1932-11-22

['Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table of the house a number of orders in council passed pursuant to the relief measures.']
Mr. SPEAKER:: Last evening shortly before adjournment a question of order was raised on which I reserved my decision, and said I would give it today at three o'clock.
The motion is that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means. To this an amendment is moved by Mr. Heaps as follows:
In the opinion of this house it is desirable that a committee or commission be appointed to consider the economic situation in the dominion with special reference to unemployment and to report back during the present session of parliament.
A point of order has been raised that the amendment is out of order on the ground that it again introduces a matter that was debated and disposed of when the right hon. the leader of the opposition moved as part of an amendment to the address:
The house regrets that, except the dole, the government has no policy with respect to the relief of unemployment.
I have carefully considered the arguments presented on the question of order, examined the authorities and precedents of both the British and Canadian houses of parliament. In the debate on the amendment of the right hon. leader of the opposition to the address I find that he suggested that a committee or commission be appointed and given charge of the whole question of unemployment relief, which shows that the subject matter of the proposed amendment was then open to dis-
*1420	COMMONS
*Unemployment-Speaker's Ruling
cussion and actually debated. If this amendment is allowed it inevitably follows that there will be a repetition of the debate on unemployment.
The ordinary rules of debate are applicable on this occasion; for instance, a matter already decided by the house cannot be discussed. See Bourinot at page 420.
This amendment is offered on the motion to go into committee of ways and means, and not being accepted by the government is a motion of want of confidence, and the fact that it provides for the appointment of a commission or committee with special reference to unemployment is in effect a condemnation of the government's policy on that question.
The house has refused to condemn the government's policy on unemployment by rejecting the amendment moved to the address by the leader of the opposition. In view of that decision by the house I cannot find that this amendment, being a motion of want of confidence dealing, also with unemployment, is in order.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: With all due deference, lest we should be considered as accepting this ruling, I respectfully beg to appeal from it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The Speaker having decided that the amendment offered by Mr. Heaps to the motion: That the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, is not in order, Mr. Lapointe appeals from that decision. Is it the pleasure of the house that the Speaker's decision be sustained?



[Stage Direction]
White (Mount Royal), Willis.
Wright.-84.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Abeam,	Hurtubise,
Beaubien,	Irvine,
Bertrand,	Kennedy
Blair.	^ (Peace River),
Both well.	King. Mackenzie,
Boulanger,	Lapointe,
Bourassa,	Lucas,
Brown,	Luchkovich,
Butcher,	Macphail, Miss,
Carmichael,	McIntosh,
Casgrain,	McKenzie
Cayley,	(Assiniboia),
Denis.	Marcil,
Deslauriers,	Moore (Ontario),
Desrochers,	Munn,
Duff.	Neill,
Elliott,	Parent,
Euler,	Reid.
Factor.	St-Pere.
Fafard.	Sanderson.
Ferland.	Seguin,
Fiset. Sir Eugene,	Speakman,
Fontaine,	Stewart
Fournier.	(Edmonton Wes
Fraser (North-	Thauvette,
umberland, 0.),	Totzke,
Oolding.	Veniot.
Hanson (Skeena),	Verville,
Howard,	Woodsworth,
Howden,	Young.-56.
PAIRS (The list of pairs is furnished by the	
whips.) Arthurs,	Messrs: Gardiner,
Barrette.	Rheaume.
Bell (Hamilton),	Merrier (St. Henri
Bell (St. Antoine),	Raymond,
Black (Halifax),	Dubuc,
Cahan,	Rinfret,
Cantley.	Cardin,
Cowan (Port Arthur), Ilsley.	
Duguay,	Dumaine,

Unemployment-Speaker's Ruling
Duranleau,	11 anbury.
Ganong,	Dubois,
Garland (Carleton),	Goulet,
Geary,	Mercier (Laurier-
Gott,	Outremont), Rutherford,
Hackett,	P err a s,
Harris,	Jacobs.
Johnstone,	Donnelly,
Jones.	MacLean,
Lafleclie,	Girouard,
Larue,	Boucher,
Lawson,	Gray,
Lennox,	Pouliot,
MacDonald	Urquhart,
(Cape Breton), MacMillan	Mackenzie
(Saskatoon),	(Vancouver),
McDade,	Dupuis,
MeGibbon,	Power,
MeLure,	Maclnnis,
Manion,	Heaps,
Myers.	Spencer,
Nicholson,	Bradette,
Pettit,	Bouchard,
Rhodes,	Ralston,
Ross,	Roberge,
Rowe,	Lacroix,
Ryekman,	Chevrier,
Ryerson,	Taylor,
Short,	Heenan,
Simpson (Simcoe),	Mitchell,
Spankie,	Garland (Bow River),
Spotton,	Hepburn,
Stanley,	Coote,
Stevens,	Malcolm,
Stinson.	Hall.
Stitt (Selkirk),	Weir (Macdonald),
Sullivan,	Brasset,
Thompson (Simcoe),	Jean,
Turnbull,	McPhee,
Weir (Melfort),	Motherwell,
White (London),	Gershaw,
Wilson,	Vallance.
Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: I was paired with the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: I
was paired with the hon. member for Toronto South (Mr. Geary). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. POULIOT:: I was paired with the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I was paired with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Simpson). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. HEENAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. COOTE:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Ganong). Had I voted I would have voted against the speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. PERRAS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for S.tanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska (Mr. Girouard). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. RAYMOND (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.


Mr. JEAN (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling being sustained.
(Owing to the impossibility of recording pairs simultaneously declared, this list is incomplete.)
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege in connection with an absurd newspaper item published on the front page of 1'Action Catholique of Thursday, November 17, 1932. The heading reads as follows: "J. F. Pouliot endorses the tariff changes-statement made by the hon. member for Temiscouata, yesterday, in the House of is Commons." What has actually happened is that this newspaper attributes to me a speech delivered by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). You are, sir, better aware, than any one that I have never lost an opportunity to strenuously and energetically protest against these evil omen agreements.
Questions


RELIEF TO PENSIONERS
Peter Heenan: Mr. Speaker, I have been requested to present a petition to parliament on behalf of the disabled war veterans of Ottawa. The petition sets out that the relief afforded these veterans has been cut down and in many cases cut off entirely. The petition reads-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The practice is to hand the petition to the clerk. If it is to be read, the clerk will read it.


Peter Heenan: I should like to have this petition, which I have been asked to present to parliament, read by the clerk of the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The petition will be referred to the clerk of petitions. It will be reported on and dealt with in due course.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table of the house a number of orders in council passed pursuant to the relief measures.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What was the amount in the aggregate of unclaimed balances in the chartered banks of the Dominion of Canada as at the 30th of June, 1932?
2.	What was the disposition of these funds?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Unclaimed amounts reported under section 114 of the Bank Act, and section 59 of the Quebec Savings Bank Act, as at December 31, 1931, totalled $3,200,954.83. (The figures as at 30th June, 1932, are not of government record as under the acts the returns are required to be made only at the end of the calendar year).
2.	Unclaimed amounts are liabilities of the banks and await claimants.


SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTLA
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	At what date did the vacancy which now exists in the bench of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia occur?
2.	In view of the sittings of the appeal court beginning this week and of the large docket of appeals to be heard, will an appointment to fill the vacancy be made at an early date?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	May 17, 1932.
2.	Yes.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a copy of all letters, requests, correspondence, petitions, and other documents, exchanged between the Post Office Department at Ottawa and the Post Office Department at Quebec, with respect to the dismissal of the postmaster at Mount-Murray in the county of Charlevoix. Also a copy of all sworn or other statements dealing with the resignation of said postmaster, in the possession of the Post Office Department.


ADDINGTON FORKS, N.S., POST OFFICE
Mr. DUFF:: For a copy of all correspondence including letters, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between the Postmaster General and any of his officials and any person or persons in the province of Nova Scotia, regarding the removal of the post office from Addington Forks, Antigonish county, Nova Scotia, where it was for over 100 years, to the other end of the district, near Beaver Meadows.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The words in the motion "where it was for over 100 years" are not in order.


