1928-01-30

REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Report of joint board of engineers, St. Lawrence waterways project, dated November 16, 1926-Mr. Mackenzie King.
. Report on the selection of a terminal port for the Hudson Bay railway, October, 1927. -Mr. Dunning.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to regulate the exportation of electric power.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Explain.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker,
the object of this bill is to amend the existing law having to do with the exportation of electric power from Canada. At present this is governed by the provisions of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act of 1907, and under that act the governor in council has authority to issue a license providing for the export of electric power from Canada. The effect of this bill is to provide that a license shall only issue by the authority of parliament, and on such terms as may be determined by parliament. The necessary amendments to the existing act are included in this bill, and there is an express provision that nothing contained in this bill shall be deemed in any way to affect the rights of the provinces in connection with electric power.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, respecting the civil service.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Explain.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: This bill
simply proposes to place under the operations of the Civil Service Act the employees of those departments of the government who have not been included up to the present.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

The Address-Mr. Bennett
Civil. SERVICE COUNCILS
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to amend the Civil Service Act.


Ernest Lapointe: Explain.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced last year. It provides for the setting up of machinery to permit of consultation between employees in the civil service and the officials of the government. It is designed to provide a means for the hearing of grievances and for promoting efficiency, and is in line with _ the expressed purpose of the Prime Minister, which he made clear some time ago when he said:
I think that in the relations of the civil service and the government, a council on which there would be representatives of the civil service to speak directly to members of the government or to take up with heads of the departments matters of interest to all government departments, could be of the utmost service to all concerned.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to amend the criminal code.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Explain.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, this
bill is designed to repeal the clause of the criminal code dealing with blasphemous libel. This is an old piece of legislation, which is practically obsolete and which I believe has been used only once in the history of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, January 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Usley for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening *of the session.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is not difficult
to conform to the old traditions of this and other parliaments in congratulating the hon. gentlemen who spoke so splendidly on Friday last. The speeches in which they moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne were noteworthy. My hon. friend from Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) is a graduate of the school
of law from which I also graduated, and I have the natural pride of a fellow alumnist in his splendid achievement in this chamber on Friday last. My hon. friend from Proven-cher (Mr. Beaubien), who was elected by acclamation, was thereby placed in the position of being a member of this assembly who, with his adaptability, would have found himself quite happy and with great serenity making the same speech on this side of the house had the fortunes of war permitted.
I regret very much that, although it may be difficult for the house to believe it, I was so overcome on Thursday last that I failed to thank my hon. friend from Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) for the very kind sentiments which he expressed to this house upon my election to the position I now hold. I desire now formally to thank him and those associated with him for the very kind sentiments to which he gave utterance and particularly for the expression of the hope that I might be able to discharge the duties of this difficult position in a manner satisfactory to the country at large.
It always seems that there is sadness mixed with joy in all assemblies of this character. The cables this morning conveyed to us the sad intelligence that the great commander in chief of the British forces during a long period of the war had passed to his reward. It is a matter of profound sadness to all of us; so great was Lord Haig, so great his achievements, so dogged his courage, his persistence and his effort, that the sorrow at his passing is very marked even in a country such as this. I am sure that wherever men are gathered together in this country which sent so many thousands to that great conflict, there will be a feeling of deep sympathy for his wife and family who survive him, together with a feeling of pride that the empire produced so great a soldier at such a time of stress.
But the speech with which His Majesty's representative has been pleased to meet this parliament is remarkable more for what it does not say than for what it does say. I fancy that there is some measure of satisfaction, perhaps, in the mind of the Prime Minister because he has concluded that if the country has prospered so well without his doing anything, it may be desirable to continue that inaction in the future as in the past. I fancy some such thought as that was in his mind, and in the mind of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), when the speech was being prepared. At any rate, the speech is sufficient for my purpose because it enables us to look at the affairs of this country from

The Address-Mr. Bennett
three points of view; and no speech from the throne hereafter will be complete-in fact, that has been the case for many years past-unless it deals with Canada's affairs from three aspects, namely, the domestic point of view, the matter of our imperial relationships, and the international point of view. I shall venture therefore to direct attention to the speech with these three main divisions in view.
I do not think it necessary to refer to those portions of the speech that deal with the diamond jubilee and the celebrations incident thereto. My right hon. friend will find, as we all do, that it is a very excellent thing to bask in the reflected glory of the great; but at times it is necessary to walk out of the shadow.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad the Minister
of Justice approves of that remark, for presently I shall ask him to do the very thing he says he approves of.
If a review of the past brings us great joy, as it does, and satisfaction too, it also reminds us of the obligations of the present and the duties and responsibilities of the future. I am quite certain that my right hon. friend has on very many occasions during the year that is past and the celebrations in which we have been engaged tried to remember that he is Prime Minister of Canada and not the leader of a party; but I will confess that I found it a little difficult to follow his reasoning in associating himself with a statement as to our status-and I think the report in the newspaper must have been incorrect-in connection with the visit to Canada of Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and Prince George and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Baldwin. If my memory serves me, the heir to the throne laid the foundations of the old buildings that stood on this site, and he found it not difficult to visit this country notwithstanding the then status of Canada. Furthermore, if my memory serves me, the Lord Chancellor of England, keeper of the great seal, who had never left England and is supposed to have the great seal in his custody at all times, visited' Montreal. So that I cannot see very much connection between the visit of Their Royal Highnesses and the Prime Minister of England, and the constitutional position to which reference was made. My thought was that there must have been some mistake in the report of the speech of my right hon. friend rather than that he said what was attributed to him in that regard. For after all the visits to Canada of the heir to the throne and the Prime Minister of Great Britain had about as much to do with the constitutional status of this country, I suppose, 
as the appointment of a minister to Washington; I should think they had about the same relation one to the other.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having disposed of that matter, I observe that the speech from the throne refers to the fact that there is evidence that this country has been placed upon a sound economic basis; and to establish that fact reference is made to certain conditions that obtain with respect to increasing revenues, the growth of employment and building construction, railway receipts and business conditions generally. Well, all I can say with respect to that is that it is not probable that when the speech was written great attention was paid to the trade returns nor yet to the unemployment figures. The fact is. that we sold less by fifty millions this year than we did last, and we bought from other countries eighty millions more than we did the year before-eighty millions, a great portion of which should have been made in Canada and employment given to Canadians who are now idle. I am sure the members of this house must have observed that the Premier of Manitoba has just sent a memorandum down to this government asking for assistance with respect to unemployment. If you will look at the young, vigorous men who are employed in shovelling snow in this city you will realize the lack of employment that prevails in Canada. The figures of employment are the figures that are given by employers in industry who send reports to the statistical department as to the number of people they employ. In the city of Calgary a much larger sum was expended last month in taking care of those who are unable to find employment than for some time previously. The same may be said with respect to other cities in this dominion. Therefore so far as the statistics of the department with respect to employment are concerned, they are merely a record of the number of men and women relatively employed in industries that make reports to Ottawa; the official figures do not deal with the number of unemployed men and women who are without occupation today because we are buying $80,000,000 more goods from other countries this year than we did last, goods that should have been made in Canadian factories.
Then with respect to the railway figures: I am sure the gentlemen responsible for that speech have not closely analyzed those figures, because if the condition that prevailed last year is to continue for another three years, the railways will have no net revenue at all. The truth is that the Canadian Pacific railway earned last year S3,76p,fK'0 more gross than

The Address-Mr. Bennett
the year before, but the net receipts were $4,700,000 less than they were in 1926; and the Canadian National railway system, while increasing its gross revenues by $2,692,000, decreased its net revenue by five and a half million dollars. Now as its net revenues were only thirty millions it follows that if the revenue of the railway is decreased by five and a half millions every year it will only be five or six years before it has no revenue at all.
Then we come to the question of our trade. I will not on this occasion deal at length with this question, but I do desire to point out the real foundation upon which our present economic prosperity rests. The truth is that the population of this country has not increased during the last five years; I shall show presently that it has decreased. The truth is that a lesser number of people, inhabiting the same area, have been creating new wealth more rapidly than they did before. They have been utilizing the great resources of science and scientific investigation, improved machinery and equipment, and they have been increasing the natural wealth of this country at a very rapid rate indeed. Let us see what the figures indicate with respect to that. Last year two billion dollars of wealth were created by the Canadian people, and we sold to the people of the world 1,218 million dollars worth of goods. But what were the goods we sold? We sold $281,000,000 of wood and paper; we sold metals and minerals of all kinds worth $181,000,000, and we sold of grain and grain products $447,000,000 worth; making a total of $900,000,000 of products that we sold out of a total of $1,218,000,000, leaving only $318,000,000 to be otherwise accounted for. Now what did the production of wood, paper, metals and minerals, grain and grain products mean? It meant first a decline in the productivity of the soil that produced them. It meant the absolute exhaustion of mines and minerals that cannot be replaced, and it meant, with respect to wood and wood products, the depletion of resources which are utterly lost, at least for our life time, and which according to careful statisticians we shall be altogether unable to replace within a period of at least twenty years.
So that the sound financial basis upon which this country's prosperity now rests consists merely in this: we are selling our estate, which is being rapidly exhausted. That is all we are doing, and there can be no permanent prosperity in any nation whose present prosperity depends upon the sale of
its fixed assets. If you sell lands, minerals, trees and the products of lands-if you sell these things-you will not produce any permanent prosperity. Our forests are being depleted, our wood products are being sold, products that will not be replaced in our lifetime. Mines, minerals and mineral products, and the products of the soil in the way of grain, are being sold to the extent of over $900,000,000 per annum out of a total of $1,200,000,000 odd, according to the figures for the past year.
There is another fact to be considered in seeking to find the causes that have led to this result. We have had in Canada during the last year a very bountiful harvest; indeed, Providence during the past three years has favoured our people with quite abundant harvests. I say therefore, that it is conclusively shown, that the result which I have just indicated has been brought about notwithstanding the fact that farmers and artisans engaged in production to-day are lesser in numbers than they were five years ago. So that the only inference is that there has been an increase in energy and hard work on the part of Canadians who have made possible this increase in the temporary prosperity upon which apparently we are relying.
Let us look at the facts. I find, in the census reports which were distributed a short time [DOT] ago, that the population of Manitoba, in round numbers, was 610,000 in 1921 as compared with 639,000 in 1926, an increase of only 28,000 odd; in Alberta there has been an increase from 588,000 in 1921 to 607,000 in 1926, an increase of 19,000; while in Saskatchewan the population has risen from 757,000 in 1921 to only 821,000 in 1926, an increase of 63,000. These figures give the situation in regard to the population of the provinces mentioned. But what do we find when we look at the immigration returns? During that same period there were actually brought into the province of Manitoba, and distributed by the Department of Immigration and Colonization, 40,397 persons; in Saskatchewan, 58,487, and in Alberta 78,660. And if we take the natural increase on the basis of the provincial figures we find that we lost over 100,000 in these three provinces during the five years from 1916 to 1921.
As to the basis on which our prosperity is to be achieved, what are the facts? The facts I have given come from the statistical department, but it is not enough to rest the case there; let us see how many farms have been under cultivation. The number of farms occupied in Manitoba in 1921 was 53,252, and in 1926, 53,251. In Saskatchewan, in 1921, there were 119,451 farms under cultivation as
The Address-Mr. Bennett

