other measures to which I have referred. We can maintain our position for the equalization of exports and imports only by special measures. I continue:
(c)	Freight Charges.
Since the -war, net freight payments have been favourable to the United States to the extent of between $25 and $50 millions annually, and this substantial sum remains a debit item against Canada.
(d)	Tourist Expenditures.
The expenditures in Canada by visitors from the United States have been by far Canada's largest annual credit item. Canadian authorities estimate that the net balance on this account has been as high as $188 millions in one year, but since the depression the net Canadian surplus from this source has sharply declined, and amounted only to $60 millions in 1933.
If we adopt what Mr. Fielding felt he could not adopt, and what successive ministers of finance felt they could not adopt, namely, a provision to enable Canadians to bring back 8100 worth of goods from the United States', even twice a year, that item will disappear entirely so far as these favourable factors are concerned. It is estimated that not less than fifty or seventy-five million dollars worth of free goods will enter Canada and to all purposes will constitute a Canadian payment to the American union. I continue:

The Address-Mr. Bennett
(e)	Gold Shipments.
In some measure, Canada has been enabled to meet the adverse balance of payments through the development of the gold mining industry and the shipment in recent years of practically all the new-mined gold' to the United States. According to the figures of the Federal Reserve Board, the United States received a net balance on this account averaging $50 millions a year in the five years 19291933; in tile first eight months of 1934, gold valued at $64 millions at the new valuation was received from Canada, an amount practically equal to the Canadian gold production during the period. Production in Canada has increased substantially during the depression, and its value in the United States has been enhanced by the reduction in the gold content of the United States dollar. It is impossible, however, to expand production rapidly. Even if the entire Canadian production were shipped to the United States, it would still be insuffi-# cient by at least 25 millions annually to meet the net interest payments due in New York. Further, it may not be found possible to continue the shipment of the entire Canadian gold output to the United States.
In other words, we may require it here. I read;
(f)	Capital Movements.
It may be stated, in general terms, that in recent years the net Canadian credits from tourist expenditures and gold shipments have offset the net debits to the United States from interest, dividends, and freight, while the adverse Canadian balance on commodity trade has been met by the net movement of capital from the United States to Canada. Capital has moved both by new long-term investments in Canada and by the purchase of existing Canadian securities. In 1931 the flotation of new capital issues in New York virtually ceased, and the meeting of Canadian obligations in the United States became much more difficult; in fact, it was necessary in some instances to raise capital in Canada and transfer it to the United States to meet maturing obligations there. A reduction in imports therefore became urgently necessary if Canadian obligations were to be promptly and fully paid at maturity. The fall in commodity prices, the decline in Canadian exports to the United States, which was accentuated first by the United States Tariff Act of 1930 and' later by the imposition in 1932 of a 'heavy tax on imported lumber, the discount against the Canadian dollar, and the heavy falling off in tourist expenditures, combined to make the situation still more difficult. Most of the factors responsible for this difficult situation still persist.
There has been a lessening of the movement of capital from the United States, and one of the reasons is the very one I referred to in connection with the Ontario situation. In fact, it is well known that the representations made by those who represented investments in this country of substantial sums of money, evidenced by securities which they had distributed over every part of the American union, are having a very considerable
effect upon the willingness to bring further capital into this country. I continue:
Since the beginning of the depression, amongst countries heavily indebted to the United States, Canada stands almost alone in having promptly discharged in full its obligations payable in the United States. If this record is to be maintained, it is clear, in view, of the uncertainty as to international capital movements, that the exports of Canadian goods to the United States must be increased or the imports of goods from the United States into Canada decreased.
It should be realized that certain formidable obstacles to the lowering of tariff barriers now prevailing in other parts of the world are not present between the United States and Canada. The opportunities of a new continent have resulted in a parallel economic and social development almost without precedent. Standards of living and' working conditions are similar on both sides of the international boundary. The measures of protection which each government has imposed against the products of the other country have not been determined by a desire to exclude the products of cheap labour. In these difficult times, countries seeking to maintain high domestic standards of living have a common interest in expanding trade with each other. For the past year, also, the Canadian dollar has been close to parity with the United States dollar, and the disturbing effects of exchange instability have in large part disappeared. Even if the desired general revival of international trade should still be delayed for a considerable period, there is much to be said in favour of an immediate attempt to increase the volume of commerce between these two neighbouring countries, whose traditions and ideals of social and economic progress are so alike.
As I pointed out a moment ago, and as I repeat again, we were able through the efforts we made to reduce the adverse balance against Canada in commodities to $34,000,000 at the end of December, 1935, and after creating $95,000,000 of gold, there was a balance in our favour of about $60,000,000. I continue:
Attention has been directed to the trade agreements between Canada and the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations signed in Ottawa in 1932. In some quarters the statement has been made that these agreements render difficult the negotiations of a comprehensive and effective trade agreement between Canada and the United States. An examination of the facts will demonstrate conclusively that such is not the case. The agreements concluded at Ottawa in 1932 have been of immense importance in increasing the trade between the several Nations of the British Commonwealth. The market of the United Kingdom in particular has been a most valuable outlet for Canadian products. In return for the market thus assured Canada has continued and enlarged the preferences which had been accorded the United Kingdom since 1897. The Ottawa agreements do not, however, preclude and in fact have not precluded the signatories from offering extensive and valuable tariff concessions to other countries, and it may be stated positively that
The Address-Mr. Bennett