William Duff: I would move to delete those words.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Motion as amended agreed to.


EMPLOYEES OF SENATE AND HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: I wish to ask when I may expect an answer to question No. 2 on the order paper. It has been on the order paper for some days and no attempt has been made to answer it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: With regard to the question referred to by the hon. member, No. 2 on today's order paper, such information as relates to the House of Commons has been ready for some time. As yet, the information has not been received from the Senate.


REMEMBRANCE DAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: Yesterday the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) asked a question with regard to the participation of the permanent force troops in the Armistice day ceremonies. Orders were given that the

Angus Shops, Montreal
permanent force troops should turn out that day in full dress, field service order. This order of dress includes rifles and sidearms, but does not include the carrying of ammunition, and ammunition was not carried. This is the usual dress on a formal occasion of this kind, and one which the department deemed most fitting for the occasion.


ANGUS SHOPS, MONTREAL ADVANCES BY GOVERNMENT TO CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance based upon an article in this morning's Citizen, dated from Montreal :
Number of days per month which Canadian Pacific shops w'ill work-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Could not the hon. member address his question to the minister without reading the article?


William Daum Euler: I will dispense with the
reading of the article and will put the question to the government briefly.


An hon. MEMBER:: I can't hear you.


William Daum Euler: I am quite willing to take
my time. I would ask the government whether, in addition to the $2,000,000 which it was stated had been loaned or advanced by the government to the Canadian Pacific Railway, any further amount has been advanced; and further, and perhaps more particularly, whether any advances or loans have been made to any other industry or industries.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: 1 have not seen the article in question


William Daum Euler: I was not permitted to
read it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: -but the question as submitted by my hon. friend goes further than a mere reply with respect to the opening of Canadian Pacific Railway shops, and it is of such an important character that I should not care to answer it offhand. I had no notice that it was going to be asked, although I am not complaining of that. However, I will take it as a notice of question and answer it tomorrow.


William Daum Euler: Could the minister give me
a reply to my second question, as to whether any advances have been made to other industries.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is the portion of the question which I would not wish to answer offhand; I would wish to verify it before answering.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The Canadian Press has a dispatch this morning with reference to the Angus shops. Mr. Frank McKenna, general manager of Federal Shops Trades, says that the length of time during which the Angus shops will remain open must depend upon the nature of the arrangements between the Ottawa government and the company. Will the Minister of Finance, when replying tomorrow to my hon. friend, also give an answer to that statement which appears in the press.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will take the notice of question as I read it in Hansard tomorrow, but as I understand the first portion of the question, it is not one that can be answered here; it would have to be answered by the railway company.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The dispatch states that it depends on the nature of the arrangements between the Ottawa government and the company.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


SHIPMENT OF CANADIAN FRUIT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. FRASER (Northumberland):: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether about one-third of a cargo of canned fruit loaded at St. Catharines on a Norwegian tramp was shipped from Medina, New York, and labelled with Canadian Canners labels, to be conveyed by that steamer to the British market.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: That is not a question but a statement, and one which cannot be dealt with now under the circumstances. If the hon. member will address a question to me for information I will endeavour to get it.


BRIGHT FAN INQUIRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): I have a question to direct to the Prime Minister. May I ask the right hon. gentleman when he is going to give permission to the hon. member for Nelson to make good his statement that the British freighter the Bright Fan was deliberately sunk in Hudson Strait.
Imperial Conference-

[Stage Direction]
-Trade Agreements
Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member knows that the question is out of order. He should not so continually infringe upon the rules of debate.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Where have I infringed on the rules of debate?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question is improper and is out of order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I cannot see that it is an improper question.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton):: May Task the Minister of Justice whether a decision has been reached in connection with the request of civil servants who had prior service with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to have the. duration of that service added to their time in the civil service in relation to superannuation.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: Requests have been received in connection with this matter from various parts of western Canada. The matter is still under consideration, no decision having yet been reached.


TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND SOUTHERN RHODESIA
[Stage Direction]
Ernst,
Esling,
Factor.
Fortin,
Eraser (Cariboo), Fraser (Northumberland, 0.), Gagnon,
Gobeil,
Golding,
Gordon,
Guthrie,
Hanson
.	(York-Sunbury),
Howard,
Howden,
Hurtubise,
Kennedy ^ (Peace River), Kennedy (Winnipeg _ South Centre), King, Mackenzie, Lapointe,
La V ergne,
Loucks,
Lucas,
Luehkovieh, Macdonald (Kings), MacNicol,
McGillis,
McGregor,
McIntosh,
McKenzie (Assiniboia), Maloney,
Marcil,
Moore (Chateauguay-Huntingdon), Mullins,
Murphy,
Neill,
Peck,
Parley, Sir George, Pickel,
Plunkett,
Porteous,
Price,
Quinn,
Robinson,
Rogers,
Sanderson,
Sauve,
Seguin,
Senn,
Shaver,
Smith
(Victoria-Carleton), Smith
(Cumberland), Speakman,
Spence,
Sproule,
Stewart
(Edmonton West), Stewart (Leeds), Stew-art (Lethbridge), Stirling.
Stitt (Nelson), Sutherland,
Tetreault,
Thompson (Lanark), Totzke,
Tummon,
Veniot,
WgGS6
White (Mount Royal), Willis,
Wright,
Young.-105.
++NAYS
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 5, respecting a certain trade agreement between the Dominion of Canada and Southern Rhodesia.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, we will take a
division on this motion.
Mr. MacLAREN:: I was paired with the
hon, member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted I would have voted for the third reading of the bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was paired w-ith the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MYERS:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer). Had I voted I would have voted for the third reading of the bill.


Mr. McLURE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Mac-Innis). Had I voted I would have voted for the third reading of the bill.

Southern Rhodesia


Mr. SPOTTON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. JONES:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Prince (Mr. MacLean). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: I was paired with
the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr.   PIARRIS@: I was paired with the hon.
member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I was paired with the
senior member for Ottawa (Mr. C'hevrier). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. WILSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ROSS:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. JOHNSTONE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly). Had I voted I would have voted for t'he motion.


Mr. HEAPS:: I was paired with the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Simpson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. HACKETT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Perras). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I
was paired with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


William Richard Motherwell: I was paired with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. RYERSON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. McDADE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SPANKIE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. PETTIT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Joseph-François Laflèche: I was paired with the
hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. LAWSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. TURNBULL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Yorkville (Mr. McPhee). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. STITT (Selkirk):: I was paired with the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I was paired with the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. STINSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Bruce (Mr. Hall). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MORAND:: I was paired with the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Parent). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Cayley). He
1426	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
was here fifteen minutes ago and voted in the previous division. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BOWMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. LAURIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouviille (Mr. Fontaine). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I was paired with the junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Aheam). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


George Gibson Coote: I was paired with the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I was paired with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Paul Mercier: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BRASSET:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. DUGUAY (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Du-maine). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
Motion (Mr. Bennett) agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.


TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE IRISH FREE STATE
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 4, respecting a certain trade agreement between the Dominion of Canada and the Irish Free State.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that when this bill was before us in its previous stages, the government conceded that it did not involve any increase in duties; that as a matter of fact it secured to Canadian merchandise in the Irish market as favourable treatment as would be accorded to that of any other country and vice versa. We have been contending all along that any agreement that was made should not in any

particular deprive our country of extending, if we so desired, favourable treatment to any other country that wished to trade with us, and as the legislation in this respect is along the lines that we have been advocating I imagine that most on this side will be prepared to support it.
It has another feature which entirely distinguishes it from the agreement arrived at with South Africa or the proposed agreement with the United Kingdom, namely, that it does not involve any increase of duty nor has it that moist objectionable of all features, the fixing of a margin of preference for a period of years, thereby depriving this country of the opportunity of according to any other countries that may wish to trade with us as favourable treatment as we are according in this case. There is a great distinction, Mr. Speaker, between certain of these agreements and the agreement which is proposed with South Africa and the agreement which is proposed with the United Kingdom. These differences were pointed out at the time the agreement with Rhodesia and the agreement with Ireland were before the house, and as hon. members will recall, there was for that reason no opposition to either the agreement with Rhodesia or the agreement with Ireland at the time these measures were discussed on the first and second readings and in committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the last word, I presume, Mr. Speaker, coming from the hon. gentleman.
The house will recall that week after week and day after day for the last six or seven weeks the right hon. leader of the opposition has been reiterating to the point of becoming tedious his objection to the five-year provision. Now he acquiesces in this. This is quite all right, he says, and we are all going to vote for it. He virtually invites no division, and instructs his followers to line up behind this bill, after he has kept the house for about six weeks arguing on the question. He says that this is a marked advance upon the British agreement.

