1926-12-13

THE LATE MR. J. C. DOUGLAS TRIBUTES PAID BY .MESSIEURS MACKENZIE KING, GUTHRIE AND EVANS

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I
express to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) and the members of his party the deep sympathy which those

The late Mr. Douglas, M.P.
of us on this side of the House feel in the loss which his party has sustained in the sudden death of one of its members, Mr. John C. Douglas, the member for Antigonish-Guysborough? May I also express to the friends and relatives of the deoeased member the sympathy which this House will feel towards them?
On Friday last when the hon. member entered this parliament to attend the opening ceremonies the flag on the main tower was flying at top mast. It was lowered at sundown only to be raised to half mast at day-break on the morrow out of respect to his memory. Surely there could be no more striking reminder of the "one clear call" which sooner or later every one of us will be summoned to obey, and which, in the exercise of our duties, may well cause us to say with the Psalmist: "So teach us to number our days that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom."
The late Mr. Douglas had scarcely more than completed his fifty-second year. He was bom in Stellarton, Nova Scotia, in 1874, and was educated at the leading academy and universities of that province. He was by profession a barrister and a journalist. For over a quarter of a century his life was identified with the politics of his native province. In 1900 he entered municipal politics as councillor, and was subsequently, for several years, mayor of Glace Bay. In 1911 and 1916 he was elected a member of the Nova Scotia legislature. Hon. members who sat in this House during the thirteenth parliament will remember him as member at that time for Cape Breton South and Richmond. He became attorney general in the Rhodes administration upon its formation in 1925. This position he resigned to contest Antigonish-Guysborough in the recent federal election. Mr. Douglas won the seat, but there appears to be little doubt that the condition of his heart which occasioned his sudden death was due in no inconsiderable measure to the fatigue, strain and incidental anxieties of the campaign.
Though his career has been brought to a close at the moment it might have been expected to be nearing its zenith, Mir. Douglas' political activities and public services have been such that he will long be remembered as a leading Conservative figure in the politics of the maritime provinces.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, those of us who
sit upon this side of the House desire to associate ourselves with the kindly expressions of regret which have just been voiced by the Prime Minister over the death of our lamented colleague, John Douglas. The awful
suddenness of the call in his case has impressed us tremendously. We who saw him on Friday last in apparent health and vigour can hardly yet realize that he has been taken from us.
I desire to add my testimony to the kind words of the Prime Minister in respect of the late John Douglas. I knew him well in this House between the years of 1917 and 1921. He was a genial, kind-hearted man, always willing to assist in any work, willing to share any burden or responsibility, a man who commanded friendship on both sides of the House. Before he came to Ottawa he had a good parliamentary training in the legislature of his province. He had also an excellent position at the bar of Nova Scotia. He had been engaged in municipal life there successfully, as the Prime Minister has stated. I suppose the culmination of his career as a public man was when he achieved the very distinguished office of Attorney General of the Province of Nova Scotia. To a lawyer that is sometimes looked upon as the culmination of a career. It is a very high and distinguished honour for any lawyer to attain. However, he relinquished that high post for the purpose of giving his services in the parliament of Canada. This parliament must regret the loss of men like John Douglas. The province of Nova Scotia will feel his loss, but we sitting here on your left, Mr. Speaker, will probably feel that loss more keenly than anybody. W'e realize, of course, that there is nothing we can do. We realize we can only express our regret in all the sad circumstances and bow our heads to the inevitable.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, speaking for this part of the House, I wish to say that although we knew very little of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Douglas), we certainly regret his death in the peculiarly sad circumstances, and we wish also to extend our sympathy to those to whom he was near and dear.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: I would like to ask the government, and particularly the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), whether the report of the Joint Board of Engineers in connection with the St. Lawrence development will be laid on the table of the House, and if so, whether it will be available to members during the coming adjournment.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I shall make inquiries regarding the present situation of the matter, Mr. Speaker.
Privilege-Mr. Brown



PRIVILEGE-MR. BROWN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct a report that has appeared in one of the Ottawa papers, and if I may, I shall read a very brief extract:
Premier King and his cabinet met the rank and file of the Liberal party and with the group of nine Liberal-Progressives who entered the Liberal camp with their leader of last session, Robert Forke.
As a matter of accuracy, the nine Liberal-Progressive members referred to were not present. This occasion may afford me an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for making a statement with reference to a resolution that was passed at Winnipeg on September 22, 1926, as follows:
Resolution passed by Liberal-Progressive Members for Manitoba at Winnipeg
It was recognized that the country had demanded a stable government and the group are anxious to comply with that demand.
That the policies upon which the Progressives and Liberals were elected are based upon common principles.
That for the enactment of legislation embodying those policies the group are in favour of the acceptance of a portfolio by Mr. Forke in the Liberal cabinet.
That such acceptance shall be upon condition that the Progressive party shall give united support to the government upon those principles, and that the Progressive group shall retain its identity as hitherto.
This statement is made in be'half of the members for Lisgar, Selkirk, Provencl'.er, Souris, Neepawa, Marquette, Dauphin, Qu'Appelle, Macdonald and North Huron.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of the speech of His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session.
Mr. LOUIS AUGER (Prescott) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, in accepting the task and the honour conferred by the government, I am relying upon the leniency of the House and I feel confident that it will not be denied to a new and quite a young member who finds himself besieged by fear at the slight of the grandeur and majesty of his surroundings. In the presence of so distinguished political men of all parties-friends and opponents-I well realize, notwithstanding all the illusions pertaining to youth, the deficiency of my personal qualifications and I aim fully aware that it is not to my humble personality I owe this
[Mr Dunning.]
privilege, for which I am proud and thankful, of moving the address in answer to the speech from the throne.
The government are broad-minded and magnanimous. In conferring on me this honour they have their eyes on the people of the old French constituency of Prescott, always faithful to their policy. Neither was the French Canadian minority of Ontario lost sight of. Allow me, Sir, on behalf of all my fellow-citizens of Ontario and especially those of Prescott, to lay at the feet of the government, who honours them in my person, the very respectful homage of my most vivid and deepest gratitude.
May I be further permitted, before discussing the speech from the throne, to greet His Excellency the Governor General and his worthy spouse with the warmest welcome, and thank him for accepting the very high and dignified post of representative of the British Crown in our country. We are overjoyed at his appointment. To us he is not a stranger. His high reputation as a diplomat, acquired while he was Viceroy of India and Bombay, preceded him among us. Moreover, he is somewhat of a Canadian through the work accomplished by his ancestors in this country. Canadian readers have read with much interest the book entitled:	A Voyage Around the
World in the Sunbeam, and the author of which is no other than Lady Brassey, the revered mother of Her Excellency Lady Willingdon. For all the above reasons, His Excellency may rest assured of meeting here open arms and hearts filled with loyalty and affection.
There is a further agreeable and pleasant duty devolving upon me, that of welcoming the return of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). Having left this country immediately after the great electoral victory, for which they were mainly responsible, they return among us from London, greatly enhanced through the work they have accomplished for the maintenance and natural development of Canadian autonomy and for the welfare of the other parts of the empire.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to offer you my sincere congratulations on your re-election to the Speakership of this House. It is to your impartiality, tact, judgment and dignity that you owe this third term. For my part, I shall further add to the unanimous praise that you have already received from this House: the wish that you may remain among us a long time, in order that we may re-elect you a score of times to preside over our deliberations.

The Address-Mr. Auger
I wish also to congratulate the new ministers of His Majesty. They have shouldered great responsibilities as well as honours. We must bow to their ability and personal merit, and wish them the greatest possible success in the accomplishment of their new tasks.
Although, perhaps, I may not always share the same views as the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie), I have too broad a mind not to (appreciate the well-deserved success which he attained at the Conservative convention, and it gives me great pleasure to offer him my sincere congratulations. Everybody recognizes his high qualifications and his experience.
In looking over the speech from the throne, I note that many legislative measures will be presented for the approval of this House. I shall not enter into the details of each one ol said measures, many of which were left over from last session. However, I wish to draw attention to the one which will bring relief to the grievances of the maritime provinces, also to those which concern rural credits and the pensions to old age. We cannot grant too many favours and too much protection to the farming or labouring classes who will always remain, whatever may be said or done, the source of generous toils and heroic sacrifices, in a word, the basis of all national prosperity.
I also note with pleasure that the measures embodied in the speech from the throne interest all the people of the Dominion: Here, we find proposed measures which are of special interest to the west; there, the maritime provinces fey claim to their rights; further on, we come across measures which will benefit all citizens of Canada, the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, as well as the west and the maritime provinces, This tends to emphasize the nature of the present government's policy. Sir, is not this solicitude for the general welfare of the whole country remarkable? No part, class, or race is forgotten. Should we not be proud of an administration which, by a sound and well thought out policy, tends to dissipate all causes of grievances and friction? For the last five years, Sir, the government has put into practice this efficient policy of fair play, good understanding, and harmony and I state, without fear of contradiction, that this is one of the great reasons for their splendid triumph at the polls on September 14 last.
To be powerful and prosperous, a nation must foe united, and there is no possible union should there exist reasons for some to complain of others. To redress grievances of classes, localities, or races by justice and conciliation, are the very means required to unite
the various elements of our young nation and thereby render it more prosperous and happy. The germs of peace which the government is prepared to sow in the hearts of our citizens will bear abundant fruit and the people will maintain in power for a long time those makers of union and peace. When these proposed measures come before us, Sir, we shall consider them calmly and judiciously, laying aside and sacrificing, if necessary, our personal interests and ambitions to think only of the interests of .the nation as a whole, which demands everywhere and always citizens happy and contented with their lot.
As the right hon. Prime Minister stated, the party must serve the cause and not the cause the party. Consequently, when these measures are considered, we shall not have paltry and narrow views; but patriotism being the guiding light of the intellect and will of the representatives of the nation, we shall witness, I trust, a unanimous chorus of approbation in regard to this peace-making program.
Another aspect of the speech from the throne, which gives us pleasure to note, is the ever-increasing prosperity of the country. What a contrast, Sir, between the present conditions in Canada and those that existed five years ago. Look at the official statistics, read the statements of the Dominion banks, containing the views of authorities in financial matters.
Everything in 1921, reminded us of deficits in railways and in the general administration of the increase in the national debt and of trade and industrial failures of taxes always the more burdensome and the sorry nation, downcast and without hope, was drifting rapidly towards the deep chasm of hideous bankruptcy.
However, such is not its lot to-day. Canada is moving towards the future with a firm and assured step. A wave of enthusiasm has spread over the nation which knows no fear, now that a sound economy has put a stop to the series of disastrous failures and replaced them by surpluses in the budget, sufficient to decrease the national debt and realize reductions in taxation which burdened so heavily the Canadian rate-payers. Without fear and relieved from taxation, the people have faith and this faith stimulates their farming, trade and industrial activities. Thanks to this stimulant and also to the trade conventions with the other nations, production and sales have increased in our country. Our trade operations are profitable and show a favourable trade balance of more than $400,000,000 for last year. In other words the amount of money disbursed by other nations increases so much more our national reserve and strengthens
The Address-Mr. Auger

in a like manner our fanning or manufacturing industries. The solicitude of the present administration for the general welfare of Canada has produced splendid results, of which an eloquent testimonial is furnished by foreign capital having no further fear of investment in our country and thus creating here and there centres of industries where to-morrow large and prosperous towns will spring up.
The speech from the throne moreover contains a reference to our inter-imperial relations. Good work was accomplished at the last Imperial conference and whatever news that has leaked out redounds to the patriotism and foresight of our delegates whose speeches over there were in keeping with Canadian statesmanship. The right hon. Prime Minister and! the hon. Minister of Justice advocated the only policy which, in my humble opinion, safeguards the legitimate interests of our dear country and guarantees the permanency of the empire; that is to say the complete autonomy of the dominions and a free cooperation between the various countries thus united by the superior and powerful ties of friendship.
Citizens of Canada, without distinction of race or creed consider themselves as Britishers just as much as their brothers in England. They are loyal and desire the maintenance of the imperial ties, they nevertheless love their country and will not be happy until the day when they will fully share the privilege of British institutions for which they are ready to once more make the generous sacrifices which their ancestors made to obtain and safeguard them. Therefore they gladly welcome the appointment of the Hon. Vincent Massey as Canadian Representative to Washington. To them, it is the consecration of the courageous act of the hon. Minister of Justice, at the time Minister of Marine and Fisheries, when he attached his signature alone as Canadian representative to the 1923 Halibut treaty with the United States, and thus broke away from the old custom which required that the British ambassador in the United States' capital should be the only one authorized by His Majesty bo sign, on our behalf, our conventions with our neighbours.
We are gradually progressing towards our high destinies as a nation, and we must congratulate the government which has just taken this forward step and has made such a judicious choice in the person of the first Canadian Representative.
We are invited to celebrate, this year, the diamond jubilee of the Canadian confederation. At the time when this pact was agreed upon between the provinces, it was a source of apprehension on the part of many upright

and patriotic persons who doubted the possibility of a lasting agreement between the various elements in our country. However, the fathers of confederation based the Confederation pact on a spirit of harmony that will ensure its permanency. It is the spirit of fair-play, harmony, conciliation and mutual concession.
As a French Canadian, I take the liberty of expressing the feelings of my race. If we have wronged any one since Confederation, let us know whom, whiat race, what province, and we shall be but too happy to redress the wrong. On the other hand, I expect the same broadness of mind and the same loyalty on the part of my English speaking fellow-citizens. The jubilee of confederation should be a cause of rejoicing for all Canadians, whether they are English, Irish, Scotch or French Canadian. Again speaking on behalf of my people, we are ready to do our share in order that harmony and peace may always reign in our country.
The political history of my race shows that always we have shown a disposition to side with justice and conciliation. Never have we been moved by bigotry in voting in order to oppose a man, a party or a race. We have weighed the parties and their political programmes in the light of a reason tempered by a generous and patriotic sentiment. We want a united, happy and prosperous Canada. That is our ambition, and that explains the almost unanimous adhesion of our people to the peaceful policy of the right hon. Prime Minister and his government. We shall continue to love Canada, all its citizens and all its provinces, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from north to south, without any distinction whatsoever of race, language or creed. For my part, I hope to always support in this House, measures of justice and national welfare which will continue to bring more happiness and more prosperity within the boundaries of this country.
Consequently, and stirred by such sentiments, I have the honour to move that an address be forwarded to His Excellency the Governor General to humbly thank him for the speech which he so graciously delivered to both houses of parliament.