compared with 117,787 in 1926, and in Alberta, while there were 82,954 in 1921 the number in 1926 was 77,130. The total acreage under crops of all varieties has increased in these provinces, in Manitoba by something like 400,000 acres, and in the other provinces correspondingly. I need not go into details. The point I make is this: the considerable accretion of new wealth which we have had in the country has been attributable to the development of our natural resources and to the crops that have been reaped by our husbandmen, as well as to the minerals and metals taken out of the soil and to the forests that have been denuded of their trees. These are facts that cannot be controverted in the light of the returns made by the various departments affected. So that the courage, skill, enterprise and hard work of Canadians have made possible the various increases to which I have alluded as having occurred during the years that have passed. But concurrently there has been a steady diminution in the population that has effected these results, and to that I shall presently refer. So much for this phase of the subject.
Let me come now to another point mentioned in the speech from the throne-and perhaps it is well to mention it here, inasmuch as this is the most appropriate stage at which to discuss it: I have reference to the statement with regard to the Dominion-provincial conference. We are told that a great conference took place in this capital, as indeed there did, and that a large number of very impoitant subjects were considered. May I venture to suggest to the first minister that it is highly desirable that this parliament should have laid before it a precis of what took place at that conference? I am not for a moment suggesting that the explanation given the other day is not wholly adequate from the standpoint of those who participated in the conference; naturally they would not desire to have their discussions made public. I can quite understand that; had I represented one of the provinces I should certainly have felt that way myself. But when we are asked, as we are, to deal with the matters discussed at the conference, it seems to me the proper course would have been to prepare a precis which might have been signed by the respective representatives from day to day or at the conclusion of the conference, in order that parliament might have something on which to proceed intelligently and which it could fully understand. Such a precis would enable us to understand what took place at the conference. I observe from the speech from the throne that certain measures will be introduced as a result of this con-

ference. These are purely domestic matters, and I note that at an early day we may expect the introduction of these measures, and when they are before us we shall consider the problems involved. But what about the provinces? The province which is oldest, posibly, in point of settlement, and certainly the second largest, has already given its view of the matter. While we in this parliament have before us what this government has to say with respect to the conference, may I also direct attention to what the government of the province of Quebec had to say on the subject on January 10 last. The following words occur in the speech from the throne as delivered in the legislature of Quebec:
An interprovincial conference was held in Ottawa in November last. All the provinces of the Dominion were represented there, and questions of the greatest importance were discussed. My ministers believe that Canadian unity and the future of Canada will be best assured by respecting provincial autonomy and by all remaining loyal to the British North America Act in spirit as well as in the letter. This declaration is the more timely in view of the celebration in 1927 of the sixtieth anniversary of the Canadian confederation. The progress hitherto achieved, marked by such splendid festivities, should move us to forestall any possible source of discord.
So that the conference was a possible source of discord-this conference about which we have been told so much. In the view of His Majesty's advisers of the province of Quebec it was not a conference making for Canadian unity but one, rather, which constituted a source of discord. I should like, and I am sure the country would be glad too, to hear the Prime Minister explain just how the conference may have been a possible source of discord, something that may possibly disturb Canadian unity, accord' ag to the view of the legislature of Quebec. I should think, in view of that statement in the speech from the throne presented to the legislature of that province, and, further, in view of the speech which we have heard in this parliament, that it is highly necessary-indeed, I consider it absolutely essential-that we should have before us some precis with respect to what took place at the conference in order that we may be able to reach our own conclusions in the matter.
I gather that my right hon. friend had something of this kind in mind when he made a speech in the great city of Quebec while attending a banquet given in honour of one of his colleagues. On that occasion he used, or is reported to have used, these words:
Since the government of Canada is hut the executive of parliament, announcement of what had been agreed upon would have to wait until parliament assembled.

The Address-Mr. Bennett
That does not seem to be unfair, but unfortunately what is it that we are to depend on? Is it to be by word of mouth of ministers who are telling the story and who may not know what happened? Will it be by means of the speech from the throne, which deals only in vague and glittering generalities? Will it be by means of measures that appeal to the government but perhaps not to the several provinces? I think if it was important that at the imperial conference there should be kept a precis of what took place, far more important is it in the domestic issues of this country that we should have laid before us a complete precis of what took place, in order that we may be able to ascertain for ourselves just what are the respective views of the Dominion and of the provinces.
The next domestic matter to which I refer is one that was touched upon at that conference, and one with respect to which I desire to make but a few observations. We had last session presented to this parliament the so-called Duncan report-a Duncan report which the Prime Minister anticipated might possibly rank with the historic Durham report as one of the great documents affecting the life of Canada. That report was tabled. The leader of the government accepted it; the leader of His Majesty's apposition accepted it; the people of the maritime provinces accepted it and expected it to be entirely implemented, and I rejoice that provision has been made for continuing during the present year at least the subsidies that were provided for under that report by parliament last year. But there still remain many matters to be dealt with by this parliament before that report is implemented in its entirety, and I can only hope, indeed, I am quite confident, having regard to what was said by the Prime Minister last session, that every reasonable effort will be made by the government this session to see to it that there is no possible cause for complaint on the part of the provinces affected by reason of that report not being implemented in its entirety. I will not at the moment do more than leave it in just that position.
I next turn to another matter which was dealt with at that conference, and one which is I think as important a subject as has engaged the attention of this parliament in recent years. I refer to that paragraph in the speech from the throne which deals with the return to the province of Alberta of its natural resources. Let us for a moment con-56103-2
sider the position of the government with respect to this matter. I should like this House to remember that this is not a new matter. The right hon. gentleman who leads this house has prepared seven speeches from the throne. He has prepared and placed in the hands of the representative of the sovereign seven documents dealing with national questions and problems-one in 1922, another in 1923, another in 1924, another in 1925, two in 1926, and the one that we are now considering. Let us for a moment see how on the threshold of his career as Prime Minister he dealt with the matter of the return to the provinces of their natural resources. Here are his words:
The long standing question of granting the control of the natural resources of three western provinces to their respective provincial governments has engaged the attention of my ministers. Sympathizing with the desire of the authorities of these provinces, which have now advanced to maturity, to have the same control and management of their resources as is possessed by the older provinces, my government have made a proposal to the governments of the several provinces concerned, which it is hoped may lead to a satisfactory settlement of the question at an early date.
Those of us who have lived in western Canada since 1900 will recall the circumstances under which the provinces were induced to accept money instead of lands; will recall the election that was conducted in 1905 and tihe vigorous appeals that were made to the electorate of those provinces to accept money rather than resources. When I look at the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart and recall the fervid eloquence with which the Liberal party told the electorate of the great benefits that would accrue to them if they accepted money instead of resources-well, it was a matter of consolation and joy to me to read in the speech from the throne that these people had now advanced to maturity, and that the government sympathized with them in their desire to control their natural resources.
The next year came. In 1923, 1924 and 1925, no reference was made to natural resources, but negotiations were taking place. But in 1926, at the end of the speech from the throne, occur these words:
Your attention will be invited, among other measures, to a bill to provide for the transfer to the province of Alberta of its natural resources, and to a bill amending the Dominion Elections Act.
The agreement upon which that bill was based was signed on behalf of the government of Canada by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. Minister of

The Address-Mr. Bennett

the Interior (Mr. Stewart), and on behalf of the province of Alberta by the Premier of Alberta and the Minister of Railways of the province, Hon. Vernon W. Smith. There is a promise given by His Majesty's representative that a bill would be introduced to return its natural resources to the province of Alberta. Well, that has not yet been done. But I find that last year there was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada a question for determination and settlement, under an order in council which reads as follows:
The committee of the Privy Council have had before tham a report dated June 24th, 1926, stating that as the result of certain negotiations looking to the transfer to the province of Alberta of the public lands within that province, now vested in the crown and administered by the government of Canada for the purposes of Canada, an agreement was entered into on the 9th January, 1926, between the governments of the Dominion of Canada and of the province of Alberta, respectively, whereby it was agreed that certain provisions of the Alberta Act should be modified to the intent that all crown lands, mines, minerals and royalties within the province, and sums due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals or royalties should, from and after the coming into force of the said agreement, belong to the province, subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof and to the several other terms and conditions particularly set forth in said agreement. Subsequently, the two governments agreed upon certain additional provisions to be inserted in the said agreement relative to the transfer and administration of the School Lands fund and certain specified school lands, to parks and forest reserves affected by the agreement, and to the rights and properties of the Hudson's Bay Company. Notice was given by a resolution that a bill would be introduced into parliament, at its present session, to approve and give effect to the said agreement as so modified, but a question having been raised as to the constitutional validity of section 17 of the Alberta Act, relative to the subject of education and schools within the said province, it was decided not to proceed with the proposed legislation as drafted until this question of doubt could be authoritatively settled.
That matter was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada on the 7th of March and on the 20th of April, 1927, and on the last mentioned date a judgment was given unanimously deciding that the statute was constitutional and that the Alberta Act in every particular was within the legislative competence of the parliament of Canada. That was the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, given in answer to a reference made to it by the governor in council in which the specific question was asked, twenty-two years after the enactment of the legislation, as to whether or not it was within the constitutional competence of parliament to enact it. That question having been answered, as I have said, in the affirmative, one would naturally have

expected that the lands, mines and minerals would be turned over to Alberta and the promise given immediately implemented. But what happened? One would have thought, especially in view of the discussions that took place in this house as tot our equality of status with relation to other sections of the empire, that the judgment of the supreme court would have been at once accepted, and * action taken by the government accordingly. But what was done? Instead of that proceeding being taken, an application was made by petition to the judicial committee of His Majesty's Privy Council in England for the purpose of hearing an appeal when there was nobody to appear in the case as respondent.
I happened to be in London a few days after, and I saw the transcript of what took place. When Mr. Lafleur, representing the Minister of Justice of this Dominion, appeared for the purpose of presenting his petition-mark you, a petition to the Privy Council from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, about which we hear so much, and to which I shall presently allude-when he presented his petition he was asked, who were the respondents? There were none. To Whom did you give notice, he was asked? To nobody. And then he was told to hunt up a respondent somewhere in order that they could get on with the case; and so to-day, as far as I can find out, before the province of Alberta can get its resources the Minister of Justice must find a respondent to appear before the Privy Council.
But that did not end it. If it had ended there one might regard it as somewhat amusing. My friend the Minister of Justice will remember that last session, discussing the question of our constitutional status, he declared with great deliberation that it was the fixed aspiration of the French-Canadians to prevent appeals to the Privy Council. At page 1713 of Hansard the Minister of Justice, speaking of the Nadan case, said he thought it was well decided. He said further:
So that that is not the feeling that animates me, but to alleviate the fears of my hon. friend with respect to Quebec I will tell him that the men in Quebec who represent really the aspirations of French-Canadians are applying to have the appeal to Privy Council done away with.	*
That is the same Minister of Justice who presents his solemn petition to His Majesty the King to permit him to take an undefended case to the Privy Council with a judgment in his favour.
I suggest that the government, without further delay, return to Alberta its natural resources. I raised no question in this House

