1931-03-16

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: I beg to lay on the table of the house a summary of proceedings and appendices of the Imperial conference of 1930, and to move in that regard:
__ That 1,000 copies be printed in English and 700 copies in French of the summary of proceedings and appendices of the Imperial conference of 1930; and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May I ask
my right hon. friend if these documents have already been printed, and if so, if they will be distributed immediately?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The usual custom has been followed. They have been printed but not distributed. They have been distributed in England for some time, as my right hon. friend knows, but I understand that the rule here is that they should not be distributed until parliament has given its formal sanction to the motion. Once the motion is passed, copies will be distributed without further delay.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That an humble address be presented to His Majesty to express the deep concern of this house at the loss which His Majesty has sustained by the death of Her Royal Highness, the Princess Royal; and to condole, with His Majesty and to assure His Majesty that this house participates with the most affectionate and dutiful attachment in whatever concerns the feelings and interests of His Majesty.
He said: Mr. Speaker, death takes its toll from the family circle of the King or from his humblest subject, alike from the ruler and the ruled. Sometimes we are fain to forget that those who sit on thrones have the same human impulses, emotions and sufferings as fall to the lot of all mankind. On this occasion we are reminded that our sovereign king, who is the Crown to us, has suffered a great bereavement through the death of his beloved sister. It is fitting at this time that we should record our deep concern at the loss he has sustained and the sorrow he has endured.
4

Tributes to Deceased Members
That touch of nature that makes the whole world kin, the hand of death, affords us the opportunity to express our concern not only in this present sorrow but in all that affects the welfare and happiness of our King, who is the sign and symbol of that single authority which binds together a quarter of the world's surface into what we know as the British empire.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I support and
am pleased to have the privilege of seconding the motion for an address to His Majesty expressive of the sympathy of this house in his recent bereavement. I have nothing to add to what the right hon. the Prime Minister, in his capacity as leader of this house, has just said. I am sure he has expressed the views of all of us not only appropriately but also felicitously. On behalf of the official opposition which I represent may I say we wish to be associated with those sentiments expressive of sympathy to His Majesty in the loss of his beloved sister.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: On behalf of the Independent group in this house may I be permitted to join with the Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition and all members of the house in expressing to His Majesty our regret at the loss of his sister. We share His Majesty's sense of loss and we desire to convey to His Majesty an expression of our deep sympathy.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, sometimes I have thought that the melancholy duty which devolves upon the leader of the House of Commons at the opening of parliament is one which he would like to be spared. We are reminded that since we last met two of our members have been called to their long homes. From this part of the house we have lost the member for East Hamilton, Colonel George Septimus Rennie; on the other side of the house my right hon. friend and his supporters have lost the services of the member for Three Rivers-'St. Maurice, the late Arthur Bettez. Colonel Rennie was a Canadian, born and educated in this country. He proceeded abroad to complete his medical education and while abroad he obtained that knowledge which enabled him thereafter to 'become one of the famous practitioners in that part of Canada in which he resided. He was always interested 
in military matters and in fact was associated with the batteries of artillery in the city of Hamilton. In the service of the artillery he gained the rank of commanding officer. At the outbreak of the war he offered his services to his king and country and proceeded to England where he was in charge of an area for some time. Later he proceeded to France where he served until the close of the war. Three times he was mentioned in despatches, and he retired bearing the rank of colonel. I am told by those who are well able to judge that the services which he rendered in his capacity as medical officer and his wide knowledge and experience and very superior training in the great universities of the old land, both in Great Britain and continental Europe, enabled him to discharge the onerous duties which devolved upon him with a skill equalled by few and to the complete satisfaction of those with whom he served. At any rate his services were so recognized and his courage was indicated by the three despatches I have mentioned. Returning to Canada he once more interested himself in the artillery, with which he had been associated in his pre-war days, and continued to .take an active interest not only in the welfare of that section of the militia but also in the public affaire of the community in which he lived. He was not often heard in this house. His experiences in the war made him think sometimes that there was something unreal in parliamentary procedure as contrasted with his observations and experiences abroad. He loved this country however and was profoundly interested in its progress and welfare. In his passing we on this side of the house have lost a loyal and devoted colleague and his constituents a faithful and conscientious representative.
I offer my sympathy to the right hon. gentleman and his followers upon the death of Mr. Bettez. He was also a Canadian. His interest in his younger days in municipal institutions is familiar to those who have watched the progress of the constituency of Three Rivers-St. Maurice. I learned that Mr. Bettez had a very strong hold upon the feelings of the people whom he represented in this parliament. He had a personal following which was not measured by his political support, and those peoples among whom he lived moved and had his being have lost a very firm and devoted friend. His party has lost a most charming colleague; he was not often heard but his interest was always great in matters touching the life of his municipality, educational institutions and the welfare of his country. We sorrow with those who -are left behind.
We believe however that those who have passed from us have not lived in vain and

Tributes to Deceased Members
that the influence of their activities will continue to be felt in the promotion of the interests of our country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the
right hon. the Prime Minister has just given expression to feelings which I am sure will be shared by all hon. members of this house. We who constitute this parliament come from many parts of a large Dominion. The fact is, however, comparatively we are a small company with the result that when one of our number is taken away we feel the loss individually and collectively. There are few places in which there is borne in upon us more frequently or impressively the uncertainty and the brevity of our allotted span than in these halls of parliament where from day to day we contend with each other in debate and then in a moment become silent and united in our sympathy as we think of those whose voices we shall hear no more. It were well were we also reminded of the charity which we do well at all times to accord to those with whom our lot may in different ways and places be cast.
The two hon. members who have passed away since we were last assembled here had been in parliament about the same time, but it was for but a short period. The member for East Hamilton, the late Colonel Rennie, was returned to parliament at the general elections of 1926, and the late Arthur Bettez, member for Three Rivers-St. Maurice, was returned at the general elections of the year preceding. The fact that they were in the House of Commons for but about five years all told doubtless is the reason why they were less known to the public through their activities in parliament than through their activities in other spheres of public service, and particularly their services to the communities in which they lived, where the appreciation of their interest in civic and public affairs won for them the recognition which brought them to this house as the representatives of their respective constituencies.
Colonel Rennie, as the Prime Minister has just said, held a foremost place in his profession as a physician and a surgeon. He was also prominent as a soldier. The services which he rendered alike to his profession and to the army during the period of the Great war won him real distinction. He had close and intimate friends among members on both sides of the house, and I extend to the right hon. Prime Minister and to those who are associated with him my very sincere sympathy in the loss of one who was a personal friend and a loyal supporter of the party to which they belong.
May I also thank the Prime Minister for the sympathy which he has extended to myself and those of us who belong to the Liberal party in the loss which we have sustained through the passing of the late Arthur Bettez. His loss will be felt very much on this side, but by no one more than by myself, to whom at all times he accorded a close friendship and a very loyal support. Mr. Bettez's activities were mostly associated with the city of Three Rivers in which he was born and where he lived throughout his life. He was in 1913 elected an alderman and held that position for nearly a decade. In 1923 and again in 1925 he was elected mayor and continued to hold that office until the time of his death. His capacity for civic affairs and his experience and interest in them caused him to be chosen as vice-president of the Canadian Union of Municipalities. He was returned to parliament three times, on the last two occasions by very large majorities.
As the Prime Minister has said, Mr. Bettez owed the position he achieved in municipal-federal politics very much to his own personality and to the deep and abiding interest which he had in the well-being of the working classes whose representative he was in a very true sense alike in municipal, provincial-federal fields. His political battles were far from easy ones but they won to his side a large personal as well as political following. _ He will be remembered by all who knew him as a fearless fighter, and sturdy champion of the people to whose cause he gave much in the way of personal sacrifice.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will convey to those who have been bereaved, to Mrs. Rennie and to Madame Bette?, and also the son and daughter of the latter, the sympathy which this house extends to them.
Before resuming my seat may I be permitted to add, Mr. Speaker, how pleased we all are that Your Honour has fully recovered from the indisposition from which unfortunately you had been suffering until within the past day or two. Also may I say that I am sure that it is deeply gratifying to members in all parts of the house that two of our number who during the period of the recess had had very serious illnesses are being restored to complete health and strength. There was general delight yesterday to see the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), the ex-Minister of Justice in his seat. May I say I am sure all are equally gratified to know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) is progressing very favourably, and that we hope that it will not be long before he has

Representation Act

fully recovered and is again able to take his accustomed part in the proceedings of this house.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, it is always distressing that at the beginning of each session we have to record the death of one of our members. May I say that I got to know the late Colonel Rennie very well indeed when as a member of the Conservative party he sat in opposition on this side of the house. Colonel Rennie was seated close to our group and of the two members whose loss we regret to-day, I knew him better probably because of that circumstance. We regret the loss of Colonel Rennie and Mr. Bettez and join with the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition in expressing to the relatives of these deceased members our sympathy in their bereavement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, while there is no formal motion, may I take it that you will convey to the widow of the late Colonel Rennie and to the widow and children of the late Mr. Bettez this expression of the sympathy of the members of this house in their great loss and bereavement?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The wishes of the house
as expressed by the right hon. Prime Minister will be carried out.



BRITISH EMPIRE TRADE FAIR


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps
members of the house will be pleased to know that at two o'clock to-day we were in telephonic communication with one of our members, Sir George Perley, who arrived at Buenos Aires this morning with his party. He stated they were all in excellent health and spirits, but the weather had been rather hot. As indicative of the remarkable triumphs of science in the field of telephony, I may say that we were able to hear him just as clearly as if he had been speaking to us in this chamber.



ORDERS IN COUNCIL


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
before we adjourn, may I have the attention of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister for a moment. We should like, if it is at all possible, to have at a very early date copies of orders in council which have been passed

under the legislation enacted at the last session of parliament. I mention this now because I believe it will expedite the debate on the address if the orders can be brought down at an early date.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All orders in council required to
be published in the Gazette have been so published, and everybody, including my right hon. friend, has access to the Gazette. I apprehend he means orders in council that are not required to be published in the Gazette?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; such
orders as have been passed under the Unemployment Relief Act, and also such orders as have been passed under the Customs Act as amended last session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to the
Unemployment Relief Act of 1930, the statute itself requires us to lay on the table within fifteen days of the opening of the house a record of the whole administration of the act, and of course that will be done. That record is in course of 'preparation. Whether or not it can be completed between now and Monday or Tuesday I am sure my right hon. friend knows it would be impossible for me to say. But next week in any event we propose to have the record completed and placed on the table of the house.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 3.35 p.m.
Monday, March 16, 1931

Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to amend the Representation Act.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. HEENAN:: Mr. Speaker this is a bill which was introduced by the government last 3rear, but it became mixed with other matters of a controversial nature. Its purpose is to extend the franchise to between five and six hundred men located in the Patricia district immediately north of the Kenora-Rainy River riding. The district was not included in the last redistribution and its inhabitants have not the right to vote in any electoral district of the province of Ontario. Before the last provincial election and in consequence of the opening up of new mining areas the legislature of Ontario extended the territory into

The Address-Mr. Cormier
the Patricia district. The people there were permitted to vote in the provincial election but because they were left out in the redistribution they were not allowed to vote at the last two federal elections. The purpose of this bill is to extend the privilege of the franchise to the district west of the fifth meridian.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ALEXANDRA TOLSTOY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Is it a fact as reported in the press that Alexandra Tolstoy the daughter of Count Tolstoy, has been forbidden to visit the Dominion of Canada? According to press reports Miss Tolstoy was refused admission on the ground that she could not obtain a passport from the Soviet authorities. I think we ought to have an explanation from the Minister of Immigration.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: Mr. Speaker, the matter to which the hon. member has referred has not been drawn to my attention. If the question is placed on the order paper it will be answered.



VANCOUVER-SECOND NARROWS BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: May I ask the hon. the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) if he is in receipt of the report of the commission which investigated the Second Narrows bridge at Vancouver, and if so does he purpose to have it published?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: In answer to my hon. friend I will say that we have received that report but up to the present time we have not considered it.



CENSUS COMMISSIONERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: I wish to ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) if census commissioners have been appointed and if so who are the commissioners appointed for the province of Manitoba?


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: In reply I would ask my hon. friend to put the question on the order paper.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of the speech delivered by His Excellency the Administrator at the opening of the session.
Mr. MAX. D. CORMIER (Restigouche-Madawaska) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to move, seconded by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Porteous) that a humble Address be presented to His Excellency the Administrator of Canada, to thank His Excellency for the gracious speech which he has been pleased to make to both Houses of Parliament, at the opening of this session.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour which reverts to the constituency I am proud to represent; a burden which I personally must bear. I hope, however, that the customary indulgence of this house towards new members will facilitate the difficult task with which the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and his hon. colleagues have been kind enough to entrust me.
I believe that this is the first time an Acadian h?s been so honoured. It was also desired that my first words uttered, as a member of the House of Commons of Canada, should be in the language of my forefathers as well as my own. In my own name and on behalf of my French-speaking constituents of Madawaska and Restigouche, I wish . to offer, to whom it may concern my humble token of sincere gratitude.
The hon. members who preceded me in the difficult task which I must fulfil may often have been, and with truth, able to boast of Canada's prosperity and thank Providence for its bounty in this respect. Can I, however, say to-day that the country is prosperous? The speech from the throne mentions the fact that the nations of the world are passing through an economic crisis and that Canada has not been spared.
If we cannot thank Providence for the difficulties with which we are beset, we can and must sincerely thank Providence for having assisted us to place at the head of the affairs of this country an administration which will take the necessary measures to relieve the situation and provide in the future against the return of present conditions.
His Excellency also tells us that, although Canada has not felt the pangs which other nations have, the situation of our country is
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Cormier
not what it should be, and that many of our problems are not the sequel of a universal crisis.
If Canada had had, since 1921, a cautious administration, a government determined to toil for the welfare of the people rather than seek the support of a group whose vision did not embrace all parts of Canada, a young country like ours, immensely rich in natural resources of all kinds, with a population less than ten millions, could have passed through this world crisis without difficulty. Theorists, of the old schools, however, setting aside the lessons of our tariff history since 1878, despising the post-war example of almost every country of the world in tariff matters, swerved and began the wilful destruction of the Canadian tariff. The consequence of this fatal policy was soon felt. The closing of mills, foreign .purchases, an unrest among the working classes, a decrease in the purchasing power of our currency and the decline of the home market for our farmers. These are a few immediate results of the policy of a government that the people has punished and which they will not soon forget.
Abraham Lincoln once spoke in this strain.
I know very little about tariff. I do know, however, that when we purchase rails from a foreign country, we have the rails and the foreigner has our money; but when we purchase rails in our own country, we have both the rails and the money. This is the simple but clear explanation of a great economic principle. This principle can be applied to all products manufactured or not that the Canadian people purchase abroad and which should be produced and bought in our own country.
That is why, as soon as legally possible, the right hon. Prime Minister, in less than a month and a half after the general elections of July last, called an emergency session of parliament, in keeping with his pledge; tariff changes were enacted and put into force and immediately an improvement in domestic conditions was felt; foreign industries were invited to establish themselves in Canada; the people's morale rose, and the country began anew its ascending march towards progress.
Owing to its geographical situation, Canada needs an adequate protection for its industries and various products. The speech from the throne intimates that changes in the tariff will be submitted at this session of parliament, that a bill providing for a new tariff commission will be brought down, and that this commission wall undertake to stabilize trade and give the Canadian producers a chance of developing our domestic market under loyal com-
petitive conditions towards foreign producers while protecting the consumers of this country against all exploitation. I feel certain that the whole country will applaud these statements of a lofty political order, and that the house will enact these measures which aim at developing our industries, thus relieving unemployment and bringing back to the Canadian fatherland happiness and prosperity.
The unemployment relief measure adopted at the session of September last, has proved beneficial. This emergency and purely charitable legislation, with the aid of provincial governments, municipalities and our two great railway systems, was the means of providing the daily bread to hundreds of thousands of citizens during the winter. In my own riding this wholesome and providential measure gave to numerous families the necessities of life which had been denied them owing to the decrease in lumbering operations.
I do not wish to take up the time of the house in quoting statistics, but I want to draw your attention, sir, to a report of the hon. Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson), published on the l'lith inst. in the Ottawa Journal. The report states that 231,351 people had benefited from the help given the unemployed, that the days of *work secured by the joint assistance of the federal and provincial governments and railways, amounted to 3,975,355, that these outstanding figures did not include the report of the Quebec government. Moreover, there had been direct assistance given to families and individuals in all parts of the country.
When the final report is made public, the figures which I have just quoted will be greatly increased. The pledge given by the right hon. Prime Minister, to take immediate steps after the elections to relieve unemployment, is in striking contrast with the dillydallying policy of the late administration which contended that the unemployment crisis existed only in the imagination of the then opposition, and continued blindly to fill the country with immigrants to the number of about 100,000 annually.
The present government has shut the door against all those who cannot provide for themselves and, as regards certain countries, it has closed the door definitely, so long as present conditions do not entirely disappear. This sound.legislation has received the approbation of the Canadian people. The house knows, and so does the country, that when an illness is aggravated by the lack of proper care the convalescence is slow. The opposition, through its speakers and press, rebukes the new administration for not having cured, in a few