Mr. E. A. McPHERSON (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that
I rise to address this House with considerable fear and trembling, both mentally and physically. Knowing as I do the composition of this House, and realizing the fact that the greatest orators and statesmen of Canada have occupied the attention of this chamber on previous occasions, it is very difficult for

The Address-Mr. McPherson
me to know what I can say that will be of real importance or of interest to hon. members. I can only protect myself to a certain extent from perhaps just but severe criticism by reminding those members who, in common with myself, are new members, that they will soon be in my position. I know that the old members will be lenient in their judgment when I remind them of the occasion on which they were first placed in a similar position. I realized, Mr. Speaker, when I was asked to second the address in reply to the speech from the throne that the choice was not made from a personal standpoint but from the standpoint of constituency. On that ground I can justify the choosing of myself as the seconder of the address, but on no other ground.
The constituency which I represent has a unique history in the annals of Dominion politics. In the first election held in that constituency in 1871 there were two candidates, and the result of the polling was a tie. Owing to the fact that there was no provision for a casting vote by the deputy returning officer the two members were both sworn in and given a seat in this House. Another reason is that the constituency was represented, as every hon. member of this House knows, by one of the greatest men that Canada has ever produced, and who will always be regarded as such. I refer to the fact that the late Sir John A. Macdonald was returned by the electors of Portage la Prairie in 1878. To be represented by such a man is a distinction that any constituency can be proud of. I do not wish to go too much into detail, but I must mention one or two others. Sir John A. Macdonald was followed by a gentleman who is a friend of all the old members of the House and who has been a friend of every member in this House. Our constituency was represented for years by Robert Watson, now Senator Watson. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that the west has ever realized the work that Senator Watson did on behalf of that constituency during the long years when he was a voice crying in the wilderness, when he was the only Liberal member west of the great lakes. He was followed by a gentleman who was quite prominent, although not from a political standpoint. I refer to Dr. J. G. Rutherford, a Scotchman with a big heart and a bitter tongue, but he was a man above others, and as an official in the Department of Agriculture I think gave more to this Dominion in connection with animal husbandry than any other official has done at any time. Following him, at a later date, the constituency was
honoured by having as its representative the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, a warm personal friend of mine and a gentleman possessing great ability. In twenty years we disagreed on one thing only, but from a House point it was rather important. As to whether he was right or I was right I do not know. We had our own opinions-perhaps posterity will decide we were both wrong. But as I think of all these gentlemen who have represented the constituency, whom I cannot hope to equal in the matter of ability, it makes my task doubly hard. For these reasons I wish to thank the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his colleagues for the honour they have conferred on the constituency through its humble representative.
It is also most fitting, Mr. Speaker, that I should congratulate you upon your election to your present position. It was not necessary to hear the words of commendation expressed the other day by hon. members of this House, because your reputation is not at all restricted to this part of Canada, but is as well known in the west as in the east. I sincerely congratulate you. I wish also, on behalf of the western portion of the Dominion especially, to congratulate the country on the fact that we have now with us Lord Willing-don as the representative of His Majesty the King. His long and distinguished career is a guarantee that the bonds of friendship and loyalty existing between this country and the motherland will be strengthened as the days go by, and I am satisfied that in the discharge of his duties he will be ably assisted by his gracious consort, Lady Willingdon, and that she will endear herself to the hearts of Canadians, as her predecessors have done in the past.
In connection with the bond of empire it is fitting that I should congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) upon the prominent part they took in the conference from which they recently returned, and the favourable position in which they placed our Dominion in connection with the affairs of the empire. If some years ago, or some months ago, I could have foreseen that I was likely to occupy my present position I might have devoted more time to the consideration of Dominion politics as a whole, but not expecting such an occasion to arise, I must confess that my interest in Dominion politics has been largely confined to those questions which interest us in the western provinces. This attitude was not taken from the standpoint of sectionalism, but because we felt that we required certain

The Address-Mr. McPherson
things in that country to obtain which it was necessary that we should make some effort to force our opinion upon the people of the Dominion. It is true that we had broadcast our demands at great length and for a great many years, on. the supposition that the rule, that if ye ask ye shall receive would be followed. But there seemed to be some difficulty about the reception of these requests at Ottawa, and results were not always as satisfactory as we expected. But I am glad to state that during the last two or three years things have apparently taken a turn for the better. I might confess in reference to western conditions that while we as westerners may talk a lot about our demands out there, I submit that anything that is for the good of western Canada is for the good of Canada as a whole, and that the prosperity of eastern Canada, especially the central provinces, is wrapped up to a great extent in the prosperity of western Canada. So that we are not altogether selfish when we make some few demands from time to time.
I am also glad to note, Mr. Speaker, that there are indications in the speech from the throne of further recognition of conditions in the west. The question that interests us to a very great extent, and one which must interest all of Canada,* is the question of immigration. It is quite true that since the war of 1914 was brought to a close conditions have been such that any thorough scheme of immigration was difficult to carry out. But we have a territory out there which, although populated over a large area, is really sparsely settled in whole, a territory which can hold a great many more immigrants and a great many more producers. I would submit that the most necessary type of immigrant is he who is willing to go on the land and become a producer, that through him only can the wealth of the nation be 'built up, and that immigrants in other walks of life will naturally follow as a demand is made for their services. So I am glad to know that we are to have a progressive and deliberate attempt to bring in as many settlers as possible for that purpose.
In conjunction with this, I also note that it is the intention to extend branch lines of the Canadian National railway in western Canada. This is just as necessary both from the standpoint of those who are now living in sparsely settled districts and for the purpose of giving immigrants proper accommodation and market facilities. There are large areas where the farmers still have to haul their grain to market for considerably longer

distances than they should have to do in order to compete with others in the same line of life.
I am not going to discuss the completion of the Hudson Bay railway because we in the west regard that question as settled and feel that we are now going to have whatever benefits will accrue from the completion and operation of the railway. Leaving aside all argument as to the advisability of the Hudson Bay railway, I might draw to the attention of the House the fact that the people living in any district think that that district is the only place that is worth while considering. I myself went into the district of Portage la Prairie when there was no railway there, and I can remember as I grew up the criticism of the building of the Canadian Pacific railway on the ground that the country to be served would never be worth anything. Of course, events have proved that criticism to have been absolutely without foundation. In like manner I submit we might be hasty in our judgment should we consider that portion of Canada lying between The Pas and Hudson bay to be a wilderness and not worth while developing. I think the development of the natural resources along the line will amply warrant the expenditures on this railway, and that western Canada in particular and Canada as a whole will eventually reap very substantial benefits from the construction of the Hudson Bay railway.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one other point in the Speech from the Throne which I wish to discuss shortly, and perhaps it is of more interest to me than to any other member of this House. I refer to the suggestion that the legislation which was not completed last session will be completed in this. This legislation includes the re-valuation of soldier settlers' land. When I am told that in the district lying between lake Winnipeg and lake Manitoba and on the west side of lake Manitoba the conditions of the soldier settlers are worse than in any other part of the Dominion, I regret to say that I cannot very well contradict the statement. I had heard rumours of it from time to time, but I did not realize the gravity of the situation until I went through that district. I am not for a moment suggesting any criticism of what has been done, I do not know who is to blame, but regardless of why or how the conditions arose, Mr. Speaker, I would ask this House to consider that we have a large number of soldier settlers up there who are in dire want, and unless they are relieved without much further delay it is doubtful if they will be able to remain on their holdings. A number of them have al-

The Address-Mr. Guthrie
ready left. I met man after man up there who pointed out to me that there was no possibility of his paying for his land, let alone earning sufficient to return him a good living at the present time. These men did not consider dollars and cents when they volunteered for service to the empire in the days of emergency. Indeed we could not have got one of them to go through what they went through merely for money. Therefore I submit it is not up to the government or to the people of Canada at this stage to consider the financial cost of giving those men justice and fair treatment and thus enabling them to build up homes where they are now located. In short, in considering this the government and the country should deal with these men not on a business basis at all but on a basis of justice and right. These men are not trying to live on their reputation as soldiers. They have gone up there and in spite of the natural difficulties which have existed in that district during the last four years they have hung on in the hope that they would be able to maintain homes for themselves and their families. For that reason one of the first things I should like to see this House give attention to is the revaluation of the land of our soldier settlers, otherwise many of these men will have to abandon their homes. I have seen those so-called "soulless" corporations, the banks of this Dominion, write off agreements of sale on land purchased at the high valuations which existed in the west five or six years ago, I have seen them write off all the interest and reduce the capital by almost fifty per cent, in order that those who bought land under those conditions might maintain their homes and eventually make them their own. When those so-called soulless corporations will do that as a business proposition, how much more should the Dominion be generous in its treatment of these men who are trying to maintain their homes under almost impossible circumstances?
Now, Sir, I have almost broken the rule of brevity that I imposed on myself when I rose. I think perhaps the best interests of the Dominion as a whole will be served and the business of this House will be expedited by the adoption of the amendments to the rules of the House with a view to curtail useless debate. I think our people as a whole will welcome any change that will make our work go through more rapidly and with less discussion. I can only justify my own remarks, Mr. Speaker, on two grounds: I was forced into it, and it is a matter which has to be taken up. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kind attention.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, let my first formal utterance as leader for the time being of His Majesty's loyal opposition in this chamber be words of welcome to the shores of Canada to His Excellency the Governor General as the representative of our sovereign lord the King in this vast and important part of His Majesty's overseas dominions. The people of Canada upon looking backward to the year 1867, the year of confederation, are at all times wont to recall with pride and satisfaction the long line of distinguished statesmen and publicists who have been selected from time to time to represent their own and our sovereign in the government of this country.
In the present instance the people of Canada, without distinction of race or creed or party, will rejoice that the choice of a representative of His Majesty has fallen upon one so prominent, so well versed both in the affairs of the motherland and of the empire in general, and likewise upon one so well qualified by broad and varied experience in the intricacies of government as is His Excellency the present Governor General. To His Excellency and to his gracious spouse, Her Excellency, this House and this country will unite in according a most sincere and hearty welcome.
May I at this point pause for a moment to offer a word of congratulation to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and to his colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) upon their safe return to their native land, after having been participants in an Imperial conference at the ancient capital of the empire. Before concluding my remarks I may have something to say in regard to the deliberations and the conclusions of that conference, but at the moment my only wish is to convey to Canada's two distinguished representatives at the conference the pleasure which we all experience in this House in seeing them back again in apparent health, strength and vigour.
I now turn for a moment to the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Auger) and the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. McPherson) and to the speeches to which this House has listened this afternoon from these two gentlemen. I tender them the sincere congratulations of those who sit on this side of the House upon the manner in which each of them has acquitted himself to-day and has discharged the important and honourable function which has devolved upon him. Both in this parliament and in the mother of parliaments at Westminster, the honourable and important duty of moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne usually falls to the lot of those who
The Address-Mr. Guthrie

might be considered to be newcomers to the parliamentary arena; and the very novelty of the task, the novelty of the surroundings, may well cause some hesitation, some trepidation, even to the boldest and the best equipped. The hon. member for Prescott and the hon. member for Portage la Prairie have this afternoon demonstrated their ability under trying and difficult circumstances and are entitled to the warm congratulations of this assembly both upon the knowledge of our public affairs which they have displayed and upon their grasp of public issues. We can predict for them, I think, in the course of their public life in this country usefulness at all times as well as opportunities for turning their abilities to account in this great deliberative body of Canada.
I may perhaps be permitted a personal allusion. When I speak of hesitation and trepidation in respect of one whose duty it is to move or to second the address, I speak from personal experience. It is a little over a quarter of a century since I had the honour of rising for the first time and moving an address in reply to the speech from the throne, and I well remember with what misgivings I performed my task on that occasion. My reason for mentioning the incident to-day is the fact that I see before me at this moment, in the person of my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), the man who, over a quarter of a century ago, seconded the address on that same occasion, and I am very glad to be able to say that both in his case arid in mine each of us has continuously remained a member of this House, sitting ever since for the constituefieies which we respectively represented in 1901.
In the speech from the throne there is on this occasion one matter that deserves perhaps more than passing comment. The near approach of the sixtieth anniversaiy of confederation is an important milestone in our national history. The proximity of that event is itself sufficient to arouse a certain amount of patriotic fervour in the breasts of our citizens. But when that announcement is coupled with the intimation that we may reasonably expect His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, the Heir Apparent to the Throne, to be with us at that time the event will certainly become of still greater importance to Canada. Nothing could make that event nobler, grander, more patriotic, more historic than the visit of His Royal Highness, unless it were a visit in person from Their Gracious Majesties themselves. We are also delighted to know that an invitation has been forwarded to the right hon. Prime Minister of