the government of Canada is free to enter into an agreement with the United States covering a wide range of products.
The government of Canada is prepared to join the government of the United States in a declaration that their common objective is the attainment of the freest possible exchange of natural products between the two countries. It is recognized that this objective cannot be attained in the immediate future, as important interests in both countries would be disturbed unduly by the sudden removal of existing tariffs on all natural products. The government of Canada would therefore favour, as the first step, the reductions included in the proposals set out in the next paragraph, to be succeeded by progressive mutual reductions in the duties on natural products, leading to the attainment of the declared objective.
I am authorized to put forward the following outline as a suitable basis for the negotiation of a trade agreement:	_	_
(a)	A mutual undertaking to maintain during the lifetime of the agreement the unrestricted free entry of commodities now on the free list of either country.
(b)	The mutual concession of tariff treatment as favourable as that accorded to any other foreign country; this means that Canada would extend to the United States its intermediate tariff involving reductions from the present rates of duty on some 700 items, including both natural and manufactured products, together with a number of further reductions below the intermediate tariff rates through the extension to the United States of concessions made by Canada in trade conventions with foreign countries.
(c)	The reduction by 50 per cent of the existing United States rates of duty, as authorized by the Tariff Act of 1034. on a specified number of natural products, including inter alia, lumber, fish, potatoes, milk and cream, and live cattle; a number of other agricultural products, and several minerals both metallic and non-metallic.
(d)	The reduction of the existing rates of duty by the United States on a number of partly or wholly manufactured products of Canada, including some processed natural products and certain products in which hydroelectric power comprises an important element in the cost of production.
(e)	The reduction of the existing rates of duty by Canada on a number of natural and partly or wholly manufactured products of the United States.
In view of the declared policy of the governments of the United States and Canada to improve existing trade relations, and of the progress already made in both countries in the necessary preparatory studies, there would appear to be no barrier to the immediate initiation of negotiations and their speedy conclusion. I am desired, therefore, to request that I may be furnished with a statement of the views of the government of the United States on this highly important question.
I have the honour to be, with the highest consideration, Sir,
Your most obedient, humble servant, (Sgd.) W. D. Herridge The Hon. Cordell Hull,
Secretary of State of the United States, Washington, D.C.
fMr. Bennett.]
I want to point out, sir, that I place that upon the records of Hansard in order that it may be there.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the date?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gave the date; it is November, 1934. I place it on Hansard because it furnishes the basis of the negotiations that were carried on by the last administration. We did not promise to give them anything nor did they promise to give us anything, but we did say, "Here is the basis for negotiations"; and when we found-and I want to make this abundantly clear-that we could not secure what we believed to be only a very moderate compensation for what we [DOT] were asked to give, we declined to give it. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. We had settled questions of lumber; we had settled many other questions; but do you suppose for a single moment that any government in Canada is justified in giving the favoured nation treatment and the intermediate rates to the United States without the entry into their market of Canadian fish from the Atlantic coast? Does anyone suggest that we are justified in doing that? And yet that is what has been done, except as regards skates, and, I think, one other brand of fish.
Take agricultural products; take dairy products; look at the rates of duty provided for in the agreement, and we will discuss them item by item when they come before the house. I want to make clear only one thing, namely, that for what we could get we were not prepared to give what was asked. That is the story, stated in that simple sentence; and that is the reason I have read this, so that there might be no misunderstanding as to the basis of the negotiations on the broadest possible foundation, comprising everything. We were not prepared to see every treaty we made with twenty-three countries enuring to the benefit of the United States unless we obtained a quid pro quo that was worth while.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott), in the speeches delivered during the campaign, said that the President of the United States would not negotiate with the Bennett government, and the Prime Minister of this country said that he would negotiate a treaty in ninety days. Does that mean that they had an arrangement that no agreement was to be made with that government, or does it mean this-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Shame.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I beg your pardon?

The Address-Mr. Bennett


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say "shame" to the right hon. gentleman when he insinuates that a government with which he was dealing would enter into such an arrangement with another government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I am trying to say.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And I say, "Shame."


Richard Bedford Bennett: The shame lies with the Postmaster General and the Prime Minister, as I am going to show, who went round the country making these statements. He said, "Put me in office and I will negotiate it in ninety days"; and the Postmaster General said, "Mr. Roosevelt will not make a treaty or a bargain with Mr. Bennett." That is what he said, as reported in the journals of the country. I ask this question:	Did he
make that statement by reason of having any arrangement with the United States government or anyone connected with it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Shame.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If he answers no, then why did he make it? Is that fair political warfare, to have the people of the country believe he had an arrangement whereby, if he came into office, he could negotiate an agreement in ninety days? He did it in much less time, as I shall point out. The Postmaster General said, "We can do this, but he will not enter into a bargain with Bennett." Well, let me point out that during all that time the government of the United States was urging that, even though an election was pending, we should carry on our negotiations; and I decline to believe that the government of the United States was a party to any arrangement that would reflect upon itself. I say, shame; I agree with the Prime Minister; but the shame is to those who went about the country and tried to induce the people to believe that the United States would not carry on negotiations with the Conservative government of the day, but that there had to be a change of government to make a bargain with the United States. That is what I say.
I want to make it clear that under no circumstances was the late government prepared to enter into the agreement in question. 1 was not prepared to sacrifice Canadian ports; I was not prepared to sacrifice Canadian fishermen ; I was not prepared to sacrifice the dairy products of the country to the manufacturing interests of the United States, and I am not now, nor do I believe the Canadian people are. I have it at least from one man, an ex-member of parliament,-well, one should
not quote men without names, so that we will leave that by the way. What is thought of it by persons, by newspapers in the United States or in Canada, is not the issue. There are in this agreement many things which represent arrangements arrived at necessarily by the late government; for no government could negotiate an agreement in forty-eight hours. There are may items that are advantageous to the United States and to Canada; there are mutual benefits, mutual advantages; there are provisions that are helpful to Canada and to the United States. But you have to decide on balance, and the government with which I was associated decided, on balance, that we could not make that bargain. I will not go into details-magazines, manufactured products, the effect upon the income of the railroads of the country, fruit and vegetables. Already in western Canada commercial representatives of the manufacturing houses of the central west are offering their wares, prepared to pay the duty at the reduced rate, because the freight rate from central United States into western Canada is only one-third what it is from eastern Canada.
There you have again the old story of the struggle between east and west and north and south, the question whether we shall succeed in developing a Canada or not. Are the fishermen on the Atlantic to be sacrificed along with the dairy producer, the vegetable producer, and all these others that we will take up in detail when the schedule is before the house? On balance, I say, I was not prepared to ask that the government of Canada should agree to any such bargain. The favoured nation treatment and six or seven hundred items of the intermediate tariff were matters of such gigantic importance to the United States that I felt they should pay and pay handsomely before they got. such an advantage; and if they got it without paying handsomely, it would be sacrificing the interests of Canada to a mere chimera, I was not prepared to do this, because on balance this bargain is against my country. It is against Canada; it is against its development, against its economic integrity, against its future, against everything we have builded all these years, the thing we have toiled and sacrificed to create. And I am sure that hon. members within sound of my voice will have reason to realize how true that is if they take these items schedule by schedule, item by item, studying every phase of the subject.
An agreement thus arrived at-fancy! Just a few hours and it is all over. My objection to Liberal policies in this country has been and is to-day that, unfortunately, they are
The Address-Mr. Bennett

concerned with the event of the d)ay and not with the implications of their acts. I could give two or three illustrations, but I will not do so at length. One is the railroad situation. A third transcontinental came into being under circumstances that brought great glory for the moment, loud cheers, and a vast expenditure of public money. Look at the record and see the amendments proposed by Sir Robert, then Mr. Borden. The implications were not considered; he dealt with the implications; they considered to-day; that is all. Sufficient unto the evil- is the day thereof. Take the western provinces-