The Address-Mr. Cormier
months, the ills from which the country is suffering. They are not in earnest. The late government should have foreseen this. To govern is to foresee. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This lack of foresight is the direct cause of a great number of our difficulties and the Canadian people have already and will continue to place the blame where it belongs.
The speech from the throne mentions the imperial and economic conferences held in London last autumn. Constitutional questions were discussed and agreed upon in principle; however, the resolutions approved will not be put into force until the provinces of Canada have had the opportunity of studying them. An interprovincial conference will be held in the capital, in April next, with the view of considering these constitutional changes and making sure that the rights of the provinces are not violated. The Canadian people are happy to learn that the representatives of all the Dominions of the Empire will meet in Ottawa, in th course of next summer, to discuss the problems already broached at the London conferences, to settle upon plans for closer trade relations between the various parts of the empire and to thus assure a lasting and advantageous policy for Canada and the empire. The Canadian people will closely follow these various conferences which, we hope, without infringing on provincial rights, will result in more happiness and prosperity for our people.
The speech from the throne also mentions the order in council prohibiting the imports into Canada of 'certain products having their origin in the socialistic and sovietic republics, in other words, the Russian entbargo. This measure was so favourably commented upon throughout Canada that it is unnecessary to debate it at length in the house. This order is dated February 27, 1931, but it had its source in an Act passed at the special session of the Dominion parliament in September last. Let it suffice to state that the Quebec legislature, by a motion, has shown its appreciation to the Dominion government for having prohibited the importation of Russian products which compete with those of this country. Since the Quebec legislature has deemed proper to congratulate the present government on its action, the measure enacted must be of the utmost importance for all classes of the community.
The Pensions Act adopted at the last session of the sixteenth parliament will be amended. The act as it exists is not satisfactory. The federal treasury pays 50 per cent of these pensions to the provinces which
undertake to pay the other half. Seeing that the financial state of many provinces does not allow the carrying out of this act, those governments which are not in a position to benefit by it are forced to-day to pay their quota, without receiving any advantages. An amendment was necessary. The provinces of Canada will be relieved of a heavy load and those whose infirmities of old age preclude from earning their living will bless the hand that assists them.
The grants to technical schools will be highly welcomed by the people. Technical training deserves to be encouraged by this house. In my own riding, at Edmundston, we have a technical school which justifies its existence. We expended a considerable initial capital believing that the Dominion government would continue the grant already voted. When we learned that the late government had decided to discontinue this grant, there was almost a panic in our town. This meant the closing of this institution which is almost indispensable to our young people who wish to learn a trade in order to better earn their living. I must therefore congratulate the government on taking measures to continue these grants to technical schools.
Time precludes me from dealing with all the measures enumerated in the Speech from the Throne; however, these measures herald a period of great prosperity for this country. Among them we find:	tariff revision, the
appointment of a new tariff commission, economy in our finances, amendments to the Naturalization Act and the Copyright Act; amendments to the Pensions Act, assistance to agriculture, technical education and Trans-Canada highways; assistance in the sale of our wheat crops, interprovincial and imperial conferences at Ottawa; better control of government purchases. It is a policy implying, that the pledges given to the people were given seriously, not mere vote-catchers, but pledges which were destined to be carried out, ensuring a return to prosperous conditions which should exist in this beautiful and vast country.
The other day, in Quebec, a veteran of our Canadian politics, the Hon. Thomas Chapais, stated: On July 28 last, the electoral verdict has placed at the helm of this country that eminent statesman, Mr. Bennett, one of the greatest that Canada has produced. And mind you, he added, such will be the verdict of history. That distinguished statesman, beloved and respected by those who will long sit on your right, Mr. Speaker, can depend, in this house and throughout the country, on the support of a united and loyal party. He
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Cormier
may also depend on the votes of the people of Canada. The province of New Brunswick, his native province, is proud of him and the Canadian people now realize that they have found a saviour.
It has been said, Mr. Speaker, that history was in the making when last week, for the first time since confederation, His Excellency the Governor 'General was not present at the opening of parliament.
If my information is correct, it is also the first time since confederation that an Acadian has received the honour of moving the resolution in reply to the Speech from the Throne. The event may be of little historical importance to the rest of Canada. Acadians, however, an important element of our eastern population, will long remember the occasion and the broadmindedness of the right hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues in this behalf. Permit me to say that the Acadians are law-abiding citizens, proud of their ancestry, proud of their customs and their language, but prouder still of their connection with the British crown. Any move to weaken the ties which bind them to the mother country would be deeply resented. I appreciate to the full the honour conferred upon me. The honour is not due to me personally, but is due to my electors for the loyal support- they gave our party on July 28th of last year.
The electoral district of Restigouche-Mada-waska is inhabited by citizens of mixed racial origins and mixed religious beliefs. I am pleased .to say that we live happily together; we are friendly and neighbourly; we mix socially and in business affairs; the race problem there has long been eliminated, if it ever existed. The county of Madawaska, mostly French, for years elected to this house the late Hon. John C'ostigan. In the local legislature we have had as representatives Mr. Thomas Clair and Colonel Jesse W. Baker. In the town of Edmundston, 85 per cent French, since our incorporation, we have elected as mayor, Mr. Burpee, Mr. Hall and Mr. Lawson. In the county of Restigouche, about 65 per cent French, we elect for the local legislature a member of English origin and one of French origin. In the town of Campbellton, English-speaking in the majority the mayor is of English origin whilst -the president of the local board of trade is of French origin. In the last federal election the Englishspeaking sections of my constituency gave me a most loyal support, although my opponent was English-speaking.
This harmonious working together of different races and different religions is most worthy of commendation, and it is in deference to the English-speaking members of this House and
[Mr. Cormier. 1
in appreciation and gratitude to my Englishspeaking constituents that I make these few remarks in the English language in this my first address in the House of Commons, an address which, by custom, is delivered in the French language.
Moderation in all things is a virtue. The principle of give and take in a mixed community makes for good understanding. If we would only follow the golden rule and the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, how much useless rancour and strife would be eliminated from the face of the earth!
I said a moment ago that history was in the making. When the political history of Madawaska county is written, it will be recorded that it voted Conservative from 1867 to 1900; then in 1900, unfortunately for itself and for the rest of the country, it went wrong and until 1930 supported Liberal candidates by very large majorities. It went so wrong that in 1908 it gave our party only 84 votes. Last July the difference between the votes given the two parties was 87, in spite of base appeals promiscuously scattered throughout the length and breadth of the county by our opponents at a time when such appeals could not be met. Mr. Speaker, the prodigal son is coming back home and will never leave it again!
I have said that moderation is a virtue. When the political history of Canada is written, if it is written according to the facts, it will record that in times of national crisis the moderates, and therefore the virtuous of both parties in Canada joined together to defend political principles which made for the betterment and the happiness of the people. It happened in 1854, and the result of that union was confederation. It happened again at the election of 1878, when hard times had come over the land. It happened again in 1911, when reciprocity with another nation threatened the economic life of Canada. It happened again during the great war when the moderates of both parties joined together for the common good. And it happened in 1930, when starvation was staring us in the face; again the moderates of both political parties in Canada joined hands to give the country one of the ablest statesmen it has ever produced.
The energy, the courage, the determination shown by our 'beloved leader, since he accepted that elevated position are so well known to Canadians and so fresh in their memory that it is useless for me to dwell upon the subject. Let me assure this house, however, that in spite of newspaper talk from sources very well known to us all, in the words of the Montreal Star:

The Address-Mr. Porteous
.... lie will have the support of a loyal and united party, and he may be assured that he enjoys in the country a popular confidence won by his courageous enunciation of a national policy and the demonstration of an unmistakable determination to prosecute such policy to the end that greater economic development shall set the Dominion's course to new advancement and hasten material prosperity, and in lines that will be parallel and in unison with a sound and broadminded plan directed to increase trade with the empire. With the Prime Minister's great capacity for work goes an equally great capacity to get things done. He does not move in a circle, but marches direct to the goal. Depending upon these qualities, Canadians have a firm belief that Mr. Bennett will accomplish successfully and in due season the great task that lies in front of him.
Mr. V. C. PORTEOUS (North Grey):: Mr. Speaker, on rising to second the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne, if you will permit me, I would like first to touch briefly on a few matters which affect me personally. The first intimation I had that I would be associated with this motion, was that I would be the mover, but I am indeed pleased to have the opportunity of stepping aside to give to the French speaking members of this house and the French speaking people of this Dominion, whom I most highly respect, their just and proper rights according to our customary procedure.
I appreciate to the fullest extent the honour the government have conferred on me in having chosen me to be associated with this motion and, while I feel entirely unworthy, I will try to perform my duty to the best of my ability having had from both sides of the house the assurance of a patient hearing. I am proud to be the representative of North Grey and to be able, as such, to pass on to that constituency any honour that may result from the fact that for the first time in Canadian history a representative of that riding has been chosen to second the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
We have in the constituency of North Grey a riding which, while not rich in the traditions of any one party, has sent many honest, upright representatives to both houses, from both parties. It is a constituency which has at heart the welfare not only of North Grey but of the entire Dominion and which has contributed of its manhood and womanhood to the upbuilding throughout Canada, especially in the western provinces, of agricultural, industrial, marine and business life. I share with the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) the honour of representing what is in many respects the leading agricultural county in the province of Ontario.
I am proud also in this capacity to represent the farmers of this Dominion, for while we are at present in a period of depression and feeling it keenly, we are not downhearted. We all know that whatever may happen in the future, agriculture is still the basic industry of Canada. I am glad to have been chosen as a farmer because it goes to show me, and the people of this Dominion, that the farmers will receive just recognition from this government.
. We have been welcomed to our duties, Mr. Speaker, at a time of great world economic depression. May we fulfil those duties having ever in mind the hardship that is evident, especially among our labouring classes and our farmers; may we discharge those duties having the welfare of our Canadian citizens at heart, particularly those citizens who at this time and as a result of the depression, are feeling distress, hoping that by sane measures and just administration Canada may be restored to that condition of prosperity which a country so rich in natural resources, should enjoy. We will be called upon to consider means and measures which we believe will bring back prosperity to Canada, We believe there are measures which may be put in force that will have the desired effect; we believe in a country such as Canada, with its agricultural, mineral, transportation, power and industrial wealth, there should not be the depression that exists at the present moment.
For the purpose of dealing promptly and effectually with the situation the government called a special emergency session of parliament last September when tariff measures were passed which we believed would improve conditions. The action taken was not merely a revival of the historic national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald, but rather it was the fulfilment of that policy. Never during the lifetime of Canada's great Conservative prime minister did protection receive the wholesale test which parliament gave it last September. The result has been the revival of industry. Many industries which had closed their doors have again commenced to operate, and many others which were running only part time are now operating to capacity. The restoration of buying power to people who previously had been out of the market has reacted on Canadian industry, which feels not only the stimulus from without due to the elimination of foreign competition, but also from within, due to the increased purchasing power of Canadian workmen. This has been done without increasing the price to the consumer,

The Address-Mr. Porteous
an act unprecedented in Canadian history, but what gives us greater hope is that governing bodies of industries, both within and without our Dominion, are placing their confidence in this administration as an efficient, stable and protective government, and are planning to build new industries and enlarge those now in operation without fear of sudden changes in the fiscal policy of the country.
The Unemployment Relief Act, passed last September, has done much to relieve distress in many families and, while only a temporary measure, it has served the purpose for which it was passed to the joy and comfort of thousands of Canadian citizens from coast to coast.
In the fall of 1930 Canada was represented at the Imperial and Imperial economic conferences. These representatives discharged their duties despite no small amount of ridicule from parties holding other political faiths and from countries outside the empire. Canada's attitude with regard to imperial trade, was presented in a capable manner, the result of which, we believe, will yet bind together the British Empire by a policy which will be beneficial to all concerned and will create a greater market for Canadian agricultural products and make for a stronger and a better empire.
This government has seen fit to prohibit, by order in council, importations of certain commodities from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. We believe that by so doing we not only protect our own social and economic welfare, but will eventually protect the citizen of that country as well, against a system which we do not endorse. We have learned that there are better means of opposing the objects of a country than by warfare.
Through the organization which we have under the Pension Act, we are convinced that justice will be administered and no legitimate claims will be ignored.
In agriculture we have a condition such as we on Canadian farms have never had to contend with before. The prices of agricultural products never before declined to such an extent as they have in the past twelve months. The reason is that in relation to price, agricultural products, like other raw materials, are directly responsive to supply and demand; therefore they are the first to come down. Others will follow, but not so suddenly. We must endeavour to bring about better conditions in the agricultural districts of Canada, both in the east and in the west, which alike are suffering from the depression of the present period. This may be done by different means. 
Wre must try to obtain markets for our products both at home and abroad. This we are endeavouring to do, first, by keeping our people employed at home, and second, by procuring markets in other countries for our products. We must, if possible, lessen transportation costs on agricultural products by using the cheapest means, and to that end we expect the Hudson Bay route to be beneficial. We must cut down the cost of marketing farm products as far as is within our power as a ' government, and we must cheapen the cost of production as far as possible by using more scientific methods. I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of production on Canadian farms varies greatly. I believe that in my short period of life production costs have been cut by fifty per cent on many farms by practising better, and more scientific, methods. I believe there is much still to be done along these lines.
We have in Canada the best farm land in the world. We have the best farmers to be found anywhere. We produce farm products unequalled by any other country and we can and we will reduce production costs in competition with any country.
This government is striving to find the cheapest methods of producing quality products which we can sell on the home and also on the foreign market at a profit. To my mind it is not a question so much of reducing production as it is of reducing production costs. If this can be done, it will alleviate to a great extent the depression in agriculture. Then we must strive to relieve the farmer from such high taxation. This is proposed to be done by relieving the municipalities of the burden of the old age pension. When we again bring agriculture to a profitable basis, we will make a more prosperous Canada, both rural and urban.
We must stand together in this unsettled condition, as perhaps we have never been called upon to stand before, remembering that for one class to succeed the other must succeed also. We are a country of diversified occupations and business, but by that diversity we create strength if we all work together. This is no time for one class to try to take advantage of another, or for one industry to try to take advantage of another, or for the rich to try to take advantage of the poor, or for the poor to try to take advantage of the rich; but we must unite in fair competition for the welfare of our country.
Here I should like to quote a verse from Edgar A. Guest's poem Our Country in The Path to Home:

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
God grant that we shall never see Our country slave to lust and greed;
God grant that men shall always be United for our nation's need.
Here selfishness has never reigned,
Here freedom all who come may know;
By tyranny our flag's unstained!
God grant that we may keep it so.
And in conclusion, sir, the people of Canada may feel assured of the future progress of our country, under the able policies which are being carried into effect by the sagacity and determination which have characterized the present government and won the confidence of the people in the short time which they have had for the introduction of their principles.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING ('Leader of the Opposition); Mt. Speaker, the House of Commons always listens with great interest to the maiden speeches of its new members, particularly so when they are the mover and seconder of the address to His Excellency the Governor General, who in this instance happens to be His Excellency the Administrator, thanking him for the speech which he has delivered to parliament.
Speaking in the House of Commons is not an easy matter at any time. It is a particularly difficult one to those who come into the house for the first time, and the difficulty increases where the occasion is, like the present, an important one having relation to the particular resolution which has just been moved and seconded. Parliament allows the fullest latitude in discussions on the address, but distinct limitations are placed upon the mover and seconder. They are expected to have regard primarily to what appears in the address itself and they are chosen because it is believed they will endorse everything the address contains and that they will say-nothing but good of the administration. These are very distinct limitations, particularly with respect to the address which this year has been given to parliament by His Excellency, as I think I shall be able to show when I come to point out the extent and more particularly, the nature of the legislation which is set forth as that for consideration during this session.
Having regard to these circumstances, I can say, and say with all sincerity, that those of us who sit on this side of the house, though we do not agree with much that the hon. gentlemen have said, nevertheless can accord to them very warmly our congratulations on the manner in which they have presented their views.
The hon. member for Restigouohe-Mada-waska (Mr. Cormier) has set an example such
as we get, I think, only, certainly mostly, from those of this house who are of French descent and all of whom seem to be able to speak with equal fluency in the French or in the English language. I think he is to be congratulated and commended for having made use at this tame of both languages. He has had much experience as a public man and in the administration of affairs also in his profession at the bar as well as in other ways, and it was to have been expected that he would present his argument in an able manner.
I wish he had not read his speech although that is perhaps quite excusable in the circumstances; but I hope it is a precedent that will not be followed. I believe in his case, it was unnecessary, because after listening to him I am sure there is every reason to believe that had he attempted to speak without notes he would probably have been even more eloquent than he was with the aid of manuscript.
May I say to my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Porteous) that while he may not have had the experience which the mover of the address (Mr. Cormier) has had in public affairs, he has the advantage of youth and he will find that to be more and more of an asset as he continues to play a part in the affairs of this house. We congratulate Mm very cordially, especially on many of the sentiments to which he gave expression.	.
In listening to both speakers I could not but be impressed with the sentiments, with the aims and with the object which they have in view. We on this side of the house can give to many of the sentiments expressed most hearty assent and accord. I fear, however, cherishing the sentiments they do, they will have to get their leader to change more than one of his policies or they will never be able to see their ideals realized.
With these words, Mr. Speaker, may I repeat how cordially we of the opposition congratulate the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska and the hon. member for North Grey on their maiden addresses.
Reference has been made in the speech of the mover of the resolution to the circumstance that this year parliament was opened by His Excellency the Administrator, in the person of one who is a distinguished citizen of our own Dominion. That calls to mind the fact that this is due to the approaching appointment of His Excellency Lord Willingdon, who still is our Governor General, to possibly the most important office in the gift of His Majesty's government in Britain, namely, that of Viceroy of India. I am sure that all citizens of Canada, irrespective of party, will

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
realize that the appointment is being made because of His Excellency's exceptional abilities as an administrator, his qualities of heart and mind, his great career an the public service, the part already played by him in India as Governor of Bombay and Madras, and the manner in which he carried out the duties of the high office of representative of His Majesty in this Dominion. We in Canada who cherish constitutional self-government and who wish to see it developed to the full in all parts of the British Empire feel that it is fortunate for India that His Excellency Lord Wdllingdon, has been chosen as viceroy of that country. We believe that at this critical time in the affairs of India no better choice could have been made for the high and responsible position of king's representative in that part of the empire. I am sure I speak in the name of all parties and all classes in our country when I say that Lord Willingdon in entering upon this great responsibility carries with him the heartfelt good wishes, the hopes and the prayers of the Canadian people.
I shall come at once to the address which has been presented by His Excellency the Administrator. It falls into five subdivisions which are easily distinguishable. The first subdivision relates to economic conditions throughout the world and in Canada; the second to the legislation passed aft the last session; the third to the Imperial conference and the Imperial economic conference which met last year in London; the fourth to certain legislative enactments since the last special session, and the fifth-taking a corresponding proportion of the whole address- to the proposed legislative program of this session.
I will comment briefly upon these different divisions. The first, which relates to the economic condition of the world and of Canada, is partly in the nature of a sermon and partly in the nature of a diagnosis. How good a sermon and how good a diagnosis will depend upon the meaning to be ascribed to certain of the phrases in that part of the address. I am assuming that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has put into the lips of His Excellency the Administrator the phrases which appear here, and I am therefore in no way reflecting upon the Administrator in commenting on the wording of the address. With this in mind, I wish to draw the attention of the House to one or two passages in the address. As I said before, how good a sermon it is will depend upon the meaning to be attached to certain phrases appearing therein. For example, referring to 
economic conditions the address contains this paragraph:
It will he your privilege to consider certain measures designed by my ministers to ameliorate existing conditions, to provide further means by which our people may go forward to achieve a prosperity heretofore unattained and to furnish them with all possible safeguards against a recurrence of the present subordination to world forces.
What is meant by "subordination to world forces"? Does the Prime Minister intend that- to mean that Canada is to be put in a position of isloation, a position so completely self-contained as to exclude trade with other countries so that no matter what happens in other parts of the world Canada will not be affected thereby? When we consider the policies which he has presented to this country and which he inteneds further to present to parliament, there is reason to believe tlxat he believes he can make of Canada a self-contained, non-trading country. During this session we will have to consider very carefully, assuming that such an end could be reached, whether it would be in the interests of this country, either immediately or in the long rim.
In another portion of the address my right hon. friend speaks of the gulf which has to be bridged between conditions as they are at the present time and conditions as he hopes they will be in the course of time. As regards the conditions existing to-day in Canada, I think we all recognize the fact that a very large gulf will have to be bridged if Canada is to be started on the way to prosperity, but whether or not that gulf will be bridged successfully will depend very much upon the policies of the administration. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that if hon. gentlemen opposite continue to put into effect the policies which thus far they have tried to put into effect, then the gulf will come more and more to resemble the gulf between Dives and Lazarus, on the one side, we will have the rich becoming richer, and on the other, the poor becoming poorer, to the great detriment of the future well-being of our country.
My right hon. friend goes on to say in the speech from the throne that many of our problems arise out of world conditions. It is interesting to notice the stress that hon. gentlemen opposite are putting to-day upon world conditions. They are contending that the situation in Canada is to be expected, that it is a natural result of world influences and that world conditions are affecting this Dominion. We did not hear that kind of statement from the lips of the present Prime Minister or other of his supporters when they