Great Britain, who has accepted that invitation, and will endeavour if possible to be with us to celebrate our sixtieth anniversary. It has, I think, been correctly stated that up to the present time no prime minister of Great Britain, while holding office, has ever visited Canada. So that we look forward with special interest to the First of July next, when we hope to have the pleasure of welcoming to the shores of this country the Prime Minister of Great Britain during his term of office.
I have to thank my hon. friend from Prescott for the kindly and the too flattering references which he made to myself. I know that I can never measure up to the requirements and to the high standard which he has set me. All I can assure him is that I will do my best in the position which for the time being I am proud to occupy.. That position I occupy, of course, by reason of the fact that the election of September last proved disastrous to the Conservative party generally but particularly disastrous in the loss of our great leader. Speaking, not as a partisan, not as a follower of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen on the Conservative side of the House, but simply as a citizen of the Dominion of Canada, I say that his retirement from public life has been a distinct loss to the public service of this country as well as to this parliament. The Right Hon. Mr. Meighen has been an outstanding figure in the public life of Canada since the year of 1908. He entered this parliament as a youth, as a young man at all events, and from that day until the time of his retirement few men have attained as high a standard or as great an accomplishment as he. First he entered the government of Sir Robert Borden as Solicitor General, afterwards filling several cabinet portfolios. Twice in that brief period he held the high office of Prime Minister of Canada, and for the last four or five years has been the recognized leader of the opposition. An able parliamentarian, one of the ablest Canada has ever produced; matchless in debate in this chamber; a keen observer, a wonderful thinker, a man of an accurate and precise mind, as accurate and precise as any who have ever been in this House, his loss is a tremendous one to this House and to the public life of this country. I believe that in our hearts we all feel that it would be a good thing for Canada and for this House if his present retirement from public life is not too long continued.
My reference to the last general election brings me to another consideration. I know it is frequently said that after a general election it is the privilege of a defeated opposi-

The Address-Mr. Guthrie
tion to abstract what consolation they may from the fact that while numerically in the minority in the chamber, they were in an actual majority in the country. I am not bringing up that question now with the idea of taking any consolation from the figures, nor do I make any complaint whatever in regard to the result. My only object in mentioning the matter now is to draw to the attention of the House as forcibly as I can the condition which actually exists in Canada to-day in respect to the representation in this chamber and to show, by the quotation of a few figures, that public opinion as it exists among the people of this country is not fairly reflected in this House to-day. I made that statement publicly about three weeks ago. It evidently received some notice from the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, who sent me a newspaper containing an editorial upon the subject. His cure-all for the present situation, of course, is the adoption in this country of a system of proportional representation. Another suggestion is that the single transferable vote would cure the difficulty which now exists. I am not a believer in the system of proportional representation; in any country where it has been tried I think the system has proved a failure. I have heard discussions upon the question; I have read books and pamphlets dealing with it, and I am not convinced that any satisfactory change would result from the adoption of that system in Canada. It leads to all sorts of pre-election combinations, many of which are not very meritorious; it leads to great uncertainty in results, and likewise to great instability in the elected chambers in countries where proportional representation is in force. For these reasons and others I do not support that proposal, but I do submit that something must be done to remedy the inequality existing in Canada today.
What is the situation? From the report of the Chief Electoral Officer I take some figures, and from them I find that in the Dominion of Canada, at the general election of last September, straight Conservative candidates throughout Canada polled 1,476,000 odd votes, while straight Liberal candidates throughout Canada polled 1,361,000 odd votes. The Conservative candidates throughout Canada polled approximately 115,000 more votes than did the Liberal candidates, yet in this House the Conservative candidates have 91 representatives, while the Liberal candidates have 115 or 116. Although there was a popular' majority of 115,000 in our favour, there is a difference in the representation in
this House of 24 or 25 seats, the minority having the largest representation. My friend who sent me the paper from Winnipeg remarked that the figures in western Canada are even more glaring. Straight Conservative candidates in the three prairie provinces polled 200,000 odd votes, and secured one representative in the person of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett). All other parties and all other combinations in the three prairie provinces polled 400,000 votes, in round figures, and secured 53 representatives. The disparity there is very glaring, and one must admit that public opinion as it exists in the three prairie provinces is not reflected in this chamber, although good democratic government insists that the will of the people be fairly represented. In the province of Quebec the figures show that 40 per cent of the electors voted for straight Conservative candidates, while our representation in this House amounts to six per cent. I know it can be urged on the other hand that if I take the figures for Nova Scotia and British Columbia, an inequality just as great will appear, but that is no answer to the charge I make. I maintain that this disparity should disappear, and it can be made to disappear if we adopt a reasonable system of representation by population. That is the principle upon which our forefathers acted when they established confederation. We have wandered far from that principle to-day, with the result that there are hon. members sitting on the government side of the House representing constituencies with a population of 80,000, and other hon. members sitting opposite representing rural constituencies containing less than 20,000 people. We have the same thing on this side of the House; a representative from the city of Toronto represents 60,000 odd people, while another from my own county of Wellington represents less than 20,000 people.
Why should there be a disparity as between the voter in urban and in rural districts? It should not exist; there is no reason for it today. Perhaps there was a reason in the early days, when means of communication were difficult in rural communities; when they had no telephones, no good roads, few railways, and slow mails, but that is all changed to-day. The average rural community now has means of communication equal to those of our urban centres. Therefore I say it is the duty of parliament to take notice of this situation. I believe it can be remedied and believe it to be the duty of parliament to consider the situation with a view to finding that remedy.

The Address-Mr. Guthrie

In the speech from the throne the first mention, is of the bounty of Providence, and we all agree that it is our duty to return thanks for the manner in which Providence has treated this country every year in our history. But in the next sentence we are asked to congratulate the government of the country upon the foreign trade of Canada during the past year. We on this side of the House are always willing to rejoice when there are signs of progress and prosperity in the country, and if the figures having to do with foreign trade reflect a real prosperity, iwe are prepared to tender our congratulations *to the government. But one must really confess that governments have not a great deal to do with such matters. Do the figures as set forth by the Minister of Trade and Commerce only a few days ago demonstrate that we have made any real gain in regard to our foreign trade or the material condition of the people of Canada? What do they show? They show that our trade has grown to the enormous proportions of 81,291,000,000 of exports and $991,000,000 of imports. That is a tremendous total, we admit, and I am glad to say it shows that we have a trade balance in our favour of $300,000,000 odd as between our exports and imports.


Mr. ROBB:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: Does my hon. friend who says "hear, hear" realize how that favourable trade balance has been secured? Does he realize that in only one single instance have we any favourable trade balance, namely in respect of our trade with Great Britain? Our whole favourable trade balance is made up of our trade with a single country. Exclude all the figures of exports and imports in regard to Great Britain and you find that in respect of your trade with the other nations of the world you have, on the figures submitted by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, an adverse trade balance of $9,000,000.
If we could feel that those exports amounting to $1,291,000,000 represented the surplus products of this country after the Canadian market was satisfied, we would all join in congratulations as we would then all participate in the material prosperity which would accrue therefrom to this Dominion. But when we (find that those exports do not represent the exportable surplus of our country, but that we have imported into this country to supply our own demands, $991,000,000 worth of goods, that does not leave very much in our favour, does it? To England we export our agricultural products. We export what is a recurring crop, something we have year by year in larger and larger quantities.
I Mr. Guthrie.]
But our export business with the United States is upon an entirely different basis. They will not take from us our annual recurring agricultural crops which year by year under the bounty of Providence we are able to reap. All they will take from us is the irreplaceable natural assets of this country. The United States are year by year draining us of our natural wealth. They are taking from us our lumber, unmanufactured and partially manufactured, our pulpwood, our pulp, our paper, our mineral assets, our asbestos, our nickel and the like. But they are not taking the products of our farms or our factories. The people of the United States have arranged their tariff on a basis to suit the people of the United States regardless of the people ;of any other country in the world. We have not done so. We have arranged our fiscal policy to throw our market largely open to the competition of every other country in the world, and the result to-day is that as regards our foreign trade, while we export more than $1,200,000,000 worth of the goods and products of this country, we have to replace them with the goods of foreign lands to the extent of $991,000,000, imost of which goods could and should be produced in this Dominion.
I am going to call the attention of the House to one or two things that appeared on this trade return and I am glad that my hon. and genial friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is in his place at the moment. I am free to say that there is no more genial, no more entertaining hon. gentleman in this House than the Minister of Agriculture to whom I desire to pay this tribute. I believe he is an agriculturist of very high standing. I believe he is what we know in this country as a scientific agriculturist, and I believe it would be for the benefit of the farmers and the people of Canada generally if my hon. friend would devote himself strictly to scientific agriculture and would leave common, plain matters of business and merchandise to men who seem to know more about it than he does.
I believe the Minister of Agriculture had a good deal to do with the negotiation of those well known trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand. I have heard him pronounce upon those in this chamber time and time again. I have heard him assure the people of Canada that the effect of those agreements would not be to bring the farm products of Australia and New Zealand into competition with the products of the dairy farmers of this country, but the reverse, and he could always demonstrate his position with figures. I ask him to look at the report which his colleague the Minister of Trade and Com-

The Address-Mr. Guthrie
merce has placed in the hands of the public within the last* few days, and which consists of a detailed statement of the trade of this country for the last twelve months. If my bon. friend will turn to page 3 of the report, he will find that in the last twelve months we brought into Canada 8,000,000 pounds of butter. Last year when someone made a statement of that kind, my hon. friend said: What is that? That is a mere bagatelle. Look at what we export. How much -did we export during the last twelve months? We exported just 9,142,000 pounds of butter. Eight million pounds of Australian butter displaced in the Canadian market 8,000,000 pounds of Canadian butter and forced the dairy farmers of Canada to send their butter across to the markets of Europe.
Which is the best market for our produce? I ask a candid question. Will anyone answer? Is it here in Canada or in Europe? The home market is certainly our best market, our readiest and cheapest market. It saves us transportation, insurance, cost of commission on this side and across the water. Why not let the Canadian dairy farmer have the full benefit of his home market in respect of that commodity? I have no doubt my hon. friend will hear from the dairy associations in respect of this situation. I have had communications, not from the associations, but from individual dairy men. I know they are feeling the effect of that importation very seriously, and to me it appears to be a sort of trade outrage that we should allow Australia and New Zealand to ship 8,000,000 pounds of butter into this country, while our farmers are forced to export their butter to Great Britain in order to equalize the situation. Why not allow the Canadian farmer to supply our home demand with 8,000,000 pounds of Canadian butter and then we would have a surplus of only 1,000,000 pounds odd which we could send abroad. Would not that be good business? Is that not sound economics? Does that not appeal to the Minister of Agriculture as a pretty fair business arrangement? If it does not, let him consult his colleague in the government who sits behind him and I know he will commend the justice and wisdom of what I say to him. As I said before my hon. friend should keep entirely out of business transactions. He should let some other branch of the government attend to the business end. Let him confine himself to scientific agriculture and research, and I have no doubt we shall have grand results in the Dominion of Canada.
About a year ago we know that my hon. friend drifted into another business venture in regard to horses. I am bringing this matter
32649-2i
to the attention of the House only to show the business capacity of the hon. gentleman, not to attack his professional standing, not to insinuate that he is not one of the high class fanners of the Dominion of Canada. But he undertook to tell the farmers of western Canada that he would find them a market in Europe for their horses. The horse market is not as good to-day as it used to be. The automobile, I suppose, has affected the horse market. Within the last twelve or fifteen months the Minister of Agriculture thought that he would develop that trade himself, and he employed someone to go out and purchase horses throughout western Canada. He purchased 84 of them and sent them abroad. He had them sold in the European market-those of them that were fit to sell- and the total outlay of the government of Canada on that enterprise was apparently $28,175.39. When the horses were sold they yielded the .handsome return of $7,261, making a net loss of about $21,000 to whom? To the minister? No; to the treasury of Canada; to the taxpayers of the Dominion of Canada, and this is one of the outstanding business experiments of the Minister of Agriculture. Now if he has similar knowledge in regard to the butter trade, I do not see any reason why the butter trade should not also end in disaster. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that his department should not mix up in business matters of any kind, because when it does, the treasury of this Dominion, or the people of Canada, always seem to get the worst of the transaction.
There is another thing in connection with the trade of Canada to which I would like to draw the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I recognize in the Minister of Trade and Commerce one of the outstanding business men of the province of Ontario. He is still a comparatively young man. He has had an active business experience. He is the proprietor of one of those large industries in the province of Ontario of which the people of this province are proud, and he has made a success of his business. He is one of the largest furniture manufacturers in the province of Ontario. I know that he has keen business capacity, and I am going to ask him to look over his own trade returns and see if he cannot find some way of curing the situation that has arisen through the operations of the King administration during the last four or five years in regard to treaty making. I charge that in every instance in which the King government has made a trade agreement or arrangement with another country, Canada has got the
The Address-Mr. Guthrie

