1930-02-24

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that during the recess I received communications from several members, notifying me that the following vacancies had occurred in the representation, viz:
Of the Hon. James Alexander Robb, member for the electoral district of Chateauguay-Huntingdon, by decease.
Of Georges Doreze Morin, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Bagot, by decease.
Of the Hon. Robert Forke, member for the electoral district of Brandon, consequent upon the acceptance of an office of emolument under the crown.
I accordingly issued my warrants to the Chief Electoral Officer to make out new writs of election for the said electoral districts respectively 2419-1



NEW MEMBERS


Hewitt Bostock: I have also the honour
to inform the house that, during the recess, the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer certificates of the election and return of the following members, viz:
Of William Spankie, Esquire, for the electoral district of Frontenac-Addington.
Of Vincent Dupuis, Esquire, for the electoral district of Laprairie-Napierville.
Of William Samuel Murphy, Esquire, for the electoral district of Lanark.
Of Elie Oscar Bertrand, Esquire, for the electoral district of Prescott.
Of Lawrence Alexander Wilson, Esquire, for the electoral district of Vaudreuil-Soulanges.
Of Cyrille Dumaine, Esquire, for the electoral district of Bagot.
Of Dennis James O'Connor, Esquire, for the electoral district of Chateauguay-Hunting-don.
Of the Hon. Thomas Alexander Crerar, for the electoral district of Brandon.



INTRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
Thomas Alexander Crerar, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Brandon, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. Ernest Lapointe.
Vincent Dupuis, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Laprairie-Napierville, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. P. J. A. Cardin.
William Spankie, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Frontenac-Addingtan, introduced by Hon. R. B. Bennett and Hon. Hugh Guthrie.
Elie Oscar Bertrand, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Prescott, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. J. C. Elliott.
William Samuel Murphy, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Lanark, introduced by Hon. R. B. Bennett and Hon. Hugh Guthrie.
[Stage Direction]
Governor General's Speech
[Stage Direction]
Lawrence Alexander Wilson, Esquire, member for tike electoral district of Vaudreuil-Soulanges, introduced by Right Horn. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. P. J. A. Cardin.
Cyrille Dumaine, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Bagot, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. Fernand Rinfret.
Dennis James O'Connor, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Chateauguay-Hiuntingdon, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. Fernand Rinfret.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 1, respecting the administration of oaths of office.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Hewitt Bostock: 
Right Horn. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the speech of His Excellency the Governor General to both houses of parliament be taken into consideration on Monday next, and that this order have precedence over all other business, except the introduction of bills, until disposed of.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
2419-1J

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a special committee be appointed to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the select standing committees of this house, under standing order 63, said committee to be composed of Messrs. King (Kootenay), Stewart (Edmonton), Casgrain, Hanson and Stewart (Leeds).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) presented the following message from His Excellency the Governor General:
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons a certified copy of an approved minute of council appointing the Honourable W. R. Motherwell, Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable J. H. King, Minister of Pensions and National Health, the Honourable J. C. Elliott, Minister of Public Works, and the Honourable Fernand Rinfret, Secretary of State, to act with the Speaker of the House of Commons as commissioners for the purposes and under the provisions of chapter 145 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, intituled An Act respecting the House of Commons.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the happiness which we experience at the commencement of a session in renewing acquaintances, greeting old friends, and welcoming, as we have to-day, mew members to the House of Commons, is all too frequently clouded by the thought that some there are whom we shall never see again, whose kindly presence in our midst will be felt no more, and whose voices will be heard only in memory.
You, Mr. Speaker, have just drawn the attention of hon. members of this house to the vacancies which have arisen in its membership since we went our several ways at the close of the bst session of parliament. Of the number of these vacancies, two have been occasioned by death. Before we enter actively upon the work of the session, may I be permitted to speak of the loss which our country, as well as parliament, has sustained in the death of the two members of this house to whom you have referred.



THE LATE HONOURABLE JAMES A. ROBB

[Stage Direction]
In previous sessions of this parliament, there was, I believe, no personality more generally beloved than the Hon. James Alexander Robb,
[Stage Direction]
Tributes to Deceased Members
who had been a member of the present administration since its formation in 1921, and who, for a period of over four years, after the retirement of Hon. Mr. Fielding from public life, held the portfolio of Minister of Finance. For the two years preceding, Mr. Robb had been acting Minister of Finance, owing to the illness of his distinguished predecessor.
When parliament prorogued in the month of June I doubt if amy of us believed it would be the last time in which we should see Mr. Robb in his accustomed seat. It was generally recognized that, in his case, the years were beginning to exact their toll, and that his endurance, especially in the last two sessions, was far from what it had been in former years; yet, when on the 11th of November last the country learned of his death, there was almost as much surprise at the announcement that he had completed the three-score years and ten as there was general and genuine sorrow that one so universally trusted and esteemed had passed away.
It is of this universal trust and esteem that I should like to speak. It is that which constitutes the real and abiding tribute to Mr. Robb's memory. It has in it the highest of incentives to us all, and is in the nature of a priceless legacy to the youth of our land.
It is not of vast inheritances or possessions; nor of the favours of fortune by way of exceptional gifts and endowments; nor of great genius, that we think in recalling the circumstances of Mr. Robb's career, and of the place of highest honour in the nation's life to which he attained. Rather is it of the comparatively humble nature of his environment from earliest days, and of the great humility of the man himself.
Mr. Robb represented in this parliament the constituency of Chateauguay-Huntingdon in the Province of Quebec. It was with this constituency, first as Huntingdon, and after 1917, as Chateauguay-Huntingdon, that his entire life was identified. If you search in any biographical work for the details of his life, you will be struck by the simplicity of the narration. He was born on a farm near Huntingdon on August 10, 1859. He had an elementary education at the district school and later on at the little academy nearby. Though deservedly honoured in later life by the degree of Doctor of Laws from one of our leading universities, he was granted none of tlie advantages of a college or university training. His brief school days over, while still quite young, he went to learn the milling business in the mill of his uncle, at Valleyfield, and on the death of his uncle, carried on a business which flourished considerably in succeeding years. In 1906 he responded to a
rMr. Mackenzie King.]
public petition to become mayor of the city of Valleyfield, which position he held until 1910. During these years he succeeded in putting the finances of the corporation on a sound basis. In 190S in the Liberal interests he successfully contested the constituency which formerly had had Conservative representation in this parliament. He was equally successful in the five following general elections, as well as in the by-elections of 1921 and 1926. At the time of his death, he had represented the constituency for more than twenty years. It was in the little cemetery at Valleyfield, three days after his death in Toronto on November 11th, that his remains were laid to rest, in the presence of those who had known him from his childhood days, or whom he had known from the days of their own childhood.
There is something very fine in all this. To be born, and after an active life of seventy years, to be buried in the community with which one's private and public interests have been continuously identified, and to be as greatly mourned at the close as one has been greatly trusted throughout, is a testimony to character than which there can be none more emphatic. This testimony is all the more impressive when it is remembered that Mr. Robb, himself of Scotch parentage and an elder of the Presbyterian church, and later of the United Church, was by race and religion, of the minority in the constituency and in the province which he represented in parliament.
That confidence, bred of dharacter, was not confined to the community in which Mr. Robb lived, or to the province of which it ;s a part. It was to be found in every circle of activity in which he moved. It was strongest in those with whom he was brought into closest touch. It was the secret of his achievement in this parliament, and of the place he held in the regard of his fellow-countrymen. It was that which led to his being selected as the chief whip of his party during its last years in opposition, and to his becoming a minister of the crown. It was that which has given his name, in association with the portfolio of Finance, a place second to none in the roll of the very distinguished men who have held that high office in Canada. Those of us who were his associates in the cabinet knew perhaps better than any others how well-deserved was his reputation for industry, intelligence and integrity, and I perhaps, even more than all others, had reason to know how specially deserved was his reputation for loyalty. A more loyal colleague never breathed, nor a man with a higher sense of honour. James Robb was incapable,

Tributes to Deceased Members
in thought, or word, or deed, of any act which could bring discredit to his name, or lessen the lustre of any circle in which he moved.
I need not make more than a passing allusion to Mr. Robb's public services. They are well known to all present and to the country. He held successively in the present administration the portfolios of Trade and Commerce, of Immigration and Colonization, and of Finance. As head of these departments he gave many evidences of his executive capacity, shrewd insight into affairs, and deep knowledge and understanding of human nature. Entering upon his duties as a minister of the crown at a time of great political uncertainty and instability, and of widespread industrial depression, Mr. Robb lived to see his name become a proverb, almost a synonym for prosperity. As Minister of Finance he directed his attention more especially to the problems of debt and taxation, and was able for the period during which he held office, to point to substantial reductions in both. Making due allowance for any difference of view which members of this house may have, it may, I think, be said of the several budgets which he introduced, that while they may have occasioned controversy at the time, and may continue to occasion controversy, they will always bear in the mind of the public an association with his name alike welcome and worthy.
In debate in this house, Mr. Robb gave, and I believe also received, moire perhaps in the way of consideration than almost any other member. This was due to his essential kindliness of nature and a certain lovableness, which all who knew him will always be glad to recall. "Jim" Robb, as we called him, was both liked and respected by members of all political parties, and the fact that to-day, because he is no longer with us, there will be sorrow as genuine and almost as great, in the hearts of honourable members opposite, as there is in the breasts of those who sit on this side, is perhaps the highest tribute that could be paid to his memory.
As I think of my late devoted friend and colleague, one who was a friend of all who are here present, of his life lived so quietly and unostentatiously, and yet so full of meaning and power in the affairs of our country, and ask myself what were the attributes of character which made him so highly and universally esteemed, there come to my mind those beautiful lines in Wordsworth's "Ode to Duty":
G-ive unto me, made lowly-wise
The spirit of self-sacrifice:
The confidence of reason give:
And in the light of truth thy Bondman let me live!
James Alexander Robb was "benignly vested with humility". It lent to his every act, and to his faith, the note of simplicity. It was the spirit of self-sacrifice which caused him, in service and fortune alike, to give his all to the community and to the country he loved.
Of him, it might, always have been said that he wa£ one
Whose armour is His honest thought,
And simple truth His utmost skill.
It was his loyalty in every relationship of life that endeared him to the hearts of all. These are great qualities, but they remain the simple and homely virtues. Of what they may mean to other lives and to our country, his life and his memory, will continue to speak.
In the presence of death we are prone to think of our own loss. There is one, however, the irreparableness of whose loss is, I am sure, very much in the minds of all. Mrs. Robb has been, indeed, greatly ,bereaved. To her our hearts go out in feelings of profound sympathy. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, that expression of the sympathy of the House of Commons be conveyed by yourself to Mrs. Robb on our behalf.

[Stage Direction]
In the thought that something has been spared of the infirmity which comes with years, there is much in the way of consolation where death comes to one, who with health and faculties unimpaired, has passed the threescore years and ten. There is, however, less of consolation and more of mystery where a young life, full of promise, and just at the threshold of years of public service, is snatched away, seemingly without warning and with but little apparent cause. Such, Mr. Speaker, were the circumstances of the death of the other hon. member, the late Georges Doreze Morin, who has been taken away since the last session of parliament, and whose loss is more particularly mourned by those who sit on this side of the house.
Mr. Morin was the member for Bagot, also in the province of Quebec. He was born at St. Hyacinthe on December 2, 1884, and had just completed his 45th year when he died at St. Pie de Bagot, on December 24 of last year. Mr. Morin was by profession, a notary public, and during the time he was practising his profession, had been called upon to fill more than one important public position, the duties of which he had performed most acceptably.	[DOT]
[Stage Direction]
Tributes tu Deceased Members
When the constituency of Bagot became vacant before the first and only session of the last parliament, through the death of the member-elect, J. E. Marcile, the Liberals of that constituency selected Mr. Morin to be their standard-bearer in the by-election which took place prior to the assembling of parliament. It was in more respects than one a bitter contest, but Mr. Morin carried his banner to victorj' against an opponent who had been Solicitor General in a previous Conservative administration. Mr. Morin was obliged, within nine months of the time of his election, to contest the constituency again in the general election of 1926. Again he won a substantial victory. He had, therefore, been in this house as a member during the three sessions of the present parliament and the single session of the previous parliament.
Being comparatively young in years and without parliamentary experience, and of a retiring disposition, Mr. Morin did not take much part in the debates of the House, but he followed its proceedings with the keenest interest, and was most faithful in his attendance, and in the discharge of his parliamentary duties. Like the late Mr. Robb, who during the first five years of his membership of parliament, took little part in debate, Mr. Morin spent his time familiarizing himself with public questions rather than speaking upon them, and in watching the interests of the constituency which had returned him as its member. Outside of parliament, however, he devoted considerable time to public speaking, and the suddenness and untimely nature of his death will be realized when I mention that on the day which immediately preceded it, he had addressed a public meeting of his constituents and only a few days before had entered upon his 46th year.
The selection of Mr. Morin by his party as a candidate in a by-election which was recognized as one of exceptional significance, the success which attended his candidature at that time, and in the general elections which followed, were evidence of his ability and capacity for public affairs; evidence which was unmistakable to those who, in this house, enjoyed the pleasure of his acquaintance and shared with him the responsibilities of its membership.
I am sure all honourable members will join with me in expressing our high regard for the character and worth of the late member for Bagot, and our deep regret at his untimely death, and will be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, if you will convey on our behalf, to Madame Morin and her two children, the expression of our profound sympathy in their bereavement. [DOT]
rMr. Mackenzie King.]
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my first duty is
to convey to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his colleagues and associates an expression of the deep sympathy of those who sit to the left of the Speaker it) the great loss which they have sustained through the passing of the former Minister of Finance and the member who represented the constituency of Bagot.
Mr. Robb, of course, was much better known than his colleague from Bagot by reason of the great office which he filled. Sometimes it is difficult to determine the causes which operate to enable one man to exercise great influence and power. In the case of Mr. Robb it would 'be very difficult, I take it, for any of us to determine why he exercised so commanding a place in this house and so great an influence in this country, but if I were asked to answer that question I would do so in a single word: character. The late James Robb was a man of character, and all the factors which go to make a strong human character were present in his case. In his domestic life, of which the Prime Minister has so feelingly spoken, he was indeed the devoted husband and the loving father, and those of us who have heard him speak of his home will realize how great indeed has been the shock to Mrs. Robb and how grievous has been the loss that she has sustained. We desire to associate ourselves with what the right hon. Prime Minister has said in expressing the hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will convey to the widow an expression of the loss that we of all shades of politics in this house have sustained by the passing of her husband-.
In his private business Mr. Robb was the soul of integrity and made for himself a position as a business man predicated largely on his qualities of integrity and sincerity. Of his public life we who sit to the left of the Speaker will entirely agree with what has been said by the right hon. Prime Minister except with respect to those matters that are controversial and concerning which we cannot say that we now have a true perspective. There are differences of opinion and there will be very keen differences of opinion with respect to some of those matters, but as to the purity of his motives, the sincerity of his purpose, his devotion to duty and his sincere desire to serve the country he loved so well, there can be no question, no controversy and no doubt.
May I venture to say in the words of a great poet that he was one

Tributes to Deceased Members
Who served no private end,
Who gain'd no title, and who lost no friend;
Ennobled by himself, by all approv'd and prais'd.
I think higher praise than that we cannot give to the memory of James Robb. To most of us he was a friend; he never forgot, when he spoke in this house or on the public platform, the high responsibilities of his great office, and in the discharge of his very onerous duties his sincerity of purpose was always so apparent that he gained for himself a reputation in this country which it is not easy for any public man to attain. I will not endeavour to do more than say how fully we appreciate the observations that have been made by the Prime Minister as to his long public career and the example it is to the youth of this country, showing as it does how from the humble surroundings of a small village community he made for himself a great place in the public life of Canada, He will 'be long remembered by men and women who knew him only by reputation; he will be sincerely mourned by those who knew him in this house and who will always remember *him as a warm-hearted, kindly and sincere gentleman whose epitaph might well be that of a great American president:
Life's race well run,
Life's work well done,
Life's crown well won;
Now comes rest.
The hon. member for Bagot was less well known to those of us who sit to the left of the Speaker. We knew him as a genial member of this house, of kindly disposition and regular in his attendance, who indicated by every standard by which judgment could be arrived at that he was deeply interested in all problems affecting this country as they were debated in parliament. He took little or no part in those proceedings except to follow them with great care. The office which he held in his community, that of notary, is of course one of the oldest known to the law, and it presents great opportunities to come closely in contact with many people; for the office of notary is one in which great confidence is reposed in civil law communities. I am informed that our former friend had the confidence of the people with whom he was associated, and indeed, as the Prime Minister has said, his election successes indicate that he held to a peculiar degree not only the confidence but the affection and regard of those amongst whom he lived. We mourn his passing because he was on the threshold of what seemed to be a promising career. As we come here to-day and meet old friends
and associates and see vacant chairs taken bv new members, we are reminded that in the midst of life we are in death. Of that fact we are constantly reminded as we come and go in this parliament, and that, I believe, is in the minds of all of us who are gathered here to-day to pay a final tribute to two of our colleagues who have passed to the great beyond.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately at the commencement of almost every session we have to regret the passing of members of this house who had been associated with us. In the passing of Mr. Robb I am sure that we all desire to be associated with the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in expressing a tribute to his memory and also in extending our sympathy to Mrs. Robb in her bereavement. I think there is no doubt in the minds of hon. members of this house that the duties of the office which Mr. Robb occupied, taking up as they did a tremendous amount of his time and energy, contributed largely to his demise. When we in the west who are not so closely associated with the east learned of Mr. Robb's illness we earnestly hoped that he would survive, but such was not the case, and the citizens of his community and the members of this house regret his passing. While Mr. Robb was Minister of Finance he devoted his time and energy to the duties of his position, and we believe that he *performed those duties well. Canada mourns the death of a splendid executive officer, and the members of the House of Commons mourn the death of a good friend.
With regard to the late Mr. Morin, in common with the leader of the opposition we on this side of the house were not so well acquainted with him, but we remember that he was of a happy disposition and that he earned the respect and esteem of all members.
We in this corner of the house desire to join in expressing our regret to the relatives of these two deceased members.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 4.37 p.m. until Monday, February 24.
Monday, February 24, 1930



DIVORCE LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: In view, Mr. Speaker, of the Prime Minister's statement to the house last session,
The Address-Mr. Gray

does the government propose to bring in legislation to relieve parliament of the duty of adjudicating on divorce cases,-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will be notified in due course.



GRAIN INSPECTION-SAMPLES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) that certain millers have been assuming the right to obtain samples at the same time that the grain cars are sampled by the government inspectors at Saskatoon. Have they a legal right to do that? Also, I wish to draw to his attention the fact that certain cars have been diverted to Saskatoon and opened there, although the bills of lading were marked for Winnipeg inspection only.