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
were appealing last year to the country for support. They were not telling the people at that time that world conditions had anything to do with the situation then existing; it was all put upon the shoulders of the government of the day, which was blamed wholly and exclusively for conditions as they were. But hon. gentlemen had not been in office five minutes before their whole tune changed, and they began to talk about world conditions being responsible for the situation they were about to face.
My right hon. friend speaks about certain conditions antecedent to the world-wide depression-[DOT]
.... that many of our problems do not arise out of world-wide depression, but are antecedent to it; and that domestic factors have also largely determined the degree of economic distress from which this country is suffering.
Here again we must ask ourselves what is meant in that particular paragraph by "antecedent conditions". What are the antecedent conditions to which my right hon. friend refers? If I am to judge by some of his correspondence which has been shown to me by different persons, I would assume he is there referring to the great load which he says he is carrying at the present time, a legacy the like of which except in war time no prime minister of Canada has heretofore had to carry. I have seen correspondence of that kind signed by my right hon. friend, but I notice-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will my right hon. friend produce it and read it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I can
produce some of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my right hon. friend
refers to it he should produce it and read it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I can get permission to produce some of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it is personal correspondence, reference should not be made to it; otherwise if he refers to correspondence, he is bound to produce it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said that
I was referring to certain correspondence which had been shown to me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not sufficient.
I rise to a point of order. We might as well have a thorough understanding that the amenities of debate are to be observed in this house,	and	one of them is	that	nohon. member can paraphrase what someone else says if	it is	in writing, unless	he produces it, because	he puts on it his	own	interpretation	and	not the meaning of	the
writer. This anonymous letter business should not be heard of in this house. Let the correspondence be produced or not referred to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let my right
hon. friend wiggle as he pleases at this particular moment-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not the wiggler.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is quite
apparent that my right hon. friend is fully conscious of certain of his correspondence which was marked "personal" but which was shown to me by the one to whom it was addressed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a rule of the
house on that point. AAhat does the house think of a leader of the opposition who reads a personal letter which he had no right to see and talks of it? In a court of law, any counsel who did that would be dealt with by the judge, and the rule holds good in any decent society such as this house surely is. It is wholly out of order for any hon. member to refer to personal correspondence which someone has shown to him but which he should not have seen, and try to paraphrase what it means.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the Prime Minister had sent me a letter and marked it as "personal" I would have regarded it as such. In reply to a workingman in this country who was complaining about the failure of my right hon. friend and his government to make good their pledges to labour, my right hon. friend took upon himself to write to this man an effusive communication which only helped to add insult to his injury and the man showed the letter to me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I ask for a ruling on a
point of order. May any member refer to correspondence written to some other person by another member and marked "personal", without producing it? The rule is that no member should put his interpretation upon another man's words without the writing being produced, because the other members are quite as capable of understanding what is meant as is the hon. member speaking. I think the rule is quite clear. It is frequently acted upon in the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the right hon.
gentleman will admit that correspondence such as that to which he refers should not be quoted unless the intention is to produce it. If it is a public letter it should be produced. If it is a private letter, it should not; but I think the right hon. gentleman will agree in principle that quotations should not be made from letters unless they are to be produced.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was giving
the house my reasons for saying that my right hon. friend has a way of taking the whole load upon his own shoulders, of telling people that the load is all on his shoulders. He never refers to any of his colleagues; you never hear any mention of the cabinet; it is all of the burden that has fallen upon the one individual who for the time being has a more difficult task than has fallen to the lot of any other citizen of Canada. If he would take less of the burden on himself and distribute more amongst his colleagues and the government generally, he would be better playing the part that is expected of him as leader of the administration; because after all, it is government by cabinet and not government by an individual that we are expected to have in this country.
I shall not pursue that point further at the moment, but may I come back to what I was about to say as to this supposed burden, this legacy that my right hon. friend is so fond of telling the country is upon his shoulders and that he has to carry? He seeks to have it appear that this comes as an inheritance of the years during which the administration which immediately preceded his was in office. How are we to judge of the success of a government in the administration of a country's affairs? If matters have been so conducted that the country has not been prosperous, that will be made fully apparent by certain well-known indices. For example, there are the figures with respect to trade; there are the statistics with reference to the public debt; there are the figures with regard to surpluses and deficits; there is the record with regard to taxation. There is all that pertains to unity, harmony and progress to which reference can be made in seeking to discover whether any assumed legacy is what some hon. gentleman would have it believed to be. Just in case my right hon. friend should, when he follows me, or during the course of the session, say that his difficulties are due to what has happened in the past, may I put on record a few figures that will illustrate the position of Canada under the previous administration?
First of all, let me take the figures relating to trade, because the great question in the course of this session and this parliament is going to be whether the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite will serve to promote or to cripple the trade of the country. I believe it can be shown that the most serious of all the results of the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite will be the very certain contraction in trade that we shall find on all sides, a contraction that will affect all classes; whether they be em-
(Mr. Speaker.J
ploj^ers of labour or employees, whether they be the heads of large industries, transportation companies, financiers, wholesale merchants, retail merchants or others, all are going to feel the effects of the contracted trade of this country as a result of the policies hon. gentlemen opposite are putting into force. Let me give the figures in regard to trade. When the Liberal administration, of which I had the honour to be the head, came into office in 1921, we found the country facing a position very similar to that which at present exists. Trade was in a state of stagnation; the industries of the country were running parttime, there was general unemployment and a very serious business depression. Then gradually came a marked improvement. The total aggregate trade of Canada for the fiscal years ending March 31, is as follows:
Fiscal year ending
March 31	Aggregate Trade
1922		 $1,502,000,000
1923		 1,748.000,000
1924	 1,952,000,000
1925		 1,878.000,000
1926		 2,256,000,000
1927		 2,298,000,000
1928		 2,360,000,000
1929		 2,655,000,000
1930		 2,393.000,000
Hon. members will notice how greatly the aggregate trade of the Dominion increased while we were in office.
The most important part of these statistics is that which refers to export trade. Let me examine the figures with regard to that phase of the matter. I shall give in a moment the figures dealing with that portion of the export trade which was purely domestic. Export trade in Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1922, amounted to $754,000,000; in 1923 it was $945,000,000; by 1924 it had jumped to $1,059,000,000, and so on. The table is as follows:
Fiscal year ending
March 31	Total Exports
1922	 $ 754,000,000
1923		 945,000,000
1924		 1,059,000,000
1925		 1,081,000,000
1926		 1,329,000,000
1927		 1,268,000,000
1928		 1,251,000,000
1929		 1,389,000,000
1930		 1,145,000,000
Let us now consider the domestic exports which relate to our surplus production. Here, Mr. Speaker, may I emphasize the importance which is to be attached to the export of surplus products from Canada? That is a business on which about

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
2,000,000 of our population are dependent. W hatever adversely affects surplus exports adversely affects all classes in our country. The domestic exports are as follows:
Fiscal year ending
March 31	Domestic Exports
1922		 $ 740,000,000
1923		 931,000,000
1924		 1,045,000,000
1925		 1,009.000,000
1926		 1,315,000,000
1927		 1,252,000,000
1928		 1.228,000,000
1929		 1.364,000,000
1930		 1,120,000,000
Hon. members will notice that there is an increase from $740,000,000 in 1922 to $1,120,000,000 in 1930, and higher even than that in the four years preceding. That is one indication of the prosperity in Canada in the period immediately preceding the present one.
May I refer to another phase of the matter which illustrates whether or not there was satisfactory administration of public affairs during that period. I refer to the public debt of the country. Public debt increases where there are deficits and decreases where there are surpluses. For years preceding the regime of the previous administration Canada had deficit after deficit. The public debt had enormously increased. There was the most serious problem with which we had to grapple, but what was the result? The result was that in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1924, instead of a deficit there was a surplus of $35,993,594, and from then on till our last year of office there were surpluses each year. The surpluses which I shall now read indicate the extent to which the public debt of the country was reduced from 1923 to 1930:
Fiscal year ending
March 31	Decreases in Debt
1924		 $35,993,594
1925		 345,589
1926		 27,706,587
1927		 41,896,729
1928		 50,984,137
1929		 71,345,528
1930		 47,740,746
These figures go to show that in seven successive years out of the eight and a half years during which the Liberal administration held office we had surpluses instead of deficits. These surpluses moreover total the enormous sum of over $275,000,000 I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether or not that is a favourable legacy to leave a succeeding administration? May I further draw the attention of the house to the fact that these surpluses were effected not 22110-2
by any system of borrowing; during the entire period the Liberal administration held office the capital as well as the ordinary expenditures were met out of current revenues. These surpluses were over and above all that had been spent on capital and current account.
Another indication of our success is shown by the reduction in taxation imposed.


Mr. HANSON:: (York-Sunbury):	Six per
cent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend will find that the six per cent will return before very long. In order to place the finances of the country in a position that would make it possible to meet the obligations that had arisen from the administration preceding ours and to balance the budget we were obliged for a time to levy additional taxes. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite to remember however that we faced the situation squarely and that we met our obligations by taxation and not by borrowing. The country will expect the present administration to do likewise. It will expect that the obligations incurred so readily to serve the ends of a general election will be met out of taxation and not from additional borrowings which will entail a further baneful legacy upon the country.
When we found that it was possible out of existing revenues to balance our budget we began immediately to reduce taxation. Hon. members will remember that we reduced the indirect taxation in connection with customs duties. I shall not refer to that particular reduction in the figures I am about to quote at this time. It is estimated that the revenue remitted by the reduction of (taxation in other forms amounted in the year 1026 to $25,000,000; in 1927 that the reduction amounted to $27,000,000; in 1928, to $19,000,000; in 1929, to $25,000,000 and last year, 1930, to $22,000,000. A conservative estimate of reductions of taxation in the last five years shows that there has been a remission of taxation which now 'amounts to the vast total of $116,000,000 a year, because the reduction which was made each year was a reduction which continued for and applied to each successive year.
The figures in tabular form are as follows:
Estimated Taxation Reduction (other
Fiscal Year	than Customs)
1926-	27	
$25,000,0001927-	28	
27,000,0001928-	29	
19,000,0001929-	30	
25,000,0001930-	31	
22,000,000
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Those, Mr. Speaker, are figures which speak for themselves. Those are the indices by which the country will find it possible to estimate whether or not the business of the country was being satisfactorily administered under the government which preceded the present one. These are the indices which tell whether the policies which were being applied were wise, right and helpful. Under the policies of the Liberal administration we had this vast increases in trade and this decrease of public debt. In seven out of eight and a half years we had a surplus. There was a steady decrease of taxation, and all was accompanied by a spirit of harmony, unity and good will between the governments of the provinces and the government of the Dominion, a spirit such as had not prevailed for many years previously. Unquestionably we have not that spirit at the present time. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we had a spirit of unity and good will between this country and other parts of the British Empire and particularly between Great Britain and Canada. That also is something which cannot be said to exist at the present time.
Let me come now, Mr. Speaker, to the references in the Speech from the throne to the legislation passed at the special session. I shall not go into that at any length at the moment except to direct attention to the fact that even the government itself has not ventured to assert that it has in any way redeemed the pledges and the promises which it gave to the electors at the last general election. My right hon. friend opposite came into power in virtue of certain definite and distinct promises which he then made to the electorate. He said he would end unemployment, he said he would end rural distress; he said he would do all of these things, or perish in the attempt. He has not ended rural distress; he has not ended unemployment; and he has not yet perished in the attempt. He has not ever fulfilled that promise, but I tell him he will perish in the attempt before the other promises are ever fulfilled, because he will never be able to fulfil them.
The address says:
Although in the interval world conditions have changed but little for the better, this tariff legislation has resulted in a marked improvement in the domestic situation.
Market improvement ! Where is the market improvement! I am not going to take up the time of this house by endeavouring to tell hon. members and the country what they all know. It is not necessary for

any one to assert that conditions have not improved, that they are worse than they were, because every man, woman and child knows that to be the case. The mere putting of these words into the lips of His Excellency the Administrator will give little in the way of comfort and satisfaction to those men and women in all parts of Canada who to-day are still seeking employment, who are still trying to meet the obligations on their farms, who are still trying to avoid placing mortgages on their homes, who are seeking a bare livelihood and trying to get free of being obliged to resort to the good offices of the Red Cross society and other charitable organizations for whatever sustenance they have. I say, Mr. Speaker, that conditions are apparent and well known by the country generally. Everyone who has studied conditions in Canada at all to-day knows that unfortunately it is only too true that so far as certain parts of our country are concerned-and I refer more particularly now to the middle west- matters are in a desperate plight, that many people there are on the verge of destitution. In short, a condition exists in this country at the moment the like of which, fortunately, it has not witnessed at any time heretofore in our history.


An hon. MEMBER:: When did you notice it first?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Notice it? It has been noticed by everyone since this administration came into office. Now, Mr. Speaker, may I say-and I wish to make this point very clear, for it helps to answer the interruption of my hon. friend-the government can in no way say that they have been impeded in any of the policies that they have put forward, that they have been in any way obstructed in the carrying out of the pledges or promises which they made to the electorate. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that with the exception of what it became necessary for me to say publicly in the short period of two weeks during which we had the special session of parliament, I have not raised my voice publicly in criticism, or with one or two exceptions, by way of comment, from the day the present administration took office until this afternoon. What I am saying with respect to myself is equally true with respect to the great body of members of this house who belong to the party which I have the honour to lead. We have given to hon. gentlemen opposite the freest possible hand. We have done that in order that they might demonstrate, if they could, what their policies were capable of doing. May I say this also, Mr. MARCH 16, 1931
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Speaker, that we have recognized the seriousness of conditions in Canada. We recognized them throughout the campaign, we spoke of them and of their causes, world and domestic causes, in the course of that campaign, and we indicated policies that we believed would help to relieve the situation. When the electorate decided that it preferred to accept the promises and pledges of hon. gentlemen opposite, we said, "All right, it is for the electorate to make its choice; we will not interfere in the least with the putting into force of any policies which hon. gentlemen opposite wish to put into force; we will give them a fair chance to show what they can do." They have had now nearly eight months; they have had a special session of parliament where they were free to bring down whatever legislation they pleased, and no restriction was placed upon them whatever in voting the money they asked for, or in amending the customs tariff in the way in which they desired to amend it, or the Customs Act so far as they desired to amend it. They wTere free to bring in whatever legislation they wished. They were given a free hand at the Imperial conference. They have had everything their own way, and if today conditions in Canada are worse instead of better the fault lies on the shoulders of my right hon. friend and his colleagues and followers. From this time on, I think he can no longer claim exemption from criticism by the opposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has never claimed it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says he has never claimed any exemption from criticism. What was the substance of the speech he made at Regina when he began to talk about the extent to which those who ought to know better were putting obstacles and _ difficulties in his way?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is very quick to say he never claimed exemption from criticism, but there is not a man living who is so sensitive to criticism as my right hon. friend. If, Mr. Speaker, you want evidence of that fact you have only to notice the way in which my right hon. friend has risen to the bait two or three times already.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise as a. matter of
common decency.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There my right hon. friend is biting again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise as a matter of
common decency.
22110-2J


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wonder at hon. members laughing at my right hon. friend's sensitiveness.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of common
decency personal letters should not be published.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is my right
hon. friend still biting?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. He is hurt to think that an ex-Prime Minister is capable of such a thing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
matter?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nothing in the world. I
simply said, and I repeat it now, there is nothing I have seen in the history of parliament that quite equals an ex-Prime Minister giving the purport of a letter marked "personal."	[DOT]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
that shot must have gone pretty deep. It wounded my right hon. friend twenty minutes ago and he is still licking the wound. May I come now to the next clause of the speech from the throne which refers to the Unemployment Relief Act. Here we are told that this also has proved "equally beneficial." Well, I think "equally beneficial" is probably accurate when you compare the beneficial results of that enactment with the beneficial results that came .from the other legislation then passed, but it does not say much for the extent of the benefit in either case. But, curiously enough, in that very paragraph the administration admits the extent of unemployment to be greater than it has ever been at any time in Canada. Take the last half of the paragraph:
-yet its careful administration by my ministers, ably aided by the provincial and municipal governments and the two great railway systems, has resulted in the institution of a nation wide program of public undertakings, each one a unit in a scheme of national development, which have collectively provided work for the greatest number of men rvho have ever been employed through the direct efforts of the federal government.
In other words, there never was a time in the history of Canada when the federal government had to come to the relief of so many men. This appears in the speech from the throne itself, confirming the veiy view which, we have all along contended was the correct one.
May I now refer to the third subdivision, which has to do with the Imperial conference. I intend to speak at perhaps a little greater length with regard to the Imperial conferenco
20	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
than with regard to any other subject this afternoon, so I shall pass over that for the moment except to draw attention to the fact that there were two conferences, the so-called Imperial conference and the Imperial economic conference. It is of the Imperial economic conference I intend to speak this afternoon, because I assume that with regard to the other conference, and in fact with regard to both, we will have an opportunity for discussion in this house at a later day. One feature with regard to the Imperial conference to which I wish to refer, however, is the fact that in the speech from the throne the government states that it has approved in principle all that was done at the conference of 1926. The speech reads:
Several constitutional questions, arising largely out of the resolutions of the Imperial conference of 1926, were fully discussed, and, in principle, approved.
Hon. members who were in this house after the conference of 1926 will recall that the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and others on the opposite side denounced my colleague the then Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and myself because we ventured to contend that the conference of 1926 had asserted a certain status for Canada and that as a result certain changes would have to be made to get rid of some anachronisms in existing statutes. They ridiculed and helittled the whole business; they said it was an outrageous boast that we should come back and contend that anything of a substantial nature had been accomplished. Now we have the present Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party saying, in a speech from the throne that will be of record for all time to come, that in principle his government has endorsed all that was done at the 1926 conference.
The fourth division, Mr. Speaker, refers to certain administrative actions of the government since the last session. The first is a reference to an order in council which was passed prohibiting the importation of certain goods from Russia, I imagine we will hear a good deal of discussion with regard to that matter during the course of the present session. I may refer to it a little later on in my remarks this afternoon, but if I do not do so at that time I will do so later on.
The next reference is to organization having been completed under the Pension Act. That is true, but in the speech from the throne my hon. friends have not told us that although the amendments to the Pension Act were drafted and supported by representatives of all political parties in this house, in the

appointments which have been made the government have appointed virtually only members of their own party.
Let me come to the next reference, which has to do with the situation in the west. The speech from the throne contains the following words:
My ministers have had under anxious consideration the means by which an orderly marketing of the wheat crop of western Canada may be assured, and have already taken such effective action towards that end as the circumstances appear to justify.
I hope that when the Prime Minister gets up to speak he will tell us w'hat the effective actions were, whether he means the instructions that were given in writing by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) to all the trade commissioners in different parts of the world to do what they could towards helping Canadian trade; whether it is the trade with Bolivia upon which we are to enter shortly; whether it is the credits that are to be given to China for the purchase of Canadian wheat. I hope the Prime Minister will tell us whether those are the effective measures. If not, perhaps he will tell us what they are, because I believe up to the present time the country has been looking and searching in vain for anything which indicates a measure that will be at all helpful to agriculture and western agriculture in particular. The other day I believe the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) did undertake on certain conditions to pay the transportation charges on cattle from one part of Canada to another, out of the public revenues derived (from taxation. I suppose that is all right so far as it goes, but if that is the extent of the effective legislation looking to wider markets I am afraid the farmers of Canada will be far from satisfied with the record of the government.
Now I come to the legislative program. In the speech from the throne my right hon. friend says:
The broad outline of the general scheme of national development undertaken by my government, including provision for old age pensions, aid to agriculture, technical education and highway construction, has already been made known.
That is true; heaven knows it was made known often enough, but what was not made known was what appears in the next paragraph, that these things will only be proceeded with, when?
Careful consideration has therefore been given to the progressive stages by which it will be carried out, and you will be asked to consider measures sanctioning such action as the current economic situation warrants. . . .