The Address-Mr. Bennett
-because I appreciated the difficulty of the situation-when the hon. Minister of Justice referred to the Supreme Court of* Canada for its opinion the question I have just mentioned. That opinion having been unanimously given, I thought, and still think, that it was the bounden duty of this government without a moment's delay to give effect to the aspirations of the province of Alberta, with which province five years ago they had such sympathy. It is idle to disguise the fact that this long delay has created the most unfavourable opinion with respect to the whole situation, and nothing will remedy the matter more quickly and bring about that unity of thought and action so much desired in this country as to give effect to that opinion at once. But further; suppose the Minister of Justice had succeeded in getting to the Privy Council, what should we have had? Lord Chancellor Loreburn said that the answers given to such questions are not binding in litigation and have no greater value than the opinion of the law officers of the crown. We have the opinion of the law officers of the crown; we now have the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, which is no better, according to the Privy Council, than that of the law officers of the crown; then why should we delay? That is the question the people of the west are asking this house. It is a question which is highly relevant and should be answered without further delay.
With respect to this interprovincial conference I find that the railways were also discussed in this connection. Now, is parliament to be treated in this way? Is parliament not to be told what the discussions were? Are we to have no idea what they were until legislation is introduced by which we will have to pay $14,000,000 or $15,000,000 for railways in British Columbia? Is that the way the matter is to be treated? I recall how the Minister of Justice before 1921 used the strongest terms-terms I would not use now in my amiable frame of mind; terms so strong, so emphatic, so embittered that I should not think a peaceful man like the Minister of Justice could use them. We now find that these railway problems are being considered by the cabinet, but we are not told whether the Pacific Great Eastern is to be taken over, or what is to be done in regard to the Edmonton and Dunvegan railway. These matters are not discussed, and my hon. friend has stated that he had not time to discuss them, although he was present at the conference.
Then there is another matter that illustrates the attitude of the government towards parliament. Speaking of the Hudson Bay railway, we were told last year that an eminent engineer was to consider the tidal and estuarial conditions at the port, but no statement was made as to whether he thought Fort Churchill was a better port than Port Nelson or that without regard to parliament the change would be made. When the matter first came up for consideration in this house the government of the day was led by Mr. Borden, now Sir Robert Borden. On that occasion Mr. Graham made this statement in the house:
I will admit this; that I think the necessity of the construction of a much longer line of railway to Churchill may have had considerable influence in the selection of Nelson. But just at the time the selection was under discussion, or practically had been made, the government changed, much to the detriment of the country, and my successor was neither satisfied with the contract nor with the port of Nelson; so he stopped the contract, and stated he would see whether there was anything wrong with it. Then he made a trip to Nelson himself, and came back enthusiastic about that being the proper port. I refer to the late Mr. Cochrane. I do not pretend to be practical myself, and I simply based my selection on the information given by the engineers at that time. This was confirmed by my successor in office, Mr. Cochrane, but, as I said before, it is possible the shorter mileage of railway construction might have had something to do with the selection of Nelson...
It is not a question of the respective merits of Port Nelson and Fort Churchill that I desire to draw attention to at this point, but rather the fact that in 1911, before the Laurier administration left office, Mr. Graham, as a result of perusal of the reports of his engineers, had fixed upon Nelson. That was sixteen years ago last fall, and now, on the sayso of one eminent gentleman, the terminus is changed to Churchill, several more miles of railway are to be constructed and $6,000,000 that have been spent are to be lost, or practically lost. But the most important part of it is this: that a minister of the crown announces that by radio, without reference either to council or parliament-


Mr. DUNNING:: No.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister say he discussed it with his colleagues before he made the announcement? Is that the statement?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend announced it by radio, then, not on his own behalf alone but on behalf of himself and his colleagues, although his colleagues were at one place and
The Address-Mr. Bennett

he at another; but in these days of rapid communication wonderful things can be accomplished. At any rate the communication having taken place and the announcement having been made, one would have thought that parliament might have been considered.
I read with some interest the debate which took place on this subject last year, and certainly you will not find within those pages, any indication that parliament left it to the Minister of Railways or the government to make an announcement of that character without at least bringing it to parliament. Although the statement was made, and the letter read as to what Mr. Palmer's instructions were, what he was to do, the fact is that most hon. members believed, as I did, that he was to make a report on the basis of which parliament could consider what action should be taken, rather than that it should be an executive act on the part of the government. However, the action has been taken, and the question whether it is well taken or otherwise will be determined not in our time but rather by posterity, and by that time I suppose neither the Minister of Railways nor any of us will be able to say how accurately Mr. Palmer guessed. But it is a singular comment on the institutions of the country that sixteen years after the selection has been made by two ministers, one a Liberal and the other a Conservative, one who visited the port and the other who did not, but relied upon the word of responsible engineers, their work should go for naught and all the moneys expended practically lost just because a tidal and estuarial engineer says he thinks the other port would be the better. I do think that that is not in consonance with sound economy and constitutional government as we have it in this country.
Again with respect to this Hudson Bay railway it is only fair to say that the very first speech I ever made in the old chamber was an appeal for the immediate construction of the railway, and I recall the circumstances under which the then minister went there for that purpose. There was a suggestion-and it is only right that I should say the Minister of Railways has intimated that the suggestion is rather the reporter's and not his-that political considerations governed with respect to the selection of the port. I refer to an interview in the Montreal Gazette. But my hon. friend has assured me that the inference drawn by the reporter there is only an inference.


Charles Avery Dunning: The article says so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have it under my hand, and I do not think it says so.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish my hon. friend
would read the article.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is rather long.


Charles Avery Dunning: Just the part relating
to the inference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the page will go up
to my room and bring me the newspaper I will satisfy my hon. friend.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will
permit me, the matter is of some importance because it relates to a very highly respected gentleman who is now dead.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is just the reason
I mentioned it.


Charles Avery Dunning: And that is the reason
I want the report correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have it here:
The Minister of Railways had a brief chat with Premier King-


Charles Avery Dunning: It is further on than
that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I have it here.
My friend has looked it up since I spoke to him the other day.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, that is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Dunning would not comment-


Charles Avery Dunning: "Would not comment."


Richard Bedford Bennett: -on the costly blunder of the men responsible for the location of the terminus at Port Nelson,-


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is only one
inference. (Reading):
-where more than six million dollars has been expended since the inception of the Hudson Bay route. It is quite evident however that the decision to make Port Nelson the Hudson bay port was dictated by political rather than business motives.
That is the sentence, and it does not say that it is Mr. Dunning's or the reporter's.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I go this far to say that
when Sir Robert Borden saw that report he was so annoyed-I can go this far without violating any confidence-that he directed attention to the fact that during his official life he had never seen any minister whose regard for the public interest was so great as the late Frank Cochrane's, or one who was so willing to subordinate political considerations to the public weal. Because of that I

The Address-Mr. Bennett
spoke privately to my friend about the article, and he told me that he had no intention to convey the implication that might be drawn from the document as it now reads.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps my hon. friend
will permit me to say that I have on more than one occasion paid tribute to the absolute honesty of the late Mr. Cochrane's motives in connection with the whole of this matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Charles Avery Dunning: To my mind no such
inference can be drawn from this report as that now suggested, and I cannot be responsible for the reporter's words.


Mr BENNETT :: calendar year the figures are, from the British Isles 49,782, and from other European countries 73,182. How, then, my friend could write into the speech from the throne this statement with respect to immigration I find a little difficult to understand:
There has been a substantial increase in the number of British immigrants as well as the number of immigrants of a suitable type from the continent of Europe.
Well, the figures Show that while immigration from the British Isles has increased, it has increased much more rapidly from continental countries; that while we had 37,000 odd from the British Isles in 1926 and 39,000 odd from other European countries, last year the figures were 49,000 odd from the British Isles and 73,000 from other European countries. I leave the question to be dealt with by the government.
But I want to go a step further with respect to this question, because the government has a history in this regard, and I think it time this country realized just what that history is. I have already said that this government has prepared seven speeches from the throne; let us see what they have said on the question of immigration, and ask the people of the country to judge on the most important question that can engage public attention at this time, what is being done and what has been done. We will look first at the speech from the throne in 1922, and see the statement with reference to this question of immigration. It is as follows:
The stream of immigration to the Dominion was much interrupted and restricted during the war. Now that the blessing of peace is with us, a renewal of efforts to bring in new settlers must be made. My government are fully alive to the importance of this question and will use every reasonable endeavour to attract to our country people of the most desirable class, with particular regard to settlement on our undeveloped lands.
That was in 1922. A further statement was made in 1923, to this effect:
The matter of securing an increasing flow of desirable settlers to develop the large areas still available for cultivation in Canada has had the serious consideration of my advisers. Additional and general publicity campaigns have been launched in Great Britain and the United States, and, as opportunity offers, will be extended to other lands from which a suitable class of settlers may be attracted. In other particulars, the activities of the Department of Immigration and Colonization are being expanded.
In 1924 nothing was said on this subject, but in 1925 we again have some semblance of activity:
To aid in an increase of production, through the development of our vast natural resources,

every effort is being made to attract the right class of immigrants to Canada, and to secure their settlement in the undeveloped areas served by our great transportation systems. In due course steps will be taken to further colonization and settlement in other fertile regions such as those of the Peace River.
Then again in 1926 they had one more try out:
An agreement has been made between the government and the railroad companies providing a larger measure of co-peration in immigration activities in the British Isles and on the continent of Europe. An agreement entered into with the British government has already been instrumental in stimulating immigration from Great Britain.
While it is of importance to attract new settlers it is equally, if not more important, to assist those who are already established on the land by reducing the cost of agricultural production. To this end a measure will be introduced offering wide facilities for rural credits.
I have already read that part of the speech from the throne delivered in 1927 dealing with this question, and I gave the census figures for 1916 to 1921 and for 1921 to 1926; those figures have been placed on record, and they indicate that although we have sent a few settlers west, many of them have left the country; they entered at the front door and left by the back, and we have not even maintained our natural increase. Further than that, in no one year since 1921 have we brought into Canada half as many people as weTe brought here in 1913. Those are the facts and the figures.
Now, Sir, this question transcends party; it is larger than the lives of parties because it strikes at the very life of this Dominion. We must have settlers. We have in Canada facilities to take care of an additional population of from 15,000,000 to 17,000,000 people; we 'have 10,000,000 acres of untouched land within 20 miles of the railways; we have the Peace River area and other portions of the country which are lying idle while the government is expressing pious hopes as to what will happen. I say the time has come when action must be taken.
It cannot be done in any small way; it cannot be accomplished in any niggardly way, but it must be done in a large way. It involves the expenditures of vast sums of money and, more than that, it involves a large and comprehensive policy of settlement. 1 suggest to the Prime Minister that the committee on agriculture and colonization or a special committee of this House, one or the other-and I would prefer the latter-should meet to hear the evidence of the presidents of our great railways, of the minister, the* deputy minister and the officials of the de-

The Address-Mr. Bennett
partment and, further, that we should bring here the men charged with this work overseas. I am sure they would come, at their own expense if necessary, to give us the benefit of their experience in other lands. I say again that this committee and this house should hear the story in its entirety, in order that the people may have their unrest and their suspicion with respect to the conduct of this department removed. I think it highly important that this should be done, and I do ask my friend in all seriousness whether he does not think that either the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, or a special committee appointed by the house, should deal with this question.
Within the last three hours I had a cable from a friend of mine in London who is tremendously interested in this question, saying that the regulations now in existence are preventing people from coming to Canada. He said also that the new medical regulations were absurd, to give his exact words. I am not going to pass judgment upon them myself; I was very careful to tell the house that this was a cable from a friend vitally interested in these matters, not in any sense from a political point of view at all. Everywhere men and women are interested in this question; I recently had a letter from London giving me the very figures which I quoted with respect to British and continental immigration. I checked them up at the Bureau of Statistics and found them correct in every detail.
These are1 the conditions under which this department is being administered. It is a crying shame that this country is not getting additional settlers. We have here the greatest area of vacant land in the world, crying for settlers; we have productive lands and we offer great opportunities, and we must do something to deal with this problem.
There are two problems to be dealt with at the same time; one is to conserve the present population, a big problem in itself, and the other is to secure additional settlers. On the one hand we have to maintain the population we have, and on the other we must induce additional settlers to come here. These two problems are allied and connected; the one is the complement of the other, and unless the government takes such measures as will secure the safety and employment of those men who come to our country in the first instance, and thus conserve our present population, they certainly will not succeed in meeting the second problem, which is the movement of people to this country. We do not want to bring people here merely for the purpose of sending them on to other countries.
That is not what we desire to do, and I do suggest in all good part to the right hon. Prime Minister, that some effort be made to deal with the matter along the lines I have mentioned. Then when intelligent men, seized with the whole circumstances and with a high sense of their responsibilities and obligations, make recommendations of a practical character, we may hope to have them carried out. I do know this, sir, that from time to time articles appear in the public press suggesting that we should deal with these matters entirely outside of government; that we should set up a great body which would deal with them as a commission. That does not appeal very strongly to a great many of the Canadian people, but the fact remains that the suggestion has been made from time to time, and it should be considered by the committee dealing with this matter. Other suggestions have also been made; I suppose most of the members of this house consider from time to time the reports coming from overseas with respect to migration . and the vast sums of money which have been made available to prospective settlers. Large sums, relatively, have been allotted for the purpose of sending people to this country and to other parts of the British Empire; settlers are going to Australia and they are coming here, but the unfortunate fact is that the figures indicate that as far as we are concerned this has been almost a total failure, and I do think the time has come when some effort should be made in the way I have suggested.
The only other domestic matter on which I desire to speak is the customs report. In that respect I am only going to say this, that there could have been no more ample vindication of the expression of opinion by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). Nothing more clearly indicated the conditions under which the revenues of this country were being lost to the exchequer than that report, and nothing more amply indicated the wrongs which were being committed under political protection and under the protection of the law in various parts of Canada. I suppose my friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) realizes what was said by counsel for the commission at Regina when dealing with the Bronfman cases; I suppose other gentlemen have realized what occurred with respect to prosecutions in the province of Quebec, and in all sincerity I say to my friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler), that when this report is considered by this house, as it will be when the legislation which is to be introduced following that report, as promised in the speech
The Address-Mr. Bennett