An hon. MEMBER:: Sufficient unto the day-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I put it, in this instance, the right way, not the way it is put in Scripture.
Now let me go a step further. I will give you a second illustration. What about our western provinces? In 1905 they came into being, and they were given a grant of money in lieu of their resources. Now look at the statute. I remember one who appeared at this interprovincial conference not Long since, who said, "What do we owe to posterity? What we need is money." The immediate moment! And yet hardly had they come into being than day after day they began to feel crippled by not having their resources, and agitations were carried forward just as I pointed out they would be, that one day they must get the-ir resources. What happened? They gave over to the provinces -their natural resources in their entirety, with their subsidies as well, so that other provinces of confederation claimed that they had not been fairly dealt with; and the province of British Columbia received an interim grant of $750,000 to bring it -to something like the same position as the -other provinces. Not -content with that, for the immediate moment, for the election moment, $4,000,000 was paid to Manitoba for the purpose oif putting it -on an equality with other provinces of the confederation. And then, not only were Saskatchewan and Alberta given their resources, and money in lieu of them; they were given a reference to an arbitration to decide how much they should get for the -time when they did not -have them, but during which they had the money. They got an award in their favour. Then you had the province of British Colu-mibia complaining and you had the -provinces by the sea complaining, and not improperly, because the government of the day had not considered the implications of their act. They were content with the choice o-f the day, -the spoils of the day, in the way in which it brought 
strength and power for the moment in a general election. But the implications are there.
Here is a treaty, a trade agreement made in a few hours. They say: We were going to finish it in ninety days, and we did it in a few days. The very references of the Prime Minister are not to the terms of -the agreement, but: We have been in office only a few days and look at what we have done; we have signed a .trade agreement. The mere signing of the trade agreement w-as not a matter of importance. The matter of importance is; Was the agreement in its implications favourable to the Dominion of Canada? It is not pride in having done something in a day, or in having done something in an hour. A child may destroy in a minu-te a most complex piece of machinery, a watch that might take a man a week to build. Do you pat the child on the back because he can destroy the watch w-ith a single stroke? He does not think of the implications of -his act. Here we have a trade -agreement, unbalanced, as I have endeavoured to show, highly detrimental to the highest interests of this dominion. Not only will i-t be found to be distrastrous in its operations, but it sows seeds of discord instead of promoting harmony in this dominion. Here you are, with great channels of trade that were bui-llt with such effort. I think of the taxes people have borne to establish channels of trade, east and west, but now we are going to supply these wants with a cheap rate from the western United States, where the big factories are, ,to western Canada, and we can look in vain for traffic. That is one side of the picture.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether hon. members realize how difficult it is for one, who as the head of a government might get some credit for negotiating an agreement which the other party was willing and ready to make, so far as I can ascertain from the statements made, not to do it, even though an election were pending, because he felt he dare not do it and be fair to the country in which he was born. I will admit that it is a nice thing to have the duty on- lumber cut in two. Of course it is. I will admit it is a good thing to be able to sell Scotch whiskey four years old at a lower rate of duty. This will increase our trade balance for the moment. I will admit all that. But when I think of the fisherman who is not allowed to compete with the trawlers of Gloucester except on a basis that amounts to prohibition, although they both fish on the Grand Banks of the Atlantic ocean; when I think of the dairy producers in this country, unable to sell their cream, milk, or butter except on a basis of eight cents a pound

The Address-Mr. Bennett
duty to be overcome, eight cents of prohibition, as everyone knows; when I think of many, many other items that I might mention to this house now, but that- it would be undesirable to do, perhaps, in view of the discussion that must take place, I can only say that on balance this treaty is disastrous to Canada.-
On one point I mentioned, about magazines, I have a strong feeling, because of those unconscious influences that mould the character of a nation, that make the character of a people. We had to some extent stopped their sale; it had been reduced by one-half. The revenues had been added to by this duty where the advertising was more than; 20 per cent. The standard of our magazines had been improved; the price had been reduced. We were getting a national consciousness. Who, listening to a broadcast, does not realize that there too is an unconscious influence that makes for a national character? What a difficult time, sir, in endeavouring to build up a nation! Yet, with one, just one stroke of the pen, after a few hours' consideration, all this is forgotten; the long struggles to maintain relations between east and west over that dismal area north of lake Superior are all forgotten. Now watch the progress. All you have to do is to read the speech of Mr. Hull, Secretary of State of the United States, on that point, and you have no difficulty.
I will not now deal with the effect upon our industrial life of the Japanese arrangement; I will do that also later.
As to the railway problem, I do not propose to say more than- this: it is quite clear to me that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Howe) has not grasped1 the provisions of the act under which the trustees operate; if he had, he certainly would' not have' made the speech he did. It is an elementary rule that when a private corporation engaged in the operation of railways does not meet its bond interest, applications are made to the board to appoint a receiver; the receiver no longer pays interest on the bonds, nor dividends; he accumulates the money for the purpose of bettering the financial structure, and then in due time a reorganization may take place. Now, the Dominion of Canada was behind the bonds of the Canadian Northern Railway; it had endorsed its guarantee upon them, and the provinces had done likewise. I wonder how many hon. members realize that if the provinces of Canada had to pay their guarantees that we now have accepted, those who had guaranteed in the west would be entirely bankrupt. We are paying the entire guarantee in British
Columbia on the Canadian Northern. We are paying the entire guarantees on the Grand Trunk, Grand Trunk Pacific and Canadian Northern in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. In Nova Scotia we are paying on the Halifax and Southwestern, and in New Brunswick we are paying on the section that runs through the centre of that province. How many have paused to realize what that means to the taxpayers of this country? When we were confronted with that situation, Mr., now Sir Edward Beatty, and the late Sir Henry Thornton thought it desirable that a commission should be appointed1 to investigate thesie matters, to investigate what might be done on the one hand to save from' receivership the one privately owned road, and on the other to reduce the operating losses, the national losses I should say. This commission that was appointed, comprising as it did1 the ablest men available, presided over by the present chief justice of Canada, with Lord Ashfield, who was the leading authority upon transportation in Great Britain, went west.
When they made their first trip west they realized that the amalgamation of these roads, in the sense in which that term was used, was an impossible thing, and they advised methods / and means whereby there would be the benefits of receivership from the standpoint of the properties themselves and, on the other hand, the closest possible relation between the government and the operation as far as finding capital was concerned. Had it been a private enterprise and that private enterprise had defaulted, the sale by the receiver of receiver's certificates would have provided the necessary money to run the road. So year by year the trustees asked this government or whatever government might be in power to find for them the money that otherwise would be found through receiver's certificates to enable ihe road to function until such time as conditions improved.
Naturally the one great object this commission had in mind was to divorce the operation of the railways from politics, not politics in the narrow sense but politics in the broad sense, to divorce the road from the pressure, as the situation was put by one of the English members of this commission, that is exerted for the purpose of inducing railways to yield to communities for special reasons, a branch line here and a branch line there, the pressure of a member here and of a member there. All these things were to be overcome by the appointment of a small commission that would take the place of any receiver on the one hand and be free from the exercise of political control and pressure on the other.
The Address-Mr. Bennett