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King


Richard Burpee Hanson: Surely.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says "surely." In. the last campaign he and others continually said that the current economic situation required that these things should be done at once, and not only at once but regardless of expense. We were to have a' national highway running all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific by an all-JCanadian route; we were to have a St. Lawrence waterway, also by an all-Canadian route; we were to have the Peace river outlet (to the ocean; we were to have other routes to Hudson bay. Everything was to be d-one at once. There was to be more in the way of aid to agriculture, technical education and old age pensions. Every old man and old woman who had a vote was made to believe that he and she were going to get full pensions as soon as this parliament met, but now they are told that they will get pensions as soon as the current economic situation warrants. Then listen to the next words:
.... and such as can he undertaken without undue demands upon the national exchequer.
When the late Liberal administration was in office, Mr. Speaker, that administration had control of the exchequer of this country. If we had wished to play in the campaign the part which was played by hon. gentlemen opposite we could have said, "Here is the exchequer in our hands. We will take the moneys out of this exchequer to provide old age pensions for everyone, aid to agriculture for every one, more in the way of technical education for everyone and highways across the country for everyone. We will do it immediately and out of the money of the people of this country." We could have said all that and we might have achieved the result which was achieved by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. COTNAM:: Are you sorry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should say not, but I should think hon. gentlemen opposite might well be sorry, and I think they will be still more sorry before they have been in office very long. What I want to make perfectly clear is that we understood what these obligations amounted to. We knew what would be required in the way of taxation to do these things, and we were honest with the people.
Now may I refer to what is said in regard to the revision of the tariff and the establishment of a tariff board. I assume that the revisions will be of the character of those made at the special session, more revisions upward,
and I will have something to say in that regard a. little later on. With regard to the tariff board we will naturally wait and see what functions this board will be expected to exercise before pronouncing upon it. The first act of my hon. friend, after coming into office, was to dismiss the existing tariff board, which had collected a great deal of most valuable information and which had given satisfaction to all classes in this country, industry, agriculture, labour and others. So far as it is humanly possible for any one organization to reconcile differences of opinion and find common ground to help keep groups and parties united, this was done by the tariff board under the administration of Mr. Moore. But my hon. friend abolished the board immediately upon his assumption of office. Now he proposes to establish another tariff board. Was the abolition simply for the purpose of placing partisans on the board, simply to get a new board composed of those who were of his own political persuasion, or is the tariff board to be another instrument designed to wrest from parliament its authority over taxation and the control of tariffs and hence also of moneys of the people? If my hon. friend has in mind giving to any board the power to adjust the tariff at its will, without the consent of this parliament in the first instance, I will tell him now that he will have to fight pretty hard before he will succeed in a step of the kind. May I remind my right hon. friend this is not a special session of parliament. Let me tell him further that we assume the postponed conference is going to take place, and that he had better fix the date of that conference at a period when he may be expected to have leisure to deal with it. Do not let him think that because last year he succeeded in using the Imperial conference as a reason for proroguing parliament and getting through the business of this house in a rush, he is going to succeed by any device of that kind this year. We shall get through the business of the house in an orderly way or the country will know the reason why.
The next measures mentioned are those that refer to the control of finances and to the Naturalization Act and the Copyright Act. We shall have to wait until those measures are down before saying anything about them. That concludes the program with the exception of the reference to public accounts, which contains this interesting statement:
The estimates will manifest my ministers' resolve that, until the revenues of the country reflect a definite improvement in the economic
22	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
situation, every economy compatible "with the proper administration of the state will be exercised.
I wonder what is to come after the revenues begin to improve, should they ever improve, if that is to be the condition laid down. Are we to have economy compatible with the proper administration of the state only until such time as the revenues of the country will allow them to do something different? We shall wait and see what is meant.
There is in the speech from the throne one paragraph to which I wish to call the attention of parliament. May I say it is a paragraph with which I for one am in entire agreement. The paragraph which I am about to read has been inserted, I have no doubt, like many of the paragraphs that appear in statements of my hon. friend, for the purpose of window dressing; it is an assertion of fact with which I think everyone will agree. It is made however, to look like something in the nature of a policy. I believe that anyone who studies the present condition of Canada will conclude that what it asserts is correct. It is as follows:
The present situation has emphasized the necessity of effecting a reduction in the costs of production and marketing of the wheat crop and of providing more stable markets, as the welfare of all parts of Canada is involved in satisfactory returns being received by the grain growers.
That paragraph, to my mind, states the crux of the situation not only as it is to-day but as it has been for some time past. It states the situation exactly as it was when parliament was in session this time a year ago. Let me read it in reference to the situation as it was in Canada this time a year ago so that hon. members may judge whether it was not equally applicable then:
The present situation has emphasized the necessity of effecting a reduction in the costs of production and marketing of the wheat crop and of providing more stable markets, as the welfare of. all parts of Canada is involved in satisfactory returns being received by the grain growers.
That was the .contention of the government of the day a year ago-that the most important of all facts in connection with Canada's economic situation was the position of the grain growers in this country. How was a market to be found for western wheat, to express it in small compass. The outstanding economic problem of Canada, the problem of problems, is summed up in that one question: How are markets to be found for our western wheat? Enlarge that question and ask how markets are to be found for our surplus agricultural and other natural p%>

ducts, and you have a still broader aspect of the trade question. Enlarge it still further So as to include not only natural products but manufactured products as well, and ask how markets are 'to be found for our wheat, for our other surplus agricultural and natural products, and for the surplus manufactures of the country, and you have the trade problem of Canada in its broad aspect and outline. That is the situation.
I am happy that hon. gentlemen opposite and those who sit on this side are in agreement-'I think I am right in saying that we are in agreement

as to what the problem is. That, after all, enables us to get somewhere in the process of debate.
May I say that my remarks this afternoon, from now on, will be directed not So much by way of criticism as criticism, as by a sincere desire, in a constructive way, to point out wherein I believe the situation as outlined can best be met, and wherein I fear the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite, instead of meeting, will defeat it.
Let me say to my right hon. friend, and say it at once: I believe he is thoroughly sincere in his motives with respect to his policies; I believe he thinks the policies which he has laid down will be best for Canada now and in the long run. I think he is thoroughly sincere in that. And I hope he will give to us on this side credit for like sincerity when we say that we cannot see the matter in the same light as he does, that we think his policies are wrong, that his methods are wrong, and that, instead of improving conditions, the policies he has put into force, and is putting into force will lead to a worse state than we have at the present time.
That is the ground of difference between us. We are agreed as to the need for an export trade for our surplus products, and my right hon. friend has certain policies which he believes will help to improve the situation. We believe those policies will work injury instead of helping matters. The debate on that question did not start to-day; it is one that has been going on in different forms, off and on, for a long time past. But it took very concrete form in the last session of the last parliament. At that time we all recognized the position as set forth in this paragraph. In What way did we recognize it? In the first place, we saw-and there was agreement on this point-that the former markets for Canadian wheat were being lost, that some countries, for example, Germany, France and Italy, were putting up tariff walls and making it more difficult for our farmers to compete in those particular markets and

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
sell their grain there. Not only did we agree that the available markets were becoming fewer, but we were also in agreement that the British market was the best that Canada could possibly have, that Britain was our best customer, and that to secure, in the British market, something that would maintain our position and expand and develop it was after , all the great objective at which we should aim. We were further agreed as to this: that the problem of unemployment would be solved in the last analysis only by solving the question of Canada's export trade. I think I am right in that, though there was not the same emphasis laid on that phase by hon. gentlemen opposite. We on this side stressed that point; hon. gentlemen opposite maintained that unemployment was mainly due to the policies of the then administration. They did not say, as we said and still contend, that the reason there was unemployment in Canada, and the reason there is to-day, is that agriculture in this country is not getting an opportunity to export its commodities to the extent to which it should, that the grain growers have not the markets they should have. As a consequence there is not the purchasing power in western Canada to afford a home market for many of our manufactures, because the home market is not a locality; it is purchasing power. It is a fund of purchasing power. A large part of that fund, in the first instance, has to come from the sale of wheat and agricultural products. We were in agreement on one further point, and that was that the Imperial economic conference which was to be held in October had an important bearing oi^ the situation. That conference was called yo discuss economic conditions and questions of inter-empire trade, and that was the reason, among other things, why the appeal was made to the country when it was-so that the people might have an opportunity before the conference took place of pronouncing on the respective policies of the parties. When we were in office we realized that if we obtained the endorsation of the people of Canada to the policies as set out in the Dunning budget, we could go to the Imperial conference armed with the support of the people and that in all probability we would get out of that conference something which would mean a good deal to western agriculture and indeed to all agriculture in this country. I do not intend to go over the ground as to why we did not succeed in that appeal, but the fact remains that we put our policies before the people and we gave as our reason for them a desire to get more largely into the British market.
That being the agreement all along the line, where does the difference arise? The difference arises not over any question as to what the situation is, but over the method of approach and policy. If hon. members will be so kind, I am going to ask them to pay a good deal of attention to what I say this afternoon with respect to the difference of methods of approach on these important subjects, because there is a fundamental difference in the attitude adopted by the two parties. There is a real difference between my right hon. friend and myself in this matter of approach, and I do not think he will deny it-he will perhaps correct me if in this I am in error. In approaching these questions he has a certain belief in what he calls bargaining and in action which is in the nature of coercion. Personally, I do not believe that that method of approach, the method of coercion, gets anywhere in the long run. It may win for a day, it may win for a week or for a year, but it brings very strange results and reversals after a time. I believe that the method of conciliatory approach is much better than an approach by means of coercion. I believe that the method of creating an atmosphere of good will and discovering if possible common ground will do more in bringing about agreement than will talk of might, power and force, whether it is economic force or any other kind of force that is to be used. There is the difference between my right hon. friend, and those who sit around him, and myself and those who sit on this side of the house. We differ as to the method of approach, and in fact, as a result, there is a difference also in our policies. The policies of hon. gentlemen opposite are based on this method of approach, and our policies are based on the methods we believe in and have always followed.
Having in mind the Imperial conference and knowing the questions which were to come up, we shaped our course accordingly. We sought to prepare the way for creating a favourable atmosphere in Britain towards what we might seek at the Imperial conference. We sought by the legislation which we passed in this parliament to create through the voluntary giving of preferences a situation which would in the natural order of things place Great Britain and other governments of the empire under certain obligations to this country. If we did not succeed with that method there was still time for parliament to deal with the matter in some other way, but we believed that that was the correct method of approach and we proceeded along those lines.
So that there may be no doubt as to that matter, I will quote the concluding words of
24	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
the then Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in introducing his budget. What was the nature of that budget? In a word, we sought so to arrange trade as to favour in our trading those who traded with us. The country to the south had by an act of its own, which was within its own right, raised tariffs against Canada and made it more difficult for us to trade with them. Britain had been our best customer and had taken no similar action. We said:	We will seek by means of legislation to transfer to Britain certain purchases that are now being made in the United States so that what has to be purchased outside can be purchased from Britain rather than from the United States. That was not working an injury to any interest or to any industry or class in this country. During the discussions in parliament, on the hustings and through the campaign you never heard anyone come forward and say, "My business is being injured by the Dunning budget; my business is hurt by the steps being taken in connection with the preferences being given to Britain." The matter was so arranged that what we were doing for Britain was being done in a way that would create a helpful atmosphere in that country, and would in turn prove immediately helpful to the consumers in this country and those manufacturers who later on hoped to get their home market through what might come from sales of our own across the sea in return for what we were buying from them. The whole purpose of the approach was to create that atmosphere and to help if possible to get that additional opportunity of trade.
In order to be clear as to the purport of the Dunning budget in reference to what it was hoped might be accomplished as a consequence of the Imperial conference, let me as already said, quote the concluding words of the then Minister of Finance. They will be found on Hansard of May, 1, 1930, at page 1631, and are as follows:
These tariff favours to those who favour our products are not the result of any bargain with any other country hut of an attitude in international relations which we believe to be mutually beneficial and are an expression of the spirit in which Canada will approach the Imperial economic conference in a few' months time. In other words we do not intend to meet the other countries of the British commonwealth of nations in a spirit of party bargaining but rather in the broad spirit of willingness to become in ever increasing measure good customers to those who treat us in like manner. This is the spirit in which we desire to meet all nations, but we believe that within the British community of nations lies the greatest measure of opportunity for mutual development of trade because of our common heritage, kindred institutions and a common patriotism.
 '
That was the statement of the Liberal position. It is quite true that in parliament at that time my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) did not say very much against the preference features then announced. He did say something against them in the last hours of the campaign, and his action at the special session was altogether in the direction of wiping out those preferences. Of this entirely different attitude I shall have something to say later on. The position while parliament was in session was as set forth by Mr. Dunning. When we went to the country that was the attitude which hon. members on this side of the house supporting our policies took from one end of the country to the other. We made it perfectly clear that the Imperial conference had an all important bearing on the question of the sale of western wheat, and we stressed over and over again how all-important to Canada was the question of which party was to represent this country at that conference. We stressed that, not merely in relation to individuals, although the names of individuals were mentioned because there was reason to believe that from the part they had taken in previous conferences they would be the best qualified to obtain beneficial results; but we stressed it because we believed the policies we had adopted were going to be helpful to Canada. We stressed those points with emphasis right up to the very close of the campaign.
In order that I may do no injustice to my right hon. friend by any possible misrepresentation of our respective points of view, I would ask the house to allow me to make reference to speeches made during the campaign which related to this question of policies and methods of approach. I ask hon. members again to keep in mind the Liberal point of view as expressed in voluntary preference, and the point of view, if I may say so, of the Conservative party as expressed iu bargaining, and consider these opposing points of view. Our attitude was in the nature of a conciliatory approach; the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite was in the nature of economic coercion. If I quote from my last address of all in the campaign, perhaps I shall be setting forth more emphatically than in any other way the policies upon which above all we were making our appeal to the people. The last address that I gave in the course of the campaign and which was broadcast from one end of Canada to the other, contained mention of our policies, our methods and of the significance of the right policy in regard to the great economic problem Canada was facing and the problem

The Address

Mr. Mackenzie King
of -western Canada in particular. It was largely a repetition of what had been said from every platform, but it gained emphasis, perhaps, as being the last appeal of the campaign. These are the words as they were reported in the press on the day of the election itself:
In the life of every nation, there are moments when its people are called upon to make a great decision, affecting not merely the immediate present, but the whole trend of its future development. Such a moment, I believe, has come to the Canadian people at this time in relation to the all-important question of interempire trade. In this situation, the people are entitled to expect their political leaders to deal with them fairly and frankly, to meet the issue without hesitation, and to enlighten them as to its true significance in relation to their interests.
A little further on, with special reference to a market in Britain for Canadian wheat, I said:
The Liberal budget of 1930 is not only a forward move in the direction of inter-empire trade and a new influence towards the great object of closer cooperation between Canada and the other members of the British commonwealth, it is also intended to meet one of the greatest economic problems confronting us at the present time, namely the necessity of obtaining a secure and permanent market for Canadian wheat and thereby ensuring a continuous flow to Canada of that purchasing power in the prairie provinces, upon which the prosperity of our country so largely depends.
The words which follow are as true as prophecy could possibly be with respect to what Canada has since witnessed:
Travelling as I did, throughout the western wheat fields, less than a fortnight ago, I have been appalled at the danger which confronts the economic life of the Dominion if we do not find the means of securing a market for this greatest of our primary products, and the greatest single source of the purchasing power which provides traffic for our transportation systems and orders for our factories and business for our retail and wholesale merchants.
The close relationship betwen the solution of the prdblem of unemployment and a market for Canadian wheat was further emphasized as follows:
The wheat of western Canada is the greatest single source of purchasing power in the Dominion. When this purchasing power is contracted, as was the case last year, it has its inevitable effect upon every link in the series which extends from the consumer through retail and wholesale merchants, back to the manufacturer and transportation companies, the greatest employers of labour throughout the country. Apart from the worldwide depression, with its resultant drop in commodity prices, the chief cause of unemployment in Canada was the short wheat crop of last year and the curtailment of export of Canadian wheat to Great Britain.
I also said:
The great proposals for empire trade which are laid down in the Liberal budget of 1930 constitute the only real and permanent solution of this great problem of unemployment.
Let me come now to the Conservative attitude in the campaign. I referred to it also in the broadcast of which I have spoken. Here may I again draw attention to the fact, already pointed out, that in the campaign very little was said by hon. gentlemen opposite in respect of the economic conference. I feel they were hardly fair with the electorate of Canada in that particular. I think they knew or they ought to have known, and they ought to have explained the bearing of their policies and what they bad in mind on the economic conference. I would also draw attention to the faot that very little was said at the outset of the campaign about any changes in the tariff. The special session that was going to ;be called was to deal with unemployment. Unemployment was what was stressed throughout the country. There are hon. gentlemen sitting opposite from western constituencies who would not be seated on that side of the house to-day had their leader told the people throughout the campaign that he intended to deal with the tariff last session. May I pause to say this word to my friends in western Canada:	I hope the people of western Canada
will realize that they have the remedy in their own hands. I hope they will realize that parliamentary institutions have a great background; that, after all, what we have in parliament is something that has come into being, not in a day, but through many years of struggle to give to men the right of freedom of expression and to secure the laws they wish to have. If western Canada feels the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite are not suited to the needs of western Canada, then it is not for the people of western Canada to talk about secession or anything of that kind; it is for them to demand of those who sit in this house that they will support only policies that are in the interest of western Canada. I do not say to hon. gentlemen opposite who come from western constituencies which are suffering at the present time and which are going to suffer still more from conditions as they will become under these policies, that they must desert their leader. I am not for a moment putting that suggestion to them, but they have not only a right but a duty to point out to their leader wherein the policies that he has adopted and that he proposes to enact at this very session of parliament are going to work a further injury to the people
26	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
of the west, and to plead with him, in the name of the party to which they are giving support, that he modify his view so that it will not work the harm that we believe it will.


Mr. IRVINE:: Would the right hon. gentleman kindly indicate in what way he thinks a different approach to the British people would have resulted in their paying a higher price for Canadian wheat than that at which they could purchase wheat from any other country?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I am
interested in is that the people of Britain should feel it to be not only to their interest but a privilege to buy Canadian wheat in preference to any other, provided that the price is the same as can be obtained elsewhere. I believe that if the policies laid down in the Dunning budget had been accepted by the people of this country, the people of Great Britain would have so viewed their obligations, and that as a result of the last Imperial conference we would have had, either through a quota or in some other way, a means whereby Canadian wheat would to-day have a favoured position in Great Britain.
Let me give the Conservative position as I referred to it on the last night of the campaign:
Now in the closing days of the campaign, Mr. Bennett has announced his intention to summon a special session of parliament to bring about an all-round increase in the tariff, which means, so far as the Conservative party is concerned, they propose to reject this great movement towards empire trade, and deal with the mother country only as they deal with foreign countries, upon a basis of hard bargaining, and upon the condition that the people of Great Britain must change a fiscal policy which they have maintained for almost a century.
That was a pretty good forecast of what has since taken place. That was a statement made in July, 1930, to the electorate of Canada at large. I will say this in regard to my right hon. friend, that before the end of the campaign he made it plain that he intended to introduce higher tariff policies, and to ask Great Britain to change her fiscal policy. I would not for a moment say that my right hon. friend has been inconsistent. He has been consistent, but his very consistency is leading him nearer and nearer to destruction.


Mr. SPENCE:: Surely my right hon. friend is not worrying about him?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am worrying about the condition of this country. I wish to state to my right hon. friend that I do not in the least distrust his sincerity, but I do distrust his policy. I do distrust his methods, 
because I do not believe in them. I think he makes a mistake when he relies too exclusively upon his own judgment and is not prepared to accept the judgment even of his own ministers. I say, Mr. Speaker, that cabinet government as it applies in British parliamentary institutions was devised to prevent the will of any one person dominating an entire situation. Cabinet government has come into being through the belief that out of collective wisdom the best judgment may be formed. There is no collective wisdom in the formation of judgment in the government of my right hon. friend. Ask any minister of the crown how far his opinion goes when it is in conflict with that expressed by my right hon. friend.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Where does my right
hon. friend get that information?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I get it on
every side, and from the look in the face of my right hon. friend (Mr. Ryckman) when he oomes out of the council chamber. May I say to my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) that I do not believe he is acting fairly either by his colleagues or the country when he takes to himself all the responsibility. It was never intended that there should not be a Minister of Finance other than the Prime Minister; it was never intended that the Prime Minister should function in that office. Surely there must foe somewhere in the Conservative party at least one member whose abilities could be usefully employed at the head of the Department of Finance. Under present circumstances when a difference of opinion arises between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, how is it settled? If I am not mistaken my right hon. friend told us at the last session that the reason he did not appoint a Minister of Finance was that he did not want any minister to have the burden of the measures he intended for the session. He did not think it would be fair to any other man to ask him to put through all those important financial measures. I ask my right hon. friend if that is not correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, my right hon. friend is not quite correct, but it is as near correct as he can get.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have passed the special session and we have now reached the general session. I say that my right hon. friend is not fair to himself or to others and is not doing what is right when he attempts to fill so many offices himself; I say that he should without delay bring into his ministry, if he can be found, someone well qualified to serve as Minister of Finance.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
An. hon. MEMBER: Hurry up.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I draw the attention of this house to one fact: For over six months I have left hon. gentlemen opposite entirely to themselves to say and do as they pleased. Surely they will now have the patience to let me have at least an hour or two to myself to say what I please. I repeat my right hon. friend should enlarge his cabinet to the extent indicated and also should give to hon. members of his cabinet a little more say than they have had in the shaping of policies.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: My right hon.
friend should learn to run his own party.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To return to
the position taken by my right hon. friend during the campaign, may I set forth the manner in which he dealt with certain matters. In opening the campaign for the Conservative party at Winnipeg on June 9, 1930, my right hon. friend the present leader of the government, at that time leader of the opposition, made his coercive attitude perfectly plain. He made perfectly clear that it -was by the method of "fighting" and "blasting" that he intended to find markets for Canadian wheat and surplus products generally. The language he used is all the more remarkable because my right hon. friend told us that the speech was written out, and that in most part it was read. The part of the speech from which I wish to quote was in the nature of a direct appeal to the farmers of our country and to the west in particular. Here are his words:
Listen you agriculturists from the west and all the other parts of Canada, you have been taught to mock at tariffs and applaud free trade. Tell me, when did free trade fight for you? Tell me, when did free trade fight for you? You say tariffs are only for the manufacturers. I will make them fight for you as well. I will use them to blast a way into the markets that have been closed to you.
Then, after making further promises of what would be done in the nature of drastic adjustments and improvements, he made the following pledge, couched in language of the greatest tenderness:
You will have broader markets, and will have them for all time. You have known suffering and have been patient. Let us end it. Take heart.
Another promise, not to relieve, but to end distress! I wonder what the agriculturists of all Canada, and of the west in particular, are saying to my right hon. friend to-day about their suffering and their patience!
The assurance given with respect to "blasting" was repeated at Victoria on June 17 without being restricted to agricultural products.
I quote these extracts because they are not chance phrases. When I refer to "blasting" my hon. friend nods his head in approval. The method he proposes represents one entirely opposed to that which those of us on this side of the house have employed.