from the throne, is brought down, he will be expected to produce some better answer than the mere glorifications which have appeared in the newspapers as to the efficiency with which his department has been conducted.
This parliament has been flouted with respect to the customs enquiry. It solemnly passed a resolution in which it said that the judges should be appointed by the judges of the exchequer court, and they were so appointed in the first instance. When the change of administration took place an order in council was substituted for the voice of the judges of the exchequer court and a political tribunal-not using the words in that sense with respect to the judges-a political tribunal was set up and eminent counsel, a member of the Liberal party was appointed in connection with it. But information placed in their hands was not acted upon. I say now to the minister that the action of this parliament in demanding that prosecutions take place, naming the persons that should be prosecuted, naming the persons from whom money should be collected before the proper forum-and that forum did not mean a lawyer's office in Toronto but a court of law -was ignored. I say that when that action was taken and when those resolutions were arrived at they meant that this House of Commons demanded that action should be taken; and I say to the minister that when his legislation comes before this house-without taking up the time of parliament in going into the matter now-I hope that the names of these people will be given and some reasons offered parliament and the public why these prosecutions have not taken place. I say to my right hon. friend in all sincerity that he and not someone else has now the responsibility in this matter. I sympathized with my right hon. friend when he said to me in days gone by how difficult it was for the first minister to be able to know what goes on in every department of the public service. And that is the correct statement of the situation. However, I suggest to him that notwithstanding pressure of work he will find ample opportunity for satisfying his curiosity-shall I say?-if he will investigate the report that has been laid upon the table of this house.
There is only one thing more I desire to say with respect to the domestic situation, and that is in connection with research. I am wholly in accord with the suggestion made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) that we should provide large sums of money for research. We have

research with respect to animal husbandry, with respect to grain, with respect to field harvests, with respect to forests, with respect to fisheries. And here I observe that the government has appointed a fisheries commission to deal with certain matters in connection with the maritime provinces. I hope that the report of this commission will be laid upon the table before the house rises and at the earliest possible moment, because it is important that whatever is proposed in connection with fishery matters should be considered by parliament in the light of the evidence taken by that commission. But with respect to research, may I make this observation:	Nothing is more fatal to research than duplication of effort and waste of public money; and no laboratory work is worthy of the name-the Prime Minister knows that so well-that is conducted under departmental supervision, as just a little branch of a department with a deputy minister at its head. That is so in connection with the Department of the Interior and of forestry research matters. But these things cannot be done in that way; it is a waste of public money. I have endeavoured to- make some investigation into the matter. I have made some enquiries with respect to the work done, for instance-my right hon. friend is thoroughly familiar with it-by the Rockefeller institute and the Carnegie foundation; also work done by other foundations in Great Britain, and work being done in the universities. If we are going to have duplication of effort it will be money wasted without accomplishing any results at all. I want to say on behalf of the Conservative party, and every member of it, that we desire in every way in our power to make possible the development of research facilities in this country in order that young Canadian men and women may find employment; there is nothing comparable to it. I speak particularly of young women because some of the best work done in connection with the Department of Agriculture, as the minister himself will tell you, is done by young women who have adopted that particular field of activity.
There is one other important matter I will speak of, and that is with respect to the uniting of the Department of Health with the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. Many of the men who have returned from the front are opposed to uniting their department with any other department; but it may be that there is such a close relation between their disabilities and the Department of Health that such a union can be satis-

The Address-Mr. Bennett
factorily carried out. I reserve to myself the right to speak upon this subject when I have heard further details with respect to it.
I have been amazed that the speech from the throne contains no promise with respect to the matter of pension legislation. Last year when I introduced an amendment the Minister of Health (Mr. King, Kootenay) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) both rose in their places and promised that at the ensuing session legislation would be introduced dealing with the matter. It may well be that such legislation will be introduced, but it seems to me that if such is contemplated the speech from the throne would have been the most suitable place in which to have announced it. As I travel up and down the country I come into contact with increasing numbers of men who are unfit for work, men who are ill and broken in health. They have been given the same answer time after time, "This is a post-war disability", and they can get no consideration from the department at all. This seems remarkable to those who saw them leave for the front in the enjoyment of robust health. They have returned with broken down constitutions and they are told that their state of health is a post-war disability. Such treatment is calculated to make men not only indignant but resentful, and I should be most happy if some action is taken which will prevent any further delay in dealing with these cases.
I desire to make two or three observations with respect to another matter that was touched on in the speech from the throne. I find that there have been during the last few months since the house rose constant reiterations by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice on the question of the alleged equality of status of Canada with other parts of the empire. That has been mentioned times without number. It has been mentioned by visitors; it has been mentioned by the Prime Minister. Now it is as old as Aristotle that you must consider the government from three aspects: The executive, the legislative and the judicial. The judicial branch of Canada must always be responsible for the interpretation of the laws of the country. Upon that body must rest the proper construction of the meaning to be given to the legislative measures of parliament on the one hand and the acts of the executive on the other hand. So that in the ultimate analysis it is upon the judiciary we must rely for the interpretation of our constitution or of our enactments. I care not how pious your resolutions may be or by whom they may be passed; I care not how much the House of Commons may resolute; how much the Senate
may resolute; how many resolutions the Imperial conference may pass, unless and until, as Dicey points out, the King with the consent and assistance of the Commons and Lords- in this case the Senate and the House of Commons-in parliament assembled enacts legislation, there is nothing of which a court can take notice. Resolutions are not taken notice of by courts of law; and in the interpretation of the constitution of this country recourse must be had to the decisions and to the constitution in order to determine what they mean. Now when we say we have equality of status we are saying something that is untrue. In fact my friend the Minister of Justice has so said in parliament as I dhall presently read. So as long as the Colonial Laws Validity Act remains on the statute book of Great Britain we have no equality of status. We may as well face these things. Nothing could be worse for this country than to tell the young men of Canada that we have equality of status when we have not. It is nothing more than a specious deception, I care not by whom these words may be uttered, because in the end the judicial branch of government determines the meaning of legislation and executive acts, and no later than 1926 did the judicial body, sitting in London, determine that the Colonial Laws Validity Act still had power. In the Nadan case it was decided that because the parliament of Canada had passed a statute that was repugnant to the provisions of a'British statute it had no force, no power, and was invalid. In the light of this, how can any man say that we enjoy equality of status? Neither I nor those members sitting on the left of the Speaker yield to any person in the desire to have Canadians stand on an equality with any other people within the British Empire. But there is one thing We will not do-and in this regard I shall in a moment quote the language of the Chief Justice of Canada: we will not become parties to any subterfuge or any use of language which leaves the impression that what we aspire to has in fact already transpired. We will make no such pretence. There can be no such thing as equality of status so long as that British statute remains in force. What said the Minister of Justice in discussing this question? He advanced the view that the only means by which we might attain the end to which we aspired was through the repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. He said:
I think that what must be done is to repeal the Colonial Laws Validity Act on which that Judgment-
That is, the judgment in the Nadan case. -was based.
The Address-Mr. Bennett

Therefore until such time as the Colonial Laws Validity Act is repealed-and I have no doubt that members of this house would like to know precisely what that act provides -it follows that there can be no equality. It seems to me that nothing could be more fatal, nothing more injurious than to have the younger men of this country wake up some morning and find a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to the effect that certain legislation passed by this parliament was invalid on the ground that it was repugnant to the provisions of a statute passed by the parliament at Westminster. Nowadays most Canadians are under the impression that such is not the state of affairs. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has gone about t'he country and discussed the question in such a way as to convey the impression that equality of status is an accomplished fact. But what is the real state of the case? In the very report of the Imperial conference the statement is made that sub-committees have been set up for the purpose of determining what should be done in the matter. Under the circumstances, therefore, let us in all conscience tell the people of the country really the situation is this-that we desire equality of status and that proper measures should be taken to achieve it. But do not let us pretend that that which we are striving for has already been accomplished, that that has been done which in fact has not been done. Until such time as the British parliament at Westminster repeals that statute to which I have been referring our inferior position must continue.
I have here the provisions of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, which I have no doubt will be of interest to some of our friends, and I will take the trouble to quote from it.


Ernest Lapointe: Do I rightly infer from
my hon. friend's remarks that he will join with me in asking to have the Colonial Laws Validity Act repealed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend, confronted with the difficulty of his own situation, seeks to escape by asking someone else a question. He will find that I am too old to be caught in that way. I resort to the language of Mr. Gladstone, "I will prescribe when I am called in." But I will tell my hon.' friend what I -am prepared to do: I will use every endeavour in my power, so long as I occupy this position, to see to it that this country shall maintain a status of partnership within the British Empire on an equality with other partners in the commonwealth.


An hon. MEMBER:: That was a good
question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question is good,
but another question suggests itself: what has been done about it? Why assert that something has been done which as a matter of fact has not been done? Would a man in ordinary life say that that was an accomplished fact which obviously was not? Let me illustrate. Around a table sits a family group of six, the eldest fifty, the youngest twenty-two, and they all claim equality. Suddenly the old family solicitor interrupts: "There is a family agreement somewhere that provides that the eldest son shall have the power to veto if you do anything at variance with what he has done." They look up the family records and discover that such an agreement exists. Well, that is the Colonial Laws Validity Act, which in 1926 the Privy Council declared determined the Nadan case; and the language of that act is that any statute which is repugnant to it in terms shall be invalid to the extent of such repugnancy. Although Sir John Thompson forty years ago put on the statutes of Canada a provision denying the right of appeal to the Privy Council in criminal cases, in view of the fact that in 1833-44 it wan provided that the poorest subject in the empire might claim the right to petition the Privy Council, that provision being inconsistent with the statute passed by the parliament of Canada, the Privy Council in 1926 concluded in the Nadan case that the law invoked was ultra vires. Here are the words of the Colonial Laws Validity Act:
Any colonial law which is or shall be in any respect repugnant to the provisions of any act of parliament extending to the colony to which such law may relate, or repugnant to any order or regulation made under the authority of such act of parliament, or having in the colony the force and effect of such act, shall be read subject to such act, order, or regulation, and shall to the extent of such repugnancy, but not otherwise, be and remain absolutely void and inoperative.
A committee of experts created to determine what action should be taken concedes absolutely that there is no equality until such time as legislative measures are adopted in the circumstances, and here we are going about the country assuring the younger men that we have equality of status, when we know perfectly well that it is not so and cannot be so until such time as legislation is enacted by the parliament of Westminster as well as by the parliament of Canada. And in this regard may I point out that the gov-