Hewitt Bostock: This will stand as a notice of motion.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of the speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session.
Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton) moved:: 
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, fully
relying that the good will of the house will be graciously extended to me, I rise to fulfil the task the government has entrusted to me. In this matter, I suspect that the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie

The Address-Mr. Dupuis
King) and his colleagues, while highly honouring my compatriots, wished, at the same time, to pay a mark of respect to the memory of one who, during more than a quarter of a century, was able to retain the esteem of his own people and so worthily represent them in this house. My constituents and all those who were acquainted with the late Roch Lanctot will recall that his predominating traits were, among all, an unwavering determination, a sincerity without evasion and a frankness devoid of affectation. I feel rather reticent to speak about my humble person, nevertheless I have a sacred duty to fulfil:	that of
acknowledging the truth bj- stating that Roch Lanctot was for me, both a benefactor and a true friend. For three years, I had been going from door to door hoping to get sufficient influence in order that I might secure a position which would permit me to attain the goal that I had conceived of life, and during all the while I met but with rebuke or disdainful indifference from those to whom I appealed. It was then that my thoughts turned to Roch Lanctot who, immediately and without the slightest hesitation, came to Ottawa and obtained, in the Laurier government, from the Postmaster General, the present Speaker of this House, the so much sought post which afforded me the chance of completing my law studies at McGill University.
Ever since that day, I realized what was liberalism, that liberalism which affords to all citizens, regardless of their humble, ignored or poor circumstances, the opportunity of advancement in life and of seeking their legitimate share of the rights inherent to the title of citizen in a democratic country like ours.
The distinguished leader of the Liberal party had, therefore, reasons to state, when on the 31st of May last the hon. members of this house spoke in praise of my late predecessor, that he was a patriot and champion of the people's rights, especially those of the farming classes to which he w-as so much attached. How could it be otherwise, when it is known that he came from that small corner of the country which I have the honour- of representing. No doubt the whole of Canada is a land of predilection, where the most noble attributes of the soul expand as if by enchantment, however, it seems to me that nowhere else in Canada are there to be found more favourable conditions than in my part of the country for the bringing up that type of citizen which from the cradle grows up, lives and dies with but one vision before

his eyes and in his heart but one aim: the vision of a greater, more prosperous and more united country; and the aim of serving it in such a w-ay so as to give his fellow citizens a little more happiness and contentment. I need no further proof, Mr. Speaker, than your own example. It is most gratifying to your friends of Laprairie and Napierville to cherish the thought-though illusive as it may be-that if fame has spread to all parts your high reputation, if you preside with so much tact, distinction and judgment over the meetings of this house, you owe it to some degree to your maternal ties by which you are so closely connected with the old parish of Laprairie; perhaps you may also ow-e it somewhat to the fact that you passed some of your happiest childhood days in the quiet and peaceful surroundings in the midst of the good folks of St. Edouard. Knowing that I grew up in such favourable surroundings, you will not be astonished, if when I am called upon to champion the interests of my constituents and especially those of the farming classes, I appear to be tenacious to the point of seeming at times uncompromising. It will be twenty years on May the 6th next I w-as employed by a general merchant in a small American village close to our frontier, when the sad news of the death of Edward the VII reached us. I must confess that never had the burden of exile weighed so heavily upon me than at that moment, never was I so deeply wounded than when I witnessed the indifference of those with whom I was living, never had I so much longed to return to my country and find there people with whom I might sympathize and unite in prayer to beseech God to grant everlasting peace to one who had made himself the apostle of universal peace and who has since been so justly called the peacemaker King. As much as my soul w-as depressed at the time, as much to-day our hearts rejoice having the assurance that our gracious Sovereign has at last recovered his health. Allow me, Sir, to be the interpreter of his loyal subjects in this house and in Canada, by expressing the sincere wish that Providence may watch over him so that he may still preside with as much dignity during numerous years, over the destinies of his vast Empire, because to us the Crown is not only the emblem of sovereign authority; but also the safeguard of our nation still in its youth.
We were much distressed at the news of the demise of the late Hon. James A. Robb, who had shown himself so generous a neighbour towards the people of my county and especially to me. We also deplore the death

The Address-Mr. Dupuis
of the distinguished member, the late Georges Doreze Morin, who unrelenting destiny so prematurely took away. I therefore wish to associate myself with the hon. members of this house who so eloquently expressed their sympathies to the bereaved families. We must, however, console ourselves at the thought that the people and the government have chosen representatives who will be able to continue the work of their predecessors and fulfil their task with honour and distinction. I shall always look back with legitimate pride to the happy event which has led to my being introduced to the house on the same occasion as the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar), who has returned among us, sacrificing his personal interests in order to devote his time to public affairs.
Prosperity, sir, which has manifested itself ever since the coming into power of the Liberal party is for us an excellent reason to have faith in the future. The ratepayers of this country are aware that since that advent, deficits have made way to surpluses; that the latter have gradually increased; that our revenues have unceasingly grown, thus affording the government an opportunity of lightening the burden which weighs on the shoulders of the people, by reducing taxation and decreasing the public debt by more than S125,000,000. The same is true in other fields of national activity; and this advantageous situation is certainly well known to our opponents.
With reference to the international aspect, the progress made has not been less marked, and in numerous cases we shall have to legislate to make laws harmonize with one another so as to place us on the same level which this new international situation demands. With this aim in view the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) last autumn, represented Canada at a conference held in London. I must here add, sir, we feel highly flattered at the honour reflected on us through the hon. Minister of Justice each time his colleagues entrust him with a mission to the British government or a foreign country.
The optional clause of the statute of the Permanent Court, having been signed by our representatives, will be submitted to the house. The numerous evolutions which have taken place since-I should add as a consequence of-the war infallibly lead us further and further on the path of our international freedom. When, for instance, causes of conflict do arise with foreign countries or disputes with other members of the British Commonwealth, we shall be at liberty to submit these disputes to the Permanent Court of the
League of Nations or to a similar tribunal in order to obtain redress according to the principles of international law.
I wish to put forth, here, views which are entirely personal. I am of the opinion that the last word has not been said with reference to the dispute between Canada and Newfoundland in regard to Labrador. It being understood that the judicial committee of the privy council was but requested to pass an opinion on this matter and owing to our present status which entitles us to international independence with regard to the other dominions or colonies in the British commonwealth, I have my doubts whether this judicial committee is qualified in cases where an international question arises; I fear therefore, that it is not the proper tribunal in this matter. I am led to believe that the only tribunal having the necessary authority is truly this Permanent Court or a similar tribunal which we shall be called upon to recognize. I leave to our legal lights the (*are of looking into this question which deserves to be studied, not only with regard to Labrador, but for every dispute which might arise between the dominions, as I feel confident that, in this house as well as throughout the country, one would not wish that the judgment just handed down should serve as a precedent in other cases which might arise.
Thanks to the interpretation that the judicial committee has just given of the law, women have now the same right as men to be represented in both Houses of Parliament. We must congratulate the government on the appointment they have just made to the Senate, and at the same time pay our respects to the incumbent who, previous to being called upon to perform her new functions, had accomplished-we must highly proclaim it-the most sacred state duty, being the mother of eight children and bringing them up as our Canadian mothers know so well. We must not be too greatly alarmed of that new departure for the Canadian mother has always recalled to mind this elementary truth that the family is the' foundation of society, that she fulfils a noble duty when she gives birth even to only one child and forms its character. When I thus express myself, I am not losing sight of the fact that it is well to bear in mind the notable exception of those who sacrifice themselves by remaining single in life-and this house furnishes us with noble examples.
The success of our domestic and foreign policy affords us no doubt cause for rejoicing; however our country will certainly not
The Address-Mr. Dupuis

reach its high destinies if our legislators concern themselves only with the material side of the nation, because, above the social body and more important than its functions, there is the national soul. No one to-day can deny the existence of a national soul in Canada, for its attributes are easily discernible. Indeed, we have a national conscience, we have a national pride and we also have the veneration of historical memories, and the days no more exist when we could be taxed with being a nation without a history.
The collective soul which Canadians possess is a hardy and vigorous one, having its own attributes and a unique character in the world, it will moreover be found that the Canadian soul, owing to these special and unique qualifications which it possesses, is sufficiently powerful to rise into those spheres where one's vision is not obscured by parochial considerations or by prejudices inherent to our race, but where we are able to embrace all our fellow citizens, regardless of the race or religion they may belong to, and to also include in a single glance all the beauties and wealth of our vast national patrimony ad mari usque ad mare. And since our soul can harmonize with the national soul, it is .possible for us to draw from our glorious past the lessons and strength which will guide us with certainty towards the .future which a-waits us. Endowed with this mentality which takes its roots deep in the Canadian soil, we are equally proud of-our discoveries, pioneers and toilers of the land, whatever may be their race. We love to praise the courage and, valour of those 60,000 Canadians of French origin which comprised the whole population at the time of the conquest, likewise we love to praise the dauntlessness and devotion to the British crown of those loyalists who forsook what they cherished most in the thirteen colonies so as to settle in Canada at the time of the American revolution. With equal pride do we laud the fame of the companions of Wolfe and Montcalm, whose immortality was sealed on the stone of a common monument erected to their memory near the old Quebec citadel.
To continue my argument forgive me, sir, if I appeal to the living patriotism of the citizen rather than to the legitimate sentiment of the bereaved father-to continue my argument, I say, that when we recall the victories won and heroic struggles engaged in during the last war, it is with sublime pride and loftiness of mind that we say, in speaking of those who fell on the battlefields and who now sleep their last glorious sleep on French soil: Our Canadians were there; they fell it is true,

but they fell in order that freedom might survive and remain erect such as they had dreamed of it.
We moreover admire the courage and determination of those w'ho cherishing an ideal of liberty and desirous of improving their lot, forsake their native country to come to Canada and contribute, together with us, to the building of the national edifice. May I here make a digression to state that if it were possible to choose those who cherish such an ideal the problem of immigration would thereby be solved. I avail myself of this opportunity to state how much the true Canadians admire the self-made man, the type of person I have just been referring to and to whom the right lion. Prime Minister has just entrusted the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). His life will always be for us and for future generations a lesson and symbol.
Having thus risen, our soul has acquired such a freedom of action that not only can it develop the virtues and culture belonging to one race but it easily and without effort, so to speak, acquires the virtues and culture of the other race, convinced that these various traits coordinate and complete themselves to form that special and unique type, the Canadian citizen such as Providence has willed it and in whom I have faith. As for those to whom this duality of character is burdensome owing to the fact that they are forced to learn another language than their own, why should they not allow themselves to be convinced by this charming legend, that destiny decreed that we were in need of the most beautiful languages in the world to laud the beauties of our enchanting nature and the heroic deeds of our ancestors? These, sir, are the feelings which inspire the majority of Canadians in this country; that is the goal towards which we are inevitably moving, willingly or not.
I recall in the history of the United States that ^ymlbolic picture which an American patriot distributed to stimulate enlistment, and which represented a serpent whose body had been sectioned off in thirteen parts; and below these words inscribed on stone: "Unite or die". We also know by experience that we must unite, for God expects much from us. It is not without a purpose that He has willed that the descendants of two great races must develop this country. Destiny .points out the path to follow. "Blind, who fails to see it, and guilty who seeing fails to follow it."
No doubt, we shall always have extremists who will unceasingly advocate contrary doctrines, who will always seek to spread trouble

The Address-Mr_ Dupuis
and dissension among the people. Instead of wishing to destroy them, we must protect them, even love them, because they are the tools of an eternal law which exists in ethics as well as in nature, and by which it is possible for us to harness and direct the flow of energies-which otherwise would be lost,- and of no benefit to our fellow creatures. Nations of old and our ancestors well understood and often applied this law, when instead of allowing the stream to flow uselessly, they harnessed it with the purpose of putting its waters in motion towards their mill wheels; and are not the students of engineering in these modern days vying with one another to obtain water power rights, and build dams so as to multiply indefinitely nature's forces, thereby contributing to the full development of the natural resources and to the progress of industry. And in the moral sphere for twenty centuries Christianity has been teaching us its application: "Love your enemies"; " And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other"; "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness for they shall be filled"; and, again:	" Blessed are they which are persecuted". I therefore maintain that if the extremists, to whatever school or race they may belong to, play a deplorable part, we must admit that it is a necessary one, unconsciously obeying that law, the application of which I have just explained. For, indeed, when they rouse the prejudices of a part of the population against the other, when they persist in persecuting their fellow-citizen, they unwillingly build up a dam behind which our revolted feelings keep watch and form what the poet has so well described as the "eternal vigilance which is the price of liberty."
Just as the old British lion who, looking down from Westminster lends an indifferent or benevolent ear to so-called revolutionists clamouring on the public squares of London, likewise we must not be too much alarmed at the tactics of these extremists; we fully know that, our vigilance being always on the alert, there will always be found citizens right-minded enough and in sufficient numbers to turn, at the critical moment, the scales on the side of imperishable justice.
The study, sir, of political history during the last fifty years, personal experience of twenty years during which we have been privileged to follow and take part in political movements which have agitated public opinion, have firmly convinced me that the Liberal party is the best intermediary by which it is possible for us to attain this ideal of Canadian nationship such as I understand it. And if I had the right to add to it an
element of faith, I would state that I truly believe that Providence has always made use of the Liberal party to revive hope in the hearts of the people and prosperity in the country, and that Laurier was right when, in 1908, at a meeting held at Laprairie, to his opponents who charged him of attributing to the Liberal party a prosperity which they said was due to Providence, he answered by this sally which has been handed down in history: " Am I to be blamed if Providence favours us and frowns on them." This study of history and personal experience have also convinced me that the men who succeeded one another as leaders of the Liberal party were endowed with those essential principles necessary to the statesman. I could not better illustrate the character of our Liberal leaders than by giving you a description written by a great philosopher and thinker of what he considered to be a true statesman. The following is the description which he wrote:
"A politician proves his genius for statecraft by so gently guiding public sentimemt that he seems to follow i.t; by so yielding doubtful points that he can be firm without seeming obstinate in essential ones; and thus gain the advantages of compromise without the weakness of concession; by so instinctively comprehending the temper and prejudices of a people as to make them gradually conscious of the superior wisdom of his freedom from temper and prejudices-it is by quality such as these that a magistrate shows himself to be chief in a commonwealth of freemen."
That is why, sir, being convinced that in the material as well as that of the intellectual and moral spheres, the Liberal party governs with wisdom; being moreover confident that the legislation embodied in the speech from the throne will bring us somewhat nearer to our ultimate destinies, I have much pleasure in seconding the motion which my hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Gray) has so eloquently moved.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, my first words
must be words of congratulation to the hon. gentlemen who have moved and seconded the reply to the speech from the throne.
The hon. member for West Lamibton (Mr. Gray) discharged his duty in a manner in keeping with the traditions which attach to that obligation, and his speech indicated a knowledge of Canadian conditions which although somewdiat partisan could have been gained only through considerable study.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Dupuis) who has succeeded to the position held by one of the oldest, most distinguished' members of the house, Mr. Lanctot, has discharged his duty in just the manner that one would expec1' I have
The Address-Mr. Bennett

often said that the young men of Quebec show a knowledge of political history unrivalled by the other young men of this country. The hon. gentleman has indicated his widie knowledge, his intellectual powers, and his disciplined mental processes, and I am sure his speech met with the approval -of all members of tliis house.
But when I say that of the speeches which have been delivered, I have said all that can be reasonably expected, because the mover and seconder of the address had a most difficult task to perform. I venture to say that in the many years which have elapsed since Confederation it will be somewhat difficult to find a speech from the throne so vague, so filled with generalities, and so lacking in the promise of useful -legislation. It might indeed be said that instead of being a prospectus, as all speeches from the throne are supposed to be, indicating something of the intention of the administration with respect to the future, it was a record of the past, a record of the days that are no more. When the speech from the throne undertakes to rejoice in a prosperity which has passed it is not serving its purpose; as I understand it, the purpose of the speech from the throne is to give an idea of how the government proposes to deal with the problems which have oom-e upon the country. It is not sufficient to say that in 1929 the country enjoyed -a prosperity which we do not at the present moment enjoy; what we expected to -h-a-ve from the government, and what we should have had was some indication as to how ithe problems now before the country w-ould be dealt with, and what its intentions were with regard to them. Perhaps the -absence of our old friend the late Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), to whose untimely passing we referred the other day, had something to do with the sparse bill of fare. The sagacious mind -and great wisdom of that distinguished gentleman perhaps would -have given this house something better to deal with than it has now.
This affords me the opportunity, perhaps, to congratulate -the hon. gentleman (Mr. Dunning) who now fills the office of Minister of Finance. I trust that he may emulate his predecessor in regard to his public declarations. In every instance in which the late Mr. Roibb had occasion to deal with public affairs, he never engaged in claptrap oratory for the purpose of appealing to the mob.
May I venture further to congratulate the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) upon his recession to the cabinet. "Oh what a fall was there, my countrymen!" As the hon. gentleman looks upon those who sit opposite to

him he will see the faces of some of -those with whom he was once -a colleague, and -as he looks to his right upon the benign countenance of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) he must recall the scathing remarks he made about the administration -of which he was on-ee a member. He must -recall those days, and those gl-ib phrases which slipped so easily from -the mouth o-f the Minister of Justice.
I can readily understand why the Minister of Railways the other day made the speech which he did in Regina. Perhaps some of the member's of this house are unaware of t-he observations he -made. He said that in seeking a concise definition of liberalism he went to the dictionary to find the meaning of the word, and by that dictionary he was able to classify himself. It was impossible by any other means at his disposal to determine what he was. He must recall that in the days gone by he had denounced -the cotton industry in Canada as being an industry which was not indigenous to this -country and on-e which should not exist. He said that a few thousand people were given employment in Sherbrooke or Yatlleyfield but that the Canadian people as a whole should not be penalized to provide employment for those who lived in the -constituency of the -former Minister of Finance. He denounced the rubber industry and said that that industry was not indigenous to Canada, and yet his. colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) just a few days ago sent out to the members of this house a record of the rubber industry in Canada for the month of January last only, showing that Canada sold $2,500,000 worth of rubber in competition with the rest of the world. In competition with the United States, where that industry is not indigenous either, Canada was able to secure $2,500,000 worth of rubber trade in the markets of -the world. Is it any wonder that lie had to seek the dictionary in order to find what party he belonged to?
Then he said he was a free trader and he denounced protection in all modes and forms and clearly expressed his detestation of that principle. He said, "The Progressive party will lead the Canadian people into the promised land." The hon. Senator Forke and the hon. Minister of Railways both have seen the promised land!
I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that nowhere in the history of our institutions will you find a case in which you have opinions so diverse and so strongly expressed as those which have been expressed by the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) and the new Minister of Railways and Canals. Imagine

The Address-Mr. Bennett
the conduct of the business of this country by these gentlemen, the one denouncing the cotton, rubber and every other form of protected industry and the other saying that he is an out and out protectionist. Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce, whom I do not see in his place, is interested in an industry protected to the extent of 30 per cent.


An hon. MEMBER:: Thirty-five per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How can we expect to get any form of united action on the part of an administration thus constituted?
In 1922 the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crerar) became a prophet. To his many delightful attributes he added that of prophecy, and in 1922, when speaking in this house, he ventured to say that the day was not far distant when the United States would abandon its mistaken idea with respect to protection, and that they would practise the doctrine of free trade as it was practised in England. Yet we know that within a few months after that statement was madte legislation was enacted by the Congress of that great republic, the result of which was so apparent upon the exports from this country during the succeeding year. So whether one should take him as a prophet, as an enunciator of free trade principles, or as a new minister, it matters not, but one can readily understand why it was necessary for him to secure a dictionary definition as a justification of his faith.
The definition that he found was, "not narrow minded or prejudiced". That is the one he selected, and it is no wonder-he needed it. He knew that the Minister of Justice would not be narrow minded or prejudiced in taking him back into the fold, that he would not recall the days which are now long since forgotten. He knew the Minister of National Revenue would not be narrow minded or prejudiced in dealing with one who had returned 'to the fold, and he knew that the Minister of Trade and Commerce would look with pride and satisfaction upon the efforts madie to bring back one sinner to the fold as being better than ninety and nine just men. So I understand why he selected that definition and why, in conscious pride, he justified his position by reference to that great work which I turned up and in which I found the definition he gave.
In days gone by this administration has been pleased to impose upon this house and upon this country certain tests of prosperity. It has said that if you apply to the conditions of the country certain tests and find the results to be satisfactory, the country must be prosperous. Last year the right hon. the
Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was pleased to intimate that Providence had been very careful in the selection of His instrument, and that he and the others about him had been chosen as the instruments of Providence to bring prosperous conditions to this country. Before I impose the tests I am about to mention, and which have been proposed by the former Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister himself, I will ask any hon. member of this house if he has been as prosperous in the past year as he was in the preceding years of his life. Is his condition as good? That is the question. Now, let us look at the tests imposed.
One of the tests imposed by the administration in former days was the railway earnings. It was proclaimed in loud tones that the earnings of the railways were a test of the great prosperity of the people. What about 1929? What about January, 1930? How do they compare with previous years? Let the minister answer that and explain the difference of millions of dollars. So by that test imposed by the government its claim must fail.
Then take the next test which they used to impose, the stock market prices. Who has not heard the Prime Minister talk about the high prices of stocks as compared with what they were in previous years? What does he say about them now? If we apply that test, is the country prosperous?
Then you turn to the third test that has been imposed, the cost of living that the Miniser of Labour (Mr. Heenan) has worked so arduously to reduce. Yet when I turn to his report for the month of January last, I find there that the cost of living was 160 as compared1 with 100 in prewar times and it has alternated between 156 and 160 during all the years since the government came into power. One of the loudest declamations made by the Minister of Railways in days gone by was that the policy he proclaimed would reduce the cost of living. How, with 'the cost of living unreduced, does he now find himself in the family fold? That test must also be answered against the administration.
Then we turn to the next test, the balance of trade. Who has not heard of it? Why, last year, taking one of their speeches out of cold storage in western Canada, they forgot they were dealing with 1929 and thought it was a previous year, and they said: Canada has the greatest favourable trade balance of any country in the world but one. But while they were saying that, an adverse balance was running against Canada. Last year the adverse balance of trade in this country, taking domestic exports apart from foreign exports that pass through Canada, was $116,000,000.