An hon. MEMBER:: My right hon. friend
is a peaceful man.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not
ashamed of having the desire to use peaceful methods. We have passed through a devastating world war; hon. gentlemen opposite apparently think that by now starting an economic war they are going to make conditions better. My hon. friends have a mistaken idea however of what is required for prosperity. To illustrate the intent of my right hon. friend when dealing with the question of markets I shall quote from the Victoria Colonist of June 17;
It is true we must have foreign markets, and as I said the other evening, we will blast a way to those markets on a world-wide basis with any exportable surpluses. Wo do not have to worry about that.
And at Vancouver, on the same day, resort to the same method was promised as a cure for all troubles and difficulties. I quote from the Montreal Gazette of June 19:
So will I, when the government is mine, continue to blast a way through all our troubles and difficulties.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to note that statement, "So will I, when the government is mine, continue to blast a way through all our troubles and difficulties." In that quotation my right hon. friend was speaking of a time when he might become Prime Minister. Well, that time has come. Now the government is his, and the fighting and the blasting have commenced. Those operations commenced the moment it was his. He might have been a little happier in his choice of words, although it is true we get the truth often in most unexpected ways. My right hon. friend speaks of the government as "his." He might, having regard to what he owes to others, have referred to the government as that of the Conservative party or the government as being that of himself and his colleagues. He might even with propriety have referred to it as the government of His Excellency the Governor General, of whose ministers he was one, primus inter pares, the first among equals. But no, the government is his, he is the first
28	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
and the last, alpha and omega-all. Well, again I say my right hon. friend is quite sincere.
And the government being his, the blasting has commenced. It commenced at the special session. I am reviewing the situation as I am 'because the methods which have been adopted are going to continue, and the country will have to make up its mind whether such is the way it wishes to be governed, whether it wishes to have its affairs so conducted in relation to other countries of the world. No longer'is there an opportunity for saying that "blasting" is a chance phrase used in the heat of a political campaign or debate. It is a method deliberately selected and that is believed in by my right hon. friend, a method which he intends to pursue in his policies, a method which he has shown us already he intends to pursue even in this parliament as far as he can, namely, the method of coercion. Because that in a word is what it is-not the conciliatory method, but the method of coercion, the getting things done by force of economic might-that is the method he intends to adopt.
Having the opportunity and the power he started at once to use that method in the special session. As all know, the special session of parliament was called for the purpose, nominally, of relieving unemployment. We were no sooner assembled than we discovered that the relief of the unemployed was a mere subterfuge, that the session in reality was to revise tariff schedules upward and to amend the Customs Tariff Act so as to give powers to the governor in council to do what council pleased with respect to many matters affecting the tariff. Throughout the campaign it was never thought that at the special session there would be changes of any extent in the tariff. My hon. friend made use of the session as he made use of the Imperial conference- as an instrument of coercion-the use he made of the forthcoming meeting of the conference was as effective as any form of closure. Hon. members know that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We met here
nominally to pass a vote for the relief of unemployment. As was repeatedly said, that could have been done by a governor general's warrant. A governor general's warrant could have been issued for $20,000,000 without a word of critioism in the circumstances.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say without a word of criticism for this reason, that in the campaign over and over again I said that the 
money if necessity demanded it could be taken by governor general's warrant for that purpose pending the assembling of parliament immediately after the conference. What criticism could I have directed at the administration after having made that perfectly clear? But in my heart I knew very well that my right hon. friend was not thinking of the unemployed primarily in connection with that session. He was thinking of the special interests that came to his rescue towards the end of the campaign and helped to put him where he is at the present time. It was not until the very last days of the campaign that he uttered any expression which gave the country the slightest idea that he intended to put up the tariff against Britain. The campaign had then about run its course and this phase passed unnoticed by the public at large; it was not unnoticed by those who expected to profit by it. But he did make this representation in the very last days of the campaign, and I drew attention to it in the speech to which I have just referred. It was necessary to wait until almost the last night of the campaign to draw attention to this statement, because my right hon. friend had gone up and down the country appealing to the necessities of the people, making their needs the excuse for the promises and pledges that he then made, and it was not until the very last days of the campaign that he told the petople what in his own mind he was determined to do, namely, to raise the tariff at the first opportunity in a way that would serve to their great advantage certain special interests in this country. So he called the special session to force those measures through. Supposing we of the opposition at the special session, had said, "We do not intend to allow this arbitrary and high-handed method of procedure. We are going to stay here and see that every item in this tariff program is discussed as it should be and its bearings properly considered." Supposing we had taken that position-a position which many think the opposition ought to have taken-what wlould have been the result? My right hon. friend made it plain the first day of the session when he said, "I will not go to any Imperial conference unless I get every bit of this program through." But in Toronto only a few days before he had said that the question of the solution of unemployment and the wheat situation hinged largely on the Imperial conference. Well, if we had taken a step of that kind, and my right hon. friend had not gone to the Imperial conference, we would have been told to-day that wheat was not going from Canada into Great Britain on any im-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
proved basis because we had prevented the leader of the government from being present at the Imperial conference. We let him go. The point I wish to bring out very clearly is this, that his whole attitude was one of coercing this parliament into passing those particular measures. Usually when large sums of money are bo be spent a supply bill is brought down and is discussed in committee of supply. No supply bill was brought down at the special session, but in orded to limit discussion, a special bill appropriating this $20,000,000 was introduced. Usually when the tariff is being changed the Minister of Finance brings down a budget and shows the bearing of the changes upon the revenues of the country and the taxes of the people. There was no budget brought down 'at the special session, but my right hon. friend brought down special measures, which he drove through in a certain time by his threat not to go to the Imperial conference until he had witnessed their enactment. Under that form of closure, by those coercive methods he put through his legislation.
And what was the nature of it? There were three bills, one relating to the relief of unemployment, one to amend the Customs Act, and another to amend the customs tariff. The most extraordinary thing of all is that on the eve of going to an Imperial conference my right hon. friend should have put up fhe tariff against Britain herself. I wish he would give us his explanation of that particular action when he gets up to speak. Let me come back to what I said at the outset. We were agreed that the selling of Canadian wheat in the British market was the most important of all objectives, as it is still the most important. How can he possibly reconcile with that objective his action at the special session in putting up the duties against Britain, wiping out the preferences that were granted under the Dunning budget? Not only that, but raising the duties to a point that in many cases prevented any inflow of goods from Great Britain into this country. I hope my right hon. friend will give some explanation of his action in that regard. I should not like to think it was simply because he had made promises to certain interests that if he were returned that was what he would do. We all know that there are certain selfish interests in this country that would like to shut out all competition from Great Britain. We know that they are afraaid, from the point of view of their monopoly, of British competition even more than of competition from the United States. I hope it was not from motives of that kind that my right hon. friend made the changes he did make. And
I hope that it was not from a belief in his power to coerce the British government. Did he think when he raised the tariff against Britain that he was going to find it possible to coerce the government of the United Kingdom by such a step? Was that what he had in mind? If he thought anything of the kind he should have been fair to this parliament and told us.
I want to say to my right hon. friend that he did not treat parliament fairly with respect to the Imperial conference. I asked him politely at the beginning of the special session to give us a statement of what he intended to do at the Imperial conference, to make known his policies. He was also asked by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) to advise parliament. He spoke on the Imperial conference two or three times, but he never told this house what he had in mind. I say that was not fair to parliament and it was not fair to the country. I think we all assumed that my right hon. friend was busy and that he had little time to think of these matters, and naturally we did not- press him. But if he had in mind going to Britain to coerce that country; if he had in mind going to Britain to put up bo the British government a proposal which he knew could not be accepted by any government in that country he should have told us.
I say he should have made known to parliament what his intentions were, and here again may I say I think it is worth considering whether it is consonant with procedure under British parliamentary institutions for any individual or for that matter any cabinet to promote policies with respect to great imperial matters, policies that affect the whole future and development of the British empire and to launch those policies publicly before the world without any discussion in the first instance either in parliament or throughout the country. After all, public opinion is a factor in government quite as much as anything else, and it is part of the system of government under British institutions that there should be the fullest discussion of policies on the platform, in parliament and certainly also in the cabinet. I do not know what has transpired in the cabinet, but I have very grave doubts in my mind as to whether my right hon. friend ever told his cabinet what he intended to do when he got to London. If he did so, I am amazed to see certain hon. gentlemen sitting beside him to-day. I believe, with respect to one or two of them at least that if they had known in advance that this was the approach that was to be made to Britain, they would have
30	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
been manly enough to say, "I will resign before I will remain in this cabinet and be a party to that procedure." If that is not the case, then they were all parties to it as indeed, they are under our theory of the collective responsibility of the cabinet. It is my belief that the policies of my right hon. friend were not revealed to his own government. Certainly they were not revealed to this parliament; certainly they were not disclosed to the country, and in all those things I think he has offended against the best traditions of parliamentary procedure and government.
But the serious part is this, and I come back again to the question of the selling of Canadian wheat in Britain. We do not need to go to the conference in London to find out why the Prime Minister failed; we do not need to discuss what took place in London to see why there has been no enlargement of the market for Canadian wheat in Britain as a consequence of what took place at the conference. The Prime Minister was doomed to failure before he left this country, if he had in mind the particular policies which he subsequently proposed; he was doomed to failure when in this parliament, on the eve of going to England, he forced through those increases in the tariff which changed the whole feeling and view of the British public mind in relation to this country. I repeat that I am at a loss to understand his action or the motive behind it. I have asked myself this question: Can it be that promises were made which he had not expected would have to be redeemed and that, being a man of his word, he felt bound regardless of consequences to see they were carried out? I have asked myself this question : Is it because he believes in coercion and because he thinks he will be strong enough to carry that policy even against the government of Great Britain? I have come back to this thought, and perhaps he will tell me if I am wrong. I believe that what he had in mind was a desire to further his conception of a Canadian economic unit, as he calls it; to make out of this country a self-sufficing economic unit, non-trading, beyond its borders, a country that will work exclusively within itself and confine its trade to itself; that in his heart of hearts he believes that this is going to be in the interests of Canada, though how he can believe it surpasses human comprehension. How this country, made into an isolated economic unit, is to prosper and develop along with the other nations of the world, is something indeed very difficult to understand, but the more I follow 
his actions here and at the Imperial conference the more I come to believe that this has been the actuating motive, that the proposals he made were made with a view to their being rejected so that it would be a little easier for him to put up the tariff again against Great Britain, if need be, in order to avoid trade from that source and so further to secure monopoly to those special interests already protected behind the highest of tariff walls. If that is not the case, I hope my right hon. friend will so inform the house when he gets up to speak.
I will give to the house one or two references which bear out what I have just said. The change in front with respect to the British preference is remarkable in view of what my hon. friend said during the last session when the Dunning budget was introduced. At that time the preferences were there; they were known to my right hon. friend; we were discussing the Imperial conference, and at that time in this House of Commons, standing where I am standing at this moment, my right hon. friend told this parliament that as an expression of affection and goodwill towards the mother country he approved of these preferences. What transpired between that moment and the time when my right hon. friend went to England to rid him entirely of that feeling of affection and goodwill towards the mother country? Perhaps he will answer that question. Let me read his words, which will be found in Hansard of May 6, 1930, at page 1833. They are as follows:
In order that there may be no misunderstanding as to our position with respect to British preference, I wish to say the following: As an earnest of our affection and good-will, as an expression of the hope we all have that some day a closer economic alliance of empire states may find being, I commend the measures for British preference which the minister proposes.
That speech was made here; it was made to do duty for the Conservative party throughout the campaign. When my hon. friends were speaking in parts of the country where there were those who were known to be favourable to the British preference the words of the present Prime Minister were read as favouring the preference as an expression of goodwill and affection towards the mother country.
I ask my right hon. friend, when he gets up to speak, to tell this house and the country what transpired during the course of that campaign which caused him to alter his whole view in that particular and, at a special session of parliament, to wipe out these very preferences which he said should stand as an earnest of affection and good-will in connection with our relations *with the mother country.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
I need not remind hon. members of what I said during the course of the Short session as to what would be the effect of my hon. friend's action at the Imperial conference. Inasmuch however as some of his remarks and the comments of others have been capable of being taken as meaning that it was due to some action or lack of action of the present British government, the Labour government which is at present in office, that my right hon. friend was unable to get anything done at the Imperial conference, I feel I ought to read to the house exactly what I said to him before he left for England as to the fate of any course such as the one he in fact adopted. The Prime Minister I repeat was doomed to failure as far as the Imperial conference was concerned, before he left Canada at all, having in mind his proposals and the methods which he intended to adopt. The quotation which I am about to give will be found in revised Hansard for September 9, at page 37, and in the unrevised Hansard at pages 41 and 42, where I am reported as having spoken as follows:
My hon. friend seems to have very little faith in voluntary agreements. Let me say to him that when he goes to London I think he will find that the only things he will be able to accomplish or that any government will be able to accomplish in the matter of trade as between the different countries of the British Empire will be by voluntary agreement, bycooperation. He will find it very difficult to get very far along on any other path.
Does my hon. friend believe he has a mandate from the Canadian people to-day to blast his way into the British market? Is that the mandate he has? What is the position? Is he, in the measures he is about to bring down, to increase the tariff against Britain as well as against other countries? That was the statement he made, that he was going to put up the tariff against Britain as well as against other countries. Is that the step he proposes to take in advance of proceeding to an Imperial economic conference? Does he believe he is going to strengthen his hand in that fashion?
After making his speech about blasting his way into the markets of the world, my hon. friend when taken to task said that after all it was not blasting he meant so much as it was blazing, that it was not the warrior attitude so much as the crusader attitude which he was adopting, that all he was claiming was to be first in the long line of great men who have helped to blaze the path of Canada and of the empire. Then when he went on to explain what he meant by "blazing," he came to the term "bargaining," and said that soma bargaining process was the only way he was going to trade, whether with other parts of the world or with other parts of the British Empire.
What does that mean? According to his own statements it means putting up the tariff in this country, to begin with; that is to be the first part of it. And then on the other hand, so far as the other countries of tire British Empire are concerned, it means that
they are to be obliged to change their fiscal policies in order to make them accord with_ the fiscal policies of this country. My hon. friend knows very well that the British Empire is founded on self-government, and that as far as self-government is concerned, it means autonomy in everything and in nothing more than in the matter of fiscal policy. If he is proceeding to England with any idea of trying to influence the parties in Great Britain in the matter of their fiscal policy, his time would be very much better spent at home. If he expects to make a bargain counter out of the council table at Downing street, he will not get very far in serving the interest either of Canada or of the British Empire. I say he should tell us very plainly what his particular policies are going to be, and his attitude with respect to the questions which may come up at the Imperial conference.
When that statement was made to my hon. friend, when, as leader of the opposition speaking to the leader of the government, I indicated that we at least believed that if he were going to make a demand which involved a change of fiscal policy in Britain, if he were going to try coercive methods, he would get nowhere, I say that if those were the things he intended to do, he should have taken parliament into his confidence and given the house and his own followers an opportunity to express their views on a procedure of that kind.
On September 17 I again referred to the futility of hoping to extend trade within the empire by tactics such as the raising of the tariff against Britain on the eve of the conference, or of extending the market for Canadian wheat by any process of bargaining or "blasting." I think what was prophesied at the time has turned out to be true, pretty much to the letter. These were the remarks I made to my right hon. friend; they will be found in the unrevised Hansard for September 17, 1930, at page 340, and in the revised Hansard at page 315:
I have only one further word, and that is to repeat with emphasis What I said a moment ago about this legislation being introduced on the eve of the Imperial conference. The Prime Minister well knows that there is no problem quite so serious for Canada at the present time as that of the marketing of our western gram and of surplus farm products generally. He knows that the purchasing power of the middle west, in the last analysis, will determine the extent to which other branches of industry will thrive, and that this depends in very large part on the degree to which we can secure a market overseas for the grain of western Canacla. He knows that many of the markets which we formerly had are closed or are being closed against us to-day, for instance, the markets of France, of Germany and of Italy. He knows also that protection is no cure for unemployment. He has only to look across the border in the United States, the most highly protected country in the world and see how extensive unemployment is there, to know that protection
32	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
is no cure for unemployment. One would have felt my hon. friend, at least on the eve of a great economic conference which is to consider matters of trade within the empire, would have thought it desirable on the part of his government, and on the part of this parliament as representing the people of Canada, to have maintained toward Great Britain an attitude of a character calculated to meet a hearty response from the people of the British Isles tc such demands as he might reasonably make for the improvement in trade between the two countries. How can he expect to get from the British government or the British people any response in the way of opportunities for increasing our markets in Great Britain when his last step before he leaves Canada is to raise the duties against British goods coming into this country, and his first word when he reaches the British Isles is to announce the extent of the increases which he has made? This is a most extraordinary proceeding on the part of my hon. friend. It may be he has in mind blasting or blazing or bargaining as a result of the steps he has taken, but I would like to repeat to ham what I said before that I think he will find those particular methods are of very little avail as within the British Empire itself, and that only through voluntary cooperation and an attitude of friendship and good-will are we likely to achieve much in the way of permanent development of interimperial trade.

May I say this. We heard in a previous election a good deal with respect to "the parting of the ways." We heard something of it in the last election. It was my hope that, as a result of the attitude which the government previously in office took, we would so far as the different parts of the British Empire are concerned discover ourselves at the meeting of the ways, in the matter of interimperial trade, when the Imperial conference is held in London, and that Canada's example would be an example which would be followed by all other parts of the British Empire. But I am afraid that the stand which my hon. friend has taken to-day has put us, so 'far as inter-imperial trade is concerned, not at the meeting of the ways, but I greatly regret to say very much at the parting of the ways so far as the further development of trade within the empire is concerned.
I have covered the situation up to the time when my right hon. friend left for the Imperial conference. I hope I have made clear the line of difference between us-the method which my right hon. friend proposes to take and has taken, the method of blasting, of economic coercion and the method which we would have taken, one of conciliatory approach; an endeavour to create an atmosphere of friendliness with a view to discovering common ground. I believe I have made it clear that my right hon. friend was not fair with the country when he spoke of having a special session for the purpose of relieving unemployment and, on the plea of relieving the necessities of the poor, came to this parliament and enacted legislation which makes wider than ever the gulf between the rich and the poor; the IMr. Mackenzie King.]
gulf between those who have plenty and those who lack many of the necessities of life. I hope I have made it clear that he was equally unfair to this parliament, holding as he did views of the character here described not to have told us of his intentions; also, that by talking of blasting a way into the markets of Britain and by contemplating proposals which could not be entertained, he was taking, before leaving for England, and before the conference was under way, an attitude which he must have known was bound to change the feeling in Britain towards Canada. I believe I have made it clear that before he left Canada at all he had made impossible any success for himself or his party, or for our country, at the Imperial conference.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
before I refer to the Imperial conference and to the attitude taken by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister at the conference, may I say to him what I have heard him say at different times speaking from the position I now occupy, as leader of the opposition, that nothing could be more embarrassing than the duty which is sometimes placed upon the one who holds this office of saying things which, while unpleasant, must, in the public interest be stated. To me personally it would be much more satisfactory and agreeable to be able to compliment my right hon. friend on the part he had played at the Imperial conference. Indeed when he left I hope I manifested the desire I sought to evince at the time, namely that he might succeed, and I hope that by withholding any comments while he was at the Imperial conference I had made it clear that I wished in no way to embarrass him. Indeed it was my desire to save him from all embarrassment in the matter of attaining what was, according to his own statement, the great and main object that of maintaining and enlarging the market for Canadian wheat in Great Britain.
The Prime Minister must be judged with respect to his action at the Imperial conference by his attitude of approach, by his utterances and by his policies. For a short time this evening I intend to review these three features of his presentation of Canada's case at the Imperial conference. We will judge the outcome of his mission by its results. It is fair to ask: are conditions better

____ Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
to-day in this country than they were when my right hon. friend went to the conference and are they better as a result of his having participated in it? Are the relations between the government of Canada and the government of Great Britain better to-day than they were in the past? These are fair questions and we are entitled to judge of the results ot his visit to London by the answers to be given to them.
The house is well aware that there is a well-known method of procedure followed at all Imperial conferences. This was not the first Imperial conference, nor was it the first Imperial economic conference. If I am not mistaken there have been altogether some twelve or fourteen different conferences during the last thirty or forty years. In that period of time public men belonging to different political parties have met and discussed the affairs which they went into conference for the purpose of considering. In that period of time there have grown up certain methods of procedure, certain practices and certain precedents, all of which have a bearing upon the work of Imperial conferences. These practices and precedents are well known, and the business of conferences is so arranged as to meet the difficult and perplexing situations that arise, particularly inasmuch as the business of conferences has to be conducted in relation to the possible opinion which foreign countries may get of the empire from the discussions which take place in the attempted solution of the different problems. In order to facilitate the work of the conference considerable preparation is made in advance. The different governments to be represented make known to each other what subjects they wish to have taken up; and the order in which the subjects are to be taken up is set forth in an agenda. The conference opens in a manner intended to help to create a favourable atmosphere for discussion. The first meetings are intended for informal discussion and for the making of such statements as can be given immediately to the public expressive o! the attitude towards each other of the different governments represented at the conference. It is important to keep in mind that conferences are exactly what they are termed to be-they are conferences. They are neither cabinets laying down Imperial policies, nor are they parliaments in which members meet to discuss in public matters of mutual concern. Unless it were understood there was to be a certain method of approach and a certain amount of privacy thrown around 22110-3
the proceedings at the outset, it would be impossible to get governments to go into conference with each other. If my right hon. friend says that all that is to be discussed at a conference ought to be proclaimed from the rooftops right from the outset, that all should be made known, I would say that if that is to be the known procedure, governments will refuse to go into conferences with each other. They must be secured to a certain extent, at least until all positions are known, against having their positions pub-lif'Iy criticized. Let me make myself plain by snv ing that I am the last one who would s.vmpathize with any proposal that whatever is done must be done wholly in camera, or that policies should be made is secret. A conference has no power to lay down a policy. The different representatives at a conference may present to one another their own points ol view; they may present views which in their opinion will be of the greatest service, but they are expected to do so in a manner which will not embarrass the governments to which they are speaking or which are there represented.
It has always been understood at Imperial conferences that any member of the conference is free to state to his own parliament when he returns the position that he took and the objections, if any, which were offered to his attitude and proposals. He is perfectly free to make to his own parliament whatever statement he pleases, so that every phase of the situation may be well known; but he i>. not expected to embarrass all proceedings by talking publicly at the very outset an attitude which makes ail conference impossible.
So obvious are these things that it is extraordinary that one has to mention them. In an Imperial conference, just as in all conferences between governments, each government must of necessity respect what it knows to be the known policies and domestic affairs ol another government. No government has any right in a conference to criticize the domestic affairs of another, to take up matters of domestic policy, or to find fault with the policies of the governments with which it is conferring. It may seek to bring about a change but not to force a change. When in conference governments have to respect the position of the other, they have to respect the point of view of the other. If a Conservative government is in office in Great Britain and a Liberal government goes there to represent Canada, as was the case in 1923 and 1926, it would be highly improper for the



The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
head of the Liberal administration to find fault at the outset with the Conservative government for having certain Conservative policies with respect to taxation, tariffs, and the like. It would have 'been extremely resented by this parliament if, when my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and I were at the last conference. we had at the outset stated that we were not in sympathy with the policies of Mr. Baldwin and his government and that unless those policies were changed there was possible a dismemberment of the empire or something of the kind. I say it does not matter what the particular political complexion of the government of the day is, that government has a right to have its policies respected.
Moreover, the government in office represents the people of the country. It may in some instances be unfortunate that such is so- I think it is very unfortunate that such is the case as respects hon. gentlemen opposite -but they do represent the -country. When my right hon. friend went to England to speak at the conference he expected that he would be regarded as speaking in the name of the country. Unfortunately, his party feeling got a little the better of him. He told the conference at the outset that he represented the Conservative party, rather an extraordinary statement to make to any conference of governments; but if we set that aside, the point that will be clear and self-evident is this, that each government must respect the governments of the day represented at the conference and have respect for their policies. The position, so far as the recent Imperial conference is concerned, was the more critical in that Great Britain was the hostess, so to speak, on this occasion. She had invited to the conference the governments of the different dominions and she was in a position where the whole procedure had to be shaped accordingly. In the same Canada will be the hostess at the conference that is to take place later in the year when the procedure no doubt will be arranged not to have Canada the first to speak and to lay down her proposals but to hear the others first. Great Britain's position was, as I say, that of the hostess of the conference and matters were so arranged as to give to the Prime Minister of Ganda, as representing the oldest dominion, the first right to speak. Under those circumstances the Prime Minister owed it especially to the country he was representing to proceed in the proper way, in a courteous way, in a way that would have regard to the precedents that had 
been laid down and for the procedure that had been adopted at previous conferences. He was at fault many times, but one of the worst mistakes he made was in ignoring altogether the precedents and procedure of preceding conferences. In his rough-and-ready fashion he simply swept to one side the whole accepted method of procedure, went into the conference and laid down the law to everyone present before anyone else had had a chance to be heard. He made no reference to the governments which he was addressing, no reference to the British government, no reference to the governments of the other dominions, no reference to the Prime Minister or the other prime ministers present. The first and only reference was to himself as the Prime Minister of Canada and the policies which he stood for and was going to stand for at the conference.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, -hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Mr. GOTT:: Childish.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not childish. They are the exact words used by the Prime Minister. I intend to quote them in a moment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The right hon. member will be sorry for this.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to note the remarks of my hon. friend who says I will be sorry for this. He is following his usual practice of making threats across the floor of the house. Everyone knows the arrogant tongue that my hon.
22110-3J
friend has. He may until doomsday tell me that I will be sorry, but I am going to stand here and say what I believe the people of Canada desire to have said at this time. Let me quote the words of the Prime Minister, his pleasing words of introduction. This is taken from the text and if in any particular I err, I hope my right hon. friend will correct me.
Before offering to this conference the plan which, once effective, will in my opinion make for greater prosperity in all parts of the empire, I shall briefly state the fiscal policy of the Canadian administration, of which I am the head.
There are the words "I am." He then proceeds in the name, not of Canada, or of the people of Canada, or even of the government of Canada, but of the Conservative party of Canada:
The Conservative party-
This is in England at the conference.
-9f Canada believes in, and employe the principle of protection of the home producer ol agricultural and fabricated products from harmful interference by foreign competitors.
Note these words:
Ihis policy of the Conservative party has come, to be known as the policy of "Canada first. In approaching the economic problems of our empire, I stand four-square behind that policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall ask the house to watch the applause of my hon. friends opposite when for sake of illustration a little later on I use similar words and language coming supposedly from the lips of the British Prime Minister, The quotation continues:
The primary concern of Canada to-day is profitably to sell its wheat. We believe that we shall be reaching towards a solution of that problem if we can establish a better market in Great Britain. This market we want, and for it we are willing to pay by giving in tile Canadian market a preference for British goods. . . .
And so, I propose that we of the British Empire, in our joint and several interests, do subscribe to the principle of an empire preference, and that we take, without delay, the steps necessary to put it into effective operation.
Note those words, "the principle of an empire preference."
First, we must approve or reject the principle. I put the question definitely to you, and definitely it should be answered. There is here no room for compromise, and there is no possibility of avoiding the issue. This is a time for plain speaking, and I speak plainly when I say the day is now at hand when the peoples of the empire must decide, once and for all, whether our welfare lies in closer
36	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
economic union, or whether it does not. Delay is hazardous; further discussion of the principle is surely unnecessary. The time for action has come.
Projects other than the one I propose have been placed before you. They have been carefully canvassed by our delegation, and, while we would avoid any thing which might savour of premature condemnation, we are constrained to state that none of them can be accepted by Canada as alternatives at all likely to achieve the purpose we have in mind.
Until this principle is accepted it would be profitless to discuss the application of it in any great detail. . . .
Then follows 'the so-called "offer" to "the mother country and to all other parts of the empire"-"based upon a 10 per .cent increase in prevailing general tariffs or upon tariffs yet to be created," and the Prime Minister's conception of the manner in which the principle may be employed, and the method of its application. Emphasis is laid upon the fact that "the basis of the proposal is the adequate protection to industries now existent, or yet to be established," and this is further emphasized by the statement;
It follows, therefore, that this proposed preference should not be considered as a step towards empire free trade. In our opinion empire free trade is neither desirable nor possible, for it would defeat the very purpose we are striving to achieve.
Of the "offer" I shall speak in a moment. Then follows:
But whatever modifications may be found necessary, these will not adversely affect- nay, they cannot but make more beneficial and lasting-the broad principle of empire protection. . . .
Consistent with the fullest inquiry into the application of the principle of an empire preference,	our	deliberations	must be governedby the	time	factor. If	this change in	our
economic relationship is to be made, it must be made without undue delay. . . .
Here the suggestion is made to the conference, "if it approve the principle, to constitute	such	committees	as may, with	thegreatest expedition and	thoroughness,	consider the various questions incident to its operation." The Prime Minister adds:
I am satisfied that whatever modifications in the general plan Canada may have to suggest will be ready for submission within a period of six months. I assume that you are all capable of a like measure of expedition.
Then follows an invitation to the conference to meet at Ottawa early this year, and the following as a final word of warning:
1 have said that the time is now at hand when the doctrine of closer empire economic association must be embraced, if we would not have it slip forever beyond our powers of recall. Once again it were vain to suppose that lesser existing empire agreements will long outlive it, and, that being so, the day will come when we must fight in the markets of

the empire the countries of the world shorn of that advantage which it should be in our individual interest to secure and maintain.
To me that is unthinkable, and I appeal to the national representatives here assembled in conference to forget, each one, those prejudices which forbid the realization of that empirebuilding plan by which we all may advance to greater prosperity.
I await your decision with confidence.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what possibly could be 'the result of approaching the British government in tha/t manner? There is no reference whatever to any policy of that government; there is no reference to their views and no reference to the views of the other dominions. It refers only to the Dominion of Canada and to the Conservative party of this country. With that policy the entire conference must be content. The conference was told it could not proceed with its deliberations until it had approved of the principle set out by my night hon. friend.
What reception would Mr. Ramsay MacDonald have received from my right hon. friend if the conference had been held in Ottawa instead of in England as it was originally hoped it might be, and if Mr. Ramsay MacDonald when first called upon to address the conference had proceeded in the manner adopted by my right hon. friend? Mr. Ramsay MacDonald has as much right to his views as has my right hon. friend as to what will bring about empire unity and prosperity. Let us suppose Mr. MacDonald had said that the government in office in Great Britain, the Labour government, believed in the policy of free trade, and that he thought the British Empire had become great by virtue of the policy of free trade which has existed for a hundred years in the British Isles; that the policy of free trade had led to an extension of the empire. Supposing Mr. Ramsay MacDonald had gone on to say: "That is the policy of the Labour party in England; I stand four square 'behind that policy and I am not prepared to consider anything until this conference endorses the principle of free trade, the principle our government has adopted. This is the time for action; this is not the time for words. Time is slipping from us. There will be no use discussing the situation unless you will agree to the policy I have laid before you." What kind of reception would my right hon. friend have given Mr. Ramsay MacDonald? Supposing Mr. MacDonald had then gone on to present certain proposals to the government of which my right hon. friend is the head; supposing he had suggested proposals in accordance with his views to reduce or abolish tariffs. Supposing Mr. MacDonald had said: "We want to sell

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
our goods to Canada. W.e are prepared to pay the price for it. We are prepared to give you a chance to trade in the British market but we tell you that before you consider the matter we want you to subscribe to the principle of free trade. We want you to agree to reduce your tariff or to abolish it altogether. Unless you will do so immediately there is no use of our discussing the matter any further."
That was the attitude taken by my right hon. friend. I do not hear very much applause from the other side of the house.
What kind of reception would Mr. MacDonald have received in Canada if he had made statements such as those which were made by the Prime Minister of Canada in Great Britain? I ask my hon. friends what kind of reception would representatives from Australia, New Zealand or South Africa have received in this dominion if they had spoken in the manner adopted by my right hon. friend? I wonder what would have happened to the object of their respective missions? In case I have done the Prime Minister the slightest injustice may I read as if it had come from the lips of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald a statement as nearly identical as it can be made with the statement which was made by my right hon. friend to the British government. I have substituted of course the policy of free trade which has been adopted by the MacDonald government for the policy of high protection adopted by the government of my right hon. friend. Let us suppose for the moment that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald is speaking. We will have to assume the fact because nothing could be more remote than the possibility of any other person on earth but my right hon. friend using such language. Let us use as if used by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald words as nearly as possible identical. He would then have said:
Before offering to this conference the plan which, once effective, will in my opinion make for greater prosperity in all parts of the empire, I shall briefly state the fiscal policy of the administration of Great Britain, of which I am the head.
The Labour party of Great Britain believes in, and employs, the principle of free trade as of most advantage to the home producer of agricultural and fabricated products in world competition.
This policy of the Labour party has come to be known as the policy of "Great Britain First." In approaching the economic problems of our Empire, I stand four square behind that policy. . . .
Where is the applause from my hon. friends opposite? This is the kind of utterance of the Prime Minister which they applauded a few minutes ago. Why do they not now applaud?
The primary concern of Great Britain to-day is profitably to sell her manufactures. We believe that we shall be reaching towards a solution of that problem if we can establish a better market in Canada. This market we want, and for it we are willing to pay by giving in the British market a preference for Canadian goods. . . .
And so, I propose that we of the British Empire, in our joint and several interests, do subscribe to the principle of empire free trade, and that we take, without delay, the steps necessary to put it into effective operation.
First we must approve or reject the principle. 1 put the question definitely to you, and definitely it should be answered. There is here no room for compromise, and there is no possibility of avoiding the issue. This is a time for plain speaking, and I speak plainly when I say the day is now at hand when the peoples of the empire must decide, once and for all. whether our welfare lies in closer economic union, thus secured, or whether it does not. Delay is hazardous; further discussion of the principle is surely unnecessary. The time for action has come.
No wonder the Prime Minister himself will not applaud even his own sentiments 1
Projects other than the one I propose have been placed before you. They have been carefully canvassed by our delegation, and, while we would avoid anything which might savour of premature condemnation, rve are constrained to state that none of them can be accepted by Great Britain as an alternative at all likely to achieve the purpose we have in mind.
Until this principle is accepted it would be profitless to discuss the application of it in any great detail.
Then would follow the so-called "offer" to "Canada and to all the other parts of empire" -"based upon a 10 per cent reduction in prevailing general tariffs or upon tariffs yet to be created," and the Prime Minister of Britain's conception of the manner in which the principle may be employed, and the method of its application. Emphasis would be laid on the fact that he proposed free trade, and that it followed that what was proposed could not be considered as a step towards empire protection, that in the opinion oi Great Britain empire protection was neither desirable nor possible, for it would defeat the very purpose they were trying to achieve. Mr. MacDonald would then have proceeded:
But whatever modifications may be found necessary these will not adversely affect-nay, they cannot but make more beneficial and lasting-the broad principle of empire free trade. . . .
Consistent with the fullest inquiry into the application of the principle of empire free trade, our deliberations must be governed by the time factor. If this change in our economic relationship is to be made it must be made without undue delay.
Here the suggestion would be made, "ii we approve the principle," to constitute such committees as may, with the greatest ex-
38	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
pedition and thoroughness, consider the various questions incident to its operation. The Prime Minister of Britain would then have added:
I am satisfied that whatever modifications in the general plan Britain may have to suggest will be ready for submission within a period of six months. I assume that you are all capable of a like measure of expedition.
There would follow an invitation to the conference to meet at London early this year, and the following as a final word of warning:
I have said that the time is now at hand when the doctrine of closer empire economic association, based on free trade within the empire, must, be embraced, if we would not have it slip forever beyond our powers of recall. Once gone it were vain to suppose that lesser existing empire agreements will long outlive it, and, that being so, the day will come when we must fight in the markets of the empire the countries of the world shorn of that advantage which it should be in our individual interest to secure and maintain.
To me that is unthinkable, and I appeal to the national representatives here assembled in conference to forget, each one, those prejudices which forbid the realization of that empirebuilding plan by which we all may advance to greater prosperity.
I await your decision with confidence. . . .
I ask, Mr. Speaker-and I take the silence of hon. gentlemen opposite to be more eloquent than all their words and all their applause-I ask you, Sir, what would have happened had Mr. Ramsay MacDonald come to this country and addressed the right hon. Prime Minister and his government in that fashion? I venture to say there would have been an explosion the like of which we have not experienced in our time. My right hon. friend would never have stood for anything of the kind, and the people of this country would have backed him up in his resentment. But when we consider that this was done for the alleged reason of securing the market in Great Britain for Canadian wheat, it becomes impossible to conceive of how my right hon. friend thought he was going to succeed in that way. Supposing I had gone to the conference and had made a statement of that kind?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wonder at my hon. friends opposite saying, "Oh, oh." If I had spoken as the right hon. Prime Minister spoke at that conference, every hon. gentleman opposite would have been down at the seaside to prevent me from landing on the shores of Canada. We certainly would have had a full chorus.
In all seriousness I ask the house if human nature is any different in Great Britain from what it is here; whether the people of Great Britain are any less sensitive to the manner in

which they are approached than are the people of Canada. They have shown very fine restraint in the old land in the way in which they have accepted this attitude on the part of my right hon. friend-a restraint, I am obliged to say, very different from what he would have exercised had anything similar taken place here. But we must not be deceived by the measure of restraint which has been exercised by the people of Great Britain, That has been done out of courtesy, out of a just regard for the relation of the different parts of the empire, one to the other and in an endeavour to help preserve their right relation. It has not been done out of any acquiescence in the particular kind of thing which the Prime Minister has proposed, or in the way in which he went about it.
Again I come back to what I said this afternoon: I cannot attribute my right hon. friend's action as related at all to the sale of the wheat of Canada in Great Britain. The only explanation that satisfies me, having knowledge to some extent of the working of my right hon. friend's mind, is that he wanted this offer refused for reasons best known to himself. Whether it was he thought he was thereby going to help along the idea of an empire economic unit I do not know. Bu't we all know that there is a strong suspicion that my right hon. friend does not find the Labour government of Britain congenial, that he would much rather see the Conservative party in office there; and there are some who have had in mind that my right hon. friend's action was due to the fact that he was becoming, secretly or openly, as you dare to put it, an ally of the political party in Great Britain that holds views somewhat similar to his own, that he was anxious to create a prejudice against the Labour government and put .them in a position where they would appear to have refused the offer of Canada, to have been unwilling to accept such a simple principle as that of preference and the like. That opinion has become very general. Personally I do not entertain it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: He does not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the proposal, whether he admits it or not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes it is; that is the proposal. I shall be glad to have my right hon. friend make a statement when the time comes, but I want to get the position of the matter correctly stated. I wish to repeat, because I think it is all important that it should be understood, that the proposal which my right hon. friend made with regard to the preference, so far as Canada was concerned, was not for a preference by the reducing of duties as they are at the present time, but that it was a preference to be created by the addition in relation to other countries of duties to the duties that already exist. It was that feature of it that made the principle so objectionable to the British government. More than that, my right hon friend uses the term "empire preference," and by "empire preference" he means a certain kind of two sided or reciprocal preference. He has stated over and over again- all his discussions are along these lines-that a preference of the kind to which I have just referred, the reducing mf the tariff in any country, is a one-sided preference. He says that is no kind of preference-failing to ap-precite that the purpose of a preference is to help to encourage trade, that all exchange is valuable to both sides, that consumers may benefit on one side and producers on the other, or vice versa, that trade begets trade,
42	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
and that anything that helps trade in one direction helps it in another. My right hon. friend will not admit that the reduction of duties to afford a preference is in any way a thing of advantage. He says it must be what he calls mutual, failing to realize -that there would be no trade at all, whether there were preference or no preference unless the benefit were mutual. It takes two to -trade. He is not satisfied even with a preference on both sides, a mutual preference professedly such. And here again I will ask him to correct me if I am wrong. The preference has to be a preference created over and above existing tariffs on both sides. Take for example Lord Beaverbrook's crusade in Britain at the present time. What is it? It is a crusade based on the idea of tariffs raised for the purpose of giving a preference by doing away with the tariff, or lowering it, as within the empire itself. My right hon. friend ex-pressedly said, "That is not a preference at all within my meaning of the word. That is impossible. So far as my offer is concerned, it defeats the very end I have in view, because my offer is not to encourage free trade or greater freedom of trade within the empire; it is -the very opposite; it is to make a self-contained unit of the Dominion."
I think it is very important that this should be clearly understood, because it must affect the whole discussion and our views in -regard to the question; and -I venture to say that there are many hon. gentlemen on both sides of the house who have never clearly seen the position -taken by my right hon. friend in this respect.
In -order to -make -ilt perfectly clear that such was -the view the British government took of the matter, let me read what was said by Lord Passfield in the House of Lords in stating the position of the British government. And in passing may I remark that it is very Little wonder that the Prime Minister of Great Britain, when addressing his own parliament, felt obliged to say, in reference to the proposed offer, "tax wheat-* we cannot d-o it." That was the terse reply which the Prime Minister of Great Britain gave to his house. Tax wheat? Put up a tariff wall first of all? That was the condition. To get the reciprocal nature of it, the empire aspect of the preference as my right hon. friend desired it, Britain had to put on a tariff againdt food and raw materials in the first instance. Mr. MacDonald saw that; they all saw it. He said, "Bow can we do it? Tax wheat? We cannot do it." That was his answer, and anyone who knows the position of Britain must know that that was

the answer that would be made by any prime minister of Great Britain to any such proposal. Lord Passfield spoke in the House of Lords on December 2. Lord Passfield, it will be remembered, was for a time Secretary of State for the Dominions and is now Secretary of State for the colonies. He was present at all the meetings of the conference-
Let me give what Lord Passfield said in the House of Lords on December 2. Lord Pass-field, it will be remembered, was for a time Secretary of State for the Dominions and is now Secretary of State for the colonies. He was present at all the meetings of the conference-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, some of them. He was present long enough to understand the offers and the nature of them, and he has given an admirable summing up of the whole subject. The record of the House of Lords of December 2, records Lord Pass-field as saying:
The main proposal, which is summed up in the proposal that Mr. Bennett made, at what is called the second plenary session, was the principle of preference, which he then and there asked the conference, including the United Kingdom representatives, to subscribe to -in principle. It has always been treated as if it was a question of preference, but we quickly found it was not a question of preference as ordinarily understood. It was a question, not of this country or the dominions allowing a preference off customs duties which were in existence, or put on for their own sake, or to meet the needs of the government, but we were asked to subscribe to putting a duty on foodstuffs coming into this country, and especially wheat coming into this country, not because a customs duty was required, or there was any reason for a customs duty in this country, but deliberately in order that we might allow a substantial preference off that duty to empire wheat. . . . That was a proposition to which, mind you. His Majesty's government were invited to subscribe before it was examined in its details. . . .
The Ottawa conference was a proposal of Mr. Bennett himself made at the very outset, and accepted at the very outset for the obvious reason that there was not adequate time to go into this question now. Mr. Bennett's statement, which appears in to-day's newspapers (December 2nd)