Irish Free State
Now this hill gives to Ireland, so far as entry into this market is concerned, precisely what we give to Great Britain. To give to Great Britain certain concessions in this, that and the other sort of article is a vicious principle in the way we have done it; but to give it to Ireland, the right hon. gentleman says, is perfectly all right and all my followers should vote for it. AVhat does article 2 of this trade agreement say? It says:
Goods, the produce or manufacture of the Irish Free State, imported into Canada, shall not be subject to other or higher duties than those paid on similar goods, the produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
This whole bill is based upon, allied to, intertwined and amalgamated with, or any other similar term you like to use, the British agreement. Every jot and tittle, every crossed t and every dotted i, of the British agreement is in this, and yet the right hon. gentleman tells us that it is an act of virtue on his part to vote for this agreement, but that the government and all its supporters are doing this country irreparable injury by voting for the British bill. Surely the right hon. gentleman now realizes the spectacle that he has been making before this house and the country for the last six weeks in his protestations and flimsy pretext regarding the five-year period and other provisions of the British bill. This is the British bill simplified into one little clause. All we have done for the British we are doing for the Irish, and all we have done against the British we are doing against the Irish. Any concessions we have given to the British we give to the Irish. The Irish asked for them and got them.
It is not necessary to add anything further. Those are the facts, and we now have the measure of the sincerity of the right hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I have not the right to debate this matter, but if the house will give me permission I should like to state my position.


Mr. BENNETT:: I cannot speak again having moved the third reading.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I shall ask my colleague the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to explain why the Minister of Trade and Commerce by what he has just said convinced me that I should vote not for but against this bill. He now puts an entirely different construction on this bill than was put upon the provisions when it was previously considered.


Ernest Lapointe: I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to vote against the third reading of this bill. It is not at all the same as the Rhodesia bill to which we have just given third reading. In this bill we are granting to the Irish Free State the same terms that are being granted to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We on this side have been complaining that the tariff has been raised against other countries in order to give a preference on articles coming from Great Britain. The same thing applies to the Irish Free State under section 3 of this bill. There is nothing similar in the treaty with Rhodesia, which was merely a trade agreement in the nature of other trade agreements, and which we accepted as a matter of course.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry if that is beyond the understanding of some hon. gentlemen opposite, but I cannot help that. I am simply giving my own views, and only by looking at the two bills will hon. gentlemen opposite appreciate what the vital distinction is between the two. I am voting against the third reading of this bill.


William Duff: Before this vote is taken, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I intended, even before the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) spoke, to vote against this bill. My reason for doing so is this: When I read that an Imperial economic conference would be held in Ottawa I presumed from the word "imperial" itself, that it would be a meeting between loyal brethren of the British Empire, but to my surprise I found that the delegates from the Irish Free State who came over to this conference refused to take the oath of allegiance to the King when the government of the Irish Free State was elected. They also refused to pay to the British government a large sum of money due on land annuities which the British government had advanced to the people of Ireland, thereby putting themselves outside the pale of any imperial conference. I therefore say that in my opinion none of the gentlemen representing the Irish Free State had any right to sit either in this chamber or around the economic conference table, nor did Canada have the right to make an agreement with them at an imperial conference. So I am going to vote against the bill.
1428	' COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: It
seems somewhat peculiar that I should reach the same conclusion as my deskmate. the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff), but it is for altogether different reasons. It appears to me that it is very much of a farce-


An hon. MEMBER:: It certainly is!


Charles Gavan Power: -for the parliament of Canada to. approve a favoured-nation treaty with the Irish Free State when both this parliament and the foremost proponents of the treaty base their hopes of success of the United Ivingdom-Canada treaty largely on the fact that through that treaty they will be able, to take away trade from Ireland, which is now being given favoured-nation treatment. To my mind such an arrangement, whereby one of the sister nations of the commonwealth is hoping to profit in its trade with the United Kingdom in products of the farm, cattle and so on at the expense of the Irish Free State, and at the same time asking the people of Canada to favour the Irish Free State, is a farce, and I cannot vote for it.
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE (Montma-gny):	I have been a member of the Sinn
Fein league for twenty years; Ireland cannot renounce allegiance to the King, be in the empire and out of it at the same time, but she is free to renounce her allegiance if she chooses. I agree with the argument put forward by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) and I will vote against the agreement.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: I had not thought of speaking on this measure; but in view of the extraordinary spectacle that we have witnessed, and the still more extraordinary spectacle that we shall witness in a moment, I wish once more to declare myself emphatically and unreservedly opposed to these treaties, without regard to what they contain, because of the principle underlying them; because of the straightforward declaration made by the Prime Minister that all these treaties are based on the principle of imperial imity, to which I am opposed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, I am, I have always been opposed to the principle of imperial unity, for reasons frequently given, in forty years of public life, and of which I am not ashamed; reasons which have received the warmest approval of some of the foremost statesmen and leaders of public thought in

Great. Britain. ' Opposed to imperial unity, I stand with equal frankness for fiiendly cooperation between Great Britain and her sister .nations. In other words, I oppose imperial unity,. so called, because it does not tend to keep the relations between these various communities on the only footing which can preserve them.
With regard to Ireland, Mr. Speaker, my sentiments are well known. I have always been a friend of Ireland, and I have proven it before the war, during the war, and after the war. In days when not one single Irish-Canadian, at least not one that I know in this chamber, would dare to stand by the leaders and principles of Sinn Fein, I did it in public. To trade relations with Ireland I have no objection. To better trade relations with England I have no objection. To better trade relations with South Africa, or any other of the British dominions, I have no objection. But I haA'e objection to all these agreements, because, I repeat, they are based on a principle of policy against which I have fought all my life, and which the greatest leader that the Conservative party has known, Sir John A. Macdonald, opposed all Jus life.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, he did, in word and in deed. When the so-called loyalist people of this country accused him of endangering the British connection because he claimed for the people of Canada the right to the full and unhampered exercise of their economic autonomy, Sir John replied coolly: "so much the worse for British connection." Not that he wanted to break the tie; but he wanted to assert on the part of Canada the same right to exercise her full rights as a nation, as a gOArernment and as a parliament in matters of trade and in matters of taxation as she had won in matters of political management. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this particular treaty; but not for the reason given by my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). I heal'd my good friend say that we should not vote for this treaty because of the refusal of Irish members to take the oath of allegiance. That has nothing to do with the matter of this treaty, I will go further. The refusal of the Irish who do not believe in the right of England to rule their country to take the oath of allegiance is a proof of their moral honesty. But I am opposed to this treaty, I am opposed to the preceding treaty, I am opposed to the following treaty, and I will vote against all of them, as I said a few weeks ago, with any group or any party, with any member or

Irish Free State
members of this house, not through any friendship for or antagonism to any country, but in the interests of Canada; because I believe that in the interest of our relations with Great Britain and the other nations we should come back to the sound policy of absolute freedom in matters of trade, and negotiate such treaties as we may choose with any of these countries, whether Great Britain or Ireland or Australia, on the economic merits of the treaties and the trade that can be developed, entirely apart from the principle which governs these agreements, that is, that we must have a series of treaties because we belong to the same empire. No. no; as far as that is concerned I remain faithful to the policy which was propounded, upheld and applied by Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper for twenty years.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do you agree with yourself?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Read your history and you will learn about it.