The Address-Mr. Bennett
eminent of the province of Quebec, on the tenth day of this month, placed on record its view with respect to amending the British North America Act.
I will not at present do more than discuss our international situation as dealt with by the speech from the throne. An international situation arises in Canada on the Atlantic, on the Pacific and on the three thousand miles of territory that lie between us and the United States, and further by reason of our membership in the League of Nations. We have recently achieved a non-permanent seat on the council of the league. That was foreseen when we joined the league. When we became a party to the agreement we knew that one day we should secure one of these non-permanent seats, and we now have it. But I do think, and I believe the people of this country are beginning to conclude, that there is too little knowledge on the part of parliament as to what transpires in the League of Nations affecting this country. A great commission was set up on imports and exports, an economic commission on which Canada was represented. Canada agreed to certain conclusions. How many members of this house know what they were, and how much has parliament done to deal with the matter? What I fear is that we shall be charged with bad faith in the years to come because we have become a party to these recommendations without knowing what they are. How many members of this house are familiar with these reports? How many know the implications of them in every sense? Senator Dandurand, speaking on September 15 before the assembly, pointed out that Canada was the only nation in the world that had reduced its tariff four times since the war, and he rather boasted about it. He said that this was anticipating the report of the economic commission created by the League of Nations. My hon. friends will find the subject discussed in the verbatim report of September 15. There are difficulties in connection with the protocol which was rejected, and Mr. Chamberlain made the statement that rather than sign that protocol he would leave because it would mean the disruption of the empire. Yet later on Mr. Ramsay MacDonald bases a speech on the vague and indefinite observations of Senator Dandurand as to the desirability of the protocol being signed. I am bound to say I do not think Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was justified in founding his observations on, what Senator Dandurand did say, because he did1 not make at all clear that he favoured the protocol, as was suggested. I think that is clear from the whole
substance of his speech. But we are dealing with international events in countries thousands of miles away, and we are appointing men on committees and commissions to deal with these matters, and what does parliament know about them? Senator Dandurand refers to a dispatch sent by this government to the League of Nations in 1925. I suggest to the Prime Minister that there should be laid on the table of this house every communication that takes place between Canada and the League of Nations, so that parliament and the people of this country will know what is going on, because I do not desire that this country should be charged with bad faith in the years to come because we have appointed men on committees and commissions dealing with these international matters, who have made no report to us and we have no knowledge of these matters except the printed word as circulated.
Then there comes our relations internationally by reason of the appointment of ministers to this country on the one hand, and by reason of the proposal to appoint ministers to France and Japan. May I point out that there seems to have been a very great misapprehension on the part of some persons with respect to the use of the word "ambassador" and "minister" in years past? The word "minister" is used as between Great Britain and1 Canada. We are told that we are going to have a minister in Great Britain, and Great Britain is going to have a minister in Canada. I took the trouble, thinking my memory might be at fault, to look up these matters. I had desired to speak on them last year, but I was prevented by illness from doing so. A leading authority on international law says:
Diplomatic envoys accredited to a state differ in class. These classes did not exist in the early stages of international law. But during the sixteenth century a distinction between two classes of diplomatic envoys gradually arose, and at about the middle of the seventeenth century, after permanent legations had come into general vogue, two such classes became generally recognized-namely, extra-ordinary envoys, called ambassadors, and ordinary envoys, called residents; ambassadors being received with higher honours and taking precedence of the other envoys. Disputes arose frequently regarding precedence, and the states tried in vain to avoid them by introducing during the eighteenth century another class-namely, the so-called ministers plenipotentiary. At last the powers assembled at the Vienna congress came to the conclusion that the matter ought to be settled by an international understanding, and they agreed, therefore, on March 19, 1815, upon the establishment of three different classes-namely, first, ambassadors; second, ministers plenipotentiary and envoys extraordinary; third, charges d'affaires. And the five powers assembled at the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818 agreed upon a fourth class-namely, ministers resident,
The Address-Mr. Bennett

to rank between ministers plenipotentiary and charges d'affaires. All the other states either expressly or tacitly accepted these arrangements, so that nowadays the four classes are an established order.
That is the position with respect to that. Let us go a step further and. see who may be accredited, and under what conditions men may be accredited from one state to another. I find it put in this short sentence: First of all, there must be a state, and a state is defined1 internationally to consist first of all of a people. There must, secondly, be a country in which the people has settled down. There must, thirdly, be a government, and there must, fourthly and lastly, be a sovereign government:
Sovereignty is supreme authority, and authority which is independent of any other earthly authority. Sovereignty in the strict and narrowest sense of the term includes, therefore, independence all round, within and without the borders of the country.
That is the definition given by an accepted authority in international law. Let us proceed a step further, and here is where a great difficulty arises:
The appointment of an individual as diplomatic envoy is announced to the state to which he is accredited in certain official papers to be handed in by the envoy to the receiving state. Letter of credence is the designation of the document in which the head of the state accredits a permanent ambassador or minister to a foreign state.
Since when did Great Britain become a foreign state to Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt my hon. friend? I do not know whether his intention is to have it appear that someone on this side of the house has suggested sending a minister to Great Britain and receiving a minister from Great Britain in this country. If that is what he has in mind, may I tell him that he is entirely in the wrong? No one on this side of the house has suggested anything of the kind. I would like to add, for the benefit of my hon. friend, that I know a suggestion of that kind did come from some hon. gentlemen who are sitting beside him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My right hon. friend
always has greater information with respect to this side than I have. I can only say that if such a suggestion came from this side, I never heard of it. It may well be that someone has suggested that, but whether someone on this side has suggested it or not,
I can only point out that it can possibly be that a minister from Canada cannot be accredited to Great Britain, or a minister from Great Britain accredited to Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I entirely
agree.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister may not have had that in mind, but certainly I can tell him that some of his followers had.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not
think so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I claim to know. My
right hon. friend claims to know with respect to this side, and I do know with respect to his. There appeared an editorial ini the Free Press of Winnipeg a few days ago dealing with the matter, and the editor of that paper asked, "Why be a stickler for names? It does not make any difference what you call them." That is the very point I desire to discuss.
What is international law? What is the law of nations? It is not something that you may set at naught by the use of terms that have no meaning. It is highly important that your terms be used in the sense which diplomatic usage and custom and established precedents have given to them down through the centuries, and when you use the word "minister" it means just what I have read to this house, and the same with the use of the word "ambassador". It is important that there should be no confusion in terms. These are words used in the intercourse between civilized states, and they are exactly defined by the authorities. Oppen-heim, in his International Law, says:
Law of nations or international law is the name for the body of customary and conventional rules which are considered legally binding by civilized states in their intercourse with each other.
Bearing that in mind, I have no hesitation in saying that to set up an ambassador in the United States is not a difficult thing to understand. They realize our position within the British Empire, but when you are dealing with foreign nations, using the word in the larger sense, when you are dealing with people unaccustomed to our institutions, the implications are such as to leave a wrong impression on the public mind, and those implications involve responsibilities of a character which this country is not ready, in my judgment, to accept. You set up a ministry in Tokyo. The Japanese are highly specialized in international law, and they will read the word "state" as meaning just what I have said, and " minister" as meaning just what I have said. They will treat Canada in the sense I have indicated from the authorities, with all the implication? relating to

The Address-Mr. Bennett
property, protection, navy and army, and all these other matters that are involved. What are the implications with respect to setting up diplomatic relations in Tokyo? One can understand it in Paris, where they are familiar with our institutions, but when you are dealing with a far-off country, the situation is fraught with the greatest possible danger to this country. It is all nonsense to talk of the status of Canada being improved because you call somebody a minister. What this country wants in Japan and all other foreign countries are trade commissioners, under the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to carry forward Canada's trade. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) knows that trade commissioners are what are wanted, men who will carry forward Canada's trade, not our diplomatic skill and power, to the countries of the world. What this country desires to deal with are practical matters, not matters that carry with them the implications of international law to which I have referred, and these are serious matters that cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand. They are matters that have caused wars in days gone by-the designation and description of a country's representative, the rights and powers and immunities they enjoy in foreign capitals, their right to speak with authority for the state they represent their right to command armed forces, whether naval or otherwise-all these questions are involved in these implications. I say that what this young country wants, with the Colonial Laws Validity Act still outstanding, is not ministers in foreign capitals dealing with diplomatic matters, but rather trade commissioners dealing with matters affecting the expansion of our trade and commerce; and when you appoint a diplomatic representative I say that the implications involved are most dangerous. They are fraught with the greatest possible danger to the body politic. It is easy to talk in terms of great boasting of the position of our country, but Canada's position in Japan will be no greater with an embassy or ministry or legation set up in Tokyo than if under the old flag you still carry on trade and commerce and look to the British navy for your protection.
I desire to make it perfectly clear that we on this side of the house are opposed to setting up these legations as long as our present status continues. We do not desire that the implications that are attached to our position shall be misunderstood in the world at large.
It is going to bring about disaster, as certain as anything can be. About that there can be no doubt. One need not engage in prophesy; one need not be a prophet who reads the diplomatic history of Japan and the United States during the last twenty-five years, to understand what it means to start diplomatic relations in Tokyo. It is only necessary to know what has taken place to understand the situation. You, Mr. Speaker, represented this country in dealing with problems of immigration and if we set up an embassy or legation in Tokyo you can realize the position. We embark on these different problems with respect to immigration and other important problems, but it is idle boasting to talk about our position in a foreign country because some representative over there can wear gold lace and a uniform. That does not advance the interests of the country a single sou.
Mr. WOODSW'ORTH: Does the hon. gentleman not agree that some very far-reaching implications along the line he has been mentioning are involved in Canada's membership in the League of Nations?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The position with respect to Canada's status in the League of Nations was threshed out before we became a member of it, and therefore was understood by all who became subscribers to it. It was set out in the treaty and was not dependent upon customs and traditions which have come down to us. It is in the first, part of the treaty of Versailles and there is definite provision with respect to what may happen and what shall happen. In the other case there are implications which may arise by the usages of international law.
There are other things for which the speech from the throne is remarkable. We were told that the position in regard to a fuel policy would be announced, and we were informed that a coal policy was in process of incubation, that the matter would be settled in a short time. But there is nothing in the speech in regard to money being spent at home rather than abroad; there is no explanation of the people leaving Alberta to seek work elsewhere, when thousands of them could be employed to dig the coal out of the western provinces. No policy is announced which will have the effect of keeping these people at home. It is not considered of importance.
Then there is nothing in the speech from the throne with respect to the St. Lawrence waterway. I have looked over the speeches from the throne for the last few years to find a reference to that subject. Hon. members
The Addreae-Mr. Bennett

present this afternoon will probably recall the reference to it in 1924; I will read it so that there may be no misapprehension about it. In 1924 the Prime Minister placed before us, through the representative of the crown, the following:
A further interchange of correspondence has taken place between my government and the government of the United States with reference to the St. Lawrence waterway. In the opinion of my advisers, the importance of this question is such that further inquiry should be instituted before a final decision is reached upon the proposals which have been under consideration.
With respect to this the house was a unit. And now in 1928 we understand a report has been made; it was tabled this afternoon, but there is no indication in the speech as to what action is to be taken, although my right hon. friend is reported in the press as saying that this is the most important question that could engage the attention of the people of this country. Under these circumstances I suggest that this country had a right to expect that if the matter was to be dealt with it should be referred to in the speech from the throne, and if it was intended to give it further consideration it is just as well to say so in 1928 as it was in 1924.
The speech from the throne makes no reference at all to reduction of taxation or to economy. President Coolidge of the United States pointed out the other day that the time to practise economy was when the revenues are buoyant and when the country was enjoying a period of temporary prosperity. What are we doing with respect to the national debt? Are we endeavouring to deal with that in a comprehensive way, setting aside or earmarking any particular sums of money in that connection? We have not done so and are not doing so.
Further, while the speech from the throne contains no reference to reduction of taxation, I submit to you that the country expects, nay, almost demands, that there shall be a reduction of taxation at the present session. The people of this country are weary of the interminable difficulties in connection with the sales tax. I believe I voice the opinions of my hon. friends to my left when I ask that the sales tax be entirely abolished. When the sales tax is being used as a protective tariff I think you should call it by its proper names, and that you should use the proper instrument to protect the trade of the country, instead of the sales tax.
These are the only matters I desire to refer :o at this time. In hurrying through my remarks, however, I passed over one matter which I desired to bring to the attention of the Minister of Justice. I refer to the