The Address-Mr. Bennett

western Canada was in the hands of the -wheat pools and that the non-pool wheat constituted 45 per cent or more of the total production. On the grain exchange at Winnipeg we saw wheat selling at $1.45, $1.53, $1.60, and higher prices per bushel, and at that time the farmers were being advised over the radio, by men whom they thought, were responsible, to hold their wheat. Then the market broke, and the price of wheat fell to less than $1.20 a bushel. One of the primary causes was this: The pools have not sold wheat on the grain exchange this year. But there has never been a day in the last five months when you could not buy wheat from the pools at the market price on the Winnipeg grain exchange or for less than that price. Let that be told to the people of this and other countries. I say that the central government, having regard to the far-reaching consequences, was recreant to its duty when it did not make known to the world what the facts were. The Minister of Finance went out to Regina and said:	You can trust the men
in charge of the pools. Instead of simply saying that, the farmers should have received the support and assistance of the Canadian people because they were not selling wheat on the grain exchange, but only through their agents located throughout the world, and I repeat, there was no time during the last five months when wheat could not be bought from the pool at the same price or less than it was being sold in open competition on the Winnipeg grain exchange. I wonder how many members of this house realize that fact. 1 have found the gravest misunderstanding in this country with respect to the situation, and I would fail in my duty if I did not endeavour to clear up that misunderstanding without further delay.
When we talk about what -the government has been doing, let me ask what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) was doing during the last year, and what the government of this country was doing to broaden the markets of the Canadian wheat grower? They talk in glib terms of what they are doing to extend our markets and increase our export trade, and they have gone up and down this country telling the people of the new markets they were securing for our products. New markets? Sir, this country made a treaty with France by which it bound itself to permit French goods to enter Canada under certain specific tariff rates mentioned in the statute, and France gave us certain benefits. But what happened? I wonder if the Minister of Trade and Commerce realizes that in May of last year the French government increased the duty on Canadian wheat to 53

cents a bushel, practically a prohibitory rate; and that duty of 53 cents a bushel on Canadian wheat entering France met with the approval of the French artisan and workingman. Why? Because in France in December last there were only five hundred unemployed on the registers, and since the war two million aliens have been absorbed by French industries. Did hon. gentlemen see the despatch in the press yesterday indicating that 18,000,000 bushels of wheat were now available in France to market in Great Britain in competition with Canadian wheat? What did the government do about that? What did the government do when France increased the duty on Canadian wheat to 53 cents a bushel? Did they in any respect touch the French tariff or raise the duty on French goods? No. The only answer the government have is: We pay the minimum duty on our goods entering France.
Take Italy. While we were sitting here in May last I directed the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact that Italy had increased the duty on wheat to 73 cents a bushel, shutting out Canadian wheat, so that w'e lost whatever portion of that market we had as well as the French market. What did the Minister of Trade and Commerce do about it?
I turn to Germany. Germany increased her rates on wheat so that American wheat went into Germany for 6 cents a bushel less than Canadian wheat. Why that discrimination? Where was the voice of Canada then? What has been done with respect to it? What about your trade treaties? These are the questions that are agitating the men who produce the new wealth of this country. In order that my infommation could not be questioned I obtained the figures from the Department of Finance, and they show that Germany has a duty against Canadian wheat of 48.6 cents peir bushel and against American wheat a duty of 42.1 cents only. There is the record. Representing as I do, not one constituency, but speaking on behalf of all the people who produce the wealth that represents so great a part of the purchasing power of the people of this country-the agriculturists- I ask the Prime Minister and his government to tell the people of this country what they have done to meet the situation. I am not unmindful of the fact that last year in June the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated from his place in the house:
In so far as the sale of wheat is concerned, it is usually sold on contract, and I do not think a trade commissioner could be of very much assistance dn that regard or in the sale of newsprint.

The Address-Mr. Bennett
What a counsel of despair! It is not a question of helping the sale: it is a question of putting Canada's position right before the world and seeing to it that we are not discriminated against by trade treaties with France and Italy and Germany. I protest against Canadian wheat having to pay 6 cents a bushel more duty than. American wheat entering Germany. The Minister of Finance treats it as a huge joke. He laughs about it.


Mr. DUNNING:: No, at you.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To him it is a joke.


Charles Avery Dunning: You are.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is in office, but the
farmers are on the farm.
I shall not dwell upon the question of exports and imports further exicept to indicate that certain observations made in the speech from the throne are hardly borne out by the facts. If hon. gentlemen will refer to the trade returns-and I have particularly in mind my friend from West Lambton (Mr. Gray)- they will find that the situation is not quite as the hon. member thinks it is. The figures issued by the government show a somewhat different position, but perhaps it will be unnecessary at this time to deal with them at any length because there wild be ample opportunity further to discuss them. It is only necessary to say that our trade with the British Empire last year was less than in the preceding year, that our trade with foreign countries showed some small increase, and that our trade with the United States reached the highest point in the history of that country. That is, we were the best customer of the United States. We bought $893,000,000 worth of goods from them, according to our returns; $968,000,000 worth, according to their returns. I understand the difference is explained by the fact that grain shipped through Canada is included by United States statisticians as part of their export trade. Our purchases from the United States were larger than ever before in the history of that or our country.
It perhaps is somewhat significant that, of our total export trade last year, amounting to $1,182,000,000, $624,000,000 comprised grain and grain products, wood and wood products. In other words, over half of our whole export trade came from our grain, pulp and wood products. That is a position which I think my hon. friend from West Lambton may verify if he will take the trouble to look up the facts, which he will find somewhat at variance with the statements he was making a few minutes ago. This perhaps arises from the fact that he was taking the fiscal year, which
is not yet complete, while I have been dealing with the calendar year, covered by the reports of the department.
Now, let us look at another paragraph of the speech from the throne which perhaps emphasizes the incompetency of the government as fully as anything to which I could direct the attention of hon. members.
The construction of the Welland ship canal is now nearing completion. On the opening of the new canal the upper lake grain carriers will he able to reach lake Ontario and upper St. Lawrence ports. The work of providing suitable terminals is proceeding.
I wonder if the government has taken the trouble to ascertain just what the facts are? I wonder if the government has realized- and I commend this to the Prime Minister- that on the lakes the fairway is from twenty-two to twenty-three feet deep, and that a ship drawing twenty-one feet of water can come down the Great lakes to the mouth of the new Welland canal, which will have accommodation for ships drawing twenty-five feet or perhaps a little more. But when a ships gets through the Welland canal, traverses lake Ontario and enters the St, Lawrence, what depth of water do you suppose is available? Seventeen feet. So until the St. Lawrence has been deepened, this imposes a limitation upon the use of the new Welland canal. In the meantime the government is putting up terminals at Prescott which can be reached only by ships of a draught of seventeen feet. What good is the new Welland canal? I asked one of the department's eminent engineers, and he said, "Of course, until the St. Lawrence is deepened, the new Welland canal cannot be fully used."


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend had better ask the member for Kingston (Mr. Ross).


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am only putting it to the house as an engineering matter that when a ship drawing twenty-one feet of water on the Great lakes passes through the new Welland canal, and eventually reaches the St. Lawrence, it finds a maximum draught of seventeen feet. Of what use to that boat is the twenty-five foot channel through the new Welland canal? Now, the St. Lawrence out of lake Ontario is an international waterway, and we were certainly led to believe that some understanding had been given by the federal authorities of the United States to assist in dredging that waterway. Until that is done ships drawing more than seventeen feet of water will not be able to reach Prescott. In the meantime the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) is spending millions of dollars there on terminals which, as I say, cannot
The Address-Mr. Bennett

be reached by ships drawing more than, seventeen feet of water. There is the story. Could anything better illustrate the manner in which this administration approaches the transaction of public business? Does it sound well that we should spend millions of dollars on terminals at Prescott without deepening the St. Lawrence channel sufficiently to enable the new Welland canal to be taken advantage of to the fullest extent? What are you going to do about it is the question I am asking the government? Are arrangements being made with the American government to assist in dredging the St. Lawrence river? It is an international waterway, and we cannot change the channel ourselves, we can do it only by arrangement with the neighbouring government. I repeat, has any arrangement been made, or are any negotiations in progress to this end?
Now, may I ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) just what the next paragraph in the speech from the throne means. It says:
Legislation will be introduced respecting the several railway properties formerly privately owned and now embraced in the Canadian National Railway system.
Are we to have another branch line? Or is there to be a capital reorganization? What does it mean? Is this house to be subjected to the indignity of not being told in the speech from the throne just what is meant in regard to this legislation respecting the Canadian National Railway system? Will any hon. gentleman say what is meant by that paragraph? Perhaps they are going to build a new bridge, perhaps they are going to build another branch line. The paragraph is vague and indefinite, and I say it is unfair to this parliament that it should be so.
Then the speech from the throne passes on to deal with the relations the government have had with the various provinces of the confederation. The Duncan report dealt with the rights of the maritime provinces. From time to time the hon. ministers from those provinces have told us that the report has been implemented one hundred per cent, some even say one hundred and twenty-five per cent, and yet we are told in the speech from the throne that matters are now engaging the attention of the government in connection with that report. There is one important recommendation made by Sir Andrew Rae Duncan which has certainly not been implemented; that is in connection with the iron and steel duties. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) will probably deal with that at an early date; the tariff board has heard evidence upon it. In a word, it is one of the essential parts of the Duncan

report-I have read the recommendation so frequently to the house that I refrain from again quoting it-and yet, though the government and its supporters say that the Duncan report has been implemented one hundred per cent, we are told that consideration is now being given to the final revision of the financial arrangements contemplated by that report.
Then we come to our western provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. Manitoba has been dealt with; Alberta has been dealt with; Saskatchewan has had an offer made which has not yet been accepted. This is neither the time nor the place to deal at length with these matters; that opportunity will be afforded when the legislation is presented to the house. But may I direct attention to one paragraph of the Alberta agreement? I refer to the second recital:
And whereas it is desirable that the province should be placed in a position of equality with the other provinces of confederation with respect to the administration and control of its natural resources as from its entrance into confederation in 1905;
Note the words "from its entrance into confederation in 1905." That statement is either accidental or it is placed there by design. If accidental, it is inexcusable; if by design, it should disappear. Here are the words of the proclamation of the Queen in Council made on the 23rd day of June, 1870:
And it is further ordered that, without prejudice to any obligations arising from the aforesaid approved report, Rupert's Land Shall from and after the said date be admitted into and become part of the Dominion of Canada upon the following terms and conditions,
That is the Queen in Council. Then I turn to the British North America Act of 1871, under which this power is given:
The parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof,
So that jurisdiction to create a province arose only if the territory included therein was part of the Dominion of Canada. Lastly I come to the Autonomy Act of 1905. The first recital reads:
Whereas in and by the British North America Act, 1871, being chapter 28 of the acts of the parliament of the United Kingdom passed in the session thereof held in the thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth years of the reign of her late majesty, Queen Victoria, it is enacted that the parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of tbe Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof,

The Address-Mr. Bennett
That is the position; in drawing attention to that error, which may be accidental or designed, I do so at this moment, before the agreement comes up for consideration, merely that the government may have opportunity to make it read in accordance with the statutes of the parliament of Canada and the imperial parliament as well. That is, I think, all I shall say about these matters, because the time will come for discussion in detail.
With respect to Ontario and Quebec, the government has been pleased to say that the water-power difficulties are not yet adjusted. I think I may venture to point out that the reference made to the supreme court, in the terms in which that reference was made, was futile and a waste of time and money. It is now some months since the judgment of the supreme court was delivered, and surely some progress should be made in dealing with the difficulties that have arisen regarding water-powers between Ontario and Quebec and the federal authority. This responsibility rests with the administration of the dlay, and should it be said that we have in any sense embarrassed them in dealing with that problem, may I point out that we have expressed no opinions and have endeavoured so to conduct ourselves that the administration would have unembarrassed opportunity to deal with the situation. They have not done so, and I think that the common sense of the people of Canada asks why, with all these months that have elapsed, this matter is no nearer solution so far as our records are concerned than it was when the first reference was made to the Supreme Court of Canada.
We now come to a matter which I hoped would never be disputatious but which, unfortunately, the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. King) has made disputatious. I refer to pensions to returned men. I was in Chilliwack last summer and a returned soaldier came to me with a letter signed by the Minister of Pensions and National Health in which the minister said he was sorry he could not do better for him because of the opposition of Mr. Stevens, Mr. Bennett and others on the opposite side of the house. I saw that letter and there are other letters I saw at other places.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I should be very
glad to have that letter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You will get it. We endeavoured in this house to have the matter of soldiers' pensions arising out of the great war free from partisan controversy. May I remind the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray), who took such credit to his
administration for the pensions law, that it was not this government that made that law; it was a former Conservative administration that set up the department. It is true we have established new machinery, and the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Crerar) was very desirous of assisting, while a member of the Union government, in making that machinery more perfect. It was a difficult problem with which to deal and we have from time to time appointed a committee of this house, usually consisting of returned men, to deal with it in a non-controversial and non-partisan manner. My friend from Quebec West (Mr. Power) has been chairman of the committee on more than one occasion, and he will say that since I have been in the position I now occupy I rose in my place when the report was submitted and said that if the returned men had unanimously arrived at conclusions with respect to these matters, they should have the support of those who sit to the left of the speaker. Then in 1927, when I felt very strongly about the matter because of the cases with which I had to deal, I urged the government to insert a new clause, as section 4, by which it would be provided that the returned man would receive the benefit of the doubt, and further that for the purposes of the Pension Act the disability on discharge of an applicant for pension who actually served in the theatre of war should, in the absence of misrepresentation or concealment on enlistment, be conclusively presumed to be attributable to military service. In other words, when a man was passed by the doctors as being fit for service and came back disabled after service, it should be conclusively presumed that the disablement was referable to military service in the theatre of war. That was voted down. My friends opposite voted it down, and I commend my friend from West Lambton to a perusal of pages 545-547 of the journals of this house of 13th April, 1927, where the record will show that his predecessor in this house voted against the proposed section to which I have just alluded. I am of the opinion that the view I held at the time was correct, and I still adhere to the soundness of that view. A man who served in the theatre of war, who was passed as fit into the line, and came back disabled should -receive the benefit of the doubt. The country should be estopped and precluded from saying that the disability was not referable to the service he gave to his country. I hope that we may still be able to prepare a measure that will commend itself unanimously to this house. I have no doubt


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say it was something to be desired. I will not repeat what I have said so often with reference to the high regard in which I hold the former minister, but in the public interest the Prime Minister must have
The Address-Mr. Bennett

found it highly desirable or he would 'have kept him here. That is the only conclusion that can foe reached.
I have indicated the situation we have in this country to-day, and I have endeavoured to apply the tests to which I have alluded to the conditions as they exist. I have shown that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) in Brantford a few days ago, in strong and vigorous terms, declared his supreme confidence in the doctrine of protection. I have endeavored also to show how the Minister of Railways and Canals had declared that protection -was really something which was injurious to the state, that he believed in free trade as a principle and believed that that principle would foe adopted shortly by most countries of the world.
As the Kincardine Review-Reporter, the home journal of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, has paid him such a beautiful tribute in saying that he resembles a Greek god, I would be very lacking in courtesy if I did not also pay him a tribute, as one would expect almost anything from a Greek god. He is an avowed protectionist; not only does he believe in it but he practises it.
May I point out that the Minister of Finance newly appointed has announced to the people of this country in great, flaring headlines that "Dunning upholds low tariff principles."


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And he now reiterates that statement. Then I almost forgot my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) who sounded1 the death knell of protection.
I put to this house this query: Can a government function piroperly, effectively and efficiently in a country like Canada where you have such divergent views held by the leading ministers? What sort of management would you have in a railroad if you had one director with one policy, another director with another policy, and so on, a difference in policy affecting the very fundamentals of the existence of that corporation? Has the Minister of Railways and Canals recanted? Will he make his recantation now? Will he say that he has been wrong? Will he say that whe-n he endeavoured to lead the Progressives into the land of promise it was only promises that he had in mind? Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce say that the farmer is entitled to only one per cent protection on dairy products while he himself is entitled to thirty per cent? Will the Minister of National Revenue say to the people of this country that poultry, eggs, and various dairy products

should receive only from one to seven per cent protection while furniture receives thirty-five per cent?


Mr. MALGOLM:: Thirty per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You would make it
thirty-five per cent if you had the chance. Will the hon. gentleman, with a rubber factory in his own town of Kitchener, say to the people of his own constituency that the rubber industry is not indigenous to Canada and should: be wiped out? Will the hon. gentleman who has just succeeded the late member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. O'Connor) go back to the people of Valley-field and say that the Minister of Railways and Canals is right and that the cotton industry should be wiped out and that it is affording employment to a few hundred people only? Will the Minister of Justice go back to Quebec and read what the Minister of Railways and Canals has said about boots and shoes?
These are the questions which the people are asking themselves. Is this government sincere? Is there any unity of purpose or thought in. their minds? We know that there is no unity of thought, and there is no unity of purpose except to retain the promised land. Is there any unity of purpose or policy? If so, what is it? Is it anything more than to stay in. office and1 retain power? That is the question, and I have a right to ask it.
I have gone over this speech from the throne and' indicated what conditions are and I do not think that anyone can say that I was not within the facts. This country is confronted with the situation of an adverse trade balance for last month of over $10,000,000. The United States figures show that we purchased last year nearly $1,000,000,000 from that country. What are you going to do about it? What about the adverse balance of trade with reference to butter, cheese and dairy products? What about bacon? What about hams? What about pork, and similar products? A carload of eggs and a carload of pork products came into Calgary the other day from the United States. Is that to continue? What about vegetables and fruit? What about market garden products? Is it true that the Minister of Agriculture for the province o!f Quebec has been promised that legislation affecting those products will be passed this session? I commend to my hon. friend from Weyfourn (Mr. Young) the report of that hon. gentleman. Has assurance been given, as is freely stated in the province of Quebec, that such legislation as will protect the-market gardener will foe enacted at this session of parliament?