worst of the deal. I ask my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce to cast his eye over his own returns, over the first public document that he has issued to the people of Canada. On the front page it says, " Issued under the authority of the Hon. James Malcolm, M.P." I ask him to cast his eye over his own trade returns and see if he does not agree with me in the statement I made, that in every single trade agreement the King government has negotiated, Canada has got the worst of the arrangement.
Take the results of the trade treaty negotiated with France, as set out on page 2 of the trade returns. In the first year of the operation of that treaty, we exported to France $15,817,000 worth of goods. In the last twelve months our exports fell to $14,071,000. We were promised a great export business with France as a result of that treaty. We were to be given most favoured treatment by France, but our trade with France, instead of increasing, has gone back in three years by over one million dollars in spite of all our efforts. We opened our markets to France, but their exports to us have not gone back. During the first year of that treaty they exported to Canada $17,682,000 worth of goods, and that $17,000,000 odd has grown in the last twelve months to $21,787,000. Our exports to France have decreased, while our imports from France have materially increased.
Take the treaty with Italy. During the first year of the operation of the Italian treaty, our exports to Italy amounted to $17,215,000 worth of goods. In the last twelve months they fell back to $15,911,000, a drop of $2,000,000 in our exports to Italy since the treaty came into operation. But Italy has taken advantage of our market and of the favourable terms which we granted, because while in the first year of the treaty she sold us only $1,800,000 worth of goods, last year the figures had grown to $3,124,000. What is the result? Our exports to Italy, under the operation of the treaty, have fallen off, while their exports to us, our imports of Italian products, have largely increased.
Let us take the Australian trade agreement, which is also mentioned on page 2 of the trade returns. In the year before that treaty went into operation, in 1924, we sold to Australia $14,482,000 worth of goods. Last year our sales had increased to $17,848,000, an increase of about 25 per cent. How about our imports? Before the Australian treaty went into effect we imported from Australia $1,183,000 worth of goods. Our imports have risen now to $4,339,000 worth of goods or an increase in our imports of 400 per cent, while the

increase in our exports to Australia amounts to about 25 per cent. It is from Australia and New Zealand that t'he butter comes, and they have increased their trade to Canada materially, while we have had only a very, very negligible increase in our exports to Australia; and so it is with New Zealand. Before the treaty, New Zealand sent to Canada $1,560,000 worth of goods. Last year the figures jumped to $3,856,000, an increase of 260 per cent in the shipment of their agricultural products into this country. Our exports to New Zealand before the treaty were $13,676,000. Last year these had grown to $15,897,000, or an increase of about 20 per cent. The trade is all going one way as between Canada and Australia and New Zealand. They are taking advantage of our open market and filling this country with Australian and New Zealand farm products, while we, who are getting some slight advantage in their market, are increasing to a minor extent only our sales of paper, pulp products and the like.
Now, how can we justify such a situation? iMy hon. friend the Minister of Trade and [DOT]Commerce has always been considered in the province of Ontario an outstanding supporter of protection. He is now sitting side by side an the cabinet with my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), an outstanding disciple of the policy of free trade. Together they sit at the cabinet council, cheek iby jowl, sworn to bear confidence and respect for each other, sworn to stand and act together, to be responsible each for the actions of the other. There they sit side by side, an out-and-out free trader and an out-and-out protectionist. I said a moment ago that the iMinister of Trade and Commerce was one of <the most successful manufacturers of the province of Ontario, and I ask him why. His is one of the few industries in the province of Ontario that enjoys to-day, and always has enjoyed, 30 per cent protection. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not for one moment say that his [DOT]protection is too high. I go so far as to say that if, upon investigation it is shown that he is not sufficiently protected, he ought to be further protected. On looking at the trade returns, it would appear to me that he has at present sufficient protection for his industry, for out of the millions and millions of dollars worth of furniture used and consumed in this country each year, his own trade return shows that in the last twelve months only one and a half million dollars' worth of furniture was imported from all the world into Canada; so I assume from those figures that he has ladequate and proper protection for his industry. Now does my hon. friend from Bran-

The Address-Mr. Guthrie
don (Mr. Forke) think that his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce is one of these robber barons we have heard pictured so often in this House? Can my hon. friend from Brandon honestly and consistently sit in that cabinet council and permit a manufacturer in this country to have a duty of 30 per cent on his production?
I should like to hear the opinion of my hon. friend from Rosetown (Mr. E-vans) on this subject. Between sessions of parliament I hear the wo-rd protection, protection, protection. It is ringing in my ears continually, and it always has a strong resemblance to the voice of the hon. member for Rosetown attached to it. What does that hon. member think of the present situation? His former leader is sitting now in the seats of the mighty, side by side with one of the outstanding protectionists of this country. All I can say to my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce is that I agree that his industry is properly protected. I only ask him to be generous enough and kind enough to extend similar protection to other industries I could name in this country.


Mr. MALCOLM:: Will the hon. member
give an illustration to show where the protection on furniture is higher than the protection on woollen goods?


Hugh Guthrie: I did not say the protection on furniture was too high. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I said if it was not high enough I would make it higher. I say give to the woollen man the same 30 per cent.


James Malcolm: Let me say-


Hugh Guthrie: I respectfully ask the
minister not to interrupt me. I only ask him to be as generous and as fair to other industries as the government has been to him. Furniture manufacture is one of the special lines which should succeed in Canada. We have here the raw material in very large quantities. Canada is the cheapest country in the world, perhaps, in respect to such raw material, but it has been considered, not by this government alone but by its predecessors, by the Laurier-Fielding government, that 30 per cent was reasonable protection in regard to furniture, and formerly it was so considered in regard to woollens by the government of this country. They maintained a duty upon woollens at 30 per cent net. Will my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce now be just as fair to the textile men, the woollen men, the cotton men and the linen men, as the government has always been to his particular business?


James Malcolm: There is no change.


Hugh Guthrie: No change in the
furniture tariff-no, it has been consistently maintained, and one reason it has been maintained in recent years is that the furniture manufacturers have had a loyal supporter on the government side. Now I do not want to be interrupted. I want to express my view.
I am sorry that a habit of interrupting has grown up in this chamber which is not at all times creditable to it. Interruption has become almost a parliamentary practice in recent years. I can remember when it was never permitted in this House. I do not wish to be discourteous to my hon. friend in any way, but I do not want to be disconcerted in my remarks.
I wish to refer to another matter in regard to the trade question, and I am glad the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is in his seat. If there is a hindrance in Canada to-day to the increase of legitimate trade in this country, in addition to the hindrance that attaches to the operation of a mistaken fiscal policy, if there is a burden on Canadian trade to-day which is bearing more heavily than any other, it is the sales tax, and I want the Minister of Finance to understand that we on this side of the House are willing to co-operate with him and to assist him in every way in our power to remove from industry in this country this heavy imposition for which the King government is very largely responsible. As a war measure the Conservative government imposed a sales tax of three per cent in the aggregate

one and a half per cent on the jobber and one and a half on the manufacturer. That was for war purposes. It was a heavy tax, and we thought it was a maximum. When Mr. Fielding became Finance Minister he raised the tax to four and a half per cent, and the next year he raised it to six per cent. Then he found that the tax was so high that, it was actually stopping business in the country, and he reduced it to five per cent, and there it stands to-day. The business men throughout Canada say that, next to an insufficient tariff, the greatest imposition and the worst injustice from which they suffer is this five per cent sales tax which has been imposed upon them by the King government. The figures in the public accounts furnished to this House a day or two ago, for the year ending March 31, 1926, disclose that in the last year of the Meighen government, under the operation of the sales tax, an amount of $73,000,000 was collected from the people, while for the year ending March 31 last this tax amounted to $98,000,000.
The Address-Mr. Guthrie


James Alexander Robb: Because there was more
business.


Hugh Guthrie: 
James Alexander Robb: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: There is a demand
throughout the length and breadth of Canada that the national debt be materially reduced. I think the public of Canada were rather shocked within the last few days to learn that the net debt on November 30 last was still at the enormous total of $2,344,436,755. When are we going to start paying off the debt? Do you know, Sir, that back in 1921 the national debt was only $2,340,000,000 odd? Now I know it is always asked by

government supporters, "What about the next year?" Because the financial year ends on March 31. I will take the next year; the debt was then $2,422,000,000 odd, as there had been added to it during that year $80,000,000 [DOT]of railway deficits, shown in the public accounts. At present the government do not add railway deficits to the national debt. They go out and borrow the money on the strength of railway securities which Canada endorses and guarantees. In former days we put our hand in the treasury, took out the money, paid the railway deficit and charged it to the public debt.
We have now had five years of financing by the King government, since 1921, and we have been told on the public platform of tremendous reductions made to the national debt by this government; but according to the statement issued by the Finance department last week there has been no reduction whatever, and as between the debt of November 30 last and that of 1921 there has been a positive increase of $4,000,000. I repeat, there is a demand throughout the Dominion that that debt be reduced. It will be reduced in only one' way-by the practice in this House from now on of the strictest economy. When I state that we on this side of the House are willing to co-operate in every way to achieve that end, I am making a serious statement whereby this opposition intend to abide. We will give my hon. friend the Minister of Finance every opportunity to economize. WTether he will accept our assistance or not will be seen as the session develops.
Let me take another item in the Speech from the Throne. My hon. friend the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) has disappeared; I am sorry for that, but I must go on nevertheless. He has been selected as the Minister of Immigration in the new government. I think we can say with all sincerity that if there is one department of the government to which we all wish success it is to the Department of Immigration. From one end of Canada to the other, in the speeches of the mover and seconder to-day, in the speeches of our great employers, in the speeches of the minister himself, but one opinion is expressed: Canada must have a large new immigration if she is to succeed. We wish him well in his efforts, and we will help him all we can. It is said that the figures of immigration for last year show some improvement. We hope they do. We trust that on examination we will find that the figures published are justified, that the people who have been entered as Canadian immigrants have remained here. There is no particular branch of the government which is

The Address-Mr. Guthrie
responsible for the difficult situation that now exists in regard to emigration. One of our greatest difficulties is emigration. One cannot properly blame the Department of Immigration for the exodus that is still going on from the Dominion. That exodus, I fear, is still proceeding just as rapidly as it has for the last four or five years. I am told that every American consulate from one end of Canada to the other is so crowded with applicants for permission to cross to the United States that the staffs cannot handle the work. I know the situation in the city where I happen to live, and .1 know that there is a continual stream of good Canadians crossing over to the United States because they cannot find employment in the Dominion. But what I wish particularly to call to the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) too, is this, and I think they will agree with me, that even from the western provinces there is a stream of agriculturists going to the United States to-day.


Mr. DUNNING:: No, no.


Hugh Guthrie: He says no. Well, my
information on the subject is from the Regina Leader, published on October 30 last, and it gives these particulars:
"I am unable to give you exact figures, but I should say there are about three thousand applications under the different quotas," was the reply of Mr. E. E. Herbert, Vice Consul for the United States in Regina, Wednesday, when asked for information about Canadians or others desiring to go to the United States.


An hon. MEMBER:: Or others.


Hugh Guthrie: I am coming to that.
Large increases are noted in the number of applications made daily at the American consulate. In fact Mr. Herbert says it is over double the figures of last year.
Somebody is misstating the case, either the Minister of Railways or the Minister of Agriculture is wrong or the Regina Leader is wrong, or Mr. Herbert is wrong.
Some days it will quadruple the figures of previous years, but daily there is an increase, and the staff is kept busy preparing papers and vises. Another interesting phase of the records is that a large percentage of outgoing people have large families. As late as Tuesday a family of father and mother and ten children left Regina for the south for permanent residence.


Mr. FORKE:: May I inform my hon.
friend that there has been considerable prosperity in the west during the last year or so and most of the people going south are going there for the winter.


Hugh Guthrie: That is a very ingenious
explanation on the part of my hon. friend, but I regret to say it is not a very honest one. He knows just as well as I do that the article published in the government paper, the Regina Leader, was meant to oonvey the truth, to convey the information that very, very large numbers of people in the west were leaving Canada permanently for the United States. It is not only so in Regina, unfortunately that condition prevails all through the provinces. I am not blaming the Department of Immigration. The hon. minister was out when I said so. His duty is to bring people into Canada, but it is the duty of every department of this government, it is the duty of the whole government to see that this exodus is stopped.
Another question that has created a good deal of speculation and interest on this side of the House is the question of the Duncan report in regard to maritime rights. The report is long and somewhat involved, and I do not pretend that in the time at my disposal I have been able to read it other than casually. However, I 'have this to say in respect to it, it is a step in advance of anything which we have ihad from the King government during the last five years. From 1921 down to last spring there was an incessant demand from the people of the maritime provinces for a remedy of alleged grievances. I do not think my right hon. friend the Prime Minister ever realized until last session what the grievances actually were. I know he is reported as having made a speech a year ago in the Maritime provinces in which he declared:	What
are maritime rights, anyway? Well, if he did not know then, I think he has a very fair idea now respecting maritime rights. I point out likewise, Mr. Speaker, that for four long years the King government sat in this House with a solid delegation of supporters from the province of Nova Scotia, a solid delegation from Prince Edward Island, a substantial delegation from the province of New Brunswick. Day in and day out this matter was brought to the attention of the government land never was any action taken during the course of that whole four years. The government turned a deaf ear to all demands. Not until the people of the maritime provinces decided in the general election of 1925 to elect Conservatives did the King government waken up to the situation. Last spring when a Conservative delegation from these provinces sitting on this side of the House brought the matter to the attention of the government in such a forcible manner that it could not further remain dormant, it decided that some action had to be taken to meet the situation,
The Address-Mr. Guthrie

then and not till then did the Prime Minister and his government decide that immediate inquiry must be made and something definite done. I do not know whether the Duncan report as presented to the House meets with the approval of the. people in the Maritime provinces; I do not know what action my right hon. friend and his government contemplate in regard to that report. But I know this, that if any proper action is taken, if any satisfaction is given to the maritime provinces as a result of the Duncan report the credit for anything done will be due to hon. gentlemen sitting on this side of the House who carried on the campaign in this paliament last year.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Oh, oh!