That was the broadside he issued over the "humbug" incident.
-has been quoted, that during the whole period of the conference neither the principle of tariff preferences, nor his plans to make them operative, was seriously discussed	
Nothing v'as referred to any committee during that Imperial conference except by the unanimous consent of the delegations. And if what Mr. Bennett called the principle of preferences. including a duty on foodstuffs, especially wheat, was not referred to the economic

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
committee, I will go so far as to say that it was not at the dictation of His Majesty's government that it was not so referred; it was because it was impossible to get the unanimous assent of the delegations to its being bo referred. ... In the result Mr. Bennett is able to say that they were not discussed, and,
I think, seriously discussed, in the meetings of the heads of delegations. . . . Your lordships will find in the press reports day by day a good deal of evidence that it was discussed at the meetings of heads of delegations. And I myself was present day after day when these things were discussed. But it is quite true they were only discussed as a sort of second reading discussion because, as Mr. Bennett has said in his speech at the second plenary meeting, he wanted the conference to subscribe to the principle before any more minute examination took place. We never did manage to subscribe to the principle. . . . Because, remember what Mr. Bennett's principle was. It was not the principle of preference that many guileless people have supposed. It was not even the principle of extending that preference to every customs duty that was in existence, or might be brought into existence. It was that a new customs duty should be put upon foodstuffs imported into this country, and this country only, or that this country only should be required to put a substantial customs duty upon foodstuffs, and especially upon wheat in order to give a substantial preference to the dominions in respect of all those things. All that was included in Mr. Bennett's principle, and will be found as a part of his speech which has been reported verbatim.
After listening to a statement of that kind can one wonder that a proposal of the bind was characterized as "humbug." How could the British people consider it as anything else? They were asked to put a tax upon food and raw materials coming into their country and in return there was not to be any lowering in Canada of higher duties which had been placed upon their commodities at the last session, but still higher duties were to be placed upon similar goods coming into this country from other lands. That is the proposal which was made. Again I go back to the question: how did the Prime Minister of Canada think that under a proposal of that kind he was going to get Canadian wheat into the British market? That is a question which keeps reiterating itself in one's mind. One is forced to the conclusion that some object other than that must have been in his mind, and so I come back to the view that the object he had so far as Canada was concerned was to make this country, as he has stated over and over again, an economic unit, a so-called self-sufficing unit, a country which will produce everything within its own borders and which will not have to import anything from any other part of the world; it will all be done here. He believes that that is a wise policy to pursue, and extending that idea into the realm of
empire, he talks about an empire economic unit wherein, after each part has been made self-sufficing, the empire shall exclude itself from the rest of the world. With such an idea in mind one can understand such a proposal being put up although certain to be rejected, but as a means of selling Canadian wheat in the British market I say it is impossible of interpretation upon any such basis.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the right hon. gentleman explain how a tariff preference can be given in the English market for Canadian wheat except there be tariffs against foreign wheats entering that market?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know that I am called upon to explain the matter in just the way my right hon. friend has put the question, but I will say this to him: the trouble with my hon. friend and with those who think like him is this, they can only admit in their mind one kind of preference, and that of a tariff preference. They cannot understand that there may be such a thing as a voluntary preference.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. members
may laugh at that, but they cannot understand any such thing as a recognition of good will or a recognition of the fact of our being part of one great British community. I repeat, they cannot understand how there can be such a thing as a voluntary preference.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What does "voluntary"
mean?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not surprised that my hon. friend asks what it means. It means exactly what it says, something that is done voluntarily from any motive, not as a result of bargaining but as a result possibly of offers, of proposals, of the adoption of an attitude which it is believed is merited or which it is hoped and believed will bring something in return.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is it voluntary preference
which is given to Russian wheat in the British market?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The voluntary preference I have referred to is the kind of preference which was introduced by Mr. Fielding in this parliament in 1897, a preference that time and again was extended in the Laurier and Fielding tariffs, a preference which was maintained by Sir Robert Borden and
44	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
his government, and which has been endorsed by every government during the last thirty years.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But is that not the voluntary preference, so-called by the hon. gentleman, which has not been reciprocated throughout those thirty years?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is where I differ entirely from my hon. friend. My hon. friend knows the figures with respect to trade between this country and Britain. He knows that Britain has been Canada's best customer and he knows that Britain has bought year after year more of Canadian goods than we have bought of British goods. Does he mean to say that none of that has been the result of the attitude which Canada has taken and which was so admirably explained by-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: She never bought one dollar's worth of goods unless they could be bought cheaper in Canada than elsewhere.


Mr. POULIOT:: May I ask a question of
the leader of the opposition? Does not the right hon. gentleman believe that the Prime Minister made a great mistake in not taking the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) to the old country with him?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I answer my hon. friend still further: there is another form of preference which is just as important as a tariff preference, and that is what is termed an administrative preference. What was the position when the former Liberal government came into office with respect to the shipment of cattle to Britain? Cattle were excluded from the British market due to an embargo which had been in force for some years. One of the first acts of the then High Commissioner for Canada in London, the Hon. Peter Larkin, acting under instructions from the government of the day, was to take up with the British government the repeal of that embargo against Canadian cattle. Our argument was in part on the score that when Canada had given to Britain a preference in her market, it was unfair for Britain to continue that embargo against Canada. The embargo was removed and Canadian cattle were given entrance to the British market, not as a result of bargaining, but as a result of a courteous attitude taken towards Britain, in our interests as much as her own, an attitude which was reciprocated in a courteous way. I am not surprised at my hon. friend of all men not understanding the effect of courtesy because he is one of the most courteous gentlemen I know.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I intended to be courteous
to the right hon. gentleman.


Mr. MULLINS:: Does the right hon.
gentleman not know that the embargo was off before Mr. Larkin ever reached England?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is mistaken. I hapen to know it was not off. I happen to know the instructions given to Mr. Larkin and the proceedings that took place.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I was in Great Britain when the matter came up before the House of Commons and the right hon. gentleman has no right to take the credit to himself for having the embargo removed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I maintain the accuracy of what I have just said, but whether it was off or not does not affect my argument; my point remains the same, that if the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite had prevailed, the embargo would not have been off yet. There would have been no result; but because there had been a preference given voluntarily to Britain in our markets, so there was an additional reason afforded the British government that finally helped the entrance there of our cattle. If I am not mistaken, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) within the last two weeks has been taking up with the British government some questions with regard to the provisions to be laid down concerning the shipment of cattle to Great Britain. If he expects to get his requests met, is it to be as a result of bargaining which will exclude British commodities from this country. May I say further: there may be voluntary preferences; there may be administrative preferences; there may be tariff preferences, but interimperial negotiation has been in large part the result of voluntary preferences.
Let me ask my hon. friend this question: What is occurring in the Argentine republic to-day? What is the significance of all that British officials are doing in the Argentine? Argentine has sought to create an atmosphere favourable to a market for Argentine wheat in Britain. Britain has taken an attitude in response to that taken by the Argentine people towards her, namely: If you are prepared to trade with us, we are prepared to trade with you. Why is there in respect to trade a closer drawing together of the Argentine republic and Britain-the sale of wheat on the one hand and the sale of *commodities on the other-while there is not the same drawing together of this country and Great Britain? My right hon. friend wants everything as the result of bargaining on a basis

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
laid down by himself, ignoring everybody else and not wanting to make what is in the nature of an agreement of mutual advantage on a voluntary basis.
I do not wish to take up any undue time in discussing the so-called "humbug" incident. As however there has been a great deal of discussion over the question whether this offer was humbug or not, it would be as well to know exactly what was meant by Mr. Thomas, the member of the government in Britain who used that expression in reference to the offer. Perhaps I cannot do better in this connection than to read to the house just what Mr. Thomas said to the British House of Commons and leave hon. members to judge whether under the circumstances the British minister was not more than justified in using that particular term. What was it that the Right Hon. Mr. Thomas said that occasioned all the furore? The record will be found in the British Hansard debates of November 27, 1930, at page 1550. Reporting Mr. Thomas, the following appears:
We are censured because we refused to consider the offer made by the dominions. What was the offer? I say clearly and definitely that if anv offer were made that would help the trade of this country, would give employment to our people, and not injure them, not only would we have considered it, but it would have been our duty to accept it. (An honourable member: "Why did you not do it? ') For the simple reason, I assure you, that there never was such humbug as this proposal.
Mr. Thomas went on to explain why the proposal was humbug. He said:
We were asked first, clearly and definitely, to agree to put a tax on foodstuffs. That was the first proposal made. There can be no mistake about it. (Honourable members: "Who did?") Mr. Bennett and the whole of the other dominions. ... I repeat that the first proposal made to us was that we, the British government, should agree to a tax on foodstuffs, and, in return for it, the Canadian government were prepared to put on an additional tax of 'ten per cent on the duties then in operation on foreign goods. They did not say to us-let me make it quite clear-"We will remove any tax at all where you compete with us." On the contrary, let me say in fairness to them-I do not complain: I am only stating the facts-they said, "No. So far as we are concerned we will give nobody a preference that is going to compete with the things that we ourselves can make." That was made perfectly clear. In other words, they said, "We want you to change your fiscal principles, but we will only change certain details of ours." . . .
Later in his speech (see page 1554), referring to his use of the word "humbug," Mr. Thomas said:
Obviously, I never said, never intended to say, that of any individual. I said distinctly the proposals were humbug.
In further explanation of what was meant, Mr. Thomas gave the following:
In exchange for ten per cent on foodstuffs, British soft coal, which is now taxed one shilling seven and a half pence per ton into Canada, would get a benefit of five cents per ton. Germany, the Argentine, the United States and the Netherlands all admit our coal free now. Railroad rails-and I am only choosing the big industries where there is unemployment-have a duty in Australia of two shilling four pence per cwt. The Netherlands and Argentine admit them free. The foreign rate is very much more, but let us see what that means. Suppose that a tariff rate is fixed that precludes the possibility of our competing, of what value is any preference? The whole thing becomes absurd. I could go through a long list, cotton goods, wool I en goods. I could show that sewing machines, not an unimportant manufacture in this country, have a preferential rate into Australia of 15 per cent against us, while Germany only imposes 9 against us. Cotton goods:	55 per cent in Australia, Canada
15 per cent, Germany 6, France 10, Netherlands and Argentine free. Cotton piece goods an important industry: Canada 31 per cent, Netherlands 8 per cent, Argentine 15 per cent. Woollen goods: Canada 37 per cent. Australia 61 per cent, Germany 22 per cent, France 12 per cent.
Finally in order to make quite clear that it was the proposals, the sorcalled offer, of Canada's Prime Minister that he was characterizing as "humbug," and in no sense the motives of the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister himself, Mr. Thomas, referring to a previous speaker, said at page 1562:
If he says for one moment that I inferred that Mr. Bennett did not mean them as genuine, I must make that clear. I never said anything of the kind.
In other words, Mr. Thomas was prepared to say of the proposals that my right hon. friend meant them as genuine, but they were discovered to be humbug when he came to see what they really amounted to so far as Great Britain was concerned.
Let me give to my right hon. friend the view of a very eminent authority on preference with respect to proposals on preference based as this one is on a tariff that is already so high that the preference really means nothing in effect. The Prime Minister is, I am sure, a great admirer of the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain. No doubt he sees himself as a second Joe Chamberlain, the Joe Chamberlain of the dominions of to-day who is going to inaugurate this policy of the new empire unit. I have before me a statement made by Mr. Chamberlain at the conference held in 1902:
The very valuable experience which we have derived from the history of the Canadian tariff shows that, while we may most readily and most gratefully accept from you any preference which you may be willing voluntarily to accord
46	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
to us, we cannot bargain with you for it, wre cannot pay you for it, unless you go much further and enable us to enter your home market on terms of greater equality. ... So long as a preferential tariff, even a munificent preference, is still sufficiently protective to exclude us altogether, or nearly so, from your markets, it is no satisfaction to us that you have imposed even greater disability' upon the same goods if they come from foreign markets.
That was exactly the nature of the proposal as made by my right hon. friend. British goods had already been excluded from the Canadian market. There was as a consequence very little satisfaction to Great Britain in the offer made by my right hon. friend when its only effect was to impose even greater disability upon the same goods if they came from foreign markets,
I think I have made clear wherein the proposals were humbug in so far as Great Britain was concerned. Let us now look at the situation from the Canadian point of view. 1 ask hon. members could anything, so far as Canada is concerned, more closely approach humbug than the proposal which my right hon. friend made on our behalf. What was that proposal? First of all it provided that no goods were to be permitted entry into Canada from Great Britain if they were already being produced and manufactured in this country or could be produced or manufactured here. It further provided that if tariffs did not already exist to keep goods out, such tariffs were to be set up. Would that procedure be of advantage to this country? I do not hear the hon. members opposite say, yes; I do not hear one of them. Well, that was the proposal of the right hon. gentleman, and in my opinion it was humbug in the purest sense of the word.
What was the proposal when viewed from another standpoint? Great Britain is already our best customer. We have experienced difficulty in reaching the overseas markets in other parts of the world. The proposals of my right hon, friend would make it still more difficult to get many of our surplus products into the British market, because Britain was to change her fiscal policy; she was to put on a tariff, and our preference was to come as a result of that tariff. Where would that have led with respect to the importation of wheat? Could anybody expect that once a tariff wall went up in Great Britain with respect to manufactured goods to help certain interests, the agricultural interests of Great Britain would remain silent? Does anybody suppose that with tariff walls on all sides the British agriculturist would not ask for a tariff wall to protect his agricultural produce? When in such circumstances will there be a government in Great Britain which could resist such demands

on the part of agriculturists? And if the tariff wall were raised to protect the British farmers, where would we be in the British markets with respect to the sale of our wheat? The last condition would be infinitely worse than the firsit, and so I say that from the point of view of Canada as well as of Great Britain the proposals of my right hon. friend amount to the greatest humbug conceivable.
If anything more is needed to show the humbug of this proposition may I state that not merely the Labour government in England to-day, but no government in England could negotiate an agreement with the government of Canada on the basis proposed by my right hon. friend. This is a most important fact, because the conference is scheduled to meet her again next fall and unless my right hon. friend changes his proposals in the interval nothing can then be done, even if there were a change of government in Great Britain during the interval as he might desire.
Let me review the situation. So far as the Labour government is concerned, we know there can be no negotiations with the Labour government on the basis set out by my right hon. friend. That government may or may not foe in office next fall, but at any rate if it is in office no negotiations could be made with it as the offer at present stands. So far as attempting any agreement it would be better to call off the conference right now- that is the point I wish to emphasize because it has been already made clear in Great Britain that the British government will not change its fiscal policy. The proposal of my right hon. friend involves a change of the fiscal policy of Great Britain.


An hon. MEMBER:: How do you know?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How does anybody known anything? By using ordinary intelligence. The Prime Minister knew before he went to England that the present government in England would not change its fiscal policy. The Liberal party in England has for generations been committed to the policy of free trade. Will it change? Will it negotiate on a basis which would alter the fiscal policy of Great Britain? Nothing could be done by negotiating with the Liberal party, and yet that party combined with the Labour party represent by far the majority of the British people. Come to the Conservative party. So far as the Lord Beaverbrook wing is concerned, that is the Empire Crusaders, my right hon. friend made the statement in plain English, "We will have nothing to do with

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
you." and they were ruled out. What have we left? We have left a certain section of the official Conservative opposition in Great Britain. But what do they want the preference for in England? What do they want protection for? Their idea of securing a preference was to work out a scheme which would
allow them to sell their goods in other markets.
My right hon. friend has said to them, "Remember our preference is based on the Canada first policy." "Canada first," means that anything that can be produced and manufactured in Canada is not to come in. The only preference which could arise would be one which might result from the erection of still higher tariff walls. That is what my right hon. friend has called empire preference. Empire preference as outlined by my right hon. friend is this "Canada first" idea wrapped in tinfoil with a union jack pasted on the outside, lhat is all that it means. It excludes in the first place all possibility of commodities coming to this country from Great Britain if they can be produced or manufactured here. No matter what government is in office in Great Britain, so long as this offer of my right hon. friend stands in its present form no negotiations can be successfully carried on with the mother country.
Now, what about the word "humbug"? I do not know why my right hon. friend should have been so sensitive about the use of the word, unless he was caught on the raw, because after all it is a very mild expression. Some of the terms used by the right hon. gentleman himself when he was leader of the opposition with respect to the preference by the then administration were much stronger. As a matter of fact in the last regular session of parliament my right hon. friend criticized very strongly the government of which I happened to be the head. Did he use the word "humbug"? No, that was too mild an expression for him; he used the word deception."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, an offensive term, and he incorporated it in a resolution introduced in this house. Yet when a member of the administration in Great Britain used the word "humbug" with respect to my right hon. friend's proposals he immediately sent a broadside to the British press directed against the British government as a whole, two columns of the London Times directed not against an individual minister but against the whole British government. He told the government of Great Britain that he had
waited a day or two to see if they would not dismiss the minister who had dared to criticize his proposals. In his view the government of Canada could not have further successful relations with the British government if that attitude was to be maintained. We came very near having complete severance of relations between the governments of Canada and Great Britain as a result of his action. If anyone is of the opinion that I am exaggerating let him read the words of my right hon. friend for himself.
I was interested to learn the real significance of the word "humbug." My right hon. friend is fond of quoting the Oxford dictionary. I consulted that book to learn what it said about "humbug", not knowing whether or not the word be there. But sure enough it was there, and here is the definition given of it.
Fraud, sham, deception, nonsense.
Deception-the very word that he had used himself, as leader of the opposition and for his party in this parliament, in describing the preference part of the proposal of Mr Dunning-a proposal that did not merit that particular characterization, whereas this proposal more than merited it.
Other dictionaries might be quoted-Murray, for example. The New English dictionary gives the following as one definition:
A thing which is not really what it pretends to be; an imposture, a deception, fraud, sham.
Now, this dictionary even cites as an example of the use of the word in its application to legislation the following from words of Lord Randolph Churchill in 1884:
The whole legislation of the government has been a gigantic humbug.
Surely if Lord Randolph Churchill could describe the whole legislation of the inipenal government of that day as "humbug,' it ought to be within the bounds of parliamentary etiquette to describe proposals intended to be translated into legislation as "humbug"; and that was the extent of the offences committed with respect to which the right hon. gentleman opposite raised such a furore in Great Britain.	.
It is interesting-although I do not say this applies in any particular to our own parliament

that the same authority a little further on in citing wherein the words may be applicable to individuals as well as to proposals or offers has the following (1807 in Sheridaniana 211):
"I think, father," said he, "that many men who arc called great patriots in the House of Commons, are great humbugs."