following remarks of the Chief Justice of Canada in regard to the question of appeals to the Privy Council:	'
If our nationhood is to become a thing of substance and reality, either the appeal from our courts of last resort to an English tribunal must entirely disappear, or provision must be made for an adequate imperial court of appeal, as the ultimate appellate tribunal for all parts of the empire, whose decisions will be as binding in England and Scotland as in the dominion.., including the latest welcome addition to their ranks, the Free State of Ireland.
And he prefaced his remarks by saying that:
While this subordination of our courts is maintained-while this badge of inferioty is attached to them-our vaunted Dominion status as a full partner in the empire seems but an idle boast-a sop thrown to our vanity.
These -were the observations of the right hon. Chief Justice of Canada, given in a considered address from which I have just read.
Now, Sir, I have trespassed entirely too long upon the indulgence of this House, but the matters which are now about to engage our attention, whether from the standpoint of domestic policy, empire relations, or international affairs, are all of tremendous importance. They are not only important within themselves, but their implications are more important still. The matters that I do urge the government to take under its immediate consideration are matters affecting the settlement of this country, the reduction of our debt, the practice of economy, and the lessening of taxation. For this country, situated as it is with respect to the republic to the south, cannot maintain taxes higher than they are there and hope to attract settlers and retain them. This is one of the prices we pay for our geographical position. Therefore it is incumbent upon the government at the earliest possible moment not only to reduce taxation and remove from the statute books those taxes that are generally regarded as nuisance taxes when applied to the individual in the conduct of business, but also to see that our revenues are judiciously and economically expended for the purpose of providing for the public service and also of reducing our fixed charges by reducing our national debt as quickly as possible. Above all, the government should see that the supremacy of parliament is maintained. That is, the measures which are now being dealt with by the executive should not be so dealt with unless authority therefore has been obtained from parliament. As we all know, parliament came into being to protect the people of the country against encroachments of power on the part of the executive.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Whether that executive be king or cabinet matters not; if the rights that belong to parliament are not observed it will be found that the executive perishes.
Therefore we urge these matters on the government, and we who sit to the left of the Speaker promise to the full extent of our ability to help the government to carry them into effect. Our best efforts, our ability and our resources are at their disposal to secure that permanent settlement so desirable to the progress of this great Dominion.
Right Hon, W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my first words to the hon, gentleman (Mr. Bennett) upon the conclusion of his address can very sincerely be words of congratulation at the moderation of tone which has characterized it in comparison with addresses which we have been accustomed to hear in previous parliaments.
I am also pleased to be able to thank my hon. friend for the compliment which he has paid to those who have spoken on this side of the house in moving and seconding the address. Naturally we join very heartily with him in the praise which he has accorded the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Usley) on what was generally conceded to be a very excellent address. The hon. member has come into this house as one of the youngest of its members, he has been here but a short time, in fact this is his first parliament, and each time he has spoken he has given evidence of that high reputation which he had as a public speaker before he came into the House of Commons. His address reflects credit not only upon himself and his constituency, but equally upon this parliament.
May I say that I think the speech of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) was in every particular equal to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Hants-Kings. It was delivered in French, and might have been delivered by him with equal facility in English. Had my hon. friend opposite read it carefully, he would in his references to it, have spoken differently. He said that the speech might well have been delivered by my hon. friend from Provencher had he been speaking on his side of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My right hon. friend did not understand me correctly. I said: Had he been sitting on this side and had we been the government-he in tlhe opposition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All I have
reference to is my hon. friend's remark that the speech might have been delivered from the other side of the house. If one reads the
speech one sees that it is very loud in praise of the present administration and somewhat condemnatory of certain of the policies of my hon. friends opposite. In that regard I agree with him that the speech might well have been delivered on the other side with regard to the respective merits of the two political parties.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I Shall endeavour to follow my hon. friend as far as I may be able in the order in which he has spoken on the various subjects under review. May I first of all join with him in expressing our sympathy, the sympathy of the Canadian people with Lady Haig in the great bereavement which she has sustained in the death of her illustrious husband. When I learned this morning that General Haig had passed away, I felt it would be the will and wish of parliament and the people of Canada that I should immediately cable, in their name, the deep regret which we all feel at the loss sustained by the British Empire and, indeed, the world by the death of this great and distinguished soldier.
My hon. friend touched very lightly upon the diamond jubilee of confederation. If I stop to refer to that subject as mentioned in the address it is not for the purpose of basking in reflected glory, as he has intimated might possibly be the motive, but rather to give credit where I feel credit is due for what I believe is generally conceded to have been one of the most memorable events in the history of our country. As hon. members will recall, at the last session of parliament a national committee was appointed, to which was entrusted preparations for a fitting celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of confederation. The Right Hon. George P. Graham was made chairman of that committee, and subsequently Mr. Cowan and Mr. Desy were appointed secretaries. I should like to take advantage of this the first opportunity in parliament publicly to thank these gentlemen for having given their time and efforts so unselfishly to the work of the committee, and I should like in the same connection to make special reference to the great service rendered our country by Hon. Thomas Ahearn, who had so much to do with the successful broadcasting to all parts of this Dominion from parliament hill of the proceedings on July 1.
I think, Mr. Speaker, we have all reason to feel a special pride in the degree to which all parts of this Dominion participated in the celebration of its sixtieth anniversary. The occasion evoked a national pride, a
32	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
sense of national unity to a degree that up to that time had never been expressed; and whatever makes for Canadian unity serves, I submit, in the highest way not only the interests of Canada, but the interests of the empire as a whole.
I am sorry that I did not understand the reference which my hon. friend made to some remarks of mine respecting His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and the Prime Minister of Great Britain. I followed him, I think, in all other particulars, but I confess that even at this moment I cannot conceive precisely what their bearing was. At the time, I said that I thought it was a particularly fortunate and happy circumstance that whereas confederation had been brought into being by Canadian ministers visiting London and there co-operating with the British parliament and the sovereign of Great Britain in the enactment of the British North America Act, at the time we were celebrating the diamond jubilee of confederation we should have, not Canadian ministers visiting London, but the heir to the British throne and the Prime Minister of the British House of Commons visiting this Dominion to participate in the celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of that event. I think, Mr. Speaker, that that was a feature of the events of the year in which we all felt a great measure of pride. I would also say that my hon. friend might have fittingly made reference to other visits which have been made to our Dominion by distinguished .statesmen of the Brjitish Empire in the recent past. Since the last Imperial conference we have had as guests of this country in addition to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Prime Minister of Australia and the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and I am proud to say that we have to-day in the capital of our country, as our guest, the President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State, another of the sister dominions of the British Empire.
I would further say that I think my hon. friend might well have made reference, while dealing with the speech from the throne, to other features 'which have contributed largely to international good will during the course of the present year. I was happy to see that in reference to the legation which Canada has opened at Washington, my hon. friend has changed to a considerable degree the point of view to which he gave expression during the last session of parliament, and that in common with the citizens of Canada generally he has come to see that the opening of that legation has been a helpful factor in the 
economy of this nation, and 'helpful also in the larger affairs of the British Empire. I think the opening of legations at both Washington and Ottawa by the Canadian and United States governments respectively, is an event worthy of mention, and I feel that the experience we have already had of the services of these legations is sufficient to convince us that the step taken was a wise and eminently practical one, and will prove increasingly helpful as the years go by.
The visit of Their Excellencies to the United States was a feature of the year which I think was deserving of mention, if only to illustrate as it does the international good will to which that visit gave expression. I am happy to say that in the course of another week we in Canada will have the pleasure of receiving the Secretary of State of the United States, who intends to pay a visit to our Dominion at that time. The visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and the Prime Minister of England, in conjunction with Canadian ministers of the crown, to Buffalo, there to meet the Vice-President of the United States, the Secretary of State and other ministers of that government in the dedication of a bridge which commemorates more than a century of peace between our neighbours to the south and ourselves, was another event of which I think we on this continent have reason to be proud, and which may well be held up as an example to the world.
I should make mention at this moment, and I take this the first opportunity so to do publicly in parliament of the appreciation of parliament of the gift which was announced by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales as coming from His Majesty the King in commemoration of the diamond jubilee of confederation. Honourable members know, this gift consists of oil portraits to be hung in these buildings of His Majesty and the Queen, as well as portraits of their late Majesties King Edward and Queen Alexandra. They are a possession which I am sure will always be greatly treasured in these houses of parliament.
I come now, Mr. Speaker, to consider some parts of the address of my hon. friend in which I feel he hardly did justice to the situation as it exists in Canada at present. As hon. members will have noticed, he made many references to the necessity for increased immigration. He said we were crying out for labour in this country and that we should do everything in our power to stimulate the supply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say we were clamouring for labour.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad my hon. friend makes it clear that he did not say we were clamouring for labour, but he did say that we needed immigration very much; we are agreed on that. I would point out to my hon. friend that immigrants who come to this country and do not work are not the class of immigrants we want; we want people who will work. I was struck, as I am sure other hon. members must have been, by a curious kind of contradiction in the remarks of my hon. friend. He opened by stressing the unemployment which he said exists in this country, and returned to this subject when he came to the latter part of his address. He was seeking to belittle what was said in the speech from the throne with respect to the prosperity in Canada to-day when he spoke of unemployment; when that particular point had served his purpose, in order to criticize the government from an opposite point of view, he began to stress the necessity for increased immigration.
I may say to my hon. friend, so far as the p'olicy of the government with respect to immigration and unemployment is concerned, that this country needs all the immigrants we can successfully assimilate and put into employment in Canada, but we do not intend to extend our immigration policy to a point where it will lead to large unemployment in any of the industrial centres of our Dominion. I think if my hon. friend is sincere in his desire to increase immigration, as I am sure he is, he will be better advised if he directs his attention more to laying stress on the prosperity of Canada and the publishing abroad of that fact than to making references in this house or elsewhere to unemployment in Canada at present. As a matter of fact we all know that for years past there has not been a time in Canada when there was less unemployment than exists at present. May I quote to my hon. friend the statement of a member of his own party, a prominent member, although not in this house? I refer to the Premier of the province of Ontario, and what he had to say to a delegation which waited on him only a few days ago. It was asking the Ontario government to help provide for some alleged unemployment in this province. What was the reply made by Hon. Mr. Ferguson? It will be found in the Toronto Globe of January 24. It seems that the delegation was from York township, members of the township council were evidently representing that there was some unemployment, and in reply to their request Premier Ferguson said:	'
With the great activity in building and all kinds of construction work, I am at a loss to
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
understand why there should be any serious unemployment. As a matter of fact, a general survey of tlie situation has led the government to believe that there is no real distress, and there is less ground for complaint than there has been for some years.
That is the. view of the Ontario government after having made a survey of this province, and I would commend that view to my hon. friend as coming from a better source than the one from which he has derived his information.
What are the facts in regard to employment? Let me quote from the authentic records of the Bureau of Statistics as to actual employment. My hon. friend says these figures are gathered from firms which employ people; certainly they are. One would not go to a firm which did not employ anyone in order to get information as to employment, and I contend that the degree to which there is employment is better represented by statistics from employing films than by any other possible source.
The Department of Trade and Commerce, in the statement issued on January 16 of the present year, reports the employment situation in Canada as follows:
Employment as reported by employers throughout Canada was in greater volume in 1927 than in any other year since 1920, there being almost uninterrupted expansion on a large scale from early in January until tlie first of September. This upward movement carried the curve of employment to a level many points higher than in any of the last seven years and considerably higher than at the basic date in 1920, when the post-war boom was at its maximum. During these seven months of advancing employment, nearly 125,000 persons were added to the staffs of the reporting firms, a number which was practically the same as in 1926 and greater than in the same period of any other year of the record except 1922, when the opening up of industry following the depression of 1921 caused the employment of approximately the same number of extra employees.
If my hon. friend will consult other sources of accurate statistical information he will find that they all substantiate this position.
My hon. friend referred to the condition of trade, and indicated that in some particulars it was not just what he would like to see it.
I think he will admit that the total volume of trade this year has been larger than that of any previous year. My hon. friend says that the imports are greater, but that the exports are somewhat less. That is quite true, but why are the imports greater? The imports are greater because-and if he looks at the figures I think he will find I am correct -we have been importing a large quantity of raw materials to be worked up in our