I think the minister has misunderstood the purpose of the act. That was the purpose. He is now going to modify and change that into some other system, one similar to that condemned by the commission. They said that it was no longer possible to operate successfully under the conditions that then obtained. I am not going to do more than await the legislation, making this short statement because I do not believe the minister has thoroughly appreciated and understood what has been said.
Then with respect to the creation of parliamentary secretaries, there is nothing new in that; it was done here once before. We had parliamentary secretaries here in this country, in this parliament. When Sir Robert Borden asked Sir George Murray to come here and make a report, he did so; he reported in favour of parliamentary secretaries and they were appointed. I recall this very vividly, and I recall the result. Somehow in this country, under the conditions that exist, it will foe found that they will not function successfully. That is the experience of the past and I do not think times have changed in that regard. I wish it were otherwise, because personally I favoured such a system at that time and I favour it now if it were possible to make it work out successfully, but I am afraid it will not for reasons that are known to many members and that must be known to those who have studied conditions as they existed at the time it was tried.
I congratulate the Prime Minister and the government upon the consolidation of departments. With all deference I suggest to the government that the Department of Transportation had better be called the Department of Communications because it will deal not only with transport but also with broadcasting and wireless communications. The bill I had drafted contemplated the creation of a department of communications and that that department should deal with railways and canals, marine, radio, wireless and certain features of post office work that, as hon. gentlemen know, now come from abroad to that department in connection with broadcasting and communication of that kind.


Ernest Lapointe: Civil
aviation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was coming to [DOT] that.
The other matter we thought should be dealt with by that minister was civil aviation, and in the bill I prepared I suggested the name should be the Department of Communications as being more in keeping with the functions the department would discharge. Any knowledge I have is available

to the government should they desire to make use of it. I congratulate the minister on having given effect to that at once, because I say to him and to this house that if he had not done it at once he could not have done it at all. I learned by experience, in my effort to do it, that it would be possible to carry out that plan only immediately after an election. For the same reason I congratulate the minister on having dealt with the harbour commissions as he has. During my unsuccessful efforts to deal with that question in that way I realized that the only method by which it could be dealt with was to do it right away, at once. Then it is an accomplished fact, and as an accomplished fact it is res ipsa loquitur. At any rate I do congratulate the government and I assure them that in my judgment at least they have accomplished a very much needed reform. I believe the country will be the better for the consolidation of these services,
I may tell my hon. friends that the order in council had been drafted consolidating Interior, Mines, Immigration and Soldier Settlement in one department. From the information I received and which we all obtained, it was believed that the Department of Labour might deal with one branch I have named with more effect than could any other department, but at the time of dissolution we had arrived at no conclusion as to how the departments could be best divided in the public interest. At any rate this is a step in the right direction and in my judgment cannot but be useful.
I think the reference to the reduction in the number of ministers is hardly in keeping with the rest of the speech from the throne, for at the time the ministers without portfolio were appointed it was known that a reconstruction of the government would take place after the election.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They were
just for election purposes?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not for election
purposes but for the purpose of making it clear that they were men of capacity who would be available when the time arrived. It was for the same purpose, I take it, that the right hon. gentleman had recourse to somewhat similar methods on previous occasions.
There is one other matter about which I should like to speak, even though I may trespass unduly upon the time of the house. There is some fear being manifested in many quarters with regard to the administration of justice. The heated debate that took place in this chamber in consequence of the

The Address-Mr. Bennett
Regina riots is not beyond the memory of many who sit here to-night. Then, after that, certain legal proceedings were taken and certain men were sent up for trial, with a preliminary hearing before a magistrate. In the meantime one of them, Mr. Evans, and others met together and concluded that they would petition the premier of Saskatchewan, the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). So local citizens' defence committees sent out requests that each man should sign a petition to the hon. gentleman saying:
I have been circularized by the Citizens' Defence Committee, of Regina, acting on behalf of the 38 arrested relief camp strikers now incarcerated in the Regina jail, on charges arising out of rioting at Regina, July 1st, to impress upon you the need for the immediate setting up by your government of a representative commission to investigate and place the blame for that affair.
I do not concur with the citizens' committee of Regina on the above, nor on their further proposal, that any and all trials on charges arising out of the Regina riots should be postponed, pending the findings of the above mentioned commission.
That was widely circulated by this citizens' legal defence committee, which made striking charges against Mr. Guthrie, Minister of Justice at that time, and myself. The result was that after the defeat of the late government the provincial government at Regina set up a commission consisting of three judges, though our Judges Act does make reference to the fact that the dominion, having paid their salaries, has something to say about the matter.


Mr. GARDINER:: They were set up the day after the riots.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, they were set up but they did not function until later. Now what has taken place? I have been in western Canada; for some time lately there has been a great deal of concern among thoughtful people-not the vocal people-as to what all this means. Here are three judges holding an investigation into a matter that has been referred in part to the courts. There is no reason why any province should not hold an investigation if its sees fit as to how its officers have discharged their duties or how other work has been done within the ambit of their powers. Chief Justice Brown refused to permit evidence to be given as to where the $500 came from that Evans received, and that is quite a substantial sum of money.


An hon. MEMBER:: To some people.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, to all of us. He refused to permit that to be gone into. But this strange thing has happened; there has been 12739-5
called into that box a man, one of these trekkers, and he has sworn that he saw a mounted policeman smashing the head of Miller, who died. This is not a trial. Now what sort of trial are you going to have? Did you ever hear of an investigation of that kind while trials were pending? I can understand an investigation wdth respect to the circumstances leading up to it or with respect to it. Mr. Evans was in Calgary while this commission is still sitting, and it now threatens to go to British Columbia and Alberta to investigate matters that certainly are outside the province of Saskatchewan and beyond the commission's powers. It has now been sitting for many days; the whole morale of the police has been visibly affected, and the sentiment is abroad that justice is becoming political, which is a terrible thing. It is something I hoped we would never have happen in this country.
In that connection there is another matter to which I must refer, of which I read in the press of Ontario. Only a few days ago there appeared a report that the Minister of Justice had referred to the court of appeal the question whether a new trial should not be granted with respect to a matter that had been disposed of in 1925, I think, or thereabouts. There is one thing that I think we should be able to say, namely, that there is finality about justice in this country. This case has been before successive ministers of justice; it was made an issue in a provincial election and much talked about, but in the report made by the Department of Justice while the present minister was the minister, it was stated that any interference would be "a lamentable miscarriage of justice." Certainly the last Minister of Justice arrived at that conclusion, and certainly with my trifling knowledge of law I was wholly of his opinion. It does seem to me that to have in various provinces of this dominion the impression that there is uncertainty-