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Bare your backs for the burden, O ye Progressives. Be prepared for the great recantation. We will watch for it. It has been promised and we are prepared for it. Watch them as they go up to the block, one after the other. It was all wrong a year ago; it is all right now. What is the change? Not in conditions, except that they are a little worse than they were. Have you changed your mind? Then you were a false .prophet and misled the people of this country when you asked them to adopt the principles which you now say they should disapprove, or vice versa.
That is the reason that there is evident throughout this country the keenest interest in what this parliament will do. There is the keenest feeling that the Canadian parliament should do something for Canadians, that we should not waste our time in empty resolutions but that we should do something which will be of value. We have been told that this ministry is to go to London to attend an economic conference, this ministry which had only forty-three per cent of the votes of the people of this country at the last election, this ministry which never has had a majority of the Canadian electors vote for it. We say that it is not right or fair that a government such as that should represent this country at such a conference until the people have been consulted.
One step more. Time after time when I have endeavoured to speak a word on behalf of Canada I have been told by the right hon. the Prime Minister that I should not say anything that is provocative to the United States of America, and he denounced the speeches which were made last year as being provocative. He went to western Canada and spoke in the city of Calgary and he told them there that the question of a general election would be dependent to some extent upon the action of the American congress. I put to this house this question, a question which I think every serious minded Canadian must consider. Shall the determination of the date of the next general election depend upon matters of Canadian concern or upon the course which the United States government may see fit to adbpt in respect to tariff and other matters? We are not advocating legislation against anyone; what we are asking for is legislation for Canada. At the time the right hon. gentleman was making those speeches in western Canada, another gentleman, with whose writings he is very familiar, Professor Taussig of Harvard university, one of the most eminent authorities on economics, had this to say in the Foreign Affairs Journal, a powerful magazine published in the United States:
For many years we have treated Canada much as a big bully .treats the smaller boy.
The article reviews the new tariff bill of the United States and the above sentence appears at page 3. I commend it to the attention of the house and this country. Remember that those words are not mine. When I ventured to raise my voice last year in defence of what I considered to be Canadian rights, I was denounced as a jingo. Because I ventured to speak a word for this country and criticized other countries I was denounced as saying things which were provocative. But justification comes, not from my own friends, not from this parliament or from this .country, but it comes in the words of one of the most eminent economists in the United States, a man who was the chairman of the tariff commission from 1917 to 1919. Mark you, he was not speaking about days gone by; he said, "For many years we have treated Canada much as a big bully treats the smaller boy."
Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned and so far as those with whom I am associated are concerned, we propose to protest against being bullied by any power on earth.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, like my hon. friend who has just taken his seat, I find it indeed a pleasure to be able to congratulate very warmly and sincerely the hon. gentlemen who in such an admirable way have moved and seconded the address to His Excellency. Both the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray) and the hon. member for La-prairie-Naipierville (Mr. Dupuis) are members of the legal profession. They are new members of this house; they are young in years and they are young in experience in this parliament. They each succeeded hon. members who were greatly respected and who played a very important part in the proceedings of this house. I think I cannot better express what I believe is in the minds of all here present with respect to their presentation today, in what was, I believe, in the case of each his maiden speech, than to say that in the manner in which they have addressed the house, in the substance of their remarks, in the arguments which they have brought to bear upon the matters with which they have dealt, they have reflected credit upon themselves, upon their profession, upon the constituencies which have sent them to parliament, upon the memory of those whom they have succeeded in this house as representatives, and upon the House of Commons itself.
With respect to my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett), may I say at once that we on this side, and I am sure the house generally, enjoyed his remarks this afternoon. They were for
28	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
the most part cheerful; they were chatty; they were spicy. At the close they were emphatic and a little dramatic. So far however as giving us any real conception of what the Conservative party stands for at this time; so far as presenting any idea of what my hon. friend has in mind with respect to the nature of the appeal he proposes to make to the people when the opportunity comes, I am afraid we will search his address from beginning to end without the least in the way of enlightenment. Indeed, as one listened to my hon. friend it was apparent that he had gone through the speech from the throne with the aid of a microscope. His remarks in reference to it were in large part related to words which he thought had been wrongly left out in one place and to others that had been wrongly inserted in another place; to a phrase that might have some special significance because it happened to be just where it was, or to something which he alleged had been put in by design or which had been left out by design, and so on from the beginning to the close. It was certainly illustrative of industry from the point of view of microscopic Observation, but as for discovering anything more I am afraid we shall have to search the records in vain.
I did not expect that my hon. friend would find the speech from the throne to his liking. He said that the mover and the seconder of the address had some difficulty with respect to their remarks. If there is anyone who has had difficulty with respect to his remarks, it is my hon. friend himself; because his difficulty has been to discover, in a time of great prosperity, wherein he could make any effective criticism of the record of the present administration. In the course of his remarks he has been very careful to confine his criticism, not to the record of the government during the period we have been in office, not to the record of the government since the last general election, not to the record of the government during the past year, but to a few temporary circumstances prevailing at the moment, or exhibiting themselves in one form or another in particular localities. His remarks had no reference to ithe past year as a whole; they were confined to this and that community in which there happened to be perhaps a little more than elsewhere in the way of unemployment, to the last month or two when trade statistics were not quite as favourable as in the previous months. But the very fact that my hon. friend carefully avoided attempting to review the situation as a whole is evidence of the fact that having made that survey carefully himself, he de-

cided it was best to confine his remarks to what largely because of seasonal conditions had happened more or less within the past few weeks.
My hon. friend concluded his address with some reference to the present administration not being entitled to have its members attend an imperial conference without first of all appealing to the people and receiving a mandate for that purpose. I do not know whether or not it is my hon. friend's wish that the people should be given that opportunity, but I may tell him it is quite possible they will have it. My hon. friend says to us: "We on this side of the house are not asking for legislation against anyone; we are asking only for legislation so far as Canada is concerned."


Richard Bedford Bennett: For Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, for Canada. What was his attitude and that of all hon. gentlemen opposite at the last session when they said they were prepared to sit in their places from June of last year until, if need be, the year following, for what purpose? Was it not to legislate against someone?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The whole
attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite was this: We are ready to wait and see what the United States do, and the moment we know what they are going to do, we will slap back at them; we will enact reprisals that will teach them a lesson they will never forget. But now my hon. friend says that he has not any desire to legislate against any person. He quotes Professor Taussig, and he says Professor Taussig has said that the United States has treated Canada for a number of years "much like a big bully treats a small boy." May I say to my hon. friend that is no reason why this country should play either the part of a small boy or a bully? May I direct my hon. friend's attention to what Professor Taussig had in mind in that particular remark? The whole purpose of the article in which that remark appears and which I have in my hand-I thought my hon. friend would probably quote from it here-was to point out the unwisdom in international affairs of attempting anything in the nature of reprisals with a desire to effect any good. My hon. friend says that I ought to know something of Professor Taussig. I do know something of him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say the hon.
gentleman ought to know; I said he did.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He is quite
right, and I would like to give him a little of the fruit of that learning. I have in my hand a copy of Principles of Economics by Professor Taussig, third version. At page 537 my hon. friend will find out what Professor Taussig has to say about the method of reprisals and what it means. Professor Taussig says:
In its direct economic effects, the levy of duties on imports in retaliation for duties elsewhere on a country's exports makes the situation not better, but worse.
Does my hon. friend who has quoted Professor Taussig to this house as an authority on economics, and particularly with respect to the tariff, endorse his teachings in that particular?


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: What is the date of that publication?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is 1926. My colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) reminds me that in referring to Professor Taussig my hon. friend the leader of the opposition quoted him as the greatest authority in America.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of the greatest, and
I still say so. I had in mind the right hon. gentleman himself as the other.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I read,
then, further what one of the greatest authorities says and ask my hon. friend if he agrees with it? This is what Professor Taussig says with respect to the protectionist doctrine, at page 543:
Making all possible allowances for the various ways in which the initial burden has been offset in the United States, there probably remains a heavy debit balance against protection, through the creation of industries dependent upon it.
Is that, may I ask, the doctrine which my hon. friend is going to put before the people?
Now let me read from the article from which my hon. friend has quoted, it appears in Foreign Affairs, for October, 1929. I will read first the paragraph which has reference to the small boy and the big bully, on page 3, and I hope my hon. friend will then tell the house whether he endorses Professor Taussig's views in their entirety:
There is no ease in which complete freedom of trade for the staple agricultural products and the fundamental raw materials is so fully justified as in our trade with Canada.
Reciprocity in natural products-is my hon. friend going to advocate that when he goes before the people of this country? This is the paragraph that contains the sentence with reference to the small boy and the big bully:
Its substantive importance, however, lies not so much in its effects on agricultural production or profit at large, as in its equalizing and stabilizing effect on seasonal fluctuations and on local trade (across the border) both ways. Our much debated duties on wheat, for example, stand in the main for a restriction upon the equalization of seasonal fluctuations. When crops of hard wheat are bad here, Canada makes up our deficiency; when crops are bad in Canada, we make up the deficiency for the United States and help to make it up for the world at large. It would be going too far afield to enter on any detailed discussion of our trade with Canada; it is great in volume, mutually beneficial if ever any trade is, and politically of pregnant importance. For many years we have treated Canada much as a big bully treats the smaller boy. Those Canadians who have championed friendship with us have had no easy task in enlisting their countrymen, and our intolerant tariff policy makes it harder and harder for them to preserve the good relations".
In other words, Professor Taussig's whole plea in the connection in which there appears his reference to the small boy and the big bully is that this business of treating a neighbour as if he were anything but a neighbour, this putting up of tariff walls for the sake of reprisals, is very far from being the kind of thing which is essential to true neighbourliness, to a better understanding between nations and to the promotion of that goodwill which should prevail throughout the world. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition uses for the purpose of stirring up ill-will the passage that Professor Taussig introduces for the purpose of trying to promote goodwill. He seeks to create in this country a prejudice against the United States.


Mr. KAISER:: Not at all. I protest against that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: We have listened to that for a great many years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry that my hon. friend finds the truth so hard to stomach.
Let me now take the first paragraph in this article from which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has quoted. I do not know whether I should call this new Tory doctrine:
Tariff legislation is a perennial source of international distrust and irritation. Almost all countries proceed as if international trade meant not mutual gain but rivalry in grasping an advantage. Rarely, almost never, does it occur to the tariff expert or commercial negotiator that by imposing high taxes you may burden your own people. Such a person w'ould readily grant, as everyone will, that imports are paid for in the end by exports, and that exchange betw-een nations, like that betw'een different regions within a country, is advan-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
tageous to both sides. But when it comes to commercial negotiations or customs legislation, all this ceases to have any significance.
And a little further on in the same paragraph :
The phraseology of war is constantly used in discussions of commercial relations. We hear of attacks upon domestic industry, defense against foreign aggression, industrial invasion, boring from within, the conquest of markets. One is almost ashamed to speak of'mutual gain, friendly cooperation, emulation that stimulates to betterment all around.
Does my hon. friend take all of that to heart? Did he have that paragraph in mind when he talked of an economic menace as he has done wherever he has gone in referring to our relations with the United States? When we were selling to the United States, it was an economic menace. If we were exporting our raw materials to the United1 States it was parting with our estate, selling our birthright; it was an economic menace. If goods were bought from the United States in some wav that too was an economic menace; the home market was being invaded. If the United States threatened to raise its tariff walls, that was in some way or other an economic menace: we would then be prevented from selling. Whether selling to, buying from or prevented from selling to the United States, it was always an economic menace. I would suggest to my hon. friend the wisdom of perusing with great care this article from beginning to end. May I read the concluding paragraph?-it is very pertinent to discussions in this house.
Mr. BOURAlSSA: Spare him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Professor Taussig says:
Iu all these matters, it is the direction in which we move that chiefly counts. At the present juncture in international affairs, more depends on the spirit which we show than on the precise things which we do. The Kellogg treaty is perhaps, as some of its critics say, no more than a gesture. But it is a noble gesture, and points the way in which mankind should think and the direction in which we should move. So with the disarmament negotiations. It makes no great difference just how we figure on parity between different ships and different ordnance. But it makes all the difference in the world whether we proceed whole heartedly on the supposition, the expectation, and the fervent wish, that peace is to prevail in the future, not war. Everyone who has meditated on the underlying causes of international friction and combat cannot but feel that it is the spirit which signifies. We must have a new and better attitude toward foreign countries. We must dismiss the language of war when we speak of our intercourse and trade with them. Something other than suspicion and enmity must sink into our hearts. It is from this higher point of view that we may well consider, not only the peace treaties which we are invoking and the disarmament which we
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l
promote, but our commercial policy as well. Shall we continue to suspect, to fear, and to cultivate fear? To treat the foreigner from whom we get goods as always an enemy and an intruder? To circumvent him, bully him, rouse his resentment and his irritation? Or shall we treat him a6 we wish to be treated ourselves? Here too it is the spirit that signifies.
That concluding paragraph, Mr. Speaker, seems to me to sum up as conclusively as any words possibly could, the attitude of the present administration, with respect to all phases of our international relations. Whether our international relations have to do with matters of trade, whether they have to do with disarmament, whether they have to do with treaties,-with whatever they have to do, the spirit of this administration is the same; it is to seek to foster good-will and to lessen ill-will, to treat neighbours as neighbours and to treat the several countries of the world as though they were members of one great human family, members, who, it was intended, should dlwell together in unity and good-will.
I have said to my hon. friend that he may find that during the course oif the year he will be given, along with others, an opportunity of presenting his views to the public at large. I do not wish this remark to lead to any misunderstanding. I wish to make the position perfectly clear. As respects the date at which a general election is to be held, that matter has not as yet been considered by the government. Under the British system .there is a limit fixed, I think very wisely, beyond which no government can ,be permitted to remain in office without appealing to the people. There is also, equally wisely, I believe, the practice of permitting as occasions may arise an appeal to the electorate in order to secure its support of an administration with respect to any matter of outstanding concern to the people at large. Whether an election will come this year or next year will depend upon developments which may take place-not in a foreign country only, but in our own and within the empire. I do not for one minute hesitate to say that tariff changes which may be made in another country might occasion an appeal to the people in this Dominion with respect to the attitude which the government might propose taking towards them. My hon. friend states that I have said that an election would depend on what takes place at Washington. I made no representation of that kind. But I will tell him this, that I can imagine a situation arising in connection with the tariff of this country which might very well be the occasion of an appeal to the people of the Dominion on the part of the present administration.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
What I want to make clear to the house and to the country is this, the time that an election will take place, as to whether this year' or next, will depend upon developments which will take place in this parliament or in this country, or in relation to some things which may happen in other parts of the world but which have an immediate bearing upon conditions here. The government will reach its own decision with respect to what in the public interest it deems the best time to make an appeal. However, I will give my hon. friend this promise: the present administration will not continue in office to the last hour of the last day of the last week of the last year that tlhe constitution permits a government to remain, as 'happened in the case of a government of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was in 1896 when they were fighting for the rights of the minority.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will remember the date.
The leader of the opposition has made certain references to changes which have taken place in the ministry since the last session. Parliament expects a statement to be made at the opening of a session with regard to such changes, and I might as well, in order to fulfil the obligation which rests upon the leader of the bouse in that particular, take advantage of the moment to state what I imagine already is everywhere known.
I was in western Canada at the time of the death of the late Mr. Rob-b. As soon as I returned to Ottawa I took up with my colleagues in council the question of a successor to be appointed' to fill the position of Minister of Finance. With the warm and hearty cooperation of members of the government I advised His Excellency to call on the Hon. Mr. Dunning, the present Minister of Finance, to fill that position. Mr. Dunninig was appointed on November 26, and took office that day. I think I may say that the approval which the country has given thiat appointment is as wide and general as was the expectation that it would be made.
Some little time ago the Horn. Mr. F'orke mentioned to me that if he were some ten years younger nothing would give him the Same satisfaction as to be able to continue in the work of the administration, but he hoped at some suitable time I would relieve him of responsibilities which he felt at his years were becoming increasingly onerous. It will be recalled that the Hon. Mr. Forke took office in 1926, and that he has been the head of toe Department of Immigration for over three
years. I did not think my hon. friend this afternoon was very chivalrous in his remarks with respect to Mr. Forke. I recall that on a previous occasion he was similarly lacking in chivalry in reference to the same gentleman. May I say this, that I question very much whether any minister in any government has been a more loyal colleague or has discharged his duties more faithfully, more conscientiously, or indeed with more ability and greater human sympathy than did the Hon. Mr. Forke his responsibilities as Minister of Immigration. It was the view of my colleagues in the cabinet generally, and it was my view, that Mr. Forke's services were far too valuable to be lost to the public life of this country, that with the wide experience he has, particularly of agricultural problems, an experience enhanced by the knowledge of national affairs gained by his many years as a member of this house and as am administrator in the cabinet, it was desirable that his place in parliament should be secured for as long a time as might be possible. Accordingly when a vacancy occurred in the senate representation in Manitoba, again with the united good-will of my colleagues, I recommended to His Excellency the appointment of Mr. Forke to the Senate, and at the same time the appointment of a successor in the cabinet to the Minister of Railways and Canals. Mr. Dunning at the time of his appointment to the position of Minister of Finance resigned the portfolio of Minister of Railways and Canals. It was at that time, after conferring with members of the government and with their hearty acquiescence, I recommended to His Excellency the appointment of the present minister, Mr. Crerar, who took office on the 30th of November.
My hon. friend in the course of his remarks this afternoon said something about agriculture; hie said it was the most important of all the industries in this country. He now nods his head in approval. Well, amongst other things a signal service has I think been done agriculture by bringing into the present administration one who was minister of agriculture in a former administration and who for a number of years was the leader of the Progressive party in this house, and by conserving for parliament in the upper chamber through years to come the services of the other gentleman who was also a leader of toe progressive group in this parliament and that immediately prior to the time he came into this administration. In other words, the administration has succeeded in placing in the two houses of parliament the one to-day in the Senate and the other to-day in the
32	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
ministry, and in each case through or in association with the ministry, the two gentlemen who above all others were the preferred leaders of the Progressive party. The country generally will recognize in the appointments which have been made a sincere desire on the part of the government not only tlo select the best men for these positions, but to select gentlemen who are particularly well qualified to render service in the parliament of Canada to the great industry of agriculture.
My hon. friend expresses some surprise that the present Minister of Railways and Canals should find himself on this side of the house at the present time. I would ask him to let his thoughts go back to the situation as it existed in this parliament in 1922.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not here.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My friend was not here. There were a good many others that were not here but have since come. I well remember the circumstances.


An hon. MEMBER:: There will be more
next time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will go on
as it is going, my hon. friend will find. My hon. friend the present Minister of Railways and Canals, who was then leader of the Progressive party, had the second largest following in this house. He might have taken the seat of the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett).