34	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
manufactures, that we have also been importing large quantities of equipment. These two items, the increase in raw materials and the increase in equipment, each of them representing expanding industry in Canada, are responsible for the imports being larger this year. In regard to exports my hon, friend will find that prices ruled considerably lower in some of the agricultural commodities, and for that reason, perhaps more than for any other, the total exports do not range as high in gross value as in previous years. Nevertheless the fact remains that the balance of trade in Canada was more favourable than was the case with respect to the balance of trade of any other country of any standing in the world. Our favourable balance of trade was $151,000,000 in 1927, the largest per capita favourable trade balance of any leading nation. I will not take time to quote the figures with respect to internal trade activities. Internal trade may be judged by the wholesale and retail figures of which I have a statement here, but to save time I shall pass them over. They disclose a great increase of business. I would, however, like to give to my hon. friend and to the house the record of the amounts of cheques charged in the clearing house centres of Canada. They are an index, and an important one, with respect to business transactions and to progress. These figures, secured from the Canadian Bankers' Association, show the bank debits in Canada to have been as follows:
1924		$27,157,000,000
1925		 28,126.000,000
1926		 30,358,000.000
1927			36,393,000,000
These figures disclose an increase of nearly 33 per cent between 1924 and 1927 in the volume of business transacted in Canada by means of cheques drawn upon our chartered banks.
My hon. friend spoke of the railway receipts and he was a little critical of the statement made in the speech from the throne that the gross receipts of the railwaj^s had increased. I do not think my hon, friend denied the truth of the statement but he drew attention to the fact that the net receipts had not been as considerable as in previous years. As a matter of fact, the gross receipts do show, exactly as the speech from the throne indicates, a very considerable increase. In the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway the total receipts for 1926 were $197,636,000, and the total for 1927 was $201,403,175. In the ease of the Canadian National Railways, the total receipts for 1926 were $253,376,000, and for 1927 they amounted
tMr. Mackenzie King.]
to $256,164,000, a considerable increase in the case of both companies. Why do the net receipts not show the same measure of increase? My hon. friend knows the explanation but he did not give it to the house. He knows that considerable increases were made in the wages paid to the employees of both railway systems, changes resulting in an increase of several million dollars. The fact that there was a later movement of some of the crops and a lowering of rates on the carriage of grain and other commodities also helps to account for the difference in net. receipts. The fact that the reduction in the net receipts is so largely accounted for by the improvement in the position of that large body of the community represented by railway labour, is of itself a circumstance which speaks well for the increased prosperity in business of this country.
I might make further reference, as evidence of the prosperity in Canada, to building operations. The news manager of the * MacLean Building Reports, in a statement published in the Commercial and Financial Review for the year 1927 by the Montreal Gazette, -has the following in reference to building construction:
Not since the boom days of 1912 has construction come within $100,000,000 of the record established in that year, until the past twelve months, when nearly $419,000,000 were spent or contracted for throughout Canada in this important industry. The fact of such a large sum, greater by 12.3 per cent than the record of 1926, was spent in the program for 1927 after five heavy building years speaks very favourably for the prospects for this year.
The official record of building permits issued in sixty-three cities shows a total value of building amounting to over $185,000,000 in 1927, as compared with $156,000,000 in 1926, an advance of over 18 per cent on -what was itself a record year.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend would help his immigration propaganda mudh more if he gave these figures to parliament and to the world instead of attempting to create the impression that the country is not as prosperous as everyone but himself is prepared to admit.
Now what is the position with regard to manufacturing in Canada? The manufacturing industries of the Dominion operated on a larger scale in 1927 than in any other recent year, as is shown by the monthly record of employment; 4,000 of the larger manufacturers report an employment of 477,000 persons, and the flood of manufacturing activity in 1927 is estimated as having been four per cent greater than in 1926

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
I could quote figures to show how considerable also has been the increase in different branches of agriculture. I pause to make mention that Canada has come to be the leading exporter of wheat among the countries of the world. I could also point out that in mining we have made vast strides in production and in export. Coming to forestry may I say that in newsprint Canada is now the leading producer in the world. We have, in our production, passed in Canada beyond merely domestic and imperial records to world records.
In concluding this branch of my subject I should like to give my bon. friend, also for use in his immigration propaganda, the opinions of the leading bank managers in this country. I submit that he will be well advised to secure and broadcast statistics of this character if he wishes to bring into the Dominion a class of people who are ready and willing to work, and who will see before them in this country a land of great promise and of great opportunity.
The president of the Bank of Montreal, in his statement this year, declares:
Bank debits, bank clearings, bank deposits, car loadings, railway gross earnings, imports, note circulation, and lower mercantile mortality reveal that the tide of business has risen during the year. ... I see no reason why an abatement of confidence in the continuance of these prosperons conditions need be apprehended.
Then the general manager of the Bank of Montreal states:
I have referred to the past year as the most expansive in the country's commercial history. That Canadians have experienced a greater degree of individual prosperity than ever before is, I think, undisputable.
The president of the Imperial Bank states:
Evidence of the general growth and prosperity of Canada may be observed on all sides.
The president of the Royal Bank of Canada:
Those who were most careful in their studies of world economic trends were forced to the conclusion that a return to world stability in commerce and finance would be accompanied by such a rising tide of demand for the products of Canada's fields, forests and mines as would assure a prolonged period of prosperity. The steady improvement in agriculture, mining, manufacture and internal and external trade which has characterized the years 1925, 1926 and 1927, has done much to vindicate the good judgment of this leadership.
The president of the Bank of Toronto:
The year just closed is notable for the sound progress made in nearly every branch of our economic life... So far as the future is concerned we have every reason to be confident. Our present prosperity is not superficial, but is well founded on natural resources, organization and efficiency.
56103-3J
And, finally, the general manager of the Bank of Commerce, at the annual meeting on January 10, 1928, makes this statement:
In conclusion: the general business situation is sound, the purchasing power of the people of Canada is greater than it has ever been before, and the development of the natural resources of the country proceeds apace. These conditions make for prosperity, and the general frame of mind of the public is genuinely optimistic. This creates an ideal atmosphere for future progress. and, if we will but give painstaking attention to our business and avoid excesses such as overtrading or speculation, we in Canada can face the future with confidence and certainly look forward to another year of progress and prosperity.	-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He does deal with immigration directly?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is the
way in which to deal with it. It is a much more effective way. I shall have a word to say on the subject of immigration later on. But let us see how we are viewed by observers outside. This house is familiar with the work of the Babson Statistical organization of Wellesley Hills, Mass. Mr. Creighton J. Hill, of that institution makes this statement:
Fundamental conditions in the Dominion indicate that general business in 1928 will exceed that of 1927, and while in the states the trend will be slightly downward, in Canada it is going to be upward. Canada is to-day in a position to maintain an independent prosperity through 1928.
May I conclude these references by quoting from an hon. gentleman who sits with my hon. friend on the other side of the house;
I mean the distinguished member for Mount Royal (Mr. White). In his financial review of the year 1927, published in the Gazette that hon. gentleman has the following to say:
Canada has never before enjoyed a year of so general progress and prosperity as that of 1927. Production, distribution, manufacturing, transportation and foreign commerce exceeded all previous records.
I say, Mr. Speaker, and I say it with considerable pride, that there has never been an occasion when one standing in the position of leadership of a government was able to give to this parliament a record of greater progress or a message of higher hope, present and future, than I have been enabled to give to this house to-day.
My hon. friend said that we ought to promise something in the way of reduction of taxation; he suggested that we should show something in the way of diminution of the public debt. I wish to assure my hon. friend that is exactly what we have been doing, . and when he becomes more familiar with the record of the government, as, with the passing

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
of time, I trust he will, I have no doubt he will be quite satisfied in his own mind on these points. Let me in this regard submit a few figures which I think will be of special interest to him. When we came into office we found that the government that had preceded us had been successful in one particular, namely, in adding to the public debt by leaps and bounds. There had been an increase of many millions in the public debt of the country, and as a matter of fact the situation was one of the gravest with which an administration could be confronted. The problem was not a simple one, how to reach the	point	where	the	budget of thecountry could again be balanced satisfactorily.	What	where	the	facts? In thefiscal year 1920-21 there had been an increase in the debt of $92,000,000. It will be remembered that this government took office in December 1921, so that practically all the figures of	the	fiscal	year	1921-22 wereattributable to the previous government's administration of affairs. Instead of the public debt decreasing, it was being added to progressively by colossal sums. True, there was	in 1921-22	a little difference,
accounted for possibly by the fact that the present administration had been in office three months of that particular yeaT, but it .was not such as to minimize the effect of the immensity of the figures. The public debt for the year 1921-22 was increased $81,000,000 such was the amount of difference between receipts and expenditure in that year. It is true that, in order to try ultimately to balance the budget, Mr. Fielding, who was then Minister of Finance, found it necessary slightly to increase taxation. Mr. Fielding took the position, which I think was a sound one, that this country could not go on running deeper and deeper into debt, and that if we were to reach the point where Canada should enter upon the road to prosperity and progress we must at least balance the budget, and, if at -Ji possible, have surpluses instead of deficits in our yearly accounts. A slight increase in taxation was made at the time to help to meet the situation. The result was that the next year, although we were unable completely to avoid an increase in the public debt, the increase for the fiscal year 1922-23 was, not $81,000,000 as it was the year before, but $31,000,000. The year following that, after our policies had had an opportunity to get under way in the country and their effect had been tried, there was a complete reversal in the position of affairs, and from that time on we have heard no more of deficits, having had surpluses every year. In the fiscal year 1923-24 we had a surplus of $35,000,000; in
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l
1924-25 a surplus of $345,000; in 1925-26, a surplus of $27,000,000, and in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1927, a surplus of $41,000,000. It is too early yet to say what the surplus will be in the present year, but it is not revealing any secret when one advises parliament that the figure will be quite large and that, again this year, we shall have a very considerable surplus as a result of our financing.
What in addition has taken place this year along the line which my hon. friend commends to us? He says that we should redeem outstanding obligations. In 1925-26, outstanding obligations of $20,000,000 were redeemed in cash, while in 1926-27 the redemption in cash was $43,000,000. In the present fiscal year there have been three maturities, one of $29,000,000, bearing interest at the rate of five and a half per cent, redeemed in cash on November 15; while four per cent treasury notes, amounting to $8,000,000, were redeemed in cash. On December 1, a maturity of $63,000,000 became payable. This was a five per cent loan, tax exempt, and $18,000,000 was paid off in cash, the balance being taken care of by borrowing from the banks treasury notes at the rate of four per cent. This was the lowest rate of interest that the government had secured in pre-war days. As a result of our financing in the present fiscal vear, the annual interest saved alone will be $3,600,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is my right hon. friend
aware that the government guaranteed $65,000,000 for the Canadian National Railways, $20,000,000 for three years' notes maturing last year, and $15,000,000 bank loan, usually paid in cash, for which they issued securities, or taking these two, $35,000,000 in outstanding guarantees.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will leave it to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) to go into the details of the financing of the railways when we come to the budget, but I am giving to my hon. friend facts and figures which are incontrovertible with respect to maturities that have been redeemed and cashed during the past year.
Now while the government has been reducing the public debt, while it has been reducing outstanding securities as they have been maturing, while it has been refunding large sums of money with other securities bearing a lower rate of interest, it has at the same time been steadily reducing taxation. My hon. friend said he thought that we ought to reduce taxation. I want to tell him that that is exactly what we have been doing, and doing steadily for the last few years. The record of this