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend permit me to interrupt? Does he think it is right to discuss this matter when *it is before the court of appeal of Ontario and when on that account I cannot very well speak of the matters which forced the decision which was reached?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentlemen who applaud most loudly are of course least familiar with this matter. The Minister of Justice doubtless heard me say this afternoon that matters which are sub judice I do not desire to discuss. There are a great many

The Address-Mr. Bennett

things I would say if I did so desire. I have not even mentioned names; I have not discussed the merits of the case; I have discussed the principle of a reference being made by the minister, which is all I can do now. It is now before the court; what the court may or may not do, I am not going to discuss at the moment, but after the court has given its decision I think a discussion may be very desirable, in fact may be absolutely essential in the public interest. That is all I have to say with respect to that matter.
There remains one other matter that I cannot pass without some short reference, and that is the allegation made by the Prime Minister that I endeavoured to deprive or succeeded in depriving Mr. Vincent Massey of his position as minister at Washington. I refer to this with great regret; I do so not only with regret but with something akin to sorrow, be -ause I cannot think the Prime Minister co tld possibly have appreciated his own position when he made the statement he did. According to the report in the Ottawa Citizen, at Winnipeg on October 11, 1935, Mr. King told an audience that after the Conservatives took office in 1930 Vincent Massey had been recalled from Washington in order that a relative of the Prime Minister could be sent to keep Mr. Bennett in the limelight. That is the statement as repeated in the press. Speaking in Toronto a few nights later I ventured to think that possibly the Prime Minister had confused Washington with London, because of what I shall presently say. But at Montreal the Prime Minister made the following statement:
Another of Mr. Bennett's statements was a demand for withdrawal of Mr. King's charge that Hon. Vincent Massey had been recalled from Washington in order that a relative of Mr. Bennett's might be appointed'.
"The statement I made in Winnipeg I repeat to-night as absolutely true," Mr. King declared.
Now even though it may take a little time I have to read the order in council which was passed on July 24, 1930, by the government of the present Prime Minister. Here it is, P.C. 1684, and it reads as follows:
The committee of the privy council, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, advise that the Honourable Vincent Massey, a member of His Majesty's Privy Council for Canada, be appointed High Commissioner for Canada in London from the 23rd July, 1930, under the act, chapter 92 of the Revised Statutes of 1927, in succession to the Honourable Peter C. Larkin, deceased; and that his duties include supervision over the various agencies of the Canadian government in the United Kingdom as described in the order in council (P.C. 330, 10th Eebruary, 1922) by which Mr. Larkin was appointed.
The committee, on the same recommendation, further advise that His Majesty the King in 
respect of Canada be humbly moved to issue Mr. Massey's letter of recall from the United States, and to indicate that Mr. Massey has fulfilled his mission to the entire satisfaction of His Majesty in respect of Canada.
"Fulfilled his mission." Could anything be clearer. That was on July 24, 1930, 'and the government. of which I was the head came into being on August 7 of the same year. But in the meantime correspondence 'had taken place between Mr. Massey and myself. He came to Ottawa and he represented himself to be the Canadian high commissioner at London. I saw him, heard his story, and he wrote me this letter:
Batterwood House Near Port Hope, Ontario
August 14, 1930
My dear Prime Minister:
I appreciate your courtesy in arranging our conversation of yesterday in answer to my letter requesting an expression of your wishes concerning my appointment to the high com-missionership in London.
I left the legation at Washington and accepted a transfer to London on the understanding that the office of high commissioner was an integral part of our service abroad differing, of course, in its procedure from our foreign diplomatic offices but akin to these in the qualifications of its personnel and in the relation of that personnel to the government which it serves. I now realize that our ideas regarding this are at variance. In our discussion on this subject you were good enough to make clear your view that the office of high commissioner should be held by someone in close political association with the government of the day, and I understood from what you said that you had in mind plans for this post as a result of which my own appointment could no longer stand.
In these circumstances I, of course, at once offered you my resignation from the high commissionership which I now confirm-the resignation to take effect whenever you so desire.
In, resigning from this post in our service abroad, of which I have been a member for three and a half years, I should like to say that no one belonging to the service and who has been engaged in its work, could retire from a post in it without a feeling of having been greatly privileged.
With kind regards.
Yours sincerely, Vincent Massey.
The Hon. R. B. Bennett, P.C., K.C.,
Prime Minister,
Ottawa, Ontario.
He told me he was going hunting, and I did not answer him until September 16, 1930, at which time I sent the following letter:
Dear Mr. Massey:-
I acknowledge the receipt of your communication of August 14th, and express my regret that absence from Ottawa for a period of nearly two weeks and great pressure of work since my return have prevented an earlier reply. I also recall that you did not expect to return from your hunting trip until this week.

The Address-Mr. Bennett
During our interview on Augsut 13th, I informed you that the present Conservative government considered it proper to adhere to the spirit of the statute creating the office of High Commissioner for Canada in Great Britain, and to affirm the policy which has developed under it, by appointing as its representative one who through conviction could fully subscribe to the declared views of the government relating to the conduct of the affairs of this country in Great Britain; and that any departure from that principle could only be justified on the ground of the more effective prosecution of the policies which this government believes should, in the interests of Canada, be maintained and developed.
As it was agreed that you could not personally approve these policies, it therefore followed, in my opinion at least, that they should more properly be entrusted to one who sincerely believed in their effectiveness.
For this reason it has been determined to accept your resignation as High Commissioner for Canada in Great Britain, and in so doing I would ask you to receive the expression of my belief in the high service you have for some years rendered Canada in a position, which from many points of view cannot, as you suggest, be regarded as in purpose essentially similar to the one you now resign.
I may observe that you are in error in assuming that you were transferred from the position of minister at Washington to that of High Commissioner at London. The order in council distinctly appointed you High Commissioner under the provisions of a Canadian statute, and is also the authority for directing that application should be made to His Majesty for your letter of recall as Minister to the United States. Such letter of recall is actually dated the 5th of August last.
Yours faithfully,
R. B. Bennett.
The Auditor General's report shows that Mr. Massey drew his salary as minister to Washington until' July 22, and' that he drew his salary as high commissioner to Great Britain until the day he was relieved, through the acoeptanoe of his resignation.
In order that there may be no misunderstanding and because the exact dates of these occurrences become perhaps of some importance, I believe I should give those dates. I find that Mr. Herridge was appointed to the position on March 7, 1931, and1 I believe that information makes the record complete.
I regret having to make these observations this evening, but in view of the certainty with which the right hon. gentleman spoke it does seem somewhat difficult to understand why he should have persisted in it. I turn to the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1931, Volume II, Part E, page 6 dealing with vote-credit 240, Canadian representation at Washington. Under this heading it is shown that the Hon. Vincent Massey, at $12,000 salary, drew from April 1 to July 22, $3,709.68. Then, on the previous
page under vote-credit 239, high commissioner's office, we find that from July 23 to September 16, at the rate of $12,000 he received $1,823.65. Incidentally, his moving expenses were paid, the cheque being issued for that after the termination of his arrangements with our government. He had moved his furniture before the date in August on which he saw me in Ottawa. I mention that because I hope the right hon. gentleman will realize there was an error and that we had nothing at all to do with displacing Mr. Massey. He vacated that post, and the present Prime Minister had asked His Majesty the late King to signify his pleasure, on the basis of Mr. Massey having fulfilled his duty. Of course a recall letter is never presented until the new minister takes his place. The minister may have died, or he may have filled a dozen other offices, or he may have gone to St. Petersburg. The actual presentation of the letter takes place when the new man steps in, as was done here when Mr. MacNider was succeeded, and as was done even more recently, in the case of the United States. I mention this matter in order that there may be no misapprehension with respect to what might be thought to be, shall I say, an effort on the part of the leader of the late government to dispose of the services of Mr. Massey at Washington.
There is one other matter about which I should like to speak, one which is personal in a sense. Allegations have constantly been made, and I have not answered them, that the late government was a one-man government, and that there was no discussion in council. Well, for the information of the ignorant-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -of hon. members, I should like to point out that I have taken the trouble to ask the clerk of the privy council for a record of the number of council meetings held during the term of office of the late government and that of its predecessor. Upon receiving that information I find this:
No. of
Date	meetings
25th Sept,	to 31st Dec., 1926	
301st Jan.	to	31st	Dec.,	1927	
1171st Jan.	to	31st	Dec.,	1928	
1411st Jan,	to	31st	Dec.,	1929	
1361st Jan.	to	7th	Aug.,	1930	
92Total	5167th Aug.	to	31st	Dec.,	1930	
731st Jan.	to	31st	Dec.,	1931	
2381st Jan.	to	31st	Dec.,	1932	
2481st Jan.	to	31st	Dec.,	1933	
2011st Jan.	to	31st	Dec.,	1934	
207	'Total	967
The Address-Mr. Bennett