Mr. McGIBBON:: Only he had not the
courage.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can assure
my hon. friend his remark does not add to my appreciation of his courage.
The party of that day took the view that it was in the interest of tihe agricultural classes of this country and in the interest of the Progressive party not to act as opposition to the Liberal party, but rather to cooperate with the Liberal party in the various measures it introduced in this house, where those measures were of a character to appeal to the Progressive group. That cooperation has been given in greater or less degree year in and year out. As my hon. friend knows, I have stated, in different parts of this country over and over again, that I looked upon the Progressive party and the Labour party as advanced wings of the Liberal party; that their policies were fundamentally Liberal policies; and that I believed it to be in their interest, as I believe it is in our interest, for us to unite on the great things which we have in common rather than to be divided, 
or at variance with each other in the face of the common political enemy which we see opposite at tihe present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman must not use war words like that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid
I have got the habit from listening to my hon. friend. May I say this word in conclusion, because it is nearly six o'clock: I believe that throughout this country the wisdom of that course, involving as it did cooperation between men and women who feel and think alike on public questions, who share great, liberal principles, broad ideas and ideals, is becoming ever plainer to the people at large, and that when the day does come and my hon. friend gets his chance to seek to make his views prevail, he will find that cooperation a thing worth while, something to be seriously reckoned with.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the course
of his remarks this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) was kind enough to say that last year when touching upon the prosperity of the country, I had been the one to speak of Providence. If I am not mistaken it was my hon. friend who, being unwilling to explain the prosperity of the country as being due to the policies of the government, attributed that prosperity entirely to Providence. I would like to ask my hon. friend if he is still of the same mind as respects conditions of which he now complains, that the harvest last year not being what it was the year before, Providence is in the main responsible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman will find his answer in his own remarks on that occasion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I remember the answer very well; I think it was that Providence required human assistants to work through, and was rather fortunate in having the present administration instead of the hon. gentlemen opposite to carry out its will.
Id referring to the position of the country this afternoon my hon. friend set certain tests of his own concerning prosperity and in the light of those tests selected by himself gave his opinions. He omitted altogether the tests which as a matter of fact the government in previous years has used in account-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
mg for the prosperity and giving the exact proof of it. Some of these tests are set out in the speech from the throne itself, and I shall draw my hon. friend's attention to one or two of them:
-the year 1929 was the most productive year in the history of Canada.
The extent of production is a fairly good test of prosperity; it is a test which has been put forward in previous speeches from the throne, and this year it is possible for the government to state that from the point of view of productivity in this country, there was last year a greater productivity than at any previous period in the history of Canada. Another test is that of employment. The speech from the throne states:
-that employment reached the highest point on record.
There can be no dispute on that point. The statistics furnished by the government make it quite clear that there was more in the way of general employment than during any other year in the history of Canada, and yet my hon. friend this afternoon says that he has discovered a dire condition of privation in the country that, to use his own words, has not been equalled in a quarter of a century. Surely that is the language of exaggeration if ever there was such.
Mr. BENNETT; No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I just want to keep my hon. friend to that statement; if I understand him rightly, he says that there is more in the way of privation in Canada at present than there has been for a quarter of a century past.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that in travelling
over this country I have seen more privation than I have seen for a quarter of a century.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend is now limiting it by his own sight. We all know that his vision is very much circumscribed, and that is what I am trying to bring out.
Mr. BENNETT; I will put it more clearly, then; I have found more of privation than I have seen in a quarter of a century, more bread lines and soup kitchens.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us understand the position exactly. The party led by my hon. friend opposite states that the conditions to-day from the point of view of dire need and distress, as far as the people are concerned, are worse than they have been for a quarter of a century. My hon. friend nods his head and says yes. I think we will just have to let the people of the country 2419-3
judge as between my hon. friend's views of conditions and conditions as the country generally knows them to be. Going back not a quarter of a century but a matter of only a few short years ago, six or seven, I well remember that we heard a great deal about whispers of death, the ruination of the country generally, the numbers of people who were leaving this country to go to the United States, the industries that were languishing and so on, and yet I suppose my hon. friend's statement is to the effect that to-day conditions are worse in Canada than they were at that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is all right to laugh,
but. that is not what I said. I said there was more privation in Canada, that I had seen or come in contact with more privation than in a quarter of a century, more bread lines and soup kitchens and dire want on the part of the people.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
ada. We hear a great deal about the extent of manufacturing in the United States owing to the tariff of that country-


Mr. CAHAN:: Does that apply to cotton
and woollen manufactures?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking of manufacturing generally.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It certainly does not apply to woollens.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It applies to
manufacturing generally in this country; the record was the best in the history of this Dominion. At the present time manufacturing in Canada is at a higher point than it has been in any corresponding period of any previous year.
I was saying a word about the condition in the United States. As a matter of fact, this country exports and has for some little time been exporting more manufactured goods per capita than the United States exiports. I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite to deny that statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Including newsprint that is so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking of manufactured commodities, and my hon. friend knows what comes under that heading. I will make the further statement, which I challenge hon. gentlemen to refute, that the exported manufactures of this country per capita are virtually equal to the total exports per capita of the manufactured goods of the United States and Germany combined. My hon. friend speaks of the export of raw material as though the export of such commodities was a terrible thing for any country and a very bad thing for Canada in particular, because of the immediate proximity of the country to the south, and the fact that the United States buys such a quantity of our raw materials. I ask my hon. friend if he will refute this statement: that the total export of raw materials from Canada to the United States is less than the total importation of raw materials from the United States to this country. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) asked me a question a moment ago regarding cottons and woollens, and I must thank him for bringing that matter to my attention. As tlhe hon. member knows, we import a large quantity of raw cotton from the United States, but there is a further fact which I think it is well for this house to recall and for the country to remember, particularly when the hon. member talks about our parting with our assets and selling our birthright because of the quantity of

raw materials we are selling, and it is that we actually buy more in the way of raw materials from the United States for our manufactures than we sell in the way of raw materials for their manufactures.
Any comparison between the two countries' manufactures will go to show that the employment in the factories of Canada is on a considerably higher ratio than the employment in the United States. These are tests which we have made in past years and which can be made to good effect at the present time.
May I point out that there are three circumstances which have temporarily affected to a slight degree what was an unprecedented prosperity up to the time that these particular factors began to operate. The harvest of last year was not as large as the harvest of the previous year. That had a very considerable effect upon general business and prosperity. As a matter of fact, I believe the harvest of last year was only half of what it was the year before.
In addition to that, the wheat crop still remains to be marketed, a condition which we have not had in Canada at this period of the year at any time in the past. This has had a temporary effect upon the general prosperity of the country, but there is no hon. member of this house, I venture to say, who thinks for one moment that that crop is not going to be marketed. The moment that marketing begins we may find an effect upon the general commerce and prosperity of this country which will surpass anything at a corresponding period of the year in the previous history of our Dominion.
Then there is a third factor which also has had its influence, in a temporary and a local way

the collapse in the speculative values of the stock exchange. That has had a certain effect upon industry and trade because it affected temporarily the fortunes of individuals. But it did not at all affect the soundness of business in this country; it in no way is a factor which 'has contributed to any permanent set-back. As a matter of fact it may prove to be a very good thing. In connection with prosperous times, it is inevitable that men and women will speculate, perhaps more in a period of prosperity than at any other time. A rude awakening, such as some of them apparently received, may not do any harm in the long run.
I know that my hon. friend and I can hardly be expected to agree upon the country's present position in the matter of prosperity, or its position during the past year, nor will the country expect us to agree. It will be assumed that I, speaking for the gov-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
eminent, will seek to exaggerate in some particular the prosperity of the country, and that my hon. friend opposite, speaking for the opposition, will endeavour, as he did to-day, to belittle the prosperity of the country. So, instead of judging between the two of us, I propose to give to the house the expression of a few individuals whose judgment I think should be taken by hon. gentlemen opposite as being unbiased so far at least as they are concerned. I do not think I could do better than to begin with a statement which was given to the press only a few days ago by a gentleman who formerly sat where my hon. friend is now sitting, in the leadership of his party when, however, that party was on this side of the house; I speak of Right Hon. Sir George Foster, who for a time was acting leader of a former Conservative administration. Sir George Foster, touching upon other matters in the course of an address which will be found in the Ottawa Citizen of February 11th, made this significant statement:
The last two years have been the richest in the history of Canada.
Those are the words of Sir George Foster, a former leader of the Conservative party, and I think they are correct.
Sitting not so very far from my hon. friend on the opposite side of the house, is the greatly respected hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) who, I understand, is the owner in part of the leading Conservative organ in this Dominion. Each year the Montreal Gazette devotes one of its numbers to a review of the conditions throughout the country, and it retains for that purpose the leading experts on different phases of industrial and financial development. In an article dealing with the Montreal Gazette's annual commercial and financial review, the following pertinent observations are made on Canada's present prosperity:
It is of the highest significance that the note, throughout the review, is one of confidence, even of optimism. The general prosperity of 1928 was still in evidence during the first three quarters of 1929. The external trade of the Dominion continued to expand; the mineral and other natural resources of the country were being developed upon an ever-increasing scale and with a gratifying measure of success; the manufacturing industries, despite the disabilities under which they suffered, were at least holding their ground; carloadings indicated widespread activities in almost all lines of production, and the bank returns reflected a healthy financial condition.
Then the article goes on bo make mention of two or three factors, to _which I have already alluded. The article continues:
The end of the summer, it is true, brought new and less favorable conditions. The collapse of speculative values in the stock markets of Canada and the United States was a serious matter for the great army of uninformed men and women, old and young, who had risked their capital at the top of an already top-heavy movement, and the resultant losses affected, adversely, the holiday trade. At the same time, the refusal of the organized grain growers in the west to market a shrunken crop at prices prevailing overseas caused a heavy decline in the earnings of transportation companies, affected employment, and produced a feeling of uneasiness and uncertainty in western communities which materially weakened the buying power of the people west of the great lakes. More recent market developments have partially vindicated the judgment of those responsible for the temporary cessation of the grain trade, but the final outcome is something which, even now, cannot be foreseen wri.th any degree of certainty.
Then having reviewed the conditions and having taken into account the adverse circumstances, the article goes on as follows:
All these conditions, the good and the bad, those which stimulate and those which discourage, have been considered and measured by very able economists and industrialists in the Review published today and there is something heartening and reassuring in the unanimity-
Mark that word.

with which these experts express their faith in the fundamental soundness of the country's business. There has been no disposition to minimize the adverse factors mentioned above; but these factors have been viewed in the proper perspective, against a background of almost phenomenal progress and prosperity, and when so examined they cannot be included in the category of catastrophes.
That is the view which the leading Conservative journal of this country-and I am pleased to see my rejected friend part owner of that journal, present-gives of conditions last year. I commend to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition the better iperspective of the hon. member for Mount Royal.


Mr. AYHITE (Mount Royal):: I should like to correct what I think is a somewhat widespread misapprehension. I am not .part owner of the Gazette, nor have I had, for nearly twenty years, one dollar of interest in it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can only say I am sorry for his own sake and that of the Gazette that my hon. friend has given up his interest, but perhaps I might mention, in order that the same weight may be given to the utterance, that my hon. friend's cousin, who is a senator, is, I think, part owner of the publication. I might ask my hon. friend whether by any chance he did not have a hand in writing the article which I have just read.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King


Robert Smeaton White: I was not in the house when the Prime Minister quoted the article, but if my name appears at the head of it, that would indicate that I wrote it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I would say that from the views there expressed my hon. friend would make a much better leader of his party than the present leader of the opposition. After all, the party opposite has, for some time past, stressed mostly "whispers of death" and "dire calamity" and "blue ruin" almost ad nauseam and I am inclined to believe the people are desirous of having in positions of leadership men who have the perspective of optimism and vision broad enough to see conditions as they are, particularly when conditions are of a kind that obviously reflects credit upon the country in which its citizens live.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot let that observation pass unchallenged. At no time have I made any statement lacking confidence in this country, nor have I preached "blue ruin". I mention that fact merely because the right hon. gentleman has a habit of endeavouring to attach statements to those to whom they do not attach.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has said in the presence of all who are in the house this evening that he has not before seen such privation in Canada in a quarter of a century. He must be judged by his own words. May I quote from another authority who, I imagine, will carry weight with hon. gentlemen opposite? Sir Thomas White was former Minister of Finance in a Conservative administration and he has given to the country a statement of -conditions as he views them. This statement was made by Sir Thomas White as vice-president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, speaking, in the absence of -Sir John Aird, at the annual meeting of the shareholders:
Under the stimulus of three years' general prosperity, of an extensive development and building program and of an unprecedented quantity of farm products for export, new records were established in industry and trade during the winter and spring. It is not too much to say that business activity in the first half year exceeded even the most optimistic forecasts.
While there has been some irregularity in manufacturing, the general condition is one of the most impressive in Canadian production. Certain industries, notably the manufacture of woollen cloth, leather footwear and automobiles, have been depressed by excessive competition, domestic as well as foreign. Canada stands seventh in world manufacture, with an estimated value of industrial production in 1929 of nearly $4,000,000,000, an increase of about 5 per cent since the close of 1928. The statistics 
of value added by manufacture, per worker, show _ that the industrial efficiency of Canada is close to the level established in the United States, which is regarded as the highest in the world. The remarkable expansion of Canadian industry has not been confined to the east, and the enterprise of the west is now felt industrially as well as agriculturally. During the last decade about GOO new industrial plants have been established in the four western provinces. Capital investment has increased to more than $600,000,000.
Then Sir Herbert Holt, who is another member of the party of my hon. friends opposite, speaking as president of the Royal Bank of Canada to the shareholders of his bank, has made the following statement:
The strength of -the business structure is such that there is no reason to look forward to more than a moderate recession in business in 1930... Employment and wages are being maintained at a relatively high level, the improvement in industrial efficiency has continued and the financial position of industry is made excellent, both because of large liquid reserves and satisfactory profits during last year. Such conditions warrant optimism.
He said that:
-in both Canada and the United States, the business structure is sound; in both countries, high production records were attained in 1929 and corporation earnings have been exceptionally satisfactory.
I shall refer simply to one other authority, confining my remarks to the names of those who are well known to be associated with hon. gentlemen opposite. Mir. W. G. Gooderham, President of the Bank of Toronto, has this to say to the shareholders:
Since the postwar deflation w-as completed and particularly during the past five years, the business curve has been almost steadily upward. New peaks in both volume and profits have been achieved year after year. . . The prosperity of Canada has kept public revenues from taxation and other sources high, even although certain taxes have been reduced. . [DOT] While conditions on the whole are somewhat mixed we have entire confidence in the future, even the near future.
May I give yet -onfe other authority? I refer to an institution that, as I have said -before, speaking elsewhere, is -conservative in the best sense of tih-e word, namely, the Bank of Montreal. May I quote to my h-on. friend wihat wias said by the -president, Sir Charles Gordon in his .address to the shareholders of the Bank of Montreal at the meeting held in December? I will giv-e just two paragraphs, one relating to -the past and the other to the present and future. I have in my hand1 a copy of th-e address. Sir Charles Gordon said;
In reviewing the commercial situation in Canada, it should be kept in mind that there have been five years of almost uninterrupted expansion. In thqt brief period Canada has achieved a degree of development quite u-n-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
preeedented. Not in one or two directions, but practically in all, remarkable material progress has occurred-in agriculture, in many lines of manufacturing, in mining, forestry, trading, water power production and building construction.
Then, concluding bis address, Sir Charles said:
In conclusion, may I say there never was a time in the history of Canada when business as a Whole has been at a higher peak than during the year under review, or when the developed resources of our wealth were more wide and varied than they are ;to-day, and never a time when the earning power of our people was sustained in so many channels of production. We must not allow a possible temporary reaction, the result of a collapse in a purely speculative orgy in the stock markets, unduly to distort our view. Fundamental conditions are 60und, and there is no reason for apprehension as to the ultimate future of Canada.
May I return now to tests which my hon. friend has himself suggested, I have already remarked, he has ignored altogether the three reasons which in each case account for conditions being at the moment what they are. He spoke first of railway earnings. I have in my hand a statement made by Mr. Beatty, chairman and president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Mr. Beatty draws attention to the fact that railway earnings have gone somewhat behind, blit what does he say?
These figures may be taken as indicative of what the unusual grain situation has meant to the railways and to some extent also, to the general 'business of the country. It is inevitable that such a condition should have its due effect, but I take iit as a sign of the times in this country, and an evidence of the fact that Canada is fast developing along the lines of broadened industrial and commercial activity, that the resultant disturbance to the ordinary business has been surprisingly small, and apparently at the present time is relatively unimportant.
I give those words to my hon. friend- "*relatively unimportant"-as words which I hope may help to correct his perspective.
Now I come to his next point., stock market prices. I do not recall at any time having quoted stock market prices.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can show them to you.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend can show them to me, then he must be correct. May I point, out however, that there is a very great difference between the prices of speculative stocks and the prices of stocks and bonds of a fundamentally sound character, and I feel certain that any prices to which I may have referred were of the latter nature.
As io the cogt of living, I think my hon.
friend will find that the cost of living to-day, so far as the consumer is concerned, compares favourably with what it has been in former years.
As to the balance of trade, it is quite true that at the moment the balance of trade is not as favourable as it was. That too is accounted for iby the circumstance that our wheat and flour have not been moving forward, that we have not been exporting the quantity of these commodities which we usually do at this time of the year. It is due also to another1 cause, which really helps to emphasize the growing prosperity in Canada. It is due to the large importations of raw materials for our factories. That is one of the reasons why the balance of trade is not now so favourable. It is because we have been importing a very great deal more in the way of raw materials from the United States for our factories than has been the case in former years.
As to employment, the figures that I have given are, I think, sufficiently conclusive as to general prosperity. I would just repeat what I have said as to the record as shown by the Bureau of Statistics, namely, that employment in January of this year was at a higher level than in any other year on record in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Taking 100 as 'the index 'figure of average employment in 1926, the figure stood at 111.2 on January 1, 1930, as compared with 109.1 on January 1, 1929, and 107.7 on January 1, 1928. So far as employment in the factories is concerned, I shall not give the figures for a series of years, but I will make a comparison between conditions in Canada and the United States, and I give these figures because a good deal has been said by way of comparison of conditions in the two countries. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition did not mention this afternoon what the American federation of Labour has stated, namely that there are over 3,000,000 unemployed in the United States at the present time. Any comparison between the United States and Canada on the question of unemployment will show the United States to be in an unfavourable position. Take the figures of employment in factories in Canada last year, 1929, and compare them with the United States figures. Our Dominion Bureau of Statistics compiles these figures by months, taking the first day of each month, while the United States bureau takes the 15th of the month, and an allowance will have to be made for a slight difference on that account. Taking

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
100 as the index figure, being the average for 1926, the comparison, between the two countries, is as follows:	Canada	United States
	(FirSit of	(Fifteenth of
	Month)	Month)
January-1929 .. ..	107.3	95.2February	112.8	97.4March	115.7	98.6April	116.5	99.1May	119.8	99.2J une	121.2	98.8July	120.3	98.2August	121.6	98.6September	119.8	99.3October	120.2	98.3November	117.2	94.8December	112.8	91.9
January

1930 .. ..	106.5	90.2
February		110.2	
Tbat is a comparison of the average of employment in the factories of the United States and Canada.
My hon. friend said that the present administration had done nothing to relieve unemployment, and he stated that I had said that when the provinces were too poor, then it would be time enough for the Dominion to come in and assist. I do not recollect making any statement in those words. What I did say was this, that unemplojunent was first of all a municipal problem. I might go a step further back and say (that it is first of all an individual problem, a problem for the individual and the family, a problem for the community and for societies and groups of societies within the community. Then it 'Certainly becomes a municipal problem. If the municipalities find that they are incapable of dealing with the question of unemployment, it becomes a provincial problem. If the provinces find that they are unable to cope with the problem of unemployment, then I think it very properly becomes a federal problem, but until that stage is reached I think that we may well apply in the matter of unemployment as in all else the old maxim that it is a good .thing for everyone to mind his own business. It is a .good thing for the municipalities to look after their own business; it is a good thing for the provinces to look after their own business; and it is a good thing for the Dominion to look after its own business.
May I point out that we are assisting in the unemployment problem in a multitude of ways. My reference to the Dominion coming to the assistance of the provinces when they are unequal to meeting the problem of unemployment had reference to a state of emergency which can be met only by the federal treasury coming to the help of the provinces and to the municipalities in a case of great need. We had such a condition dur-

ing the days of the reestablishment of our war veterans. There was a time when the municipalities and the provinces could hardly be expected to meet the emergency that then existed, and the federal treasury, very properly I .think, contributed to a solution of the unemployment problem. But in a normal period the municipalites will have to deal with the problem to a certain extent in their own way; the provinces will have to deal with it in their own way; and the federal government will have to deal with the problem in its own way, and we are dealing with it in our own way to-day.
May I point out, first of all, tha-t this government gives to the provinces large subsidies. These subsidies were provided for at the time the British North America Act was framed in order to assist the provinces in meeting many obligations which came within their jurisdiction, but which it wais felt they might not have sufficient revenues to take care of. These subsidies may be used for any purpose which the provinces see fit, and over and over again the provinces have represented that they would much rather receive what they are going to geit from .the federal treasury in the nature of a subsidy to the province without any strings attached to it, than a grant given for any particular purpose. If the subsidies granted to the provinces are not adequate, then there should be some revision of the subsidies, but this federal government cannot be expected from time to time to make grants out of the federal treasury to the provinces to meet obligations which are more particularly those of the provinces themselves.
We are now cooperating with the provinces also in an old age pension, scheme. The old age pensions involve a considerable drain upon the federal treasury. I venture .to say that every person receiving an old age pension is an individual who in time of great need would more or less in an official count be classed, because of his very limited .circumstances, within the category of those who would be unemployed and in need of some assistance. In large part .that would .be the case with many who are now receiving old age pensions, and to the extent to which this federal government is contributing funds, as it now is on a large scale to the provinces, to help meet that situation, to that extent it is lessening the unemployment problem in .the different provinces.
In addition, this government has a particular charge, and rightly so I believe, in the care of the returned soldiers and to some extent of the dependents of those who lost their lives or Of

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
those who are disabled. This government votes large sums erf money for pensions to war veterans and their dependents. But for those pensions, .counitless numbers who are now receiving pensions would, through no fault of their own, be in need of assistance, and they are saved from falling into the ranks of the unemployed by the money which is voted by this parliament for pe.nsio.ns. In addition, the Department of Pensions and National Health is spending large sums to help necessitous cases amongst the war veterans, and to that extent we are also contributing towards the relief of unemployment in the different provinces.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Is not that a purely national question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am saying
that as a federal parliament we have been glad to assume this obligation, and rightly so,
I believe, but I am pointing out that to the extent to which we assume that obligation, the money that is taken from the federal treasury is helping to relieve the problem of unemployment in the provinces. We are helping in that way within our own jurisdiction, but the individuals we help are all citizens of the different provinces, and to the extent to which we are voting money for pensions to returned soldiers and their dependents and for the disabled and necessitous cases we are helping the provinces in the solution of the unemployment problem. I have no desire whatever to shirk responsibility in the matter of helping to solve the unemployment problem, but the way to solve it is for each of us within our own jurisdiction to do our own part to avoid unemployment and look as far as may be possible after those who would otherwise become a public charge.
May I venture a further instance as a case in point? The Canadian National railways look to this parliament to make good any deficits that arise on the operation of the railway. When it was seen 'that the crop was not likely to be moved as early as was anticipated and that there was a gradual slacking in transportation in different parts of the country, the railway companies had to consider whether they would cut down their staffs and let out a number of their employees. In their own interests they might have taken a drastic step by immediately letting out of employment large numbers of men.