Hugh Guthrie: The Minister of Agriculture laughs. I am now discussing business matters and I am sure he does not understand them. I do not think that he has ever given a moment's thought to maritime rights during his whole five years in office, unless he also was rudely awakened by the debates in this chamber last spring. The case for maritime rights as presented in this House by Conservative members last session has seldom if ever been equalled in parliament. I would ask my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) this question: Would he be good enough in his remarks to-day, for instance, to give some indication of what his government proposes to do in respect of this matter? In the speech from the throne it is merely stated that the government intends to take the subject into its consideration and that certain legislation in respect thereto will be introduced. This is a matter of the greatest interest to hon. gentlemen from the maritime provinces, and if the Prime Minister would go so far as to indicate just in what way government action is intended I am sure the information would be gratefully received on this side of the House.
And now I desire before concluding my remarks to make some more or less extended observations upon another subject mentioned in the speech from the throne. I refer to the Imperial conference which has recently taken place in the ancient capital of the empire, the report of which conference was laid on the table of the House on Friday last. Apparently there are two opinions in Canada concerning the exact meaning and scope of the report which was issued by the committee of prime ministers which met and agreed upon it. There is one section of our people who are inclined to think that there is nothing really new or of great moment in any of the clauses or in any of the suggestions contained 
in the report; there is another view that the whole report is possibly the most momentous state document that has ever been tabled in the parliament of Canada. I believe that the people of Canada and probably the press at this moment lack the necessary information to enable them to reach a satisfactory conclusion in regard to this interesting document. Personally I view it as a matter of very great consequence, but in any opinion which I am disposed to offer to-day, I shall have to make reservations. I cannot offer at the present time anything in the nature of an unalterable opinion, for the reason that there are some aspects of the report which I do not yet profess to understand.
This Imperial conference evidently has been something in the nature of a constitutional conference. I had the opportunity last July or August of glancing over the agenda which indicated in a general way the subjects which were to be discussed, and from my recollection of what I saw in the agenda I may say that I had not the faintest idea that anything. in the nature of a constitutional conference was contemplated. I think I am within the fact in saying that when my right hon. friend and his colleague, the Minister of Justice, left Canada to attend the conference, neither of them had the remotest idea that the chief subject for discussion at the conference would be the constitutional status of Great Britain and of the overseas dominions by a committee of prime ministers of the empire. Our ministers had no notice of it; they had no time for preparation; they had no time for consultation with the people of this country; they had no time to obtain any mandate from the people. They went to London to discuss the questions which appeared on the agenda and I have no doubt that the actual deliberations of the conference were perhaps as great a surprise to them as to the rest of the people of Canada.
There is a strong public opinion in Canada that when we venture to make constitutional changes, or even to propose them, the ground should be fairly well prepared in advance and some hard thinking should previously take place. There is the feeling that careful preparation is indispensable before we venture upon the dangerous subject of constitutional changes. Indeed, Canadian statesmen and others have gone so far as to suggest that if any constitutional conference were ever called it should follow the lines of the first constitutional conference held in

The Address-Mr. Guthrie
Canada by the fathers of confederation, which conference was arranged upon an entirely different basis from the one that took place in London recently. In the conference preceding confederation all the great political parties of Canada were represented. Look at that famous picture The Fathers of Confederation if you want, assurance on this point. In that picture we see the outstanding figure of the late Sir John A. Macdonald together with one who probably was the next most important figure, the Honourable George Brown; while side by side we see Sir Charles Tupper and Sir Oliver Mowat. All sections of the four provinces at that time were represented, likewise all political parties. Long meetings were held, prolonged discussions took place; until finally our forefathers agreed upon what has proved a most satisfactory arrangement for Canada, Now there is in this country a strong body of public opinion which holds the view that constitutional conferences should be managed upon just such a basis and not otherwise. There should be full and careful preparation; there should be due notice; there should be ample consultation, with all sections of the people of Canada before any effort is made to institute radical constitutional changes. I do not believe that the people even of Great Britain contemplated any serious constitutional changes. In my opinion both statesmen and press of Great Britain agreed that constitutional government in the overseas dominions had for many years been a matter of evolutionary growth and that all that was necessary was to prepare a clear statement of the situation as it had actually existed for over a generation, a declaration of the actual status quo as it was to-day and as it had been for years. The statesmen and the press of Great Britain, in my opinion, felt assured that this would be fully satisfactory to all parties concerned.
There is no question that apart from our written constitution, which we know in this House as the British North America Act, there have been great constitutional changes in Canada. Our written constitution as contained in the British North America Act has been added to in very many instances by conventions, by customs and by practices which have grown to be a part of our constitution and which are just as strong as the letter of the statute. This constitutional growth must be regarded in considering the Canadian constitution as it exists to-day. Anyone who so desires may examine the reports of the various constitutional conferences which have been held in the past and trace
through them the gradual growth and development of the Canadian constitution as we have it to-day, both in relation to the government of this country and also in regard to our position in the British Empire in general.
The firet of these conferences was held in London in 1888, but it was not a conference as we understand the term to-day. It was a meeting summoned by the Colonial Office of Great Britain to discuss certain matters pertaining to the empire, chiefly matters of defence. No minister of this government attended that conference, and no material result came from it. The next conference was called by the government of this country. It was held at Ottawa; it was attended by representatives of Australia, as then constituted; of New Zealand, and of Cape Colony-there was no confederation of South Africa at that time-and of the Dominion of Canada, while the British government sent out Lord Jersey to watch the proceedings on behalf of Great Britain and the Colonial Office. That conference met in Ottawa in 1894 for the purpose of conferring-because that is the real meaning of the word conference,-and I suppose for the purpose of consulting and advising also. It had no other rights, no other duties and no other authority. The conference did pass a number of resolutions, chiefly in regard to trade matters, and on the whole performed a very useful work, but it did not attempt to elaborate any problems of government either in Canada or outside of Canada.
The next conference was called in 1897, the jubilee year of Her Majesty the late Queen Victoria. It was attended by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on behalf of Canada, and was the first real conference held in Great Britain. It is true that it was not such a conference as we have to-day; it was not attended by the government of Great Britain, but by the Colonial Secretary and by the prime ministers of the self-governing dominions. In the report of that conference you will see that even so early as 1897 the self-governing rights of overseas dominions were fully recognized. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was most particular to emphasize this point in his statement to the conference, and all present accepted this position, as a matter upon which there could be no' possible objection.
The next conference was held in 1902, the year of the coronation of His Majesty the late King Edward VII. Similarly, the proceedings of that conference disclosed that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was again most active in impressing this upon the conference, that it had no duty and no right to deal with constitu-
The Address-Mr. Guthrie

the assembly of the League of Nations, and their representatives have already attended meetings of the league; in other words they have achieved full national status, and they now stand beside the United Kingdom as equal partners in the dignities and the responsibilities of the British commonwealth. If there are any means by which that status can be rendered even clearer to their own communities and to the world at large we shall be glad to have them put forward at this conference.
The attitude of Premier Hughes of Australia at that time is rather interesting. Let me quote briefly from his remarks as reported at page 22. Premier Hughes of Australia, expressing the matter in his own blunt way, said:
I have nothing further to say on those matters to which you referred yesterday, but reference to one other point may be permitted. It is well that we should know each others' views. We ought not to discuss things in the dark. It has been suggested that a constitutional conference should be held next year. It may be that I am very dense, but I am totally at a loss to understand what it is that this constitutional conference proposes to do. Is it that the dominions are seeking new powers, or are desirous of using powers they already have, or is the conference to draw up a declaration of rights, to set down in black and white the relations between Great Britain and the dominions? What is this conference to do? What is the reason for calling it together? I know, of course, the resolution of the 1917 conference. But much water has run under the bridge since then. Surely this conference is not intended to limit the rights we now have. Yet what new right, what extension of power can it give us? What is there that we cannot do now?
There is a statement of the situation as it existed in 1921. It goes on;
What limitation is now imposed upon them? What can they not do. even to encompass their own destruction by sundering the bonds that bind them to the empire? In effect, we have all the rights of self-government enjoyed by independent nations. That being the position, what is the constitutional conference going to do?	*
Such was the position, Mr. Speaker, in 1921. This position has not been changed since and was not changed in any respect at the time my right hon. friend the Prime Minister went to London in October last.
Now in the summary report which has been issued of the recent conference, and which I propose to discuss for a few minutes, the first thing I note with great interest is this-and if I am wrong I want to be corrected; I want my right hon. friend the Prime Minister to set me right in his remarks upon this occasion, for I have no desire to be wrong myself in this important matter, nor have I any desire to mislead anybody else. I find there are certain definite statements in this report so plain and so exact that I think we can all
[Mr. Guthrie. 1
understand them. Is there anything behind them which we do not understand? The report starts out with an introduction stating;
We were appointed at the meeting of the Imperial Conference on the 25th of October, 1926, to investigate all the questions on the agenda affecting inter-imperial relations. We found on examination that they involved consideration of fundamental principles affecting the relations of the various parts of the British Empire inter se, as well as the relations of each part to foreign countries.
I agree that they started out upon a very broad and general basis. They found that fundamental constitutional principles were involved. Who gave my right hon. friend the Prime Minister instructions from this country to discuss fundamental principles in our constitution? I do not ask that in any spirit of disrespect. He went to the conference, as was his clear duty, but I submit that he was not summoned there for the purpose of discussing fundamental constitutional principles, and he had no opportunity for preparation in that respect.
Now this is the pronouncement which the committee of Prime Ministers of the empire make, and they have placed it on page 9 of the report, in italics, to call attention to it, and to make it clear and definite. Speaking of the overseas dominions and of the mother country, they say;
They are autonomous communities; within the British Empire, equal in status, in no wry subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations.
This is clear and exact language. They are equal in status; they are in no way subordinate one to the other. The meaning of that language if I understand the English language is this; That Canada's status under this declaration is one of equality with Great Britain; the status as between Canada and the other overseas dominions is one of equality. There is absolutely no subordination on our part or upon their part; we are equal in every way so far as concerns all our domestic and all our external affairs. This is a broad and definite statement.
Lower down on page 9, as if to emphasize the position, there is another clear declaration upon the same subject:	.
Every self-governing member of the empire is now the master of its destiny. In fact, if not always in form, it is subject to no compulsion whatever.
I submit; Mr. Speaker, that the attention of all sections of Canada should be drawn to this declaration.. It implies no limitations, no

The Address-Mr. Guthrie
conditions, no reservations. We are absolute masters in this Dominion of Canada in all our domestic and in all our external affairs. 1 ask my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) whether they fully considered the extent to which this declara-t:on might ultimately lead us. This confederation was founded upon compromise. We have now absolute control in every domestic and external matter. Can we change the basis of confederation? Can we change the compromise upon which this confederation was founded? This country is largely made up, Mr. Speaker, of two distinct races; the two great races as recognized are the Englishspeaking Canadians and the French-speaking Canadians. Will a day ever come in this parliament when a government will say: We propose to abrogate some of the special features in our constitution which have been maintained ever since confederation? I submit that within the scope of the positive declarations a Canadian government might have absolute power to do so. I ask my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, if he has not already done so, to go to French Canada at the earliest opportunity and consult the leading members of the French bar in regard to the opinion which I now offer. My opinion may be wrong. My hope is that it may be wrong. My fear is that it may be right. I am going to put a case, and in order to make it impressive and expressive, let me put a very extreme case. Some time in the future some government in this country may arise and propose to abolish bilingualism in this parliament-a matter of purely domestic concern, with no external application whatever. We are the masters of our own destiny, according to document, and no power can interfere with us; we are subject to no compulsion. The British government cannot interfere. If they tried to do so we would say: No interference; the declaration affirms that we are not subordinate to you, so hands off Canada. Such might be our reply to Great Britain. Mr. Speaker, I have many times in this chamber admired the stand which you have taken upon Canadian constitutional questions. I have heard you argue with rare force and ability in favour of the rights of minorities. I have heard you demonstrate in this chamber that the great bulwark upon which you and your compatriots rest their rights and their security was to be found, if not in this parliament, in the British parliament and at the foot of the throne. Are these rights now to be jeopardized? Do you, Mr. Speaker, realize the language we
have before us here? Do you realize that if a government should arise in Canada at some time in the future and in its madness or in its rashness, should propose to abolish our provincial legislatures, and adopt a system of legislative union-do you realize that under the language of this declaration they might possibly do so? It would be a matter pertaining purely to the domestic affairs of the Dominion of Canada. I submit that under the definite terms of this declaration a government, if so minded, might abolish every provincial legislature in the Dominion of Canada, and nobody could rebuke it; nobody could interfere with it; no compulsion could be employed to stop it.
I have heard it suggested, that the British government would veto such an act. Look at another clause in the report. The power of disallowance has now been done away with. The right to disallow a bill of the Canadian parliament has been in the statutes since confederation. . It has only been exercised once, and that over half a century ago, but the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have brought back a report containing a clause providing that the right of disallowance no longer exists.
Now what is the situation? I submit that it is the most serious situation that has ever been laid before the parliament of Canada since confederation; it may have the effect of sweeping away those safeguards which the fathers of confederation placed in our constitutional act in 1867. I would not allow any part of the Dominion of Canada or any section of this Dominion to be exposed to attacks in these respects in the future. I would not allow the present protection to be taken away from minorities, as it might be taken away if this report were adopted in its present form by this House. Why was there not some limitation or reservation in regard to Canada?
I have turned this matter over in my mind many times since Saturday night, when I first read the report. I have thought it out as best I could. I thought it might be argued that if Canada should hereafter attempt to pass such an act as I have described by way of illustration, the British government might in some way interfere. WTell, it might be possible to do serious mischief without an act. If we did it by resolution or by motion in this House no one could interfere and if we proceeded by act of parliament I doubt if there could be any interference. But suppose Great Britain should interfere, suppose Great Britain maintain it can interfere, what would Premier Hertzog say of such interference in South Africa? He would say, "If you can

The Address-Mr. Guthrie
interfere in Canada, you can interfere in South Africa, and that is not the meaning of the declaration made in London." If Great Britain can interfere in Canada it can interfere in Ireland, and what would the Irish Free State say? The truth is that the declaration of rights is so broad that it would permit us to do practically anything. The language of this declaration really brings into force the resolution moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) some time ago in this chamber, to provide that we in Canada should be allowed to enact anything we saw fit in regard to our constitution.
I am not prepared to take that stand. I do not believe the people of Canada are prepared to take that position, and I submit it as broadly, as forcibly and as clearly as I can to the Prime Minister, that if we could only see the discussion that took place at the conference we would be in a much better position to foTm a safe conclusion. We have not the discussion before us yet. I presume we will have it in due time. *
What attitude did the Prime Minister take in this matter? What attitude did the Minister of Justice take? He is a representative of one of the provinces which in my opinion might be specially affected if this report were adopted.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: And a strong supporter of this report.