Paul Mercier: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


William Richard Motherwell: I was paired with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was paired with the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. IRVINE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hay). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was paired with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GOULET:: I was paired with the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Garland). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Joseph Henry Harris: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


George Gibson Coote: I was paired with the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


John Howard Myers: I was paired with the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
fMr. Bourassa.]


Finlay MacDonald: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


James Herbert Stitt: I was paired with the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Robert Edwy Ryerson: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I was paired with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


George Hamilton Pettit: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


William Spankie: I was paired with the
hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Eccles James Gott: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


George Manning McDade: I was paired with the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Robert Charles Matthews: I was paired with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


John Thomas Hackett: I was paired with the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Perras). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Joseph Jean: I was paired with the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson) . Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: I was paired with the hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Du-maine). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Joseph-Georges-Philippe Laurin: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rou-ville (Mr. Fontaine). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
Motion (Mr. Bennett) agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.


TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 3, respecting a certain trade agreement between the Dominion of Canada and the Union of South Africa.

South Africa
The house divided		on the motion, which
was agreed to on	the following division:	
	YEAS	
	Messrs:	
Anderson (Toronto-		Lucas,
High Park),		Luchkovich,
Anderson (Halton),		Macdonald (Kings),
Arsenault,		Macdougall,
Baker,		MacLaren,
Barber,		MacNicol,
Baribeau,		McGillis,
Barrette,		McGregor,
Beaubier,		Maloney,
Belec,		Moore (Chateauguay-
Bell (St. Antoine),		Huntingdon),
Bell (St. John-Albert).		Morand,
Bennett,		Mullins,
Bourgeois,		Murphy,
Bowen,		Peck,
Bowman,		Perley (Qu'Appelle),
Boyes,		Perley, Sir George,
Burns,		Pickel,
Bury,		Plunkett,
Campbell,		Porteous,
Carmichael,		Price,
Casselman,		Quinn,
Chaplin,		Robinson,
Charters,		Rogers,
Cormier,		Sauve,
Cotnam,		Senn,
Cowan (Long Lake),		Shaver,
Davies,		Simpson
Dickie,		(Algoma West),
Dorion,		Smith
Dupre,		(Victoria-Carleton),
Edwards,		Smith
Embury,		(Cumberland),
Ernst,		Smoke,
Esling,		Speakman,
Fortin,		Spence,
Fraser (Cariboo),		Sproule,
Gagnon,		Stewart (Leeds),
Gobeil,		Stewart (Lethbridge),
Gordon,		Stirling.
Guthrie,		Stitt (Nelson),
Hackett,		Sutherland,
Hanson		Swanston,
^ (York-Sunbury),		Tetreault,
Kennedy		Thompson (Lanark),
(Peace River),		Tummon,
Kennedy (Winnipeg		Weese,
South Centre),		White (Mount Royal),
LaVergne,		Willis,
Loucks,		Wright.-92.
	NAYS	
	Messrs:	
Ahearn,		Fafard,
Beaubien,		Ferland,
Bertrand,		Fiset, Sir Eugene,
Blair,		Fournier,
Bothwell,		Golding,
Boulanger,		Hanson (Skeena),
Bourassa,		Howard,
Brown,		Howden,
Butcher,		Hurtubise.
Casgrain,		King. Mackenzie,
Cayley,		Lapointe,
Denis,		Macphail, Miss,
Deslauriers,		McIntosh,
Desrochers,		McKenzie
Duff,		(Assiniboia),
Elliott,		Marcil,
Factor,		Neill,
Parent,	Stewart
Perras,	(Edmonton West),
Raymond,	Thauvette,
Reid,	Totzke,
Rheaume,	Veniot,
St-Pere,	Verville,
Sanderson,	Woodsworth,
Seguin,	Young.-48.
PAIRS	
(The list of pairs	is furnished by the chief
whips.)	
Messrs:	
Arthurs,	Gardiner,
Bell (Hamilton),	Meroier (St. Henri),
Beynon,	Euler,
Black (Halifax),	Dubuc,
Cahan,	Rinfret,
Gantley,	Cardin,
Cowan (Port Arthur),	Ilsley,
Duguay,	Dumaine,
Duranleau,	Hanbury,
Ganong,	Dubois,
Garland (Carleton),	Goulet,
Geary,	Mercier (Laurier-
Gott,	Outremont), Rutherford,
Harris,	J acobs,
Hay,	Irvine,
Johnstone,	Donnelly,
Jones,	MacLean,
Lafleehe,	Girouard,
Larue,	Boucher,
Laurin,	Fontaine,
Lawson,	Gray,
Lennox,	Pouliot,
MacDonald	Urquhart,
(Cape Breton),	
MacMillan	Mackenzie
(Saskatoon),	(Vancouver),
McDade,	Dupuis,
McGibbon,	Power,
McLure,	Maclnnis,
Man ion,	Heaps,
Matthews,	Moore (Ontario),
Myers,	Spencer,
Nicholson,	Bradette,
Pettit,	Bouchard,
Rhodes,	Ralston,
Ross,	Roberge,
Rowe,	Lacroix,
Ryckman,	Chevrier,
Ryerson,	Taylor,
Short,	Heenan.
Simpson (Simcoe),	Mitchell,
Spankie,	Garland (Bow River),
Spotton,	Hepburn,
Stanley,	Coote,
Stevens,	Malcolm,
Stinson.	Hall.
Stitt (Selkirk),	Weir (Macdonald),
Sullivan,	Brasset,
Thompson (Simcoe),	Jean,
Turnbull,	McPhee,
Weir (Melfort),	Motherwell,
White (London),	Gershaw,
Wilson.	Vallance.
Joseph Henry Harris: I	was paired with the hon.
member for Cartier	(Mr. Jacobs). Had I
voted, I would have voted for the motion.


George Spotton: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
1432	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted, I would have voted' for the motion.	.


James Herbert Stitt: I was paired with
the hon. member- for Macdonald (Mr. Weir). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion. . . , .


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was
paired with the hoii. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I was paired with the hon. member for South Vancouver (Mr. Mac-Innis). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion. .


John Howard Myers: I was paired with the hon.
member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


George Manning McDade: I was paired with the
hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


William Spankie: I was paired with the
hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


George Hamilton Pettit: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Robert Charles Matthews: I was paired with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I was paired with the
senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


William Anderson Black: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubue). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


William Richard Motherwell: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Paul Mercier: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Joseph Jean: I was paired with the hon.
member for East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
Motion <Mr. Bennett), agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN : CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 8, respecting a certain, trade agreement between His Majesty's government in Canada and His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
the,house will recall that when the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. .Bennett) introduced a resolution to approve the trade agreement between the United Kingdom and Canada I took very strong exception to the house proceeding in the manner in which the Prime Minister, said it must proceed. I stated at that, time that I believed the correct procedure was that the house; before being asked to give its approval to'the Canada-United Kingdom agreement, should go into committee of ways and means to consider as a whole and in detail the changes in our tariff which would be necessary in order to give effect to the agreement) and the full significance of these changes. I protested as strongly as I could at the time against our being obliged to proceed with the approval of that particular agreement or any agreement until we had discussed in committee of ways and means the whole of the tariff changes which it involved. I did this on the resolution and I did it again on each of the several stages of the bill up to the present time. We have not had an opportunity of discussing in committee of ways and means the various proposed changes in the tariff, and I wish now to protest again against our being called upon to pass the third reading of a measure, which gives approval to the agreement between the United Kingdom and Canada before we have had opportunity to consider in committee of ways and means the tariff changes involved.
In doing this I wish to support my protest and appeal by bringing to the attention of the house the procedure adopted in the British parliament with respect to these agreements and show wherein the procedure adopted in this House of Commons has been entirely at variance with the British procedure. It has been not only at variance with the British procedure but, according to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it has been a procedure which cannot be justified under the British method of proceeding in these matters. Need I say, in this connection, that had the house proceeded in the regular manner some of the misunderstandings which have