Mr. HANSON:: That is exactly what they did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe one of the companies did.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: They discharged them in Calgary without a moment's notice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that the Canadian Pacific railway did let out a large number of its men. The Canadian National railway, from a strictly business point of view, might have done the same thing, but Sir Henry Thornton and his directors considered the question from the broader point of view of 'the employment situation within the country. They took the view that even if the revenues of the railways were to suffer to a certain extent, it would be better rather than dismiss them to keep on the payroll a large number of employees.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Will the right hon. gentleman permit a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


James Arthurs: Does he contend that
the Canadian National Railways are employing their men at the various divisional points for transportation purposes in the same degree as formerly?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not saying to the same degree.


James Arthurs: Then the remainder must be out of employment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am telling
the house exactly what took place when some months ago the Canadian National Railways were confronted with the question whether they would let out a large number of their employees.


James Arthurs: Which they did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Sir Henry
Thornton took the view that instead of letting out a large number of men, it would be preferable, from the national point of view, that these men should be kept on, as largely as possible, even if the revenues of the railway suffered to a considerable extent in consequence of such action. But Sir Henry Thornton also, very rightly I think, took the view that, inasmuch as the railways were government roads and it was the federal treasury that would suffer in the end, he would not be justified in taking that step without conference with the government. Sir Henry Thornton called upon the Minister of Railways and myself and other of our colleagues and asked our views as to whether or not the government would approve an attitude of the kind which he had suggested. We took the position that no greater contribution could be made to avoiding an unemployment problem than to keep at work those who were already employed, and that it would be only helping to accentuate a situation

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
that was about to be created if Sir Henry Thornton were to let out a large number of men. Therefore as a government we told Sir Henry Thornton that we would be prepared in parliament to back up the Canadian National Railways in keeping on such men as he felt he could, though he might have to let out a few.


Mr. PRICE:: In what territories were employees retained?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot give my hon. friend details.


James Arthurs: Can the hon. gentleman
state any place?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
house appreciates what I am presenting at the moment. I am trying to point out that as between taking money out of the federal treasury to hand to the provinces to help relieve unemployment and keeping men on the payroll of the Canadian National Railways, the latter course I believe from the point of view of the Dominion as a whole was infinitely preferable and a better contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem.
Then I might also say that another way in which the federal government has sought to deal with this situation has been to press forward its building of public works as rapidly as possible. The railways themselves have announced an extensive program of construction. I presume that if the sole object had been to make a showing in the matter of receipts as against expenditures, some of these things might have been deferred, but believing that it was the most helpful way of meeting the situation the government lent itself to that course of procedure.
Similarly with regard to some of the men working in the mines. My hon. friend spoke this afternoon of the miners at Fernie. I have a communication here which illustrates the effect of the government's action in the matter of helping men employed in our -mines. This letter is signed by Wilfrid R. Kell, Secretary of the Western Canada Fuel Association, and is dated Winnipeg, December 19, 1929. It is addressed to myself and reads as follows:
Sir:
At a special meeting of the directors of this association, held December 11th, the matter of market extensions for western Canadian coals was discussed. I was instructed to express to you, on behalf of the coal industry of western Canada, our deep appreciation to the Dominion government for extending the special test rate period on Alberta coal moving to Ontario.
The additional six weeks given to producers 
could not have come at a more opportune time. The season this year has been very slow indeed, owing to opening of new mines, mild weather, and the growing competition of American coal and coke and substitute fuels. As a consequence the mines of Alberta have been running on short time and there is much unemployment and actual hardship among the miners and their families, both in Alberta and eastern British Columbia.
The action of the government in making the Ontario market available for a longer period has helped materially in providing work for a large number of miners who otherwise would have faced the Christmas season heavily in debt and with neither money nor employment.
May I further point ou-t that in the speech from the -throne there is particular mention of -the fact that the western provinces are having returned to them their natural resources. When the bills are brought down it will be seen that the government, in the agreements which have *been reached, has agreed not only to return the resources but to continue the subsidies which were originally given in lieu of lands and to continue them not merely at the present rate but at a progressive rate to which these provinces will become entitled as they themselves grow in population. In other words, in our legislation this year we are making provision in the western provinces, as we have -already done in the maritime provinces, for additional grants from the federal treasury to those provinces to help them -meet -the situations with which they are faced. When one takes into consideration all these circumstances I think, Mr. Speaker, it will be apparent in so far as the federal government is -concerned that we have realized to the full our responsibility in the matter of helping to solve any question of unemployment.
May I say further, speaking of unemployment and the relation between the dominion and the provinces respectively, that the province of Ontario, which is the largest of the provinces, -has not hesitated to make clear its position as to there being no necessity for federal aid. I have in my hand a statement which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of January 24 of this year, a statement made by Premier Ferguso-n of the province of Ontario in relation to -a statement which I made to a delegation from the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress. This statement was sent out by the Canadian -press on January 23 and reads as follows:
Problem Being Handled Says Premier Ferguson
Comments on Premier King's Unemployment Statement
Toronto, Jan. 23.-Ontario is handling its unemployment situation and so far has had no request from other provinces to seek aid of tile federal government, according to Premier

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Ferguson, who commented to-day on Premier Mackenzie King's statement to Dominion Trades and Labour Congress officials that the Dominion government would discuss remedial methods if the provinces join together in deciding they cannot handle it.
Then the words are quoted:
"Our unemployment problem," said Premier Ferguson, "is spotty in various sections of the province; it centres chiefly in Toronto. But we are paying the one-third excess cost to municipalities, which seems to be meeting the situation."
In other words the Premier of Ontario takes the view

and I think very sensibly-that the province is handling very well its own situation in relation to the municipalities, and certainly until the various provinces of this Dominion find that a condition has arisen with which they are unable to cope, I think in the light of what I have said that we may feel that the federal government is doing its part to the full.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Might I ask a question there? Do the reduced coal rates extend to Saskatchewan and Manitoba as well as to Ontario?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think not, no.
Mr. ADSHEAD; Why not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall have to answer that another time, I am afraid.
My hon. friend' said something about conferences; he stated that in dealing with this problem President Hoover had had a conference, and asked why we did not have a conference also. That was rather interesting, coming from my hon. friend. He is evidently going to the United States and to Washington for his examples of what the government should do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I might have added that they had a similar conference in England.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but my
hon. friend did not do so. I might say that when the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress waited on the government the question was discussed as to whether or not the government had acted wisely in not having a conference similar to that called by President Hoover, and it was made very plain to the members of the administration that so far as the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress was concerned its officers thought we had taken the right course in not calling a conference. What did the conference of President Hoover do in so far as Labour was concerned? It sought to extract from the labour representatives a pledge that there would be no demands for increases in wages of any kind. That was the
purpose of that conference in considerable part. More than that, it was felt by the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress and by our administration that to call a conference when the situation did not necessitate it was only bo unduly alarm the country and alarm persons who did not know the real situation, and help perhaps to bring about the very condition it was being sought to avoid.
My hon. friend made some reference to the wheat situation. I did not quite gather whether he thought that the government should have intervened in some way as between the buyers and sellers of wheat. I am glad to see him shake his head and indicate that such was not his opinion, but what he did say was that a report was in circulation to the effect that placards, as I gathered, were being broadcast on the streets of London or somewhere in England to the effect that a certain company was not using Canadian wheat, and we were denounced for not having taken immediate action in tha) matter. Now, what are the facts? They are that the High Commisioner's office in England made inquiry into the matter; the High Commissioner's office in Canada sent communications to the British government and the British government through its departments made inquiries into the matter, and no one was able to discover that any placards ever had been exhibited.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear; that is my point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And we as a
government are to be chastised by my hon. friend opposite for not having protested with regard to a story that placards were in circulation, which story was untrue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the right hon. gentleman has not followed me. My complaint was with regard to the delay of the central government in Canada in dealing with this false propaganda.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Where was the harm if there was nothing in it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will tell the Minister of Justice what the harm was, if I may interrupt. The harm was that in western Canada the newspaper reports were being believed, and the farmers were hardening their attitude towards the purchase of British goods on which they had previously asked an increased preference up to 50 per cent.


Ernest Lapointe: Canada did not suffer any harm.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The statement, as I understand, originated in this country and was cabled across as a matter of fact. Is that not so?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am unable to answer that question; I do not know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
the story originated in a Tory paper in Toronto and was cabled to the old country and spread about there, and now we are being chastised-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman surely is bound to give his authority for that statement. I would like to know, because I really do not know. I understood the story was carried by the Canadian Press.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have very
good grounds for believing that to be true, and I understand that the Canadian Press made an apology.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the Canadian Press
is not a Tory paper.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They were
quoting from a Tory paper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the paper?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend can find the papers if he looks for them, and I will tel'l my hon. friend one thing for which I can vouch: I received a communication from the High Commissioner's office announcing that a sensational despatch had appeared in the London Times, sent by its correspondent from here, which was more or less upsetting the feeling in Great Britain, and they wanted to know whether or not this despatch was correct- It was a icopy of something that had appeared in one of the Canadian papers here, but any one in Canada would have known

any one who had taken care to exercise careful supervision in the matter-that the report never should have been sent across to the old country. It was immediately corrected by the High Commissioner's office, and corrected in the papers in the old country. That is the kind of propaganda that does mischief in the old world.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the Tory paper? -that is what I want to know Was it the Toronto Star?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I now
pass to another subject? The next subject my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) dealt with was the question of treaties. He said France had put up her duties notwithstanding the fact that we had a treaty with France which assured us a minimum; that Germany had

put up her duties notwithstanding the fact that we had a treaty with her, and that Italy had done the same.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Italy, not Germany.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But my hon. friend said Germany.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that Germany
had raised its discriminating tariff, but that is not a treaty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend brought in a reference to Germany, to the effect that we had a treaty with Germany.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, a discrimination of six cents a bushel against Canadian wheat in favour of American wheat, but Italy and France had treaties.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us dispose of Germany first. Does my hon. friend contend that there is a discriminatory rate?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I only know that from an inquiry I made at the Department of Finance in consequence of a newspaper article; I learned that the rate was 48-6 cents on Canadian and 42-1 cents on American wheat.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will relieve my hon. friend^ mind 'by letting him know that that may have been the case but it is not the case at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When was it otherwise?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has been
changed very recently, I think. I just want to relieve my hon. friend's mind by telling him that the rate is the same at the present time. Now with regard to France and Italy, what does my hon. friend suggest? Does he suggest that because France and Italy have put up their duties against the rest of the world we should immediately begin to raise our duties? Is that the implication of his remark?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Any government that
would make a treaty fixing specific duties in favour of any country, and leave this country with a minimum in favour of the other country, is not fit to govern.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That may be an answer in my hon. friend's mind but I do not think it is an answer to the question. When addressing the public my hon. friend is fond of drawing attention to the fact that Canada is the only country which has reduced her duties. He now brings forward the case of other countries which have increased their duties. I do not know what inference he wishes to have drawn from that fact, but I would like to direct his attention to the facf

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
that while those other countries that have been raising their duties have been passing through more or less difficult times, this country, which has lowered its duties, is experiencing prosperity unprecedented and an expansion in trade unequalled by any other country in the world.
I want to follow my hon. friend, if I can, in the matter of brevity as well as on the various points on which he touched. My hon. friend next spoke of the Welland canal and denounced us for proceeding to build terminals before we were sure that all the necessary dredging had been done between the Welland canal itself and the point at which the terminals were being built. Then he asked what was being done, and said he would like to know if there were any negotiations in progress. If my hon. friend had asked that question first I think it would have been more logical. There are negotiations in progress. The waterway to the terminals, the connection between lake Ontario and Prescott, will be worked out in due time, but these matters involve international negotiations, and where international negotiations are involved they cannot always be completed within a given time. I can give my hon. friend the assurance that we are moving in the matter just as rapidly as circumstances will permit.
As to the paragraph in the speech from the throne dealing with railway matters, I think I bad better leave that for the Minister of Railways and Canals to explain when he introduces his bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What bill?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: His measure
with respect to the railways.
May I say a word as to the paragraph in the speech from the throne concerning legislation to be introduced in regard to war veterans and their dependents? Here let me say that I am just as anxious as my bon. friend and, I believe, as every other hon. member of the house, to have this question kept altogether out of party politics. I 'believe the policy that has been adopted in this house of having these matters referred to a committee on which there are representatives of all parties, and as far as possible representatives of the war veterans themselves, is the best possible way to deal with the returned soldier problem. The bill which will be introduced by the government will be referred to such a committee and will be dealt with by it. There has been a great deal of criticism of the pension board and the appeal board. Something was said this afternoon as to a Conservative government having introduced the legislation respecting the pension board. I had understood it was the Union government, but the
more we hear about the Union government the more conservative in character we find it to have been. However, so far as the pension appeal board is concerned, that body was created by the present administration. I remember hearing the late Mr. Fielding say on more than one occasion that he thought it was the first duty of any minister of the crown to defend those who are in the public service, that they were not in parliament where their own voices could be heard, and that where parliament assigned a duty to civil servants or to commissions it was part of the obligation of a minister of the crown to see that on the floor of this house ample justice was done their position. For that reason I wish to say that I believe the members of the pension board and the appeal board in the discharge of their duties have done what they honestly believed was what parliament expected them to do. I know personally the members of these boards and I cannot think of them as gentlemen who are hardhearted or who would wish to do other than what is right and just in every way. But they are restricted by legislation passed by this parliament. Possibly they construe the law rigidly and, on occasion, mechanically. If that is the case may I say I am in entire sympathy with my hon. friend opposite and with General Sir Arthur Currie and every other person who has spoken on behalf of the veterans, they feel that those boards should interpret the legislation in a generous way. Where a question of doubt arises as to whether or not disability is due to a man's service overseas, if it is a real doubt I for one believe the soldier should be given the benefit of that doubt, and I am confident that that is the will and the wish of the people of this country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But you did not vote for
that principle.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend knows better than that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My leader pointed it out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me say a word about what my hon. friend's leader said. This afternoon my hon. friend did draw the attention of the house to an amendment which he moved, I .think, in 1927, the amendment was:
For the purposes of The Pensions Act the disability on discharge of an applicant for a pension who actually served in the theatre of war shall, in the absence of misrepresentation or concealment on enlistment, be conclusively presumed to be attributable to military service.
That was the amendment which was moved. What did the Minister of Pensions say in re-
44	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
gard to that amendment? Did he say that it was something to be voted down, something not to be considered? He said that that amendment, like all other matters affecting the returned soldiers, was one which could most profitably and properly be dealt with by a committee of this house on which all parties would be represented. My hon. friend mentioned that at the next session of parliament, in 1928, a committee of this house would be formed for the purpose of considering whatever might be presented to it, and that this amendment might well be considered by that committee at that time. That was in 1928.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In 1927.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The amendment was moved in 1927 but in 1928 the committee was formed. In 1928 did my hon. friend move his amendment? Did he move it in 1929? He moved it in 1927 when he was told that it would be referred to a committee composed of members from the different parties of this house. That committee went into all the questions which they thought it advisable to go into, including, I am informed, the very matter of my hon. friend's resolution. They thought it inadvisable to include that amendment in their report and evidently their reasons were sufficient to my hon. friend because he did not come forward to move that amendment at any subsequent session. May I say further that the report presented at the session of 1928 was unanimous and was accepted. I do not think my hon. friend is helping his case or the case of the returned soldiers when to-day he parades in parliament and in the country an amendment which he moved in 1927; or when in one breath he talks about taking these matters out of politics and in the next breath offers the amendment as evidence of his interest in the well-being of the returned men, especially when, as a matter of fact, in this parliament during the two sessions subsequent to its being moved he said nothing further about the amendment.
As a matter of fact, there was an amendment upon which a main debate in the house took place, also moved by my hon. friend. The amendment was that the Pensions Act shall be construed and administered as remedial legislation and that if there be reasonable doubt as to the right of an applicant to pension, the applicant shall be given the benefit of the doubt. What was the position taken in regard to that amendment? It was very similar to what I have just stated. My hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) drew the attention of the [Mr. Mackenzie King.l
house to the fact that all legislation is supposed to be remedial and that in the circumstances there was no necessity for an amendment of that character; the house had made clear its will and its wish in the matter, and that was all that was necessary.
May I say that after giving a great deal of time and careful thought and study to this question, the government has come to the conclusion that the existing legislation is not adequate. In particular it has been borne in upon us that there -are a large number of returned men who, while not suffering from any disability immediately traceable to some particular happening, are nevertheless finding themselves breaking down through causes more or less unknown. In other words, they are experiencing after a number of years what I think would be described in medical terms as the effects of deferred reaction. Though they went through the strain of the war, though they suffered mentally and physically as they did in those years, the fact that at the time they were strong and in good health led to nothing being immediately visible as a consequence of the strain they had been called upon to endure. As the years have gone by however, and the system has weakened from other causes, the strain of past years has begun to tell and many men are breaking down to-day apparently for no other reason than that of the strain of the war period. This class of cases has become, so I understand, the most difficult with which the Department of Pensions and National Health has to deal They are referred ito at times as "the -burnt outs." The government feels that some measure should be introduced which will be of service in meeting cases of that kind, and the minister will introduce shortly a bill which will give to parliament the views of the ministry, arrived at after a careful study of the matter. As I have indicated, that bill will be referred to a committee of this house and an effort will be made to see that the returned soldier is well represented on that committee. I wou-ld ask that as far as possible all the members of this -house unite in endeavouring, so far as may be in their power, to see that this -committee is given the fullest information with regard to those classes of cases which are of concern to the war veteran and to his dependents, and to bring -to the attention of the -committee every class and kind of disability and e-very flaw with respect to the existing administration of the Pensions Act which may be known both -to them and to those who are outside the walls -of this house.
It is the -desire of this government, and in speaking for the government I believe I speak for the parliament of Canada, that full justice