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
The Imperial dictionary-and that ought to be a good authority in connection with all that takes place at an Imperial conference- discloses the near relationship of the term "humbug" and "deception". It defines humbug in one place as:
Spirit of deception, or imposition.
It is particularly helpful in disclosing the real meaning of the term by giving its derivation. It is as follows:
Humbug-no doubt from 'hum' and 'bug/ 'hum' having probably its sense of to deceive', and 'bug' its old meaning of 'bugbear'; hence it equals false alarm. The association of 'hum' with 'bug' was perhaps partly suggested by the fact that 'bug' meant also a beetle or other insect, partly from the words 'hum' and 'buzz' having been employed in conjunction to typify sound without sense.
There, I think, Mr. Speaker, we have a definition which exactly fits the situation, "sound without sense."
I am inclined to think that Mr. Thomas came to use that phrase through association with the present High Commissioner for Canada in London. I noticed when Mr. Howard Ferguson was campaigning with my right hon. friend that this was the term he used in describing the preference proposals of the government of the day. He said that, the proposals were "humbug" and "hypocrisy."


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says, "hear, hear."


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I did not say anything.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg my right hon. friend's pardon; someone immediately behind him expressed approval of that expression. Apparently what really took place was that Mr. Thomas and Mr. Ferguson had been associating together, and Mr. Thomas doubtless employed a phrase that he thought would be well understood in this part of the world.
I come now, Mr. Speaker, to a phase of this situation which I deem as serious as anj single matter of imperial concern can possibly be, and that is the action on the part of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister in attempting to interfere in the domestic politics of Great Britain. As I said, from the time he left here, and indeed before his departure, I considered that he had made one mistake after another, simply getting in deeper and deeper all the time as he went on in his bargaining processes of selling Cana-
dian wheat. The most serious thing of all- because if it is once countenanced it is going to have a very far-reaching effect on the future of the British Empire-was the attempt of this part of the empire to interfere with the affairs of another part. As I said a little while ago, at these Imperial conferences it is absolutely necessary on the part of any government that there should be full regard for the domestic policies of all governments. Every government must respect the domestic policies of another government. What right has any part of the empire to criticize the domestic policies of another part? Much less has it any right to seek to coerce another part of the empire into changing its domestic policies by trying to influence public opinion, as my right hon. friend sought to do in the address which he made at that conference and which was published far and wide. Not only did he then confront the British government with a proposal necessitating a change in their fiscal policy and speak of the possible dismemberment of the empire if it were not accepted, but he also gave a radio address to the people of the British nation-and there are some of us here at home who heard him across the sea-in which in a sense he appealed over the head of the government to the British nation. In there referring to what he had set forth at the conference he said:
I did not mean it as a threat. How could any thought of a threat have come into his mind unless it was lurking there or known to be in the minds of some of the British people? He went on to say that the chance might pass forever if his particular offer was not accepted and the principle that he had laid down was not subscribed to.
\\ e all know the political battles that have been waged in England between the Conservative party and the Liberal party and between the Conservative party and the Labour party on certain fiscal questions, and I say no one from this Dominion has any right to go to Great Britain and attempt by words spoken there to influence British public opinion in reference to matters of domestic policy. If our prime ministers are to have that right, then the prime ministers of other parts of the empire must have a similar right. What would my right hon. friend say if Mr. Ramsay MacDonald came over here to-morrow and spoke here as my right hon. friend spoke in Britain and were to tell him he must change the policy of protection; and then were to address the Canadian nation over the radio and say that unless this change were made immediately he would not be res-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
ponsible for the dismemberment of the empire that might come later ? My right hon. friend knows that his words are going to be made use. of by a political party in Great Britain in the next campaign. Can anything worse be conceived in relation to the interests of the empire as a whole than that the name of this country should be dragged into the political controversies of England in an effort to influence the British electorate one way or the other? And if a change in British fiscal policy ever did come about by Canada's name being injected into Great Britain's domestic affairs, and if later times became bad due to other causes, or of the fiscal change itself, what would likely become of the relations of the different parts of the empire one to the other once an effort was made to change a bargain that had grown out of conditions forced in that way?
There are many people to-day who are questioning very much in their minds whether there can be any future conferences between different parts of the empire unless there is a pretty clear understanding that this kind of thing is never going to be repeated. I doubt if it will be found that any government will go into conference with another government, unless above all the right of every country to have its own fiscal policy is upheld by all. Why, Mr. Speaker, one of the sections of this very conference in England was working on certain resolutions growing out of the conference of 1926; and what was it that the conference of 1926 laid down? It laid down a definition of the present position of the different dominions and Great Britain. How was that position described? It is set out very clearly in the Balfour report, which has been endorsed by this very government while it was negotiating in Great Britain. What does that report say? With repect to Great Britain and the dominions it says:
Their position and mutual relation may be' readily defined. They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
In other words, you have there a distinct statement that each part of the empire has the right to make its own fiscal policy, that it must be so recognized and that there shall be no coercion in any particular way with regard to it. Indeed, it seems part of the irony of fate that it should have been one of Sir John A. Macdonald's ministers who took this very position as long ago as before confederation. My right hon. friend
likes to speak of his policy as the national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald, but one of Sir John Macdonald's ministers made very clear to the Briitsh government just prior to confederation that Canada would not stand for any dictation on the part of Great Britain with respect to her tariff. That was as long ago as 1859. Let me read from the communications sent by Sir Alexander Galt to the Duke of Newcastle, who at that time was Colonial Secretary. Here is what Sir Alexander Galt, Sir John A. Macdonald's minister of Finance of that day, said:
Respect to the Imperial government must always dictate the desire to satisfy them that the policy of this country is neither hastily nor wisely formed; and that due regard is hail to the interests of the mother country as well as of the province. But the government of Canada, acting for its legislature and people, cannot, through those feelings of deference which they owe to the Imperial authorities, in any manner waive or diminish the right of the people of Canada to decide for themselves both as to the mode and extent to which taxation shall be imposed. Self-government would be utterly annihilated if the view of the Imperial government were to be preferred to those of the people of Canada. It is, therefore, the duty of [DOT] the present government distinctly to affirm the right of the Canadian legislature to adjust the taxation of the people in the way they deem best, even if it should unfortunately happen to meet the disapproval of the Imperial ministry.
I never thought the day would come in this parliament, Mr. Speaker, when it would fall to the lot of any member of this House of Commons to protest against a Canadian ministry in its attempt to coerce a British ministry, but since that day has come there appears to be an element of poetic justice in the circumstance that I have the privilege of being the first to make that protest. I do make it very strongly indeed, that any ministry from Canada should seek, by means of coercion, to influence the government of Great Britain with respect to any matter of policy which is entirely within its own rights. If we cherish autonomy in our own country; if we respect it; if we wish to maintain it, it will be only by our adopting an attitude towards others which we will expect to have adopted towards ourselves. What would my right hon. friend say were Mr. Ramsay MacDonald or Mr Lloyd George or Mr. Churchill or any other British public man to come to Canada and denounce the policy of protection, saying it was essential that we should have free trade in order to save the empire? He would be the first to tell him never to come back to this country again, and we would have the press from one end of this country to the


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, it is unfortunate, but Canada's prestige in Britain never was so low as it is at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is higher than it has
been during the past ten years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have failed to extend in Britain the market for our wheat. Not only have we failed to obtain security for the sale of our wheat in the British market, but in every way our competitors have gained.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
This afternoon I spoke of the Argentine. What is taking place in the Argentine at this very moment? All through the campaign of last year we stressed the possibility of Britain turning to the Argentine for more of her wheat unless it were found possible to bring about closer relations with Canada. Only this morning His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is reported in the press as emphasizing the necessity of trade and exchange and pointing out what it means to Britain to have the good will of the Argentine, not by bargaining, but by good will and voluntary cooperation in the matter of trade. Why do we not hear similar sentiments uttered in Canada to-day?
Hon. gentlemen opposite have been talking about Russia. We will hear a good deal about Russia before the next few years are over, and I would ask them this question: do the}' think they have improved the chances of the sale of Canadian wheat in the markets of the world by the summary way in which they have dealt with Russia? Have they had put before them any single request from the government of Russia which has called forth the particular action to which reference is made in the speech from the throne? Have they had any communication of any character from the government which has necessitated the putting through in the manner it was that particular order in council? I do not intend to discuss the order at the moment, but I do wish to deal generally with the manner in which things are being done by this present administration.
Reference has been made to the possibility of conferences being called to rationalize as it is termed, the wheat supply of the world. Some day the different governments of the world may sit down together to see if they cannot come to some agreement among themselves which will enable each one to send its supply of wheat in a particular direction. As I understand anything I have read of overtures that have been made, Russia has indicated the possibility of something of the kind; that at some time she would be prepared to confer with other governments to reach if possible agreement in the matter of the distribution of the world's supply of wheat. If such a conference ever took place, would not Canada feel certain of getting her appropriate share of the British market? Should she not feel entitled to expect that she could rely on Britain to see that she got a first chance in the British market? But what is the position to-day? Suppose Russia has already taken offence at what my hon. friend has done? Suppose the Russian government says:	We
have not been competing with Canada in any
appreciable way, we have not entered her markets, but we have been ostracized because we were prepared to send to her both money and commodities in exchange for the opportunity of buying from her certain commodities. Suppose Russia says that as a result of all this she will enter the markets of the world to compete with Canada and will carry on competition in a way never dreamed of before. Suppose she says: We will show Canada whether or not she can ostracize us from the markets of the world. Where are our farmers in western Canada going to be as the result of action of that kind?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friends opposite called a special session to put up tariffs under the guise of alleviating the necessitous condition of the poor; they put on the cloak of charity in introducing that legislation for their special interests. In the name of patriotism they talked about "Canada first." For what purpose? To give more protection and thus to help their special interests. Now in the name of religion they pursue the same protectionist ends and say that because of certain religious doctrines adopted by Russia this country is to cut itself off from trade with another part of the empire.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Another part of the empire?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With another
part of the world and affecting other parts of the empire. The attitude adopted by my hon. friend affects very much the relations of the empire with Russia. I am not commenting at the moment upon what he may have had in view; what I am speaking of is the manner in which he did what he did, and also the consequence of it in the light of world conditions. There again is where we have suffered as a result of this conference. Our competitors have got the better of us and are getting the better of us more than ever.
When Britain finds, as she will find, that it is more difficult to trade with Canada because of what has been d-one in increasing tariffs for bargaining purposes, she will look elsewhere for her trade and we will be unable to hold even the market that we have there to-day. The war taught us that markets once lost are very difficult to regain, and it matters not whether the war be one of arms or an economic war, if the tactics adopted are of the kind which seek to exclude certain nations from trade with each other the result is bound to be the same so far as the loss of markets is concerned.
54	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
This question is all important when one considers the fact that another economic conference is to be held this fall. I have spoken on this matter at length because of the fact that that conference is to be held. I want to see that conference succeed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen opposite may jeer; that may be their attitude, but it is not mine. I want to see that conference succeed, and that is why I am placing the facts upon Hansard so that they may be a matter of permanent record. I want to oblige this government to take notice of the nature of its proposals and their effect. We do not want a second failure; we want to avoid further quarrels and ruptures. I want to help to create public opinion in this country and I intend if need be to go from one end of the country to the other in order to do so. I intend to try to see that hon. gentlemen opposite, for the sake of protecting a few of their special friends and special interests, and in order to create more monopolies in this country, shall not make more difficult the lot of the farmer and of the workingman of Canada.
Mv hon. friends know, as I said this afternoon, that these proposals as they stand cannot succeed. The government must change its proposals if it wants to get anywhere in the conference this fall. I have spoken at the length I have for the further reason that the speech from the throne, referred to this afternoon, indicates, not that the government is modifying its extraordinary view, but that it intends to go on with its policy of increasing tariffs and giving to itself added powers with reference thereto. If that extraordinary attitude is persisted in conditions in this country wdl go from bad to worse. We have on that account to watch very carefully the policy of the present administration as related to the course of events.
May I state further that already we are beginning to experience in a very critical way the effects of the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite as put through at the last special session. Look at. the figures on trade and see how trade is diminishing. Look at the figures with respect to national revenue and see how the national revenue from customs dues is shrinking. Wait until the budget comes down and see what the additional taxation will be. Already we can see the effect upon the western farmers in loss of purchasing power. The western farmers not being able to sell their grain, and the producers generally not being able to get rid of their surplus products, where are we going to get the purchasing power to

stimulate our industries? It may be true that here and there, where a protecting wall has been thrown around an individual industry, there has been created a temporary boom. That undoubtedly happens, and will happen in certain cases where competition from without is suddenly checked. But what takes place after the point has been reached where there is no one to purchase the products of the industries thus artificially stimulated? When the demand falls off, what will happen to the transportation companies, the banks, the wholesale and retail businesses of the country? What is to be the lot of every householder in the land when we experience more contraction in the trade of the country? These things are of the greatest importance and cannot receive too much in the way of consideration. Why is it that the right hon. gentleman, in view of all these things, holds to the course he does?
I have said and I repeat, that I believe my right hon. friend is sincere in his belief that the creation of an economic unit in Canada, of an economic unit throughout the empire, is a good thing, is an ideal to be aimed at; but he has not examined carefully into all phases of these matters, nor understood them, otherwise he would not have proceeded in the way he has.
The trouble with hon. gentlemen opposite is this: they have started with false assumptions; they have assumed that this idea of an economic unit, because it has unity about it, is a good thing in itself, without examining what in reality is meant and where it is going to lead. They have started out with the idea that an economic unit is a good thing, without carefully examining whether the realization of such a conception is going to lead in the matter of international trade. The mistake that they are making all through is that they are confusing an abstract idea with a concrete proposal. I ask hon. members to consider that. There are certain abstract ideals which all hold in common: "Canada first", yes, in a true sense of the term; "empire first", yes, in a true sense of the term; Canadian unity, yes; imperial unity, yes; all these matters if you like. These abstract ideals are very fine, but let us see what in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite they are being made to mean. My hon. friends opposite identify them with concrete proposals and these concrete proposals when put into operation will not realize the ideals which are aimed at.
Take the ideal of "Canada first". If by "Canada first" is meant that in national affairs a man should think of his own country first and will naturally do what is in the interest of his own country, everyone is for

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
"Canada first". But if you mean a particular economic policy, which my right hon. friend says is what he means, a particular extreme form of protection which he told the British government is what "Canada first" means, this economic unit idea, a high tariff that will exclude goods from other countries from coming into this country at all, that will put an end to trade; if you call that concrete proposal "Canada first" you will never realize any worthy ideal of "Canada first" you may have. It is like speaking of "home first", as regards a man in his domestic relations. Naturally everyone will think of his own home first, but when you come to translate that aim or ideal into a concrete proposal such as hon. gentlemen opposite have translated "Canada first" into, you get something resembling what would take place were a man to put a great wall around his garden, his grounds, thereby excluding everybody and saying this is "home first." That is a parallel case. Similarly if by imperial unity, is meant that the preservation of unity throughout the different parts of the empire is a good thing no possible exception can be taken but when you come to analyse what hon. gentlemen opposite mean by it, you find the means with which they identify the aim will not gain that particular end. Similarly with regard to preference. We are all in favour of preference as rightly understood; but when you identify it with an empire preference based on tariff walls in the first instance and brought into being only as something over and above these walls, you get something that does injustice to, nay something that may wholly negative the object in view.
Not only have hon. gentlemen opposite the wrong attitude, but they also make the further mistake, that they will not admit that any other view can possibly be right. They will not see and they will not admit to themselves that there be any other conception, any other way of bringing about imperial unity, of furthering the interests of Canada and of the empire than the particular means which they themselves advocate.
In conclusion may I say this word to my right hon. friend. He will find some day that "Canada first," rightly understood, is something very different from anything that can be embodied in a fiscal policy let alone a fiscal policy which is based on an extreme form of protection. He will find that "empire first," if he wishes to use that particular phrase, is also something very different from anything than can be expressed in terms of a fiscal policy, let alone a policy in the nature of centralized economic imperialism. They differ in kind. Fiscal policies are not
a thing of the spirit. All that relates to "Canada first" and "Empire first" in any true sense is of the spirit; not a thing of matter, whether it be material substances or material force. He will find that the primary position of this Dominion, the primary position of the British Empire is due to something more profound than any fiscal policy let alone a fiscal policy that seeks to isolate the Dominion and to isolate the Empire. What has made the British Empire what it is, what has made Canada what it is, is not any fiscal policy. It is a thing of the spirit; it is the spirit that has sent the missionary and the explorer into distant lands, the coureur de bois into the hidden recesses of the forests, the pioneer and the trader beyond the bounds of settlement; the spirit that has sent British ships across all the oceans of the globe and caused the British flag to find a place in every clime. It is the enlightened spirit that has broken down barriers, not the benighted spirit that has erected them, the spirit of freedom that in the world of commerce and in trade, as in the world of politics, has made for larger liberty, and ever wider contacts with mankind; the spirit not of one nation only, or of one empire only but the spirit of the League of Nations; the spirit not of fear but the spirit of faith.
We on this side believe in those policies which have helped to advance Canada, and which have helped to advance the empire. We on this side believe that by the same spirit being given its opportunity, our country will develop and more in the way of freedom and happiness will result. We believe that in the extremes to which my right hon. friend is going in his policies we are not helping to unite Canada, we are not helping to create harmony, unity or progress in this country. We believe harmony, unity and progress will come about only as the result of policies which will have like concern for the well-being of all. We take the view that the policies that have led to unity, harmony and progress in this country in the past will do so again if they are continued. But we also take the view that no extreme of policy, I care not whether it be the extreme of protection or the extreme of free trade, in a country of diversified interests like Canada will ever unite the country and keep it harmonious and on the path of progress. A policy which will bring about unity, harmony and progress must be one that will have regard for all classes and all conditions, that will help to reconcile differences as they arise.
My hon. friend will find too, that it is the policy of conciliation and not that of coercion that in the end will win the day.
Naturalization Act

The extreme of economic policy, national, imperial and international as propounded by the present Prime Minister, and the coercive methods by which he seeks to advance them are the negation of all that makes for harmony, all that makes for unity, all that makes for progress in our country in the empire and throughout the world. To these methods and policies in the extremes in which they are put forth, we who seek the preservation of the true spirit of our country and of the British Commonwealth of Nations are unalterably opposed. We wish to see our country-first and our empire first; not first in assurance and arrogance, and in the methods of the blaster and the gunman, but first in those characteristics of true greatness which have given to Canada and to the empire the primacy which they to-day enjoy.
I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) that the following be added to the address to His Excellency:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house, while recognizing the serious economic conditions prevailing throughout the world, regrets that the policies of His Majety's government have not only failed to afford a remedy for employment and agricultural distress, as pledged by the Prime Minister and his colleagues, but have served further to prejudice the deplorable position of the agricultural interests, thereby causing additional unemployment and substantially reducing the national revenue.
The house believes that the proposals made to the Imperial economic conference and' the manner in which they were submitted and discussed by the Prime Minister of Canada were responsible for the failure of the conference to accomplish its purpose in London, and that the successful development of Canada's trade relations with Great Britain has been adversely affected thereby.
The house is further of the opinion that, if these proposals and certain other of the policies of the government are persisted in, as would appear to be the intention of the government as outlined in the speech from the throne, the very serious condition which exists at the present time will be intensified rather vhan relieved.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
Tuesday, March 17, 1931