United. Kingdom
arisen with respect to these agreements would never have arisen. I now direct attention to what took place in the British parliament with respect to the introduction of these agreements and their consideration. The British parliament considered the agreements first of all on October 18. On that date the house was moved into committee of ways and means to consider the resolutions with respect to imperial preferences, and the discussion occupied October 18, 19 and 20. The resolutions were reported and discussed separately on October 21, 24 and 25. On October 25 a bill with respect to the approval of the agreement for the first time was introduced and given its first reading. It was discussed and given its second reading on October 26 and 27, discussed in committee October 28 and 31, November 1, 2 and 3, and given its third reading on November 3.
I wish to invite the attention of the house particularly to the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of moving the house into committee of ways and means in order to consider the resolutions. The house will find the record in Parliamentary Debates of the House of Commons of Great Britain for October 18, 1932. I read from page 37: Orders of the day; ways and means, considered in committee:
Motion made, and question proposed,
"That it is expedient-
(a) to make provision, more especially in connection with the agreements made at the Imperial economic conference held at Ottawa and an announcement made at that conference on behalf of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, for imperial preferences, whether as respects the whole or any part of the British Empire, and whether in respect of duties charged under any resolutions of this house having for their object the fulfilment of the agreements aforesaid or duties under the Import Duties Act, 1932, or any other duties-"
There are other provisions:
" (b) to empower the Board of Trade, in the circumstances contemplated in the agreement made between His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom and His Majesty's government in Canada, by order to prohibit the importation of goods of a class or description grown, produced or manufactured in a foreign country;
Paragraph (c) refers to Australia and New Zealand.	'
"(d) for the purpose of giving effect to certain of the provisions of the agreement made between His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom and His Majesty's government in Canada to amend the law with respect to the importation of Canadian cattle;
"(e) to make such other provision as may appear necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to any of the agreements aforesaid."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Chamberlain, then spoke as follows:
I hope that, after all the numerous questions and answers on the subject, there is now no doubt in the minds of the committee as to the procedure which is to be followed. We cannot introduce the bill which is to implement the agreements arrived at at Ottawa until we have obtained from the committee of ways and means the series of resolutions which are on the order paper today.
Nothing could be more specific than that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said to the British House of Commons that- under its procedure-let me quote his exact words:
We cannot introduce the bill which is to implement the agreements arrived at at Ottawa until we have obtained from the committee of ways and means the series of resolutions which are on the order paper today.
Here, in this House of Commons of Canada, we have had laid on the table resolutions with respect to ways and means intended to provide what is necessary in the way of implementing the agreements, but we have not yet discussed these in detail; we have not had any opportunity to go into committee of ways and means; in fact this house has not even yet adopted a motion to resolve itself into committee of ways and means. Nevertheless we are being asked now to give approval to the third reading of the bill implementing the agreement. Mr. Chamberlain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has made it plain that under the procedure of the British parliament it is impossible for the House of Commons to consider the bill before the ways and means committee has taken up the discussion with respect to the tariff changes involved.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I have no right to
speak, I should like to ask a question. Does my right hon. friend realize that the French treaty was treated in exactly the same way as we have done in this house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am laying
down at this time the British method of procedure-


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are in Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and no one knows better than the Prime Minister himself that under the British North America Act, our own constitution, hon. members of this parliament have no rights or powers greater than those which are accorded members of the House of Commons in Great Britain with respect to any matter. In taking the course which he has taken, he has gone diametrically opposite to British procedure, and from what I have learned this afternoon I begin to discover the design that was back of his motive

1434	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
in so doing. If we had had a committee of ways and means to discuss in detail all the tariff changes that were necessary and had we seen as a result of that discussion, the significance of what was being proposed, some of us, particularly myself, would not have been as confused or misled as apparently we have been with respect to the exact meaning of some of the provisions of some of these bills.
Let me complete what Mr. Chamberlain said. He continued:
When I sit down 1 propose to move the first of those resolutions, and I daresay you, Sir Dennis-
That is Sir Dennis Herbert, who was the chairman of the committee:
-will then think it appropriate to give some ruling as to whether the debate should be allowed to range over the whole of the resolutions or whether each resolution should be taken separately.
A little later the chairman of the committee made a statement to the house as to procedure of the committee and as it was agreed upon by all parties in the British House of Commons. The chairman's remarks are reported at page 43 as follows:


The Chairman:: I think, perhaps, before the discussion proceeds, that it may be useful if I oan get the approval, or otherwise, of the committee to the course which I suggest with regard to the debate. I gather from what has taken place at question time that it will probably meet with the approval of the committee. It is that we should follow the same course as was adopted in the case of the resolutions dealing with the Import Duties Act in February last, that is, the course analagous to the budget debates. If the committee approve of that, it will mean that there will be a general discussion on the resolution which has been moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; that discussion will range over all the ways and means resolutions which are on the order paper. When the debate comes to an end, all the resolutions will be put one after the other without further debate, leaving the resolutions to be considered separately on the report stage.
I hope that that will meet with the approval of the committee generally.
Elsewhere the chairman of the committee made special mention of the fact that hon. members would be free to move for the reduction of any duty that appeared in the resolutions which were placed before the house; that it would be entirely in order to move any amendment, and he took great care repeatedly to say that in so doing they had not before them the bill approving the agreement, but that they were free to discuss in the first instance the significance of all items and resolutions so that in the light of them and with full understanding of their significance they might take such action as

they deemed best when asked to pass a bill approving the agreement.
That course has been entirely departed from in this house; it has been departed from knowingly on the part of the government and against the protests and appeals of hon. gentlemen on this side to have the matter correctly proceeded with. I submit that the whole proceeding has been irregular and that it is contrary to British parliamentary practice and also to our own constitution which governs the powers and procedure of this parliament.
Just to show how, as a result of our having proceeded in the manner in which the government has done, some of us have been led astray as to the significance of what was really in the mind of the government, may I draw attention to the sequence in which these measures have been placed before us and to a question which I asked the Prime Minister when we were discussing the trade agreement between Canada and Rhodesia? This is reported in Hansard at page 892, as follows:
Mr. Mackenzie King: May I ask the minister whether in his opinion the net result of the agreement is that as a result of the tariff changes tariffs will really be lowered as against Rhodesia?
Mr. Bennett:	The answer is found in the
fact that the goods come in free. I would think it would be difficult to say, but in my judgment the effect would be probably to lower the tariff.
Having consistently taken the view that whatever would help to lower tariffs as between different parts of the British Empire was desirable, I for one, when that measure was before the house, gave it support not only on the second reading, but again this afternoon on the third. When the Irish agreement was before us, may I point out that we had not then had before us the British agreement. We were presented with the bill with respect to the approval of the agreement between the Irish Free State and Canada immediately after the bill respecting Rhodesia and before the bills respecting South Africa and the United Kingdom, and in reading that bill I would challenge anyone to place upon it an interpretation other than the one which we placed upon it at the time and which I believe the text will bear out as the one reasonable interpretation to be placed upon it, namely, that whatever we might do for Britain we would do equally by wray of favourable treatment to Ireland. In other words, while the present administration is in office, if it intends to deal with Britain along the lines of the present agreement, then it is com-