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin):: A half hour
shorter than yours.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I will promise my hon. friend that there will be no more four hour speeches so far as I am concerned. I am afraid it is a failing that comes occasionally to those who are in the opposition. My right hon. friend has tried to excuse himself of the charge of monopolizing discussion by indicating to the house the number of meetings of council there were during the time he was Prime Minister. Well, it is not for me even to imagine what went on in council when my right hon. friend was presiding, but I do not think I shall be very wide of the mark if I assume that most of the talking was done by himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You are wrong this time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And after all, the extent to which a government is a one-man government will depend in council as in the house on the amount of time devoted to its proceedings by the prime minister to the exclusion of others.
My right hon. friend has said there never was a government which constituted a more congenial, loyal and happy lot than himself and his colleagues; that they all knew about everything; indeed1, that they were called by him to be told about everything. I see some of my right hon. friend's late colleagues on the benches in front of me at the moment -not many, it is true, but there are a few. I wonder whether any of them heard anything of the legislative program of last session until they heard about it over the radio. If they did, I wish they would tell the house so, and do so at once, because I have -been led to understand-and I made this statement in the house at the last session of parliament- that the members of the government were never consulted with regard to that program; that they knew nothing about it. The statement was never contradicted by any of them. The members of his own party knew nothing about the program; nobody knew about it except two intimate friends of the Prime Minister who had to do with the drafting of it, and himself. In addition it was broadcast to the country over the radio after His Excellency the Governor General had summoned hon. members to meet together to hear of the matters that were to be discussed. Notwithstanding the fact that that summons had gone out from His Excellency the Governor General, the legislative program, the
72	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
whole program in fact, was announced by the Prime Minister of the day to the country in entire ignorance on the part of his colleagues at the time. If my right hon. friend is not more accurate in his statements generally than he was in that one, I am afraid we shall not be able to put very much confidence in anything that he says.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statement of the right hon. gentleman is not correct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have my right hon. friend's word for that, but we have not anyone else's word for it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, you will get others' too.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I made the statement last year at the opening of the session, and I did not hear it contradicted during the whole session. I made it time and again in public, and the conservative press of the country never contradicted it. It cannot be contradicted. My right hon. friend knows that perfectly well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will say at once to the right hon. gentleman that the speeches were not read to my colleagues, but the fact that the speeches would be made, and the general sense of what they would contain was made long before that, in point of fact, as early as the economic conference in London.


Ernest Lapointe: Three years!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So long before, it had gone completely out of their memories, I am sure. However, we will leave the matter at that.
After all that my right hon. friend has said by way of criticism, I might appear to be wanting in gratitude if I did not seize the earliest moment to thank him for the little scrap of congratulation that he did give to the government in the course of his four-hour speech. He was good enough to say, "We shall have to congratulate the government upon consolidating certain services of the government and also upon having centralized the administration of the harbours." I thank my right hon. friend very sincerely for that extremely generous recognition. It was a little spoiled, perhaps, by the words which followed, namely that he himself had had ideas of the same kind. But if I remember rightly-and I think I have a fairly good memory on some of these things-I said to my right hon. friend, when he came into office in 1930, that there were, I believe, some things that might be done to advantage. I mentioned to him then the desirability of

consolidating some of the departments which had to do with transportation and communications. I think he will remember that. So, if we are to run back.into the past to where these ideas originated, I hope he will give me a little credit. The difference however is that my right hon. friend had five years of office and he had six sessions in which to carry out that reform, but in the course of that time he never got the proposal even as far as the speech from the throne. He has congratulated me, however, and I thank him for having done so, and as he said, for having done what has been done so quickly. Why was my right hon. friend not congratulatory on the same score in regard to the Canada United States trade agreement? Hon. members who heard him speak about the agreement with the United States will recall that my hon. friend's criticism then was that what was done was done far too quickly. The criticism was that the negotiation of that agreement should have extended over a long time. Again I say that my right hon. friend had five years in which to negotiate an agreement with the United States. If I had waited five years there would be no agreement at this time or any time to come. My right hon. friend made it extremely difficult for the incoming government to make the agreement by putting off so long dissolving parliament, by holding on to office two years, at least, beyond the time he should have continued having regard to the views of the people of this country, and bringing matters to the point where it was difficult, within the limited time that remained to the government of the United States before it would again have to appeal to the country, to attempt the negotiation of a trade agreement such as the one that has been put through. I will take another time to speak more particularly of the trade agreement. I just wish at the moment to point out to my right hon. friend, seeing that he knows a little of the importance of doing some things at one time if they are to be done at all, that the making of an agreement with the United States and Canada in the matter of trade was one of the most urgent matters a government could be confronted with, and if the moment had not been seized, and seized to the full by the government itself, it would, I believe, have been impossible at this time to effect any agreement with the United States.
My right hon. friend has spoken of one or two other matters that are of a personal nature. I had hoped perhaps he might have thought that as a result of the views expressed by the people, the evident will and