Hugh Guthrie: I would ask the Minister of Justice whether he has taken expert legal opinion in regard to the matter I am bringing to his attention.


Ernest Lapointe: There were many experts there.


Hugh Guthrie: 
Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend need not worry about my province.


Hugh Guthrie: Is he willing to take the risk of the enactment into law of the proposal in the report?


Ernest Lapointe: Surely.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps in a few days
the minister may hear from Quebec and the report may yet have to be amended. I would not be prepared to open the door as widely as it is proposed to open it in this report. I would put in limitations and restrictions to safeguard effectually the special interests and privileges of the people of this country who may be adversely affected hereafter if this report be approved in the present form.

I desire to refer to another phase of the matter. I admit there are some things I do not fully understand at the present time. With reference to this equality of status which is now proclaimed-the proclamation that one shall not be subordinate to the other- how can you reconcile that with the actual position of affairs in the British Empire? Great Britain is the predominant partner. She is the partner that has the power behind her. She must always be the predominant partner. *Let me put another pointed instance, an extreme case. We are not of equal status and we cannot be, I submit, Mr. Speaker, under this arrangement. Let Canada tonight declare war against some foreign country; do you think such a declaration by iCanada would be treated as more than a nullity? It would be looked on. as an international joke. I go further. Let Canada send an armed force to invade a foreign country, would our act be treated as an act of iwar? I submit not. It would be treated os a criminal act, a filibustering expedition, for *which our people would be punished and we would have to pay damages. I go further still:	Let our naval force in a moment of
anger seize or destroy the commerce of another nation upon the high seas; would that be an act of war or be treated as such? It would be treated as an act of piracy. But let Great Britain do the same thing, and how would it be treated? Circumstances might arise in some remote corner of the world where it might become necessary for the government of Great Britain to act upon the moment, as has happened before. The rights of British subjects or their property might be in jeopardy, and she might have to act instantly. Her declaration of war would involve this country as a belligerent, the moment Great Britain made the declaration. We might repudiate the war; we might say, "We will not go into it and will in no way participate," but the moment the declaration was made our shores would be subject to attack, and our commerce would be liable to be seized or sunk, and our citizens treated as alien enemies through no act of our own. Under such circumstances can it be said we are of equal status? To state such a thing makes it appear almost ridiculous. We are not of equal status. Sir Wilfrid Laurier always recognized that. He maintained that we could not be of equal status unless we agreed to share some of the burdens and assume some of the responsibility.
What was done, may I ask, in regard to burdens and responsibilities at the conference? This question has also occupied our attention previously. What was the attitude of the Prime Minister in regard to the burdens

The Address-Mr. Guthrie
and responsibilities? I suppose in due time we will know what he said in respect to that matter, but I would like if to-night or at some convenient time he would give us a definite statement in this respect. I know the conference did not deal with the question of empire defence. They simply remitted it and left it where it was before. They took a lot of time discussing moving picture films and double taxation,-very important matters in themselves-but when it came to the great and important question of empire defence, they merely remit the matter back to where it was in the conference of 1923, and the conference of 1923 merely provided for an exchange of offices as between the Dominions and Great Britain and the establishment of an imperial college for the military training of officers in London. What about the burdens? What about the responsibilities? Did our ministers offer to undertake any? Are we willing to undertake any? Was our case in this respect properly put before the imperial authorities? These are matters distinctly within our control.
Another matter I would like information upon, Mr. Speaker, is the question of the change in status of His Excellency the Governor General. Under the British North America Act, section 10, our Governor General represents the queen. By the Interpretation act those words to-day mean the king. Now under the provisions of this report His Excellency the Governor General shall in future represent the crown. This report I understand was drawn by very expert draftsmen. No doubt there is a good reason for the selection of every word that appears in it. I should like my right hon. friend to tell me whether there is anything significant in the wording here. Constitutional writers attach different meanings to the words "king" and "crown". Looking at the publication knorvn as The Round Table for this month I see a writer in that magazine says the crown means in this case the Canadian Prime Minister. Would the Governor General as representing the crown be subject to the will of the Canadian Prime Minister? I do not refer particularly to the present time but to the future, for all time-whom does he represent? What is the meaning of the word "crown"? W'hy was it used instead of the word "king"? If there was no reason for the change, if my hon. friend will assure the House that the words are synonomous, I have no further questions to ask in regard to that point.
In regard to the appointment of the Governor General, I have always understood- perhaps I am wrong-that in no case was the
Governor General appointed to the Dominion of Canada without consultation with the government of Canada, and that in all cases the government of Canada expressed its acquiescence before the appointment was made. I have also heard that in some instances names have been submitted by the government of Canada and have been acceded to by the government of Great Britain. Is there any change contemplated in the future? In the future will the Governor General be nominated upon the recommendation of the Canadian Prime Minister, or will he not? I should like to know what is in contemplation in that regard, as I cannot find it in the report. Would the Canadian Prime Minister be entitled to nominate a Canadian to the position oi governor general? The report affirms that we have a right to do everything in respect to our own domestic and external affairs. Does it go so far as to give us the right to nominate a Canadian as governor general? There is nothing in the report to give us any definite information on the subject one way or the other.
There are a great many other matters upon which I should like some light before I come to any definite conclusion in regard to them. But this I am going to say, that the course pursued by my right hon. friend during the months of July, August, and September last gave the people of Great Britain an entirely false idea of the actual situation in this Dominion. My right hon. friend in July, August, and September last paraded this country from platform to platform raising grave constitutional questions, indulging in a great deal of vain constitutional babbling, making covert threats that if certain things were not done certain other things might happen.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend tell us what one of those threats was?


Hugh Guthrie: That we were being ruled by Downing street.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I never made such a statement. I challenge my hon. friend to find a statement of that kind anywhere. I made the very opposite statement.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it back.


Hugh Guthrie: If my right hon. friend says he did not-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say positively I did not, and I challenge my hon. friend to produce any such statement from any paper.


Hugh Guthrie: I heard him make in this House during the closing days of last session

The Address-Mr. Guthrie
statements, the only result of which would be to lead people in Great Britain to suppose there was something rankling in the minds of the people of the Dominion, that we were suffering from some grave imagined injustice.
I have heard speakers on the Liberal platform and I have read speeches made by Liberals during the recent election, complaining of the grave injustice which was being done to Canada, alleging that the heel of the British government was still on the neck of the people of Canada, and that we had been relegated to the position of a crown colony. These statements all had their effect in Great Britain, they had their effect upon public men there, they had their effect upon the leading newspapers of Great Britain, and the people of Great Britain imagined last September that there was something seriously wrong in the situation in this country. After the election the applause given to my right hon. friend in the republican press of the United States added fuel to the flame and caused more uneasiness and uncertainty in Great Britain.
We were all gratified that when the Prime Minister left Canada he made a very reassuring statement at the old city of Quebec. I am taking that statement from the Canadian Press correspondent's report, and I trust it is correct. This language does my right hon. friend entire .credit:
Again referring to the conference, he said: "We are in the happy position of having no grievance of any kind."-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: "The relations between this Dominion and the mother country are all that could be wished for. Mr. Lapointe and I feel that our one aim and purpose should be to represent Canada as a full, self-governing nation-one of that commonwealth we speak of as the British Empire, all united under one king, one flag and one ideal."
Very excellent sentiments to take from Canada to Great Britain. Did you notice Mr. Speaker, that when the right, hon. gentleman arrived in Great Britain he was immediately bombarded by reporters with the question, "What about annexation?"


Ernest Lapointe: Tory propaganda.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend has had
his interruption and he has his laugh. I will tell you why the question was directed to the right hon. gentleman: Because the American press had come out as his champions and loudly acclaimed his success in the election.

Why was it that immediately on his arrival he was challenged as to his views on revolutionary action? Who started that?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Tories.


Ernest Lapointe: Tory slander.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Hugh Guthrie: My right hon. friend
started it himself, and he is himself responsible for the false impression that existed in Great Britain. On the one hand, they had a false impression, in regard to Canada; on the other hand, they had serious misgivings as to the situation in South Africa, but it turned out that these misgivings were largely unfounded. The Prime Minister of South Africa took very high, very radical ground in regard to the position of South Africa. He had moved in the legislature of his country that the Dominion of South Africa should have the right to declare her neutrality, and that her neutrality should be recognized internationally. That, in brief, is the ground which he took. Do you wonder that the British press was considerably alarmed!, do you wonder that the public men of England were considerably alarmed by the Prime Minister of Canada raising what actually was a smoke screen to prevent criticism of himself and his government in regard to the customs scandal? But they knew nothing of that in Great Britain; they thought they had a serious question in Canada to deal with and another serious question in South Africa, and they resolved to accede to every request that should be made. Certain it is that they did all in their power to arrange any difficulties. However I am glad to say that on his arrival in Great Britain in his first interview with press correspondents we find him presenting a message of goodwill. We find also that he had no complaints to offer, that he did not mean revolution, that he was content with evolution, as is stated in the press reports.
We are glad that it worked out in this way, and we are glad, for the sake of South Africa, that a common working basis was found by the conference. But I say again, Mr. Speaker, in closing, that never in the history of this parliament from confederation down to the present moment has so serious a problem been laid before us. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is inclined to laugh at my pronouncement on the subject to-day. I predict that he will not vote this report through the House of Commons in its present form and without amendment. I venture to say he dare not do so. It will have to be changed, it will have to be limited; otherwise

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
at some future day it may spell disaster to this country. I say to my right hon. friend and to his government that they will have to forgive my imperfections as leader of the great party which sits on this side of the House. We desire to approach this question in a non-partisan spirit, if ever a question was so approached in this chamber; we want to arrange this matter solely in the interests of the Dominion of Canada. I state this notwithstanding the smiles and the jibes of some members who sit on the other side of this House. If we cannot secure serious consideration of this great and important question it will be a shame and a disgrace. We ask for it, and we are willing to co-operate in the programme of the session to the fullest of our ability. We demand our rights, of course, we expect to exercise our full rights, but if ever there was a question in which cooperation should be the basis of parliamentary debate in this House, that question is the report of the conference which has just been laid before the House.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before I reply to the
remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie), may I, on my own behalf as well as on behalf of those sitting with me on this side of the House, extend to him our hearty congratulations upon his having been chosen for the high position which he now holds and which by natural endowments and long parliamentary experience he is so admirably qualified to fill. When I read in the press despatches that my hon. friend had been selected as leader of the opposition and of the party to which he now belongs, I confess recalling his old and long associations with the Liberal party of Canada, I felt that the compliment was perhaps greater to the party to which I belong than to hon. gentlemen opposite and the party to which they belong. My hon. friend will, I am sure, be the first to concede that what he inherits in the way of great natural endowments comes to him of Liberal parentage of which he may well be proud, and I have no doubt he will also remember with considerable pride his long association with the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, of whom he was a trusted follower almost to the very end of his career. May I say that I think my hon. friend, in accepting the position as a temporary one, owing to 32649-3
the exigencies of his party and under circumstances which necessarily must be more or less embarrassing, did so from very public spirited motives, and in view of that fact he is as much entitled to the thanks of the House as he is to the thanks of his own party.
My hon. friend this afternoon in the course of his remarks, on being interrupted, drew attention to the fact that in this House in the last session or two discussion had not always been carried on with as great a regard for decorum as might have been wished. Let me say at once that while I cannot hope that we shall be in agreement over matters of party controversy I shall be indeed happy to join with him, if he will be prepared to join with me, in doing all that can be done to preserve a right tone in debate in this House and, with your aid, Mr. Speaker, to keep it on as high a 'level as possible. I do believe that in the last few years there has been much more acrimony in debate, very much more in the way of personal bitterness and feeling, than has been necessary. Just to what cause that may have been due it is not for me to say at the moment. In one sense of the word, I think it is true to say that ever since September, 1925, we have been engaged more or less in a continuous campaign. We had the campaign in the country in the fall of 1925 and it was carried from the constituencies into parliament; and during the last session this House partook, for the most part, much more of the nature of a political battleground than of a deliberative assembly. We carried the diseusssion from parliament back again to the constituencies and fortunately we have received a decisive verdict, a verdict which I believe is hailed throughout the country with approval inasmuch as, apart from other reasons, it helps to ensure greater certainty and stability in the administration of public affairs. I submit to my hon. friend that this is a moment when we might well join together to do our utmost to maintain the high traditions of this parliament in every possible respect. Indeed, if parliament is to hold in the country that respect which it ought to command, the members of all political parties and groups must co-operate towards this end.
Speaking of the choice of leaders, I observe that my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Tolmie), who happens to be in his seat at the moment, has within the last couple of months been chosen leader of the Conservative party in the province of British Columbia. It is somewhat interesting to remark that the choice in this case also is a bit of a compliment to the Liberal party, for I recall that the hon. member, too, is ah