United Kingdom
mitted to extending the same kind of treatment to Ireland. On the other hand, should there be a change of government and a Liberal administration come into office, which were to decide that it was not going to continue the British agreement and obtained the consent of the British government to changes in the agreement in any or many particulars, we would be obliged under the Irish-Canadian agreement to give the same treatment to Ireland as we gave to Britain. That is the view I have had all along as to the significance of the Irish agreement, and it is the only view, it seems to me, that one reading the bill by itself could take in the light of the phraseology of the measure itself. I know, of course, that the side notes and memoranda attached to bills toy the government are not part of the bill itself, but they are all intended as guides to parliament. Looking at this trade agreement, which has only five sections, the first approves of the trade agreement, and anyone looking at the terms of the trade agreement will see nothing there that could be objectionable reading it in the light of what I have just said. Clause 3, which is the one to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has just referred, has the following opposite it in the margin: "Extension of advantage to Irish Free State," that is, extension to the Irish Free State of the advantage of what would be given to Britain. That seems to me a perfectly fair and just attitude for Canada to take towards Ireland. But had I understood at the time or had I ever had the slightest idea that in being asked to extend to Ireland treatment equal to that which we are extending to Britain we were thereby obliging ourselves to raise and maintain duties against other countries, I certainly would not for one moment have countenanced that particular clause or the bill which contains it.
May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if it is the desire and design of the government in dealing with these imperial agreements to trick us into some adherence or agreement to a measure? Is there a motive-in all of this so sinister that the administration itself is not perfectly frank with parliament in regard to the full meaning and significance of these measures? I say that if the government had been straightforward in this matter and had presented to parliament in the first instance, as the British government did, their resolutions to be considered in committee of ways and means, and after discussing the British agreement we had taken up these other agreements which the government now says are based on the British agreement, instead of taking up the other agreements first before we had even con-53719-911
sidered the significance of the British agreement, there would have been no danger of misunderstanding. Such misunderstanding as has arisen has arisen from that source. It bears out very strongly, I think, what I said on a previous occasion, and to which some-exception was then taken, that it looks to me very much as if there was a conspiracy in this matter somewhere on the part of some of those who had to do with the making of these agreements. Hon. gentlemen opposite have taken exception to the words "Tory conspiracy," but may I say that to my mind high protection and Toryism are synonymous, and I believe that there has been in the minds of the Prime Minister and others of his administration an effort, under the guise of these trade agreements, to appeal, on the one hand, to the patriotism of the people of the country and, on the other, by a subterfuge, to put across tariffs which will increase the already inordinately high tariffs of this country, and which will make a large part of our tariff schedules permanent for a number of years.
If it is the unity of the empire amongst other things that we are considering, I think it is most unfortunate indeed that in our own parliament we could not have complete frankness on the part of the administration as to the exact purport of agreements proposed and that we should not be accorded the same rights and privileges as are accorded to the members of the British House of Commons. I protest very strongly, Mr. Speaker, against Canadian members of parliament not being accorded the same rights and privileges as members of the British House of Commons. These rights and privileges have been denied to us, and I say again most emphatically that if that were the only ground upon which we could ask the members of the house to oppose the agreement at this stage it would be an amply sufficient ground.
I am not going to go over again the many reasons why we oppose the Canada-United Kingdom agreement, for they have already been amply stressed. But what has taken place this afternoon has brought out a new feature which makes those reasons stronger than ever, and I am very glad that it has, because it makes clearer than ever the reason why we should oppose not only the United Kingdom agreement but the other agreements as well. It has been made perfectly clear here this afternoon that what is intended is not what we were led to believe, a series of bilateral agreements between Canada and other parts of the empire, each of which stood on its own feet, and was to be read only in the
1436	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
light of what appeared on the face of it, but rather by means of clauses and schedules referring to what is part of some other bill, an effort so to entangle the whole tariff structure of the British Empire that hereafter it will become impossible for independent action to be taken on the part of the parliament of Canada with respect to most of its own tariff, an effort effectively to restrict its freedom in respect of fiscal matters all along the line. All this bears out what the Prime Minister said, that really what we are doing here is not to follow any national policy with respect to the tariff in Canada, but that we are in the midst of framing an imperial tariff policy which will so bind this country in the years to come that it will be impossible for our tariff as it stands to be modified in any particular, seeing that either as respect Africa or Rhodesia or Australia or New Zealand or Newfoundland or the Irish Free State or the United Kingdom itself something will be found in the agreements which will make it impossible to make changes which may be vastly in the public interest without violating in some way the unity of empire or bringing in question our loyalty to the empire, and all the rest of it.
I want to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that so far as the procedure is concerned, this House of Commons having been obliged to depart from British procedure, you yourself as Speaker should rule that the procedure up to the present has been wholly out of order and not in accordance with British parliamentary practice, and then permit us to reconsider these agreements in accordance with the full rights and privileges of a British parliament.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to intervene in this debate, and I should not do so were it not for some observations of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). Inasmuch as I had not planned to intervene, I trust he will not take exception if I do not follow him at length. I hope also that he will not consider me discourteous if I state that I do not feel it essential that I should do so.
With respect to procedure, what my right hon. friend has succeeded in demonstrating is that the Dutch captured Holland. We have followed the same procedure in respect to this measure as has been followed in respect to other similar measures. Furthermore let me point out that in the Prime Minister's opening speech the distinction between our procedure here and the procedure in the British House of Commons was very clearly stated to

the house. The reason we have proceeded as we have is a most logical one: If this agreement were not approved by this house we would not be called upon to make the corresponding tariff changes in ways and means.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The same applies to Great Britain. That is not true.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my right hon. friend will be patient, I say that our course is not only logical but is entirely in conformity with the procedure followed in this house since confederation. If my right hon. friend has discovered at this late date that the procedure of the British house is better, that may be open to argument; but let me say to my right hon. friend that he had the opportunity, not only during his own term of office but many years before that, of moving to have it changed. But now after almost a quarter of a century he has discovered that our procedure in this house is different from that followed in the British House of Commons.
My right hon. friend has also discovered that there has been some trickery here. May I say with all deference that my right hon. friend tricked himself. It did not arise from any action on the part of the government or of hon. gentlemen on this side of the house. He made a most astounding statement a moment ago; he said that when the Irish bill was before the house-that is, the one that passed a few minutes ago-we had not then the British agreement before us. Why, Mr. Speaker, the British agreement was contained in a bill which has been before this house for weeks.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I meant before it was discussed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: And we sat in committee
on that bill for almost a week. We discussed it for four days last week and one day this week.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend knows what I mean.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Let me point out this:
assuming his statements of fact were correct -I submit the records of the house show the contrary to be the case-the Irish bill, by section 3, very clearly states that:
After the said agreement is brought into force, and so long as it remains in force, goods, the produce or manufacture of the Irish Free State, which are imported into the Dominion of Canada, shall be admitted into the Dominion of Canada on the terms granted to similar articles, the produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.	;