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
wish of the people of Canada with respect to public matters, some things that had been the subject of discussion and debate in the general election, which lasted for four months or more, might have been left alone to-night. However, my right hon. friend, in connection with anything that touches himself, has a particular habit of not hesitating to take up other people's time in airing his grievance; and I hasten at once to say to him that if I have in any way injured his feelings, or made a mistake in anything I have said as to the appointment of Mr. Herridge to Washington being due to the fact that he was my right hon. friend's brother-in-law, of course I apologize at once. The leader of the opposition has brought this matter up himself. He has said that at Winnipeg I asked the question whether Canada had really gained by the recall of Mr. Massey and the substitution for Mr. Massey at Washington of someone who would keep his own name more or less to the fore. He has brought that up himself. I have not with me any statement of what I said at Winnipeg, but I recall very distinctly what I had in mind to say. The purport of my remark was this, that Mr. Massey did come back from Washington, was recalled from Washington just prior to the time my right hon. friend went into office. He had been appointed, it is true, to London. When my right hon. friend took office, he told Mr. Massey quite distinctly that he could not go to London. He knew that Mr. Massey would like to have returned to Washington; that the people of this country would have liked Mr. Massey to go back to Washington and continue in Washington.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Never even suggested it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes he did. He quite distinctly suggested it. My right hon. friend knows that very well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not only is it not correct, but Mr. Massey was aware of the fact that the right hon. gentleman asked that the king sign, as he did on 5th August, his recall, before I ever saw him at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That does not alter the point I am bringing out at the moment. The king would naturally sign Mr. Massey's recall when Mr. Massey was appointed to London, but this is the point I was making, and I repeat it to-night: My right hon. friend did not allow Mr. Massey to go to London. He knew Mr. Massey had done exceptionally well in the diplomatic service of Canada; that he had given up many
of his own private interests and business to devote his life to diplomatic work; that he was available to be returned to Washington if my right hon. friend wished to have him go back there, and that the people of Canada would have greatly welcomed Mr. Massey's return to Washington. Mr. Massey would have served my right hon. friend just as loyally as he had' served the government to which he had previously belonged. What took place? Mr. Massey was not allowed to go to London; neither was he allowed to be returned to Washington, but what happened instead? Mr. Herridge was appointed to Washington, but was not appointed, if I am not mistaken, until about a year after the time the vacancy was created at Washington, and Mr. Massey's letter of recall was not presented to the President of the1 United States until over a year after the king had signed the recall. In that interval of time my right hon. friend, had he wished to send Mr. Massey to Washington instead of having the position filled as it was filled, could have easily asked his majesty to allow the previous recall to be cancelled. It was. entirely a choice between the two, as my right hon. friend well knows. The right hon. gentleman does not seem to see the point.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will give it to him very plainly. My right hon. friend is fond of citing tradition and of standing up for ideals in public life. Let me tell him that I can recall a time when Sir Oliver Mowat, then premier of Ontario-and he was one of the most highly respected premiers any province ever had-appointed his nephew as a sheriff, he was almost defeated1 in a general election through the cry of nepotism that was raised against him. I say to my right hon. friend that, if he had possessed a more delicate sense of appreciation of what is right in public matters, and of the fitness of things, he would have thought twice before sending to Washington as the minister from Canada his brother-in-law, Mr. Herridge, in preference to a minister such as Mr. Massey, who had given such exceptional service in the diplomatic service of Canada.
I am prepared to leave myself to the judgment of the house as to whether or not my remarks ha/ve been warranted. May I say at once to my right hon. friend that, if as a result of his bringing up this matter, which made it necessary for me to say what I have said tonight, his feelings, or those of Mr. Herridge, or anyone else, have been hurt in any particular, I am exceedingly sorry for that; but,
'4	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
like himself, I have a public duty to perform as Prime Minister and leader of a party, and the criticism I made in regard to that appointment was made on just the grounds I have given to this bouse to-night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what was said either in Winnipeg or in Montreal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the purport of it, and in any event that is what is being said now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice that
some hon. members opposite who have been behind their leader in previous years still carry on their old practice of interrupting and not hesitating to say insulting little things whenever	they	can. I	do	not thinkthey will carry	the	practice	to	quite thesame extreme this session as they have done previously, but to one who is occupying for the first time the position of whip of his party, I would	say	that if	he	wishes to
receive the courtesies that are expected from this side of the house he will have to begin to extend them himself.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I say that as I listened to the	speech of my right hon.
friend to-night I was reminded of his concluding remarks when he was occupying the office of Prime Minister at the opening of the first session of the last parliament, and was replying to myself as leader of the opposition. In concluding he said that he thought the people of Canada at least would agree that he had some business instinct and, being a man with great business instinct, he was not going to waste the time of parliament by replying at any length to the leader of the opposition; that what we were here for was to get on with the business.
I do not know about private business, but as far as public business is concerned I think I can say to my right hon. friend that in four or five months I have done more than he did in as many years. However, I intend to follow the example he set at that time, and I will not waste undue time by taking too long to reply to what he has said this afternoon and to-night. There is much that is touched upon in the speech from the throne that one is not expected to take up during the opening debate of the session. The different measures there mentioned will all come before the house for review at length and in detail during the session, and there will be time enough then to touch upon them.

But before I leave this question of business instinct may I say a word or two to my right hon. friend about another instinct, the political instinct. To listen to my right hon. friend to-night one would have thought nothing had occurred between the time he dissolved parliament some months ago, and the assembling of the present parliament. For the most part what we listened to to-night and what we have been listening to since half past four this afternoon, has been said by my right hon. friend ad nauseam during past sessions of parliament and on the hustings. There was very little in it all that was new. The manner was the same; the faultfinding, the scolding, the denunciation-all that was just true to form, with very little that could be in the least helpful. Let me tell my right hon. friend, because he will come to realize it more and more as the months go by, that he no longer has, from one end of this house to the other, a group of "yes, yes" gentlemen who are prepared to applaud every remark of his as it is made, and continue to do so for any length of time. He had better begin to adjust himself at once to new conditions, because he will find it very unpleasant if he does not.
May I now touch on one or two of the matters to which my right hon. friend has referred. First of all, I am always pleased of an opportunity to join with my right hon. friend in anything that is congenial and pleasant; the opportunity comes so seldom. He has been kind enough to extend his congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address, and I join with him most heartily in extending warmest congratulations, not on my own behalf alone but on behalf of all hon. members on this side of the house and, I think I may say, all hon. members of the house on the excellence of the speeches they have delivered to-day. The Prime Minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Leader of the
opposition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad I
made that mistake; my right hon. friend paid me the same compliment shortly after taking office, so now we are even.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It must be the influence of the yes, yes men.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right
hon. friend alluded to Dr. Dafoe's address on Saturday, not the Parry Sound Dafoe referred to this afternoon, but the equally sound and well known Dafoe from Winnipeg, the editor-in-chief of the Winnipeg Free