The Address

Mr. Mackenzie King
shall be done in the matter of caring for disabled wair veterans and their dependents, and that whatever is done shall be done in a manner worthy of the part which they have played and worthy of the country which they have served so well.
My hon. friend made some reference to the commissions which have been appointed, and to their reports, as mentioned in the speech from the throne. He inquired if there was to be legislation based on the reports of the commissions. With regard to the report of the radio commission, I may say that a bill will be introduced based upon thait report. The subject of radio broadcasting and its control is a very large one, and some of these questions, I believe, are best dealt with in the first instance by a committee of parliament. Some of these questions present much in the way of technical consideration, of which it is difficult ito have full account taken in debate. We believe that the radio broadcasting question is of that type, and we consider that it would be advisable, when the legislation is introduced, to have a special committee of this house appointed to consider it.
With regard to the report of the commission investigating the salaries of professional and technical civil servants, of which Mr. E. W. Beatty was the chairman, that report will be laid on the table of the house tomorrow. It would have been tabled to-day but the press suggested that it would perhaps receive more in the way of the publicity which it merits if the tabling were held over for a day. I might direct the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that the government received the report only a few days ago, and there has not yet been time to give to it the study which it deserves. It was therefore not possible, at the time the speech from the throne was drafted to indicate what legislation, if any, would be based upon it. I do not hesitate to say to my hon. friend that when the government appointed a commission to deal with this matter it did so with the hope and expectation that the report of the commission would serve as a guide for legislation, and I do not think there is any doubt that legislation based upon the commission's report in whole or in part will be introduced at the present session of the house.
As to the report on certain phases of the operation of Dominion legislation and merchant shipping, which was laid on the table and in respect to which my hon. friend says certain words were omitted in the reference made to it in the speech from the throne, I would like to assure my hon. friend that there was no sinister motive in leaving out the words " for your consideration." My hon. friend's
long training as a lawyer has I fear, given him a fondness for hair-splitting and on occasions a tendency of seeing things that no one sees but himself. If in this instance the speech from the throne had contained the words " for your consideration ", after the word "submitted", I am inclined to think my hon. friend in his critical frame of mind and going over the speech as he did with a fine-tooth comb, would probably have told us he had found that twice already in the speech from the throne it had been said that a report was going to be submitted " for consideration," and he would have asked for what other purpose the report could have been submitted. That is what he would have said. That of course was the onlly purpose for which the report was to be submitted.
I have in my hand a copy of the report and copies will be distributed immediately. I think my hon. friend wished to know whether the house would be given any opportunity of discussing the report. I would like at once to assure him and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), who, I know, is especially interested in this, that ample opportunity will be given for a discussion of it; indeed the government will welcome the fullest discussion. May I give one other assurance which probably my hon. friends will wish to have? I understood my hon. friend to ask whether there would be at Westminster legislation based upon this report before this parliament had an opportunity of pronouncing upon its recommendations. If that was the question I would answer that this house will be given an opportunity to approve the recommendations before any legislation with respect to them is enacted at Westminster. I think that ought to make our position clear with respect to this commission's report.
My hon. friend did not take up at this stage, and I think very properly, the matters in the report, but he did have a word to say in regard to Canada's status. Some way or another he seems unwilling to concede that there is such a thing as equality of status between the dominions themselves and Great Britain. This afternoon he said there can be no such thing as equality of status as long as we have to go to Westminster to amend our constitution. If that were due to any action on the part of the government at Westminster of a character which was restrictive so far as this parliament was concerned, then I would say there was something to the point which my hon. friend raises. But in this matter there is no limitation whatsoever due to us from Westminster. My hon. friend knows
46	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
that an}' time we wish to amend our constitution or to obtain the power to have the constitution amended of our own right independently of Westminster altogether, all we have to do is to present an address from both houses of this parliament to the parliament at Westminster, and that address will be given effect to in legislation at Westminster.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is a statute at Westminster, and in New Zealand and South Africa and Australia such is not the case.


Ernest Lapointe: That was done by an act at Westminster.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As the Minister of Justice has just stated, it is by an act at Westminster that the governments of Australia and New Zealand have the right to amend their constitution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And Westminster will be willing to concede the parliament of Canada the same right just as soon as we wish to have it conceded. The fact that within Canada itself there are those provinces or individuals in provinces who prefer to have retained at Westminster, as is the case at the present time, the right of amending our constitution upon addresses from this parliament, is only an evidence of the faith there is in Canada in the essential fairness and justice of the British parliament in dealing with matters of the kind. It means that some there are, who are of the minority in this country, who feel that minority rights in Canada will be better conserved if amendment to the constitution is made only by the British parliament and if the parliament of Great Britain acts' only as a result of an address from both houses of this parliament. No greater tribute could be paid to the sense of British fair play and justice than is implied.in that self-imposed limitation-a condition as to method- which controls the matter of the amendment of our constitution, but it is a self-imposed limitation; it is not something that is imposed from without, something imposed on Canada by Britain.


Peter McGibbon: What improved status has Canada to-day any more than was laid down in the imperial conference resolution of 1917?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is going back a long way. I think there will be opportunities to discuss the whole question of status at another time, and I shall not go into the matter at the moment. Prior to 1926 there was no formal declaration as to the 
position of this country in the matter of equality of status. That position was made very plain at the conference held in England in 1926.


Peter McGibbon: Surely the Prime Minister knows the resolution passed in 1917 on that very point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad my hon. friend has brought this up, because I think he was among the ones who denounced the Minister of Justice and myself when we came back from the conference of 1926, and claimed that the conference had given a declaration of equality of status between the dominions and the mother country. My hon. friends opposite hardly gave us a hearing, so strongly did they denounce the assertion that we ever had obtained such a thing as equality of status. My hon. friend's leader at the moment is still disputing the fact that there is equality of status at this time.


Peter McGibbon: What I said was this,
and I say it to-day: any improved status we have, toe it great or little, we have got through the army-and it is so laid down in the imperial conference of 1927-and not through this government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am rather
surprised my hon. friend, in view of what he has just said, voted in support of an amendment moved by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), which was if I recollect aright to the effect that such a thing as equality of status had not been secured.
May I conclude by referring to just two other matters to which my hon. friend made reference? He made a passing reference, which he said was partly personal, to the economic conference. He said that last year I had not deigned to reply to his suggestion that an economic conference should be called. Now when in the speech from the throne it is made apparent that an economic conference is to be held, and that every effort was made by the present government to have that economic conference held not only soon but also in this country, my hon. friend does not even so much as thank me. He is critical no matter what is done. If one tries to please him, he won't be pleased.


Mr. MANION:: The hon. member did not thank him for the suggestion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is the economic conference
to be held in Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry
to say it is not. We made an effort to have-the conference held in this country last fall;.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
but as my hon. friend knows, the several dominions wish to be represented as well as the home government and it was not found possible to get agreement among the dominions to have the meeting held in Ottawa.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I misunderstood the hon.
gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As a result
the conference will be held in England in late September or early October of this year.
As to the reference in the speech from the throne to the appointment of a woman to the Senate, my hon. friend took exception to the wording in the address to the effect that His Excellency had upon the advice of his ministers acted at the earliest opportunity to summon a woman to the Senate. May I point out to my hon. friend that the earliest time at which any individual could take his or her seat in the Senate was when parliament resumed. That was the earliest opportunity at which any summons could have any effect. The lady who has been appointed to the senate took her seat on the first day of the session of this parliament. I do not think it would have been possible for His Excellency to have obtained a seat for any member of the senate before that time. That was the earliest opportunity at which any person could gain a seat in the senate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what the
speech says.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Again I say
that my hon. friend has gone through the speech from the throne with a fine-tooth comb and his comment on that particular phrase indicates the pains he has been put to in order to find something to criticise. If there is nothing in the affairs of the administration during this past year which is more deserving of criticism than the phraseology in the speech from the throne as to the time at which His Excellency summonded a woman to the senate, I think the government has little reason to be concerned over t'he confidence which the country, I believe, has in the administration?
My hon. friend, looking for fine points all through the speech from the throne, has missed altogether the larger vision. With regard to the appointment of a woman to the senate he has altogether failed to see that what really has been effected is a very considerable measure of senate reform. Speak about the democratizing of the senate! I hope that my hon. friend and all hon. gentlemen opposite wil'l recognize that for the first time in the history of Canada the women of
this country have been given a voice peculiarly their own in the upper chamber of this parliament. May I also direct the attention of my hon. friend to the other appointment to the senate that has been made by the government, the appointment of one who was formerly the leader of the Progressive party in this parliament. In other words, to the farming community and to the women of this country there has been given an added voice in the senate by the appointments which have been made within the past few weeks. That is the real significance to be attached to that item in the speech from the throne, not that there is some phraseology capable of being twisted into a meaning which was never intended. What I say in this regard is,
I believe, equally true of practically all the comments that have been made by my hon. friend on the speech. He has not sought to get a true perspective of the matters contained in the speech.
I have already pointed out in regard to prosperity that my hon. friends' vision is very limited indeed. With regard to the transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces my hon. friend said, and perhaps rightly, that he had very little to say on that subject at this time because bills would be introduced later; but he did not point out, as he might well have done, that what is there set out indicates the result of a settlement of differences between the provinces and this Dominion which have occasioned very considerable difficulty for many years in the past. Reference is made to the maritime provinces. When we came into office we found a condition of unrest in the maribimes. It W'as the most serious situation with which the country was then faced. We appointed a commission to look into conditions there, and we acted on the report of that commission in very considerable detail. A very little still remains to be done, and I hope that before we are through hon. gentlemen may find that the report has been implemented in all particulars. Coming next to the western portion of this country, we found on assuming office that the western provinces for some fifteen years previous had been trying to get back their natural resources. Hon. gentlemen opposite had been, in office from 1911 to 1921, they never were able to effect a transfer; they never were able to work out terms satisfactory alike to the provinces and to the federal government. We have achieved that result. That is part of the achievement mentioned in the speech from the throne.
Going still further west, to the .province of British Columbia, there was an, old grievance

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
there with respect to certain lands in the railway belt and the Peace river block. Delegation after delegation had come here from British Columbia to negotiate with the federal government in an effort to get back those landis which they felt ought to belong to the province. We have succeeded in making an agreement with British Columbia in regard to that matter which will be submitted to the house.
There remains the question of certain water-powers in itheir relation to navigation on the great rivers. That question has remained unsettled for a long time. We sought a solution by judicial determination but were unable to get anything effected in that way. We have taken up the question by conference. As yet the work of conference is not complete, but I am hopeful that before very long that question too will be satisfactorily settled. In other words, we found on coming into office, and since, that there have been a series of questions affecting the relations between the provinces and the Dominion; right across this country from coast to coast, the maritime provinces, the older provinces, the western provinces, and British Columbia all had their problems, and we have grappled with them all in a spirit that was broad and liberal and generous. We have never asked the question: wbait is the party with which we are dealing? We have dealt with Conservative governments, Liberal governments, and Progressive governments, and with all these governments alike we have been able to a greater or lesser extent to work out a solution of these problems which were causing a lack of harmony within the jurisdiction of the Dominion as a whole. That, Mr. Speaker, is the real significance of the reference of the speech in that regard. A similar effort has been made with respect to the relations between .this country and other countries concerning problems that have come up at the League of Nations, imperial conferences and elsewhere; in all these cases we have souerht a solution in a manner which would make for harmony, unity and goodwill, and in all these particulars we have oeen in very large measure successful.


Robert Gardiner: The Address-Mr. Gardiner

There is another factor which is exercising the minds of many of the people of this country in regard to imports from the United States; they seem to think that because we are importing so much goods from the United States we are getting the worst of the deal. As a matter of fact, if we are buying goods from the United States we are doing so because we can buy them there to the best advantage; we are the ones who are spending the money. That is not the only point we should keep before us, however; there is another point which is very important. There is no doubt that at present large sums of money, or rather large amounts of wealth, are coming from the United States for investment in this country, and the only way these investments can be made in Canada by the United States people is through the exportation of goods in order to take care of their credits. That is the only way wealth can come into this country, in the final analysis, for the purpose of being invested here. If we want to turn down these investments, all well and good; personally I am not- in favour of it. If people outside of Canada feel that the can invest in this country and so develop our natural resources that is all right as far as I am concerned, but it should be clearly understood that when these credits come in for investment purposes they must be followed by goods in order to take care of the credits.
I believe my hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) at the last session of parliament made a plea for more adequate returns with regard to our financial relations with other countries. We have many invisible imports to-day and many invisible exports which are not indicated under our present system of accounting, and I would suggest to my good friend the Minister of Finance that this is an opportunity for him to display his great energy in getting more accurate information in respect to these invisible items, so that the members of 'parliament and the people of Canada as a whole will have an opportunity of sizing up the situation as it actually is rather than having to guess at it, as we must do at present.
The Prime Minister has referred to the matter of the return of the natural resources to the prairie provinces, and that question is also touched upon in the speech from the throne. As legislation will be introduced during the session in this regard I do not purpose discussing this matter to any extent at present; anything I have to say with regard to this question will be said when the legislation is before the house. I have had the privilege of

going through the agreement which has been signed by the province of Alberta and the federal government, and there are some points in connection with that agreement in repard to which I desire to secure an explanation. Therefore I do not propose to discuss the matter further than to say that I congratulate the government on being able at least to satisfy these two provincial governments with regard to the question of natural resources. I do not wish to place myself to-night in the position of agreeing absolutely with the terms of the agreement, but I will have something further to say about this subject when the legislation is before the house.
I am rather pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the speech from the throne mentioned the question of pensions to the returned men. First let me say that the mover of the address this afternoon stated, or at least inferred, that this question of dealing with the problems of the returned soldiers had been more or less a partisan question in .this house, and that primarily the Liberal party had been responsible for all that, had been done for these men. In that I think my hon. friend made a mistake, which is more or less excusable because he is a new member. So far as I am concerned I want to pay tribute to all parties in this house to the extent that this matter has never been a party question; indeed all parties have combined and given the best that they had to try to solve these very intricate problems, and I hope and trust that when this matter again comes before the committee the same spirit will prevail.
Some little time ago I received a letter from one of the .returned men, and I am going to read an extract from it to give the house some idea of a few of the matters which are irritating the returned men and more particularly those men who suffered such disabilities as amputations 'and so on. This gentleman writes me quite a long letter, and with the permission of the house I would like to read just one paragraph from it in order to show how these men feel. He writes in part as follows:
It appears when a pension is allowed for disability, fractions of limbs are taken into consideration in my own case you see (by letter enclosed) that I lose 10 per cent disability because I have fractions of finger and thumb left, in circumstances that mean so fine an adjustment particularly on the hands. Would it not be more fair to allow the man the benefit of pensionable disability to the next joint as the stumips in my own case are useless?
I also have before me a letter which this man received when he got his pension in the first place. It is dated Ottawa, September 20.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
1919, and is from the Board of Pension Commissioners. The second paragraph is as follows :
It is pointed out that had you lost the entire index finger and .thumb you would only have received pension at the rate of 30 per _ cent- this being the official estimate for this loss. Having only lost two-thirds of each of these members, however, 20 per cent is the maximum pension which it has been possible to award you.
That is merely a sample of some of the matters with which these amputation oases have to contend. In this particular case, according .to this man's letter, his stumps are of no value to him at all, but because of the fact that he has a small stump left of his index finger and also of his thumb, he is deprived of 10 per cent by way of pension that he otherwise would have if the finger and thumb had been amputated entirely. I hope the committee will go into this question and deal with these matters very thoroughly; I feel quite sure that that will be done.
Another matter which is very important at present to the soldier settlers is the question of the repayment of their Joans. This matter has been before the house on various occasions in previous sessions, and in some ways the men have been dealt with very generously, but we find that a very large proportion of the soldier settlers who bought land through the Soldier Settlement Board are not in a very good position to make the payments necessary finally to liquidate their liability, and at the same time make a living. I think if we were to make a thorough examination of many of the cases of these soldier settlers who are finding it very hard indeed to meet their payments, we would find that many of them are suffering from physical deterioration because of their having passed through the war conditions, and under the circumstances it seems almost impossible, because of that physical condition, for them finally to liquidate their liability. The farmer organizations in western Canada have these matters thrust upon them from time to time, and we are very glad indeed to be able to consider the requests of these returned men. At the last convention of the United Farmers of Alberta, all these factors being taken into consideration, a resolution was unanimously adopted that so far as further (payments to the Soldier Settlement Board were concerned this house should in future remit all interest charges and ask the men simply to pay the principal, primarily because of the fact that most of them were in poor health and consequently did not have a fair opportunity of meeting all their obligations in fu.lil. I hope the committee when it meets will give this matter their atten-2419-4 J
tion, because it is very important. We feel that those men who served Canada so well should be given every consideration. As I stated before, parliament has given them many valuable considerations, first of all by the remission of interest charges for two or three years, then by a remission of part of their stock accounts, subsequently by revaluation and so forth; but in spite of all that has already been done by parliament we find that most of the settlers under the soldier settlement scheme are still fighting hard in order to retain the properties which they bought. We believe that if interest was remitted in full and the men merely asked to pay the principal amount of their liability, the sum of money which was advanced to them to purchased land and equipment, their position would be much improved and they would at least have the opportunity of finally discharging their liability. More particularly do we urge that because we know the condition of these men and have some knowledge of the circumstances under which they are labouring.
In the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, we have a reference to the reorganization of the Board of Grain Commissioners of Canada. I have had the opportunity of discussing with farmers in my particular constituency what parliament did during the last session, and I hlad the privilege and pleasure of telling them that so far as the Board of Grain Commissioners was concerned, and particularly as respects the amendments to the Canada Grain Act adopted last year, this question was made a non-partisan question in the House of Commons, and that political parties of all degrees of thought combined their best efforts in producing such amendments to the Canada Grain Act as would be satisfactory to the producers and would therefore make them feel a little happier. I think I am quite justified in expressing to this house the pleasure that 'the farmers feel in realizing that this matter was treated as a non-party question. It is also stated in the speedh from the throne that there is to be a new consolidation of the grain act. I presume that this question will be referred to the agriculture committee. I hope the consolidation will be such as to bring the Canada Grain Act in conformity with present day conditions and consequently give to the farmer that protection which is very much needed.
The question of the marketing of grain is one which I believe should occupy the attention of tlhe agriculture committee. The farmers of western Canada who are growing the bulk of the export grain in the form of wheat are beginning to feel very dubious about marginal
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

selling, and seem to think that this method of operation is not in the best interests of the producer. I must confess that as far as I aim concerned I do nolt know very much about it. I have never dealt in margins myself; consequently have not the remotest idea of how it is done. I merely suggest to the government, and more particularly to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) that this would be an appropriate matter for investigation, either by the agriculture committee or by a special commission. Indeed such a course is almost necessary in view of the disclosures with regard to the selling of stocks and shares, more particularly oil and mining shares. The farmers are very mubh disquieted because they feel that in margin selling, or in short selling as it is termed, they are being done out of something which should be absolutely their profit. As I said before, this is a matter for investigation, and I merely make the suggestion in the hope that it will be accepted and that either the agriculture committee or a special committee will accept the task of investigating the particular matter with a view to finding out whether the present practice is beneficial or detrimental to the producer and, if it is detrimental to his interests, what can be dome to see that he gets all that is coming to him out of his grain.
That, Mr. Speaker, is about all I have to say with regard to the speech from the throne. I desire now to take up another matter which is important to the people I represent, more particularly the agricultural classes, namely, the operation of the farm loan board. Hon. members will remember that this house in 1927 passed the Farm Loan Act. It was necessary before this act could come into operation that the provincial legislatures should pass concurrent legislation; consequently it was only late last year that the farm loan board came into operation in the various provinces which had passed the necessary concurrent legislation. It seems that the board in Alberta has made a discrimination between districts. When the legislation was being passed we in this corner of the house stated that we wanted to see the board carry on its affairs on a purely business basis; that every application for a loan should be thoroughly scrutinized, and that the board would be justified in rejecting applications for loans where the marginal security was not sufficient. But the farm loan board in Alberta have gone even further; they have taken the map of Alberta, have drawn a ring around a very large part of the southern portion of it, and have virtually said to people in that area that they will not even consider applications; therefore there is no use in anyone from that

district making application for a loan. We maintain that under the terms of this act every application should be considered on its merits. We do not ask the board to make loans on all the applications that come from that particular area or even from any particular part of the province, but we do say that within that semi-dry area around which they have drawn a ring there are many excellent farmers making a success of farming who are just as much entitled to consideration at the hands of the farm loan board as are the farmers in any other part of the province, and we protest against this discrimination. By this discrimination the board virtually said to the line companies doing business in those areas:	Do
what you like in this area, charge the farmers all you can get out of them, soak them if you possibly can." Now we maintain that that is not fair. As I said before, we do not ask for any special privilege, we merely ask that each application should be considered on its merit and that whatever the board may do will be based on the security which they can obtain from the farmer making the application.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Do the loan companies
make loans in, those areas?