United Kingdom
When my right hon. friend said today that he was going to support Bill No. 4 because it was different from the other agreements, he either had not read the Irish bill, or if he had he did not know what was in the United Kingdom bill. In either case the right hon. gentleman tricked himself.
Our procedure, I submit again, as the records of this house will disclose, is precisely in conformity with the procedure which my right hon. friend pursued during his tenure of office. Not only is that the case, but I repeat, it is the logical course in the circumstances, because if the agreement had not been approved by this house we would not be called upon to make the corresponding tariff changes in committee of ways and means.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask
what did the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain mean when he said that "we could not introduce the bill until we have got it approved in ways and means"?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is the easiest question in the world to answer: because their rules are different from ours. That is the whole answer. Just here let me say that if I have heard my right hon. friend complain of one thing more than another in respect to Great Britain, it has been that we should not be dominated by Downing Street. Surely the right hon. gentleman is prepared to admit that we are capable in this house of formulating our own rules for the guidance of our own procedure, and that if there is anything wrong with our procedure it is a matter for us to deal with, not to go to Great Britain to find out how they conduct their procedure under their own rules.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask a question in regard to ways and means? Are there not some changes to be made by the Minister of Finance as announced by him when we were discussing the various schedules?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am glad my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre has submitted that question. It leads me to say that one would gather from the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition that the opposition had been denied opportunity of discussing the question in committee of ways and means. The schedule to the British bill contained the identical changes which are to be dealt with in committee of ways and means. When my right hon. friend came to the discussion of those items he will recall that I expressed the pious hope that in discussing them we would not traverse the same ground again in committee of ways and means. My right hon.
friend assented to that proposal, and we discussed the items in committee on the bill for four days.
Coming to the specific question of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, let me say that the changes which will arise in committee of ways and means are only consequential changes in the wording of items for the purpose of properly fitting the new items into the framework of our tariff-that and nothing more. We take a portion of a parent item and deal with it. We leave a residuum of the parent item that has to be dealt with in ways and means, and except for one or two minor amendments in the direction of enlarging or widening freedom of trade with the mother country, every amendment which will be made in the committee of ways and means will be an amendment in consequence of tariff changes which arise of necessity.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I point out that the discussion of two or three items was deliberately deferred at the suggestion of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance? In regard to books and periodicals for example, my hon. friend suggested that we would have full opportunity for the discussion of those items in committee of ways and means. Now we are passing on the bill without having the discussion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The discussion will be had in committee of ways and means. I recall the item in particular of which my hon. friend spoke; it had to do with drugs and chemicals.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And
periodicals.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is the item upon
which my friend raised a question, and I suggested to him that we should wait until we were in committee of ways and means, for the obvious reason that the description of the item in complete detail, and its relation to other items, appeared in the ways and means resolutions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Then I
submit that that is the reason we should have the discussion in committee of ways and means before we have the third reading.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Well, Mr. Speaker, I submit that we are not in committee of the whole house-not that I object to the questions. But I do not know that I need proceed any further; I think the matter is abundantly clear. Certainly I challenge contradiction of the statement that we have not proceeded in conformity with the rules and
1438	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
procedure of this house. Having said as much I do no know that it is incumbent upon me to say anything more at this stage.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am not going to touch upon the question of procedure. The Minister of Finance, from his point of view, has made it quite clear that the procedure followed was according to the rules of our house, whether good or bad. In some respects we should follow closely what is done in England, because the English have a longer and wider experience of parliamentary procedure than we have. On the other hand I agree fully and unreservedly with the Minister of Finance when he says that if there is anything wrong in our rules, we should change them according to our needs.
But there is one point that I wish to bring up at this moment, before we pass on to the third reading. My objection to all these treaties-including the Southern Rhodesia treaty, against which I voted, as against all the others-is the objection which was so eloquently expressed by the right hon. leader of the opposition, and not eloquently but with conviction, so far as I am concerned, by myself: that these treaties put impediments in the way of our world trade. That is my main reason, and I stick to it. With regard to the English treaty, I did not take any part in the discussion in committee; I left it to better informed members of the house to take up the various items and argue pro and con. The debate was extremely interesting and illuminating, although somewhat protracted. But the point I want to make now is the same I made previously: impediments in our foreign trade; and I take as an example our possible relations with France.
During the debate in committee, one hon. member to my left pointed out that as regarded a certain item of the tariff, we were making it more difficult to trade with Holland. I now wish to point out that in this treaty we are making it more difficult, by various changes in the tariff and by the fixation of duty on certain articles for five years, to make a good treaty with France. I understand from press reports Jhat my excellent personal friend-if I may call him so without compromising him in the eyes of some of the supporters of the government-the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), is now in Paris endeavouring to negotiate a treaty with the French government. No gentleman in this house and no member of the government is better qualified to carry on such negotiations; but without intending to embarrass the hon.

gentleman I should like to point out some of the provisions of this treaty which will make it more difficult for him to conclude a bargain good for Canada as well as for France.
At the outset may I say that I discard entirely the sentimental aspect, so far as French Canada is concerned; though it would be just as legitimate for the French Canadians to desire to make trade arrangements with France on a basis of sentiment as it is legitimate for Canadians of English or Scotch origin to desire trade arrangements with British countries on that basis. I will endeavour to remain true to myself. When I first ran for the House of Commons, in 1896, a trade agreement had just been concluded between Canada and France. The negotiations were carried on by Sir George Foster, then Mr. Foster, a minister of the Conservative administration in Canada, and by M. Jules Siegfried, Minister of Commerce of France. The Conservative candidates in the province of Quebec boasted that the Conservative government having made the first trade arrangement with France, our former motherland, we therefore should vote for the Conservative party. I took the ground that all trade arrangements whether with France, England or any other country on earth, should be judged from the viewpoint of Canadian interests. That is still my position. Let me add, however, that though sentiment should not be the inspiration of a trade agreement; though business considerations and economic principles should be the two guiding thoughts in the minds or those representing any country negotiating with another country, it must be acknowledged, that even in trade arrangements, there are what Bismarck called imponderable considerations which must be taken into account.
Now let us face the facts as they really are. Whether or not some of us like it, the fact remains that one-fourth the population of Canada is French by origin and French in culture; that they read French books and magazines; that, as pointed out the other day by the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset), their physicians go to Paris to finish their studies and come back with notions of French science; they are familiar with the French pharmacopoeia; they make use of French surgical instruments and recommend to their patients the use of French remedies, which are counted among t.he best, and which have the great advantage over our own that you can read upon the bottle or box what is contained in the medicine prescribed by your doctor. Now I take this treaty, and when I

United Kingdom
read through the items what do I find? Here is item 171, covering books. It carries a duty of "free" under the British preference, 10 per cent under the intermediate tariff and 10 per cent under the general tariff. Then item 206, covering serums; this is free under the British preference, 20 per cent under the intermediate tariff and 20 per cent under the general tariff. Item 229 deals with common or laundry soap, and the duty per one hundred pounds is 50 cents under the British preference and SI .50 under the intermediate and general tariffs. Then we come to castile soap, most of which is manufactured at Marseille. The duty per pound is free under the British preference and 2 cents under the intermediate and general tariffs. Then we have perfumery, a class of goods, as everyone admits, produced par excellence in France. The duty is 20 per cent under the British preferential tariff and 40 per cent under the intermediate and general tariffs. I find manufactures of aluminum carrying a duty of 15 per cent under the British preference and 30 per cent under the intermediate and general tariffs. Then we have kitchen or household utensils of aluminum. Here again anyone who has travelled has found that French-made utensils of this kind are by far the best, the most elegant, among the cheapest and at the same time the most enduring. Under the British preference the duty is 20 per cent, and under the intermediate and general tariffs it is 30 per cent. Then I come to surgical instruments, which were dealt with by the hon. member for Ri-mouski. These are free under the British preference, with a 10 per cent duty under the intermediate and general tariffs. I come to a very important item, that of chemicals and drugs. By excision from item 711 these are now free under the British preference, with a 25 per cent duty under the intermediate and general tariffs.
I have taken at random some of the items in connection with which France is predominant, some of the items our people are accustomed to purchase at the general store, at the chemist's and at the bookstore. These ' articles are imported from France; they form part of our everyday life, part of our culture. A few weeks ago I received a letter from a firm of large importers of French chemicals, in Montreal. Their trade is made up exclusively of importations from France, drugs and chemicals of the highest character and so on. They supply the hospitals of Quebec as well as certain institutions in New Brunswick and in northern and eastern Ontario.
They also import perfumes and goods of that kind. By this treaty we are tying our hands; we are forbidding ourselves the right to offer terms of preferment to France in connection with the exportation of these goods to Canada. Not only are we offering to Great Britain a preference on articles in the manufacture of which the British are inferior to the French; but by reason of the fact that we have raised the intermediate tariff to the level of the general tariff, we are binding ourselves not to offer France a preference on any one of the items I have named as against the rest of the world. We are not able to offer France more favourable terms than we can offer Germany, Italy, Spain or any other country on earth in connection with books, serums, soaps, perfumery, manufactures of aluminum, surgical instruments, chemicals and drugs. I claim that this is unfair to us, not only to French Canada but to Canada generally.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we French Canadians have a first right in this regard. No one will dispute that it is the right of the French Canadian to purchase French books, to read those French books, to have those French books given his children for their education or their amusement on the same terms that our English speaking friends offer English books to their children. Surely there is not one father of a family in this house who would claim that it is as fair to tax the French father of a large family and make him pay a penalty because his children read French as it is to provide duty free English books for a classical Yankee-Ontario family consisting of father, mother and pet dog. We have families of five, six, eight and ten children, girls going to convent and boys going to college, some in commercial schools and others in classical colleges, all of whose text books are in French. A large proportion of the primers, of course, are printed and published in Canada; but from France we import all the great classics in the French language, a source of pride not only to all people who speak French in any part of the world, but also to all civilized beings-a source of intellectual pride and enjoyment to meh and women everywhere, whether they be of English, Scottish or Irish origin.
After forty years of public life and travel through the various provinces in Canada, I have found, to my delight, in the last ten or fifteen years, a fast-growing knowledge of French in all the English-speaking sections of this country. If there is in my disloyal eyes one redeeming feature about our participation in the nefarious war of 1914-18, it is the growing interest which a large number of

Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
English-Canadians are now taking in French literature and affairs. I might name some of these people like my hon. friend from Toronto South (Mr. Geary), who was an officer in the Canadian army in France. That hon. gentleman learned French there and is now a reader of French books. Occasionally I go to Toronto or Winnipeg, where I find branches of L'AUiance Frangaise, kept up by the enthusiasm and the intellectual interest of university men such as Professor Osborne of Winnipeg, a leading member of Manitoba university. They are consumers of French books and literature. Why do you tax them 10 per cent as against the average Canadian who prefers, as is his right, to read English books because he knows nothing else?
I will go further. From a point of view which I am sure will appeal to the Prime Minister as well as to the leader of the opposition, taking a much broader view than the simple aspect of trade, taking the basic conditions of our country and the necessity of using every means, political, economic, literary and social to build up a strong Canadian nationality, I claim that we must take all legitimate means to preserve this Canada of ours from the insidious and constant penetration of Yankee ideals and literature, and Yankee morals or immorality. I am not saying this against the American nation. There are in the United States plenty of cultured people, and good people, living a moral life. But I must say that the contact between Canada and the United States is made, as a rule, not through such people. Our country is being flooded with the cheapest and commonest American literature. The vast majority of our youth ignore entirely those splendid works of literature and history, of poetry and science, that have their birth in the United States, preferring to purchase the dime novel and that filthy literature that comes by the carload from across the border. We in Quebec are trying, for all we are worth, to preserve the French language in order to safeguard our youth from such contamination.
I appeal to the leaders in this parliament, to whatever party or race they belong: Do you not think that we are doing a service to the whole of Canada in preserving one-fourth of its population from penetration by the ideals of a foreign country? Let us leave aside questions of morality; let us discuss the matter from the national or even the imperial point of view. Does anyone think it makes for the greater loyalty of Canadian people towards England to allow them to Americanize themselves from day to day, from week to week, from year to year? No,

sir. If you want a true Canadian, of whatever race or province or party or religion, to be a bulwark against Americanism, you must cultivate such a Canadian not by making him more British but more Canadian, whether he speaks English or French. As I have said frequently, whether we are of French or English descent, whether we worship in a Catholic or in a Protestant church, there is one and only one sentiment by means of which you can unite the people of Canada, and that is devotion, not to the empire, not to Great Britain, not to France, but to Canada.
Now, Canada is a confederacy of people of varied types; but I do not think it is any disparagement of foreign races such as are represented by some of the most worthy members of this house-Germans, Lithuanians, Hungarians and so forth-to say that after all the history and the mental composition of Canada have had their sources largely in the two races that founded this country-and again I am echoing the words of that man for whom I have cherished all through my political life the greatest admiration, Sir John Macdonald. It was through the free association of the best representatives of the British races and of British culture-whether English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh, it does not matter-and the representatives of French culture and French aspirations, whether of Norman or of Poitevin origin, as my own is, that we created a national soul, composite, dual in its language and diverse in its aspirations. That is the one original characteristic of Canada. It is not our political institutions, half British and half American. It is not our school system-even in Quebec I would not say it is our school system, and certainly it is not the school system throughout the English provinces which have largely adopted the American system of education. It is not our economic life alone, which is but a replica of American economic life. It is not the interchange of trade alone; because, in spite of treaties and tariffs, we still trade more with the United States than with the whole of the British Empire taken together. No. Do not rely only on trade, on dollars and cents, on labour organizations or on , capitalistic institutions to preserve Canada; but draw upon the moral elements of the community and the ethnical aspirations; and even, as I have frequently said, do not disregard the prejudices of the various elements who compose the country. For my part, I have never begrudged the English-Canadian, whether of English or Scottish origin, his devotion to the empire although I dread a little the imperialism of the Irishman. In my

United, Kingdom
youth I had a very good Irish friend, a dear one. He had lived in the United States, in Brazil and elsewhere; he could speak three or four languages, but he had preserved his Irish brogue and his Irish mind. One day, speaking with me about someone else, another Irishman, he said, " Never trust an Irishman	who has	touched	the
king's shilling." There is a good deal of truth in that because, as a rule, the Irishman who has touched the king's shilling has betrayed the country of his birth. Even the king cannot trust him. But in Canada all true Irishmen, all true Scotchmen, all true Englishmen and all French-Canadians, faithful to their origin-at least to the point where it is permissible to be faithful to a foreign country from which one's forefathers have come-agreed some seventy years ago to form a nation. Later on, under the leadership of that great Canadian statesman, Sir John Macdonald, they decided to free their common country from any restriction, legal, political or material, imposed by the British in connection with our fiscal laws. As I stated a moment ago, Sir John Macdonald declared: so much worse for British connection, if the maintenance of British connection means the maintenance of Canadian inferiority. One of his successors, I do not know whether it was Sir John Thompson or Sir Mackenzie Bowell, it does not matter which, entered into a treaty with France. In our trade relations with England we should not forget the necessity of trade with other countries, especially France. On the other hand, in our trade negotiations with France we should not forget the interests which we have at stake in British countries. In all our trading, whether with France, with Great Britain, with Ireland with Southern Rhodesia or any country, our first duty is to the people of Canada.
I appeal to the most generous and enlightened English speaking members of this house. I am sure if they thought seriously of this matter there would be no opposition to my proposal. I repeat, we French Canadians have the right to purchase French books as cheaply as English speaking Canadians can purchase English books; we have the right to purchase chemicals coming from France as cheaply as those which come from Germany or England, and we have the right to purchase aluminum utensils for our households produced in France as cheaply as articles produced in other countries. As far as we are concerned, we feel that this is a matter of right, but there is more than that. The house should consider the advantage to Canada as a whole in enlarging her trade relations, especially with countries with a similarity of tastes and education. This will make for closer and more constant economic relations; it is the sentiment which should be expressed in our economic relations.
One further observation and then I am through.


Eccles James Gott: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Apparently the defender of the autonomy of the onion will be glad to see me sit down. But I am not speaking to onions or onion growers; I am appealing to men who have brains and know how to use them.
I come back to the sound argument made by one of my hon. friends in connection with Holland. He pointed out that our trade with Holland was favourable to us. At the time the French treaty was broken, it was alleged that our trade with France was adverse. Figures were given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to support this contention. Just in passing, I may say that he has submitted to the trying ordeal of the last week with a spirit and intelligence which warrants my highest compliment. It was stated that on the basis of figures supplied by the Department of Trade and Commerce, our trade with France was adverse. In reply to this statement the French consul in Montreal, Mr. Marchal, published a letter in the Montreal Gazette, couched in the most polite and concise terms, showing that the trade returns as compiled by the French government gave an entirely different result than those published in Ottawa. He did not contend that the figures published here were false, not at all; he simply proved that there was a difference in the method of computation. This demonstrates once more that statistics do not always tell the truth. France figures her imports by tracing up the country of origin of goods coming into the country. Whether they come from Montreal, Quebec, Halifax or Saint John to Havre, Cherbourg or Bordeaux, or from Canada via other countries, they are all counted as Canadian goods. We figure our exports by the country of consignment; with the result that millions of dollars worth of Canadian goods are shipped to England to be reshipped to France as British goods. I do not begrudge prosperity to the British trader or broker; but I. claim for Canada the right to sell its goods to France, to Japan, to China or any other country as its own goods and to reap the full benefit of trade and international comity by being able to demonstrate, as in the case of France, that we have shipped more goods than are shown by our figures. I hope this matter will be adjusted
1442	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
when the representatives of this and the French government meet in Paris; and that in the future the trade statistics will be presented in such a way that the Canadian producer, whether the farmer, the industrialist, the lumberman or the fisherman, will have the full benefit of accurate figures on exports to foreign countries.
I may not be in full accord with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King); he is worried so much about the poor Englishmen that he would probably be adverse to my suggestion. I think it was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) who stated that the English trader is quite capable of looking after himself, and I also think he is. His great success during the last three hundred years has demonstrated that he does not need the assistance of Canadian statistics in order to increase artificially the figures of his trade. The British trader should