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Press. Doctor Dafoe said that years ago, in the old parliaments, the blue ribbon of the legal profession was generally given that man, or he was regarded as having earned it, who had won a foremost place in his profession and then won as well a seat in parliament. I think I may truly say that by the speech he delivered to-day, the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) has already won the blue ribbon not of his profession only but also of parliament. He brings as an invaluable acquisition to this House of Commons the great abilities and talents which have become so evident to all in his profession, and indeed to the country generally, not only by the leading role he has so long played in the courts, but equally by the outstanding place he holds on the platform in the province from which he comes.
May I also congratulate very warmly my young friend the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemount (Mr. Fournier), who has charmed and delighted us all with his brilliant address in French, and in part in English as well. My friend was selected for this responsible duty as the youngest member on the Liberal side of the house. He has had some experience in business, but has given up business to enter one of the learned professions. He is now, I believe, engaged in studies at the university preparing himself for the practice of law. I think I may say to my hon. friend that, if he conserves his health and strength and continues with industry as he has done, he will achieve a very high place both in his profession and in the public life of our country. I extend to him not only my congratulations but my best wishes as well.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of joining with the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and with the mover (Mt. Slaght) and seconder (Mr. Fournier) of the resolution for an address to His Excellency, in saying how delighted we all are that His Excellency Lord Tweeds-muir has been chiosen to be the king's representative in this country. The fact that Lord Tweedsmuir had the close personal association he enjoyed with the late King George, that he had the honour of writing of the life and reign of the king as he has done so charmingly and effectively in The King's Grace,-and that he represented his late majesty as commissioner to the assembly of the Church of Scotland-all these associations with the late king, whose appointee he was, are additional links with himself which are much cherished by the people of this country. The warm welcome which has been extended to Lord
Tweedsmuir since his arrival in Canada speaks for itself. It has made clear to him, I am sure, that his great achievements and his versatile gifts have been well known to the people of Canada for many years. We all appreciate his excellency's expression of pleasure at the association to which he is looking forward for the next five years. It is an association, with both himself and the Lady Tweedsmuir, to which the people of Canada of all classes and in oil parts are also looking forward with great- pleasure.
Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, as was natural enough, has sought to bolster up the position of his small army and himself by saying that a great many of the members on this side of the house were returned by a minority of votes. He sought in those words to create the impression that, perhaps, after all, we who are so numerous on this side do not represent to the extent that we appear to do, the people of Canada. May I say that, had it not been for candidates returned by a minority of the votes, there would have hardly been any one on the other side of the house at all, and our numbers would have been very much larger than they are. Let me give a figure or two in regard to the situation. We have on this side of the house 178 Liberal members. When I speak of this side of the house of course I include the best of the other side. In that regard I must apologize for having failed to mention that, when my right hon. friend was congratulating those who moved and seconded the address at the time he had a large following immediately behind him on this side, he said they were most deserving of congratulation because of what they represented of the feelings of the people of Canada towards his government. Well, if that was the case, what must my right hon. friend think of the extent of the congratulations which should be conveyed to the mover and seconder today, when he finds himself encompassed by the cloud of witnesses which surround him telling of what the people think respectively of him and of me? I am putting it in this personal way in order to keep company with my right hon. friend-what I should say, speaking to the house and the country, is what they thought of the respective policies of the different parties as enunciated by their respective leaders. There are 178 Liberal members. It is true that of that number 85 were returned by a minority of votes. But may I point out-and it was something which was stressed over and over again by myself and other Liberal speakers in the campaign

76	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
that one of the unavoidable effects of a large number of parties in a campaign is that candidates are bound to be returned in increasing numbers by a minority of votes. There has never been a campaign in Canada in which there were so many parties contesting the honours as we had in the last election. In addition to the old Conservative party, we had our friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. We had the new revolutionary army, the Reconstruction party; and we had our friends who came into being as a federal party after the election had been called, and who were fortunate in getting in at that particular moment, running for the first time as Social Creditors. Furthermore, we had some independent members. Altogether it was a great array. But the mere fact' that there were so many candidates made it inevitable that a very large number of members of parliament would be returned by a minority of votes. It so happens that eighty-five out of the 178 of the Liberal party were returned by a minority of votes. But what about the other parties? Where would they have been if some of their candidates had not got in by a minority of votes? My right hon. friend has at the present time thirty-eight followers. Of that number thirty-five were returned by a minority of votes. Almost every hon. member opposite must be thanking the lord for being of the minority on this occasion. My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition would not have had as many followers as he has fingers on either hand but for those of his followers who were returned by a minority of votes.
Take the other members of the house. I hope none [DOT] of them will be offended if, for their convenience as well as ours, we speak of them combined as the independent members. They will not agree to support the government, I understand, and they do not want to support my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition. Supporting outright neither the government nor the opposition, I assume that, whether they are Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, or Social Credit or Reconstruction or avowedly independent, they will wish to regard themselves as independent members of the house. Unless they would deem it a mistaken way in which to speak of them all when I wish to speak of them collectively, I propose to adopt that designation throughout the session.


Mr. SPENCE:: Where do you put Mr. Neill?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He is in the right place just where he is; my hon. friend need not worry about him. I say that it seems proper to refer to those who avowedly support neither the government nor the opposition as the independent members of the house. They have their groups, and unfortunately or fortunately-fortunately I think-they have their differences. There are twenty-seven independent members in the house. Of that number, seventeen were returned by a minority of votes. If we take a bird's eye view of the entire situation, we find that, of the Liberal party's membership in this House of Commons 47-7 per cent were returned by a minority of votes; of the Conservative party membership, 87-5 per cent were returned by a minority of votes; and of members of independent groups, 62-9 per cent were returned by a minority of votes.
Just in case there may be any doubt in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite as to what the country thinks of the government, since it has taken office, may I say that, in the short time we have held office, there have already been three byelections. In none of these was a candidate returned by a minority of votes. In two instances, the government's candidate was returned by acclamation. In the other case, where there was an actual election to test, among other things, the views of the people of western Canada with respect to the government's wheat policy, to which my right hon. friend has referred at such length, the minister of the crown, who was opposed on the platform by a supporter in this house of my right hon. friend, and by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, was returned by a majority of between 3,000 and 4,000 votes, 3,600 in fact. Whereas the Liberal member at the last election had received only 41 per cent of the entire vote, my hon. friend the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) received 66 per cent. So far as the government is concerned, hon. members may feel that numerically we represent the people of this country in a perfectly just and fair manner. If anything, we are fewer in numbers than we would have been had there been only two parties instead of the number there were.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the debate was adjourned.


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

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Tuesday, February 11, 1936