Robert Gardiner: commodities, if we had no customs restrictions whatever and had the credits, we could go into the markets of the world and buy those goods at world competitive prices, just in the same manner as we sell the products of the farm. Under those circumstances we believe that through the system of protection the price of certatin commodities is increased by ihe amount of protection which those commodities enjoy. Consequently, retaliation would be foolish on the part of Canada and we do not believe it would be of advantage to agriculture at all.
But we have recognized this important point also, that the great bulk of our exports to Great Britain are composed of agricultural products, and under the circumstances, since Great Britain gives us a market in her country for a very large surplus of our agricultural products we feel that somehow or another it might be possible to give to the British people some advantage in our markets, which would be of benefit also to the Canadian people. It is quite true the purchasing power of the British people, like that of the Canadian people, is very much restricted; that is to say, the purchasing power is usually not quite sufficient to meet the prices pllateed on commodities which have already been produced, and this creates from time to time periods of depression when these goods finally accumulate in large quantities. In view of the fact that we have the old country market for our surplus agricultum.1 products, true it is, in competition with other countries, we believe, by buying more of Great Britain's manufactured goods, we shall be helping to increase her purchasing power and she can then, because of her greater purchasing power, buy more of our agricultural products. We bdlieve that would be far better than any proposed policy of retaliation which might be used in this country against another country which at present is proposing to increase the duty on the importation of agricultural products. We merely ask that this matter be considered (by the house, and particularly by the government, because they will be responsible for bringing down the budget. Under the circumstances we think a far better policy for Canada to pursue is to increase the British preference, thus eliminating barriers and therfoy increasing the business of the country all round.
My time has elapsed. Coming back to the speech from the throne, I do not see anything outstanding in it. It is very largely a resume of things that have (already taken place and consequently I am not enthusiastic about it nor am I depressed as to its contents. But I hope that as the session proceeds the govern-

ment will bring before the house such important legislation as will be required to meet present day conditions. It is true, as I said before, that we have had an era of prosperity, but it appears very likely we shall have a period of depression for some little time. I hope that will not be the case, but everything points towards it.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish at the outset to associate myself with the very kind sentiments expressed by the previous speaker with regard to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), the new Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Crerar), and also the mover (Mr. Gray) and the seconder (Mr. Dupuis) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I feel, however, I ought to take this first oportunity I have in rising in my place in the house, to express my views and those of the people whom I represent as to conditions in Canada at the present time.
As I sat here this afternoon and listened to the very fine speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), one almost felt we were in a state of the highest prosperity; but from the Prime Minister remarks, his conception of prosperity is to be gauged by what presidents of banks, the president of a railroad and the Montreal Gazette have to say. It was claimed that the Montreal Gazette is a Conservative paper. That is perfectly true, but from my reading of the paper I have come to the conclusion that while it is a Conservative journal, it generally supports the policies of the Liberal party. I hardly expected the Prime Minister would quote the gentlemen whose statements he has used to show that Canada was prosperous, because this very day the right bon. gentleman has said that the Liberal party has become the right wing of the Labour party in this Dominion. He did not, of course, use those exact words; he said that the Labour party was the left wing of the Liberal party, but I presume the reverse might also be true. Let me say this to the Prime Minister, that if he associates with that particular company and uses those gentlemen as a criterion of what is going on in regard to prosperity in Canada, I am afraid the other associations will not be of a very harmonious character.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend missed the purpose I had in view. I was endeavouring to give my hon. friends opposite some of their own gospel, quoting authorities which I thought would appeal to them.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is a sort of triangle here and I am trying to complete it if I can.

The Address-Mr. Heaps
la my estimation these gentlemen are not the people whom I am going to take as authorities on the question of prosperity in Canada. How are we to gauge prosperity here? Are we to gauge it 'by the fact that the manager of a bank or the president of a railroad says that we are prosperous? Whom do they mean when they use the term " we are prosperous"? They mean the bondholders and stockholders of those particular corporations. I venture to assert that the majority of bondholders and stockholders do not even live in Canada. In other words, the profits made by those corporations usually go outside the Dominion and do not help the people who are residents of this country.
I wish to gauge the prosperity of the people of Canada by the general contentment and well-being of the great masses of the people. If I take that as a criterion, then I say we are far from being prosperous. Within the last few months there have been two conferences in western Canada to deal with the question of unemployment. Do not let us for a moment think the problem of unemployment is to be found only in the western part of Canada; for on my way from the west to Ottawa I stopped off in Toronto for a day, only on Wednesday last, and in the daytime I found a long line of men right on Yonge street waiting to get a free meal. They were standing three abreast on the sidewalk, practically blocking all the traffic. When you find these long lines of men waiting at the soup kitchens, and when you find vast numbers of men and women out of work throughout the country, no hon. member has any right to say in this house that we are prosperous, because we are not.
The name of Sir Charles Gordon has been mentioned here as an authority on the question of prosperity. I have in my hand a blue book issued under the authority of parliament, dealing with the investigation that was held by the committee on Industrial and International Relations in the year 1928, and I want to quote from the evidence in connection with the men and women employed by the Dominion Textile Corporation, of which the same Sir Charles Gordon happens to be president. Incidentally I might point out that this company is one of the most highly protected industries in the Dominion, receiving I believe a protection of from 30 to 35 per cent. Dealing first with the shoe factories in the province of Quebec, Mr. Beaule, president of the Catholic syndicates in the province of Quebec, is examined:
Q. What is the average wage per day?-A. In many factories, where the syndicates are represented, men on piece work make, on an
average, between $1,000 to $1,200 per year. The men that are not organized, working on piece work, average from $12 to $20 per week.
Now I quote from the evidence in regard to the textile industry in the province of Quebec:
By Mr. Woodsworth:
Q. Can you give us any idea of the wages and hours with regard to the girls in the cotton factories?-A. They do not work more than 48 hours per week.
By Mr. Heaps:
Q. What are the wages?-A. I cannot say precisely, but I do not think that these girls get more than $8 per week the year round.
By Mr. Woodsworth:
Q. Eight dollars per week?
Then the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. St-Pere) who is not now in his seat, made the following observation:
According to the statistics of the Labour department, the average wage for men working in the cotton mills is $666 per year. I got that information myself.
The hon. member for Hochelaga, who sits behind the Prime Minister, makes that statement, and yet he will no doubt vote for the speech from the throne, which says that we are prosperous, while as a matter of fact men are working in the province of Quebec for a wage of about $12 a week and girls for about $8 per week, and the president of the corporation paying such wages is cited as an authority on prosperity in the Dominion of Canada.
The Prime Minister stated that the responsibility for the care of the unemployed rests first with the municipalities, second, with the provinces, and 'third, with the federal government. I think that order ought to be reversed, and that the first responsibility ought to be on the federal government, the second on the provinces, and the third on the municipalities, for the very simple and obvious reason that no municipality creates any unemployment problem. Unemployment is created by conditions over which the municipality 'has no control whatever; they are merely the victims of circumstances. We have unemployment to-day in all parts of this Dominion; it is not a problem affecting merely one part of the -country. It has got beyond the boundaries of any single municipality; the condition is common throughout the country, and there must be a a common cause.
Why have we this vast amount of unemployment throughout the Dominion? The Prime Minister has completely failed to explain it, and unfortunately even the leader of the opposition has not told us why we have it. One of the reasons why we have unemployment in this country is because there
The Address-Mr. Heaps

is a surplus of commodities. Another reason is that there is under-consumption in the Dominion. When you have tens, yes, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people who are suffering as a result of unemployment there is bound to be under-consumption. When you have men and women who are receiving wages of from $8 to $12 and $20 per week, there is bound to be under-consumption of the commodities which are produced. Consequently unemployment is not of a nature with which any municipality can deal. It cannot be dealt with even by a provincial body. It must be dealt with by a federal body. The unemployed of Ottawa, will go over to Hull, cross from Ontario into Quebec, looking for work, just as the unemployed in Quebec will cross over into Ontario, for the same reason, but of course they cannot find very much work at the present time. I feel that in dealing with the question of unemployment we have got to get down to fundamentals, and not deal with the question in any superficial way.
It has been stated this afternoon that this unemployment problem is just a passing phase, that it will disappear in two or three months, and that then the problem will no longer be with us. I beg to differ. Only just recently at a conference held in Winnipeg, at which five of the provinces were represented, a resolution was passed stating that unemployment had become a permanent feature in our social system. It is not a passing feature; it is permanent in character, and I say that we are wasting our time dealing with more or less superficial questions when we should be dealing with pressing economic problems.
I should like to refer to a little item in the press, particularly for the benefit of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, as it refers to the city of Prince Albert, with which I am sure he is acquainted. Hon. gentlemen will see from this despatch from Prince Albert, dated December 19, 1929, that the unemployment situation is not simply of a local character. It says:
Inquiry at the jail revealed that the institution has had its elasticity tested to the limit in recent weeks. Up until recently there were some 165 male inmates and no cells available, and since then the accommodation has been stretched to provide for an additional 60 or so men. The great bulk of the inmates, Warden P. Forsyth declares, are transients who have been "sent up" as vagrants because they had become destitute and could not find employment.
Mr. Forsyth pointed out the utter futility of sentencing these men to fourteen day terms, only to release them at the expiration and have them back again in a short while.

The magistrate then goes on to point out in an interview that he has no alternative to sending these unemployed men to gaol for a term in order that they may be provided with food and shelter. I want to protest in tihis house as vigorously as I can against sending these men to gaol for no other reason than that they are out of work. It is a crime against society, and I believe it is turning perfectly good citizens into criminals. I know of many a case where the first idea of criminality came to the man who happened to find himself through no fault of his own in those unfortunate surroundings. No government, I care not what party it represents, can attempt to shelve its responsibilities because our penitentiaries and gaols to a very large extent are maintained out of funds granted by tihe federal parliament.
The other authority cited on the question of prosperity was the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I venture to assert, Mr. Speaker, that when the next dividend of that company is declared it will be at the same rate, ten per .cent, as it has been in years gone by. In other words, the men who are in the company's employ have to be thrown on to the unemployment market in order that the dividend of ten per cent may be maintained for the shareholders of the corporation. Only recently what do we find? We find that the stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was split four for one, and ' it went up in value as a result. That is, the shareholders got a split of four for one, and the men could go broke for nothing. I do not think that betokens a very satisfactory state of affairs in this country. It would be far better in the interests of the Dominion if the shareholders had lower returns and these men had more employment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan), who unfortunately is absent, I .presume, on other business. In the midst of the agitation to get the government to assist those who are out of work the Minister of Labour issued a sort of manifesto defending the action of the government and made certain statements which in his calmer and more reflective moments I think he would not have made. The minister stated that in his opinion-and this has been broadcast-
-there is not the same necessity for calling a national conference with respect to unemployment as there is in the United States. In that country the crash in the stock market destroyed confidence and threatened to result in slackened activities in industry generally.
Now, I do not know whether the Minister of Labour ever read the newspapers published

The Address-Mr. Heaps
in Canada, or was acquainted with the facts, but in any case I want to assume him that in the month of October last year there was also a stock market crash in this Dominion, and the crash had identically the same effect here that it had in the United States.
Let me refer for a moment to the returns of unemployment, giving statistics to show the difference between conditions in Canada and in the United States. Those figures were dwelt on to-day by the right hon. Prime Minister. I am always wary of the glib use of statistics. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour took 1926 as a basis, but we do not know what that basis is. We have never yet been told of the different ways in which these statistics are collected here and in the United States. In Canada we collect statistics for industries which give more or less steady employment, and we leave out altogether agriculture and many other seasonal occupations; consequently the statistics furnished by the Department of Labour give no true indication of the amount of unemployment. I think it is most unfortunate that while the Department of Labour deals with the question of the number of people employed in industry, and talks of peaks of employment, we are given no information regarding peaks of unemployment. I feel very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that if to-day we had the true figures of unemployment in the Dominion it would show one of the most severe unemployment periods that we have had to face in the past twenty-five years. I am speaking now with some personal knowledge, having gone into the various cities in Canada and mixed with my colleagues in the labour movement, and wherever I have gone I have found the same cry: We have one of the worst unemployment situations to meet that we have ever had to handle. But the government fold their arms and say: We can do nothing; it is entirely a problem for others to grapple with! The Minister of Labour proceeded to say that crop conditions were bad in Canada, and he also stated that conditions in agriculture are abnormally depressed. This would go to show that the figures given by the Department of Labour are not reliable in regard to disclosing the true situation of unemployment in this country, because the two statements which I have just refereed to are self contradictory. You cannot have the basic industry of this country depressed, as agriculture is depressed at the present time, without all other industries feeling the effects of that depression.
But what cure is proposed by the Minister of Labour for this condition of affairs? Well, he has no cure. He makes this rather extraordinary statement. I term it extraordinary because when men and women are out of work and crying for bread they expect something more than mere statistics from the government. Statistics do not feed empty stomachs. The Minister of Labour also makes this statement:
The calling of a conference might react unfavourably on existing economic conditions, at least psychologically. It will be recalled that in the United States conference a suggestion was made that the workers should agree among themselves not to secure higher wages. Personally I do not think that present circumstances warrant action in asking the workers of this country to agree not to seek higher wages.
Now, the Minister of Labour talks about "economic conditions." I suppose when he so talks he presumes to know something about economics. Well, if there is one thing which he ought to know it is this: when you have hundreds of thousands of men and women out of work, those in employment cannot ask for higher wages. That is a fact which goes without contradiction. Well, he tells the workers of this country that one of the reasons why he does not call an economic conference is that he does not want to tie their hands in demanding higher rates of pay! But the calling of a conference would not of necessity be for the purpose of demanding higher pay'. Such a conference, I should think, would be for the purpose of devising ways and means to provide work of some kind for the men and women who to-day find themselves without employment. But the Minister of Labour washes his hands entirely of that responsibility. I wish to say this: if our Department of Labour has no interest in the question of unemployment in the Dominion why does it exist at all? I believe that the chief function of a department of labour is to deal with important labour questions, and there is no problem more important to labour that the problem of unemployment. These men who at various times have appealed to the Department of Labour have been turned down; they have been told that so far as the government are concerned they can do very little for them. In fact the Minister of Labour says:	There is no unemployment problem;
but if it exists, it is unwise to discuss it; for it might have a very bad psychological effect upon the man who is out of work or the man who is earning $12 per week. It reminds me very much of the ostrich; when it sees a storm coming up it buries it head in the
The Address-Mr. Heaps

sand. I expect something more than an ostrichlike attitude from a minister of labour, whatever government happens to be in office. I expect something in the form of statesmanship; I expect the government to grapple with unemployment, not to allow themselves to drift into the attitude of waiting until something turns up and hoping conditions will get better. I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether conditions are going to get better, I am not a pessimist, as perhaps some people are or as some people may think I am, but I do think we should face conditions as they are. At present I think we have in this country about 200,000,000 bushels of grain, or about two-thirds of last year's crop. If we have a good crop, in the fall of 1980, I am wondering whether prosperity is going to come this year. After all, the law of supply and demand will hold good in the selling of wheat just as it holds good in connection with any other commodity. This is an economic law and in my estimation it does not hold out a great deal for the farmer in the year 1930; in fact, he might be better off if the acreage this year were a great deal less than it was in the year 1929. This was what happened in the United States when there was an overproduction of cotton; they agreed to reduce the cotton acreage in order that prices might become somewhat stabilized, and I do not know whether a huge wheat crop would be of any benefit to the farmer if he got it in the year 1930.
There are one or two points which I should like to bring up in this connection before I close. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is some-:hing of a reflection upon our whole economic structure that to-day in the Dominion of Canada there should be want in the midst of plenty. I said before that one of the reasons why that want exists is because there is overproduction and under-consumption. Also some way must be devised by which we can promote a closer relationship between the wages which are paid to the men employed in industry and that which they produce. In the past few years there has been an ever-increasing productivity due in the first place to the introduction of machinery and in the second place to the speeding-up process to which the men have been subjected. In spite of this increasing productivity wages have remained about stationary; in other words there has been more and more going in the way of profits to those who own the means of production. The position of the wage earners has become relatively worse, because the number of men required to produce a greater

quantity of commodities has been diminishing. One of the causes of the existing unemployment situation is the fact that to-day a man employed in industry is turning out probably 50 per cent or 75 per cent more than he did ten or fifteen years ago. If that is one of the causes, as I say it is, then we ought to get down to fundamentals and not deal with the more or less superficial questions to which we sometimes devote a great deal of attention.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that when the committee which is to interview the government in relation to the unemployment situation comes to Ottawa on Wednesday next the government should accede to some of their requests. They will make two or three very important suggestions, which I hope the government will see their way clear to adopt.
I am not going to deal with the returned soldier problem. I think it has been well dealt with during the day, and, as the previous speaker said, the house has been fairly unanimous in its attitude toward the returned soldiers and their problems and I feel that the house will again take the same attitude this session. However, in addition to that question there are the two others, one dealing with unemployment insurance and another with the appointment of an economic commission, which should be inquired into. The question of unemployment insurance is coming more and more to the front as the unemployment problem becomes greater, and I sincerely hope the government will appoint an economic commission to consider this and other related questions. There have been previous commissions on unemployment; the last one was in 1919, eleven years ago, and during those eleven years there have been vast changes in our mode of production. There have been changes in other directions; there have been amalgamations of all kinds and we have had prosecutions iby the government of certain combines. In connection with other combines, however, the different governments of Canada have actually insisted that they be created. I am referring particularly now to the combine with regard to newsprint. There the governments of Ontario and Quebec have insisted that the price of newsprint should be greater than it has been in the past, and their demand has been met. We have all this price-fixing by the government, but wages fluctuate according to the law of supply and demand and I believe the government will be doing a good thing if, when the opportune time comes within the next few days, they give a favourable reply to

Criminal Code Amendment
the request for the appointment of such a commission as will make a thorough investigation into the cause and cure of unemployment.
On motion of Mr. Brady the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 25, 1930