34	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
erstwhile Liberal. He shakes his head. Well, he may wish to forget the fact; he has been in bad company for some time. However, for a long while he was looked upon as a Liberal. May I, in congratulating him as well as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, say to both of them in all sincerity that I hope they may be continued in the high office of opposition leaders with ever increasing satisfaction to themselves and others as long as they live.
Having extended congratulations to my hon. friends opposite, I join with the leader of the opposition in extending very hearty congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address. I am sure that we all felt very proud of the splendid manner in which the young hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Auger) spoke in the course of the debate this afternoon, and I think those of us who reside in Ottawa feel a particular pride in the knowledge that he is a graduate of the university of Ottawa. He is the youngest member of this parliament and, I believe, one of the youngest members who ever entered the House of Commons. I am sure when we realize that his college course was largely obtained unaided, through his own industry and effort, and that during it he carried off prizes and scholarships, we can say that he is an example and an inspiration to the young men of our Dominion. We may well hope that many more of his age will take a serious interest in the public affairs of their country and find places in increasing numbers in this House.
The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. McPherson), who seconded the address, came to us with a reputation as an able debater, as one experienced in public affairs and well versed in public matters, particularly those pertaining to western Canada. He has sustained that high reputation to-day in an admirable manner, and after listening to him I think we all feel that our parliamentary force has been greatly strengthened by his presence here. May I congratulate him not only upon the speech he delivered this afternoon, but also upon the great victory which he obtained at the last election, and which, more than anything else, accounts for the change in the person of leader of the opposition in this House. I am not going to pronounce any valedictory upon the departed, because I am not at all sure that we may not see him back in this House again; for my part,
I should not be surprised to see him once more at the head of his party. That, however, is a matter for my hon. friends opposite

to decide; it is a family affair and I have no desire to intrude into their domestic concerns.
May I, Mr. Speaker, take advantage of the moment to express the pleasure I am sure it gives most of us to see so many of the members of the last parliament in attendance again. A few of our old members are missing, and I confess that I am very glad that one or two of them are not here. In large part, however, old members have been returned, and I think it is with a feeling of pride and satisfaction to all that we meet again in the numbers we do to resume our labours in a new parliament. On behalf of the government, and on behalf of the old members of the House, I extend to the new members a most cordial welcome. I am sure we all have reason to know that the ability and debating talent of this chamber have been greatly added in virtue of the new members w'ho have come into our midst.
I should like to join with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and with the mover and seconder of the address, in expressing appreciation of and pride in the appointment of the new Governor General of Canada, and the pleasure it affords all to have with us at Rideau Hall at the present time Lord and Lady Willingdon. In the short time they have been in Canada they have captivated the hearts of our people wherever they have gone. As the leader of the opposition said this afternoon, very truly, I think, we in Canada have great reason to be proud of the long list of distinguished gentlemen who have filled the high position of the king's representative in this Dominion. I may say that without exception we have been fortunate indeed in those who have been selected as governors general of our Dominion. I believe that great as have been the qualities of those who have filled this high position, the present Governor General possesses attributes second to none of his predecessors. He has had the advantage of a parliamentary experience over a considerable period of time. He has been a representative of the people in parliament; he also represented as governor of Bombay and Madras over an equal period of time His Majesty the King. He has been on important diplomatic missions to other lands, and taken all together his experience is such as to qualify him in an exceptional way for the high position to which he has been called. It is a rather interesting coincidence that, as in the parliament before last, we begin with a new parliament, a new government, and a new Governor General.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Perhaps this is an appropriate moment for a new statement as to the position of the Governor General. In this connection I was a little surprised at the suspicion with which my hon. friend was inclined to view a reference to the crown in the report of the Imperial conference committee. He asked very pointedly whether there was any ulterior motive, or if there was anything behind the plain statement of fact which appears in its pages. I may say to my hon. friend that the reason the statement was made so plain was to prevent the possibility of anyone having an ulterior idea with respect to any phase of the subjects to which it relates. I might just read to the House the statement contained in the report with reference to the position of the Governor General. The pertinent words are as follows:
The Governor General of a dominion is the representative of the crown, holding in all essential respects the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in the dominion as is held by His Majesty the King in Great Britain, and that he is not the representative or agent of His Majesty's government in Great Britain, or of any department of that government.
I think that is a statement with which every hon. member of this House will be in hearty accord. My hon. friend asked if there was any particular reason why the word " crown " should be substituted for the word " king ", I may say that I was not aware of a thought in the mind of anyone that a substitution was being made; in fact, in the one sentence both words are used:

the representative of the crown holding in all essential respects the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in the dominion as is held by His Majesty the King in Great Britain

	i
My hon. friend in the course of his remarks drew attention to the fact that some old documents refer to the queen, having reference to the Victorian era. Possibly the word " crown. " was put there in order to stand for either king or queen. I can assure my hon. friend that from any discussion I heard at the conference, and from what took place there, there was not in the mind of anyone, so far as I am aware, the slightest desire to have the crown mean other than the ruling sovereign, be he King George or any of his successors, and be they kings or queens.
The important point of that paragraph, the significant feature of it, is that which makes perfectly clear that the Governor General in Canada is the personal representative of His Majesty; that he is in the truest sense of the word, a viceroy; that he is not the representative of the government or of any department of the government of Great
32649-3J
Britain. That is the important feature of that particular statement, and I am sure there is reason for feelings of pride in. the breast of every citizen of this Dominion that a statement to that effect should be made in unqualified terms. Indeed, the paragraph immediately preceding gives the reason why the statement is made as clearly as it is. It reads:
That position-
That is the position of Governor General. 

though now generally well recognized

That is as the representative of His Majesty in the Dominion-
-undoubtedly represents a development from an earlier stage when the Governor General was appointed solely on the advice of His Majesty's ministers in London and acted also as their representative.
In our opinion it is an essential consequence of the equality of status existing among the members of the British commonwealth of nations that the Governor General of a dominion is the representative of the crown, holding in all essential respects the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in the dominion as is held by His Majesty the King in Great Britain.


Mr. BENNETT:: I do not like to interrupt, but perhaps the right hon. gentleman would not mind if I asked him this question. Does he mean the Crown in right of the Dominion, and is the appointment of a Governor General to be made on the recommendation of His Majesty's ministers in Canada or His Majesty's ministers in London? That is a development of the proposition with which he is now dealing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Would that be by the
crown in the right of Canada ot of England?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The crown in
the right of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Governor General
here signs the commission?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The King
actually signs the formal document that accredits the minister to Washington, but on the advice of his Canadian ministers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I wanted to know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The appointment was made in the first instance by order in council of the Canadian government. His Majesty the King was informed of it and after Washington had been communicated with to ascertain whether the person appointed would be acceptable to the President, and a reply was received in the affirmative, the further necessary action properly to accredit the minister was left to His Majesty the King.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it is not trespassing
on the Prime Minister's speech, may I ask why the appointment should not be signed by the Governor General here rather than by the King? Why should not the appointment come from Canada rather than from England?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He is the
King's representative.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know, but he is also
Canada's minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The formal
document appointing the minister in the first instance is signed by the Governor General. The appointment is made by order in council of the Canadian government, and the Governor General signs the order. That order having been communicated to His Majesty, His Majesty agrees to the appointment and accredits the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If there is an equality
of status, why the necessity for having the matter transmitted to England?

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: His Majesty
has his deputy here in the person of the Governor General, it is true; but in the appointment of ministers to foreign countries I assume it will always be the desire not only of His Majesty but of this parliament that the formal letters of credence shall be signed by the King.


Ernest Lapointe: He is the king of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect
to this appointment it is, I think, desirable to direct attention to the fact -that there are no two countries in the world between which there exists so extensive a boundary as that which separates Canada from the United States. Probably there are no two countries in the world in which the respective citizens have as much in the way of business transactions with one another as have the people of these two countries on the North American continent. Fortunately we have not inherited the military feuds of the old world, nor have we racial hatreds to contend with. But there are many matters of immediate concern both to the United States and to Canada, and we believe that a minister from our own Dominion will be in a position to deal more expeditiously and effectively with such matters than has hitherto been possible. Let me say at once that we in Canada have reason to be profoundly grateful for and appreciative of the splendid services which up to the present time have been rendered this country by the British ambassador at Washington. Certainly no one could have been more solicitous of the interests of the Dominion than Sir Esme Howard, the present ambassador to the United ^States. Sir Esme Howard, as many members in this House have heard him say, himself welcomes the appointment of the Canadian minister to Washington. I think he feels that a colleague coming direct from our Dominion and dealing especially with those matters that immediately affect this country will prove in every way not only of advantage to the Dominion but, as well, of considerable assistance in the relations between the British Empire and the United States.
I -have only this to add: in my opinion the country is indeed fortunate in the person of the gentleman who has received the appointment -of minister at Washington. The Hon. Vincent Massey is exceptionally well qualified to fill that high position. He has

the advantage of having had a university training not only in Canada but at Oxford. He has had large business experience. He has held important administrative posts. He is still a young man, is possessed of a high public spirit and is so admirably qualified in other particulars that I doubt whether a better choice could possibly have been made.
I come now to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) with respect to the Imperial conference. I confess that I was somewhat surprised at the comments he made upon and the questions he asked in relation to the conference. He seemed extremely critical of the results that had been achieved. I would remind him, as well as hon. gentlemen opposite, that the criticisms he lhas directed, apparently at my colleague and myself, apply in equal measure to the representatives of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland, and Great Britain, inasmuch as every resolution that appears and every line of the report has the unanimous approval of all the representatives at that conference. When my hon. friend suggests that possibly there has been some ulterior motive in the use of the word "crown" instead of the word "king", when he finds possibilities of disruption of the empire in other sections of the report, he is adversely criticising the Prime Minister of Great Britain; he is criticising Lord Balfour, the leader of the British government in the House of Lords; he is criticising the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain. In a word, he is criticising every member of the British government and every one of the representatives of the other dominions who took part in the conference. If my hon. friend will for a moment forget altogether the political bias which he may feel he is expected to some extent to show, and will look at the report as all those who were present at the Imperial conference certainly looked at it, he will realize that what is therein embodied expresses only what the representatives of every part of the empire, after the fullest and most careful examination, felt to be in the interests of all concerned. That is the point I wish first of all to impress upon my hon. friend.
The second point to which I call -his attention is the contradictory character of his comments with respect to the question of equality of status. As I listened to his remarks it seemed to me that the first part of his speech was an effort to show that nothing had been attained which had not been accepted for some time. I gathered that in his view, Sir Wilfrid Laurier had con-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
tended that Canada had the fullest rights of self-government in all particulars; that there was equality of status with the Mother Country so far as this Dominion was concerned. He contended also that Sir Robert Borden had taken that position; at any rate I think Sir Robert Borden would wish to have it known that he had so held. The whole argument of my hon. friend at the beginning was to the effect that, after all, statements made with respect to equality of status constituted simply an affirmation of a position which Canada had maintained as already established^ In the last part of his address the hon. gentleman's effort seemed to be directed to showing that there was no such thing as equality of status. The position he took was that there could not be equality of status inasmuch as England was very much larger, more powerful, and much more influential than the Dominion of Canada. In his view, therefore, the talk about equality of status was all nonsense.
With all due respect to my hon. friend I suggest that he has confused in his own mind the terms " status " and " stature." Status and stature are not the same thing. Bigness, extent of power, and the like are all matters of stature and not of status, for status has nothing whatever to do with size. Status has to do with rights enjoyed within certain limits. Perhaps I might offer an illustration. Every hon. member of this House, whether he be the youngest member and one who has entered parliament for the first time or the oldest parliamentarian like yourself, Mr. Speaker, enjoys equality of status with every other member. There is not one member of parliament who as member has any rights greater than any other. Some, it is true, may perform different functions, may for the time being fill one position or another; one may be exercising the function of a minister of the crown, and another the function of the leader of the opposition; but each is, so far as his status goes, a member of the House of Commons of Canada, representing the people of the particular constituency which has returned him here, and each constituency is entitled to the same measure of representation in this House of Commons. Every constituency has the same right to representation in this parliament, quite regardless of the individual stature or importance in other particulars of its representative. That is precisely the view the Imperial conference has taken with respect to Great Britain and the self-governing dominions; it is not a question of size; it is not a question of power or of might, but a question of the rights of each of the self-governing communities with respect to the control of their own domestic and external affairs. With regard to the domestic and external affairs of this Dominion, the Imperial conference has said that in the opinion of its members, those rights of control are just as full and complete with respect to Canadian affairs as are the rights of the British government in respect of the domestic or external affairs of Great Britain. Now I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, is there any hon. member of this House who would have the position any different? Does my hon. friend wish us to be in a position of subordination?
llefore I come to that, in order quickly to reassure my hon. friend and any other timid souls as to how far they are being involved in virtue of anything that has been done, I would like to recall what my hon. friend said as to Sir Wilfrid Laurier's attitude. Sir Wilfrid took the position that he was attending a conference and not a cabinet. Let me say that that was the position which my colleague and myself took very firmly from first to last throughout this conference, and that was the position I took at the previous conference. I recall very well at the conference of 1923 urging strongly that in the report of the conference itself, it should be made quite clear that the conference was not a cabinet laying down policies of government for the empire, but that it was simply what from its name it purported to be, namely a body of gentlemen representing different governments, who had met to confer together, to come as far as possible to a consensus of opinion and then report the result of their joint deliberations together with their recommendations, back to the governments and parliaments which they had been sent to represent. Expression is given in the summary of proceedings of the Imperial conference of 1923 to that position. It will be found on page 13 of the printed proceedings, Canadian edition, as follows:
This conference is a conference of representatives of the several governments of the empire; its views and conclusions on foreign policy, as reported above, are necessarily subject to the action of the governments and parliaments of the various portions of the empire, and it trusts that the results of its deliberations will meet with their approval.
That was the position taken in 1923 and that position was again taken at the recent conference. It was a conference of representatives of the different governments, and everything the conference did, before it begins to bind a single part of the empire, is subject to the approval of not only the governments but ailso the parliaments of the
44	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
different parts of the empire. It is the intention, Mr. Speaker, of the government to set apart one day or two days, or longer, if so desired, for the discussion of the proceedings of the conference; meanwhile I wish to assure hon. members of the House that in no particular has the hand of a single member been bound with respect to any matter which appears in the report of the proceedings. The report represents what the representatives assembled in London believed to be was a true statement o.f the present position. If this parliament takes a different view from that of the representatives of the governments at the Imperial conference, it is quite within the power of parliament so to express itself. I may say to my hon. friend that the government intends to put the report before this House just as it appears, and to recommend its adoption. If my hon. friend has any resolution to offer in amendment, we welcome his amendment, and ask him to debate it with us on the floor of the House. As it stands, however, we believe that this document expresses in the best possible form what is a- matter of common opinion and agreement between all parts of the British Empire, and as such we believe that it will help to make for greater concord and greater unity within the empire.
My hon. friend asked who instructed my colleague and myself to go to London and attend an Imperial conference on constitutional questions. I am somewhat surprised that my hon. friend should ask that question, because as I remember it, he and his party were urging as strongly as they could that I should go to the conference; that on no account should I stay away; that if need be, parliament should be put off for some little time to make sure of my presence. That was not an instruction, but I am rather surprised that my hon. friend should now raise any question with respect to the presence of my colleague and myself at the conference. With regard to the agenda, I may say that it was before him during the time he was in office, or rather during the time he was supposed to be in office, and that he had an opportunity of looking it over; it was not altered in any particular after we went to London. My hon. friend also said that we had no mandate. I do not wish to enter upon any controversial point at the moment, but my recollection is that during the period of the general election, there was a good deal of question as to who was to represent Canada at the Imperial conference. I think the results of the election indicated rather decisively the preference of the Canadian people in that regard.