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
government in the matter of tax reduction is one of the most remarkable records that any administration has ever had to its credit. Let me just refresh the memory of hon. gentlemen with respect to what has taken place in that regard. .The principal taxation reductions since 1923 have been as follows:
In 1923, reduction of sugar duties, $2,500,-
000.	Changing the sales tax so that it shall apply as at the source. The first year this change showed a considerable reduction. Reductions under the British preferential tariff of 10 per cent where the goods are brought direct to the ports of Canada.
In 1924, reduction of sales tax from 6 per cent, to 5 per cent and articles added to the exempted list. In the customs tariff the principal reductions were agricultural implements, saw-mill and logging machinery, coal-washing machinery, the estimated reduction of customs and sales tax revenue being $24,000,000.
In 1926 there was reduction of duties and excise tax on motor vehicles; sales tax reduction on canned fish from 5 per cent to 2J per cent; reduction in postage; the receipt tax was abolished; reduction -in income tax; the estimated total reduction in revenue being $25,000,000.
In 1927 there was further taxation reduction : ten per cent on all rates in the income tax; in the sales tax a general cut of 20 per cent; excise tax on matches cut 25 per cent; reduction of rates on cheques, bills of exchange, promissory notes and similar documents.
The total reduction in taxation amounted in that year to $27,000,000. So I say to my hon. friend that instead of telling us what we ought to be doing he should be thanking us for what we have been doing, and he should have not merely the hope but the expectation that we will continue in that way. It is not for me to say what the Minister of Finance will have to tell this House when he brings down his budget, but I for one shall be very much surprised if he does not stow again this year, as in former years, a surplus, reduction of the public debt, and further tax reductions. I think, Mr. Speaker, I have perhaps dwelt at sufficient length upon the remarks of my hon. friend with respect to the position of the country at the present time, the government's action in the matter of economy, and its interest in the public welfare from the financial side.
I come now to the next subject on which he touched, the Dominion-provincial conference this year. May I say that when my hon. friend asked me on Thursday last for the report of the conference I mentioned to him that there was no official report for fhe reason
that when the conference met it was agreed, not by one side, but by all present, that the conference would perhaps make better headway and that we would come nearer to an understanding of each other's difficulties if we did not attempt to have a record kept of the discussions, but gave to the public from day io day a precis which was carefully prepared by one who was present for the purpose of taking down the essential features of the discussion. That precis, before it was issued to the press, was submitted to representatives of the provincial governments and of the federal government. It was issued in fairly extensive form, and I may say to my hon. friend that comparing the official precis that was issued in connection with this conference with the records of previous conferences, it is much more complete than the record of any previous conference. Possibly it would be well if parliament were furnished with that precis in a form in which it could be made available to hon. members, and I am very pleased to say to my hon. friend, as he has drawn attention to the omission of an official record, that to-morrow I shall lay on the table of the house the official precis of the conference as given out from day to day, and that in a form which I believe will merit its publication by parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thank you so much.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That will give to members of the house an accurate statement of what took place from day to day in so far as it is desirable to have the proceedings of the conference made public.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all that is wanted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say a word about the Dominion-provincial conference-because I think it was one of the most important events of the year-as to how the conference was called, its method of proceeding, and so far as time will permit me to touch upon it, what occurred in the course of the proceedings.
Hon. members will recall that at different times in this house it was suggested that certain matters should be taken up at a Dominion-provincial conference. With respect to some of the questions that W'ere discussed the conference was called largely as a result of the express wish of this House of Commons. In order that the subjects taken up might be as inclusive as possible, some months before the conference was held a communication was sent to the premiers of the provinces asking them to enumerate any
38	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
subjects they would like to have brought up for consideration between the Dominion government and their provinces. When replies had been received from all the premiers these subjects were then classified and an agenda was carefully prepared which sought to so arrange matters as to make the discussion as logical and orderly as possible. The Dominion had certain questions which it desired to discuss with the provinces, as well as the questions which the provinces themselves submitted, but it was found that all the questions fell broadly into one of three classifications. They were questions either of a constitutional nature, or which had to do primarily with finance or they were of an economic and social character. The agenda as presented to the conference contained the different subjects for discussion under these three divisions. I might give hurriedly to the house the main topics that were discussed in this way. Under the head' of constitutional questions, the following subjects were discussed:
1.	Senate reform.
2.	Procedure in amending the British North America Act.
3.	Participation by provinces in international labour conferences.
4.	Regulation of aircraft and flying operations.
5.	Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.
6.	Incorporation and operation of companies, including trust, loan and insurance tompanies.
7.	Regulation of the sale of shares and securities of Dominion companies.
8.	Representation of Nova Scotia in the House of Commons.
Under the heading of "Financial" the following subjects were discussed:
1.	Federal subsidies, including recommendations of Duncan report thereon.
2.	Other proposed federal aids:
(a)	for highway construction.
(b)	for technical education.
(c)	for agricultural education.
(d)	for unemployment relief.
(e)	for steel industry.
3.	Partition of federal lands.
4.	The Canadian Farm Loan Act, 1927.
5.	Taxation:
(a)	Delimitation of fields of taxation.
(b)	Taxation of the Canadian National Railways.
(c)	Comparative taxation.
(d)	Income tax. Method of collection.
6.	Reduction of customs and excise duties.
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l
7.	Consideration of interests in which the Dominion and provincial governments exercise jurisdiction:-
(a)	Agriculture;
(b)	Policing;
(c)	Health;
(d)	Construction, maintenance and upkeep
of railways.
(e)	Developing markets for Canadian products.
(f)	Establishment of national research laboratories and co-operation in research.
Social and Economic
1.	Immigration. Federal and provincial
co-ordination.
2.	Fuel problems.
3.	Old age pensions. Social insurance.
4.	Water-power development.
5.	Fisheries.
6.	Child nutrition and transmission of infection.
My hon. friend asks how parliament is to know what was to be done with respect to these various subjects and what was the attitude taken by the conference upon them. My reply to him is this: that the various subjects were dealt with in different ways. It was possible to dispose of some of them on the spot. For example, among the subjects dealt with was the question of the regulation of air craft and flying operations. That question related to a possible conflict of jurisdiction as between the dominion and the provinces on the subject of aerial navigation. It was agreed that that question should be made a subject of reference to the supreme court, and the reference was agreed to by the Minister of Justice and has since been made.
Then there were other matters, such as the regulation of shares and securities of Dominion companies, which were referred to special committees of the conference, and the committees brought in recommendations suggesting legislation. That legislation was subsequently introduced into the House and dealt with. Other matters, such as constitutional questions, were discussed, largely with a view of obtaining an interchange of opinion on the part of the provinces of the Dominion, and consideration was promised by the federal government to the views expressed.
I shall not go through the agenda, but as parliament proceeds with its deliberations, with respect to every subject that is there mentioned it will be possible for the ministry, either in answer to a question that may be asked or by legislation to be broueht down to

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
make clear to the house just what were the various matters dealt with and the attitude of the ministry upon them.
There is one subject which I think I had better touch upon immediately, as it is one which, though not dealt with at considerable length by my hon. friend opposite, was nevertheless the subject of consideration at the conference and has been the subject of considerable speculation by the press ever since, and that is the St. Lawrence waterway project.
I wish to say, in regard to that, that my friend is right when he quotes me as saying that I believe there are few if any questions which have ever come before parliament more important and far-reaching in their many bearings than the question of the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway. It has political, economical, national and international aspects, all of which are very far-reaching, and on behalf of the administration I wish to say we are fully seized of the magnitude of that question, and we do not propose to be precipitated in any way into a hasty discussion of its many features or except upon the maturest consideration into any diplomatic action with respect to them.
My 'hon. friend draws attention to the fact that there is no reference in the speech from the throne to this important subject. Here may I draw his attention to the circumstance: that this is an international question. If it has any significance ait all, the significance in largest part lies in the international phase of it, and how that international phase is to be dealt with. My hon. friend is accustomed to big business and knows the care with which all large business transactions have to be surrounded, and I venture to say that the last thing he would do, and the last thing any business man would do, in connection with his own affairs, when he was considering a possible transaction with some other party, would be to disclose his hand any more than he was obliged to disclose it, until it came to a point where it was certain that negotiations would be successful. The government has given this great project the most careful and thoughtful consideration. First of all, there was a report of the International Joint Commission which was subsequently considered by a joint board of engineers; the members of this board differed among themselves thereby necessitating a reference back of certain of the matters which they had under consideration. In the United States an advisory committee to the administration was formed, to advise the government on the findings of the report which was presented to them; that advisory committee gave its advice, and some publicity was subsequently given to the advice given by that body. This government appointed an advisory committee. The advisory committee met as soon as was feasible after the report with its appendices of the joint engineers was presented, and as soon as they had sufficient time to study the subject. They spent some time in this city, considered different aspects of the problem, conferred with the administration, and gave us the benefit of their views and opinions. Among other subjects upon which they gave us advice was what in their opinion was the correct form of reply to be made to the United States government to a despatch which had been sent to us on that allimportant question.
I want to draw the attention of parliament to one statement which is contained in the views of the advisory board as presented to the government. It is the statement which concludes the report with which they presented us. It reads:
We would add the suggestion that in view of the delicacy of the international negotiations involved it would be inadvisable that our report be made public until such time as, in the discretion of the government, it might be published without prejudice to Canadian interests.
I wish the house to realise that that is the reason and the only reason why the government has not up to the present time made public the views of the advisory committee as presented to the government by that body. That body itself, recognising the many bearings from an international point of view of the advice which they have submitted, felt it would be inadvisable to have their report made public at the present time, and may I add in that connection that I hope hon. gentlemen and the public at large, and the press of the country in particular will not prejudice this all-important situation by attributing to the board of advisers expressions of view and opinion of which they can have no knowledge whatever. The report has not been made public, and so far as I have been able to see some of the alleged descriptions of what it contains are, to say the least, very wide of the mark. At the present time we are replying to the despatch which came to us from Washington asking for an expression of our views in regard to this great undertaking. We are giving to the United States government an expression of opinion, based upon the views of the advisory board, in order to ascertain their opinion upon those views. Until we have had an opportunity of learning from the administration at Washington how they regard certain considerations which we deem all-important
40	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
we will not be in a position to say whether or not negotiations are going to be possible for the construction of that great international waterway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to ask my right hon. friend whether or not the government is prepared to consider the legal implications as between the provinces and the Dominion before we proceed further, because the provinces assert certain rights, I understand. That is the question which I regard as the basis of international discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad to hear my hon. friend express himself as he does, because in that particular we are in entire accord with him. When the Dominion-provincial conference was held the premiers of Ontario and Quebec both intimated to the government that they thought there should be a reference to the courts of the question of jurisdiction with respect to the power developed as the result of the canalization of waters over which the Dominion government have control for the purposes of navigation. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) promised consideration to that request, and as soon as possible after the conference concluded its proceedings the minister had prepared by the law officers of the crown a careful statement of the whole situation as far as it was possible for them to present it, and an order in council was passed on the 18th instant, whereby a reference of the whole question of jurisdiction has been made to the courts in accordance with what we understand are the wishes of the premiers of Ontario and Quebec.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That will be laid on the table, I presume?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At to-morrow's sitting I shall have pleasure in laying on the table of the house the reference which has been submitted to the courts.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 6 p.m.
Tuesday, January 31, 1928