May I say to my hon. friend that when my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and I went to London, we went with a perfectly open mind as to the questions which were to come up at that conference. I am free to admit that neither of us had had much opportunity to study in advance the questions coming before the conference, or to prepare for them. Indeed, if we had consulted our own convenience in the matter, I think we should have greatly preferred not having had to take up the work at such short notice. To make our attitude perfectly clear, I spoke in advance in the city of Quebec with reference to the point of view from which we would! approach the issues which were likely to come up at the conference, and my hon. friend has done me the kindness to comment favourably on what was said at that time. I did say that as the representatives of Canada we were going to the conference in a spirit of goodwill towards Great Britain and towards all the dominions which would be represented there; that we had not a single grievance; that we had no particular demands to put forward, but that we were prepared to cooperate to the best of our abilities with the representatives of the other governments concerned. That was the position, so far as Canada was concerned, as I stated it at the conference itself. I made if perfectly dear to all who were there assembled that as between Great Britain and this Dominion there were no difficulties of any kind; that as between Canada and the other dominions there was the greatest friendship, and that so far as the relations of this country with foreign countries were concerned, they were all to the good, as we could see them; that we came there simply to join with our colleagues from other parts of the empire in taking up the questions presented to us in the spirit in which we believed all would wish to have them taken up. We sought to maintain what we believed to be the Canadian point of view, and I contend that this document, as it is presented here, does present the Canadian point of view on the matter of inter-imperial relations. Not only does it represent the Canadian point of view, but I believe it represents the point of view which the mother country and the different dominions hold in common. I will say, however, that I think it was the Dominion of Canada which led the way to 'that particular point of view. I am not speaking of this particular conference, but of the Canadian point of view as it has been developed over a period of years. This dominion has led the way in the discussion of inter-imperial relations, and Canada's position, which some-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
times has been criticised from different sources as being an advanced position in some regards, has come art last to be looked upon as the position best calculated to maintain not only national autonomy, but imperial unity as well.
It would take too long a time to attempt during this debate to go at any length into the matters dealt with in the conference report. Indeed, as I have already indicated, the government intends to set apart a day for the discussion of matters relating to the Imperial conference and I shall reserve until that time what I have to say with regard to the work of the conference as a whole. All I wish to do at the moment is to set at rest any fears or alarms that may be in the minds of my hon. friends apposite and to make it clear that so far as Canada is concerned parliament has it entirely in its power, if it so desires, to reverse in any particular any statement of position which may appear in the report of the conference.
While the conference took up matters relating to trade, defence, migration, communication, research, forestry, and other economic questions, the most important work of the conference concerned inter-imperial relations and in a special way the negotiation, signature and ratification of treaties. The committee that dealt with the question of inter-imperial relations was presided over by the Right Hon. the Earl of Balfour. The committee that dealt with the negotiation, signature and ratification of treaties was presided over by the Minister of Justice of Canada (Mr. Lapointe), and in that position my hon. colleague commanded not only the admiration but, I believe, the gratitude as well of all members on that committee. As regards inter-imperial relations hon. members will find in the italicized portion of the report which deals iwith the status of Great Britain and the dominions, the central feature of the entire report. I will read that particular clause because I think it is important to bring it concretely to the attention of the House.
There is however a most important element in it-
That is to say the British Empire.

which from a strictly constitutional point of view, has now, as regards all vital matters, reached its full development-we refer to the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined.
Then the italicized portion follows:
They are autonomous communities within the British Empire equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of
their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
That represents in as concrete a form as it can be given the view held in common by all the representatives of the British Empire with respect to the relative position of the dominions and Great Britain in regard to their domestic and external affairs. If there is any criticism to be offered of that particular formula, I think it should take the form of suggesting wherein the formula is misleading or what should be said of an opposite character. Let me take the formula clause by clause:
They are autonomous communities within the British Empire.
Will any member in this House differ with that statement?
Equal in status.
I have already made mention of the meaning of that.
In no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs.
Is there a member of this House who desires that this dominion shall be subordinate either to Great Britain or to any other part of the British Empire with respect to its own domestic or external affairs?
Though united by a common allegiance to the crown.
That position is a link and bond which all of us wish to see maintained.
And freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations.
Is not that an exact statement of the truth?
The work of the conference, after stating the root principle governing relations within the British Empire, was directed towards removing any forms or practices that seemed to be at variance with that particular formula.
The conference took up one by one the different matters which were brought to its attention from each and every source, and which seemed to be in conflict with the statement of the true position as outlined. Many of these questions were brought up by other dominions. I have already intimated that Canada did not put forward at the conference any grievance, or application for alteration of any particular matter. Many things that were of concern to us had already been raised by other of the dominions. We entered the conference ready to take our part to the best of our respective abilities in each and every question as it came up.
I will leave until a subsequent time a further discussion of the work of the conference in detail. May I say here what I
46	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
said publicly in London before coming away, that I believe from the Canadian point of view the merit of the conference will lie not so much in a statement of what has been gained as in the statement of what has been attained and is now acknowledged to be altogether beyond debate. I think it is true that all t'he great charters of freedom in British history have for the most part not purported to introduce anything new or revolutionary. They have purported to be a statement of those rights which the citizens of the day believed were theirs and which they regarded as established. They were a formal statement which could be appealed to by future generations as indicating the point of agreement that had been reached with respect to the several matters with which they dealt. In that 'particular, I believe the work of this conference so far as the statement of inter-imperial relations is concerned, will take its place in history, by the side of those great charters which have stood in one form or another for a larger freedom. I believe this great conference, once party controversy is removed and we get a true perspective of it, will stand out in history as a conference which has revealed how broad, deep and enduring within the British Empire are the foundations of national autonomy and imperial unity.
In listening to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition I had intended, when five or ten minutes to six arrived, to conclude my remarks with this topic which I thought would be also 'his last. Prior to that moment my hon. friend, it seemed to me, bad been careful to avoid much in the way of controversy arising out of the recent political campaign and had been more or less guarded with respect to the statements he made. At ten minutes to six, however, for some reason best known to himself, he launchd out in direct fashion in an attack upon myself. Amongst other things, he spoke of a constitutional issue that had been put forward by myself and others as an important issue in the campaign, but which according to his view really did not amount to anything. He went on to say a number of things which even in that khort space of time I found it necessary to take exception to. If, therefore, I touch at the moment upon the constitutional issue which he has brought up, he has only himself to thank for it. It is I think important, in view of the remarks which my hon. friend made, that with respect to the constitutional issue my own position and the position of the present administration should be made perfectly clear.

May I say to him, first of all, that when he speaks of the misapprehensions people in the old country appear to have been under at the time of the last general election, I could tell him of a good many, and I could tell him pretty conclusively of the reasons therefor. Without doubt the propaganda of my hon. friend and his friends in the last campaign did mislead the British public considerably. It misled the British public in more respects than one. The British public were sadly misled by the Conservative press of this country through cabled despatches to the. effect that a Conservative government was going to be returned in this country by an enormous majority. In that particular the British public were quickly undeceived once the election took place.
May I say that I think it important that in, our political discussions we should have some regard to the representations made not only because of their effect upon our own electorate, but also because of the effect which is likely to be produced abroad. My hon. friend spoke about annexation to the United States. I would like to know when in the recent campaign a single member of the Liberal party ever uttered one sentence which was capable of being construed as a desire for annexation to the United States. On the other hand, I say that hon. gentlemen opposite over and over again in different parts of this country did all they possibly could to have the citizens of this country believe that members of the Liberal party were in favour of annexation. And what was the result? The people of Canada knew better, they understood the truth. They were not deceived by this propaganda. But as my hon. friend has said, when my colleague and I arrived in the old country, we found the people of Great Britain thinking there was a great question on this continent, namely that of the possibility of the annexation of Canada to the United States. It was all the result of Tory propaganda-nothing more and nothing less.
My hon. friend says that there was really no constitutional question. Weil, Mr. Speaker,
I do not know what he has in his mind as the question that really influenced the electorate most in the last campaign, but I believe that it was the constitutional question, perhaps not the question in the form in which he would like to phrase it, but in the form in which it actually arose.	[DOT]
I do not believe there is an episode in Canadian history that will stand out as suchi

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
a Gilbertian performance as that witnessed in this House of Commons during the last four days of the last parliament, when hon. gentlemen opposite undertook to occupy seats on the treasury benches. Anything more ludicrous than the sudden entry upon the political stage of that phantom ministry, and its equally sudden exit, I do not think has been enacted in politics anywhere. As I look at hon. gentlemen opposite at the moment and seek to divine the thoughts of that phantom ministry, as they pass through their minds even at this time, I imagine I can hear them saying to one another:
She was a Phantom of delight
When first she gleamed upon my sight;
A lovely Apparition, sent
To be a moment's ornament.
That is what it was, the late ministry, a phantom and an apparition, and that is how it will be viewed by history.
I would be prepared to leave the matter there were it not that my hon. friend still contends that there was no constitutional issue. For purposes of record it is perhaps important that with respect to that phantom ministry the government's position should be clearly stated. We take the view that the whole proceedings of that .ministry from beginning to close were unconstitutional, that it never was a ministry in any true sense of the term as ministries are understood under the British constitution. When was there a ministry in British history that undertook to carry on the government of the nation, having no authority from parliament and no authority from the country? That was the position of the ministry that assumed to carry on the government of this country for a period of some eighty days.
'Mr. MOTHERWELL: Freebooters!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I
remind the House of the last word of the last parliament with respect to that so-called ministry? It will be found, Mr. Speaker, in the resolution passed at midnight of July 1 and reported1 in the Votes and Proceedings of that day:
That the actions in this House of the honourable members who have acted as ministers of the Crown since the 29th of June, 1926, namely the hon. members for West York, Fort William, Vancouver Centre, Argenteuil, Wellington South, and the hon. senior member for Halifax, are a violation and an infringement of the privileges of this House for the following reasons:-
1. That the said hon. gentlemen have no right to git in this House, and should have vacated their seats therein, if they legally hold office as administrators of the various departments assigned to them by orders in council.
2. That if they do not hold such offices legally they have no right to control the business of government in this House and to ask for supply for the departments of which they state they are acting ministers.
That was the verdict the House of Commons pronounced on that particular ministry of that day. I say that when that verdict was pronounced that so-called ministry should instantly have resigned; it should not have attempted to continue to advise the sovereign's representative, and, least of all, should it have attempted to advise the sovereign's representative to dissolve parliament without so much as the formality of a prorogation. I say that the whole proceedings of that ministry from beginning to close were unconstitutional. There was no ministry while parliament was in session. There was but one minister sworn to office. The so-called acting ministers acknowledged that not one of their members was a minister of the crown. There can be no such thing as a ministry de facto. There must be a ministry de jure. There was no ministry de jure. That was the view that parliament took of the ministry, and that was the view that was before the country when the elections were held, and the country endorsed that view, and so I say, Mr. Speaker, that except to the extent that this parliament by its action explicitly or impliedly is prepared to countenance or regularize what was done by that administration, everything that it did was unconstitutional and is actually without any binding effect.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, unexpectedly I am requested by the leader of the opposition to continue the debate. As the hour is quite late and as we have had a somewhat lengthy sitting, and this is really our first day, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he concur in my moving the adjournment of the debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mir. Speaker,
I shall be very happy to concur in the motion, but I hope that if we adjourn now, my hon. friend will agree not to make his speech much longer as a consequence.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will promise the Prime
Minister to be very brief.
On motion of Mr. Cahan the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 9.42 p.m.
Civil Service

Tuesday, December 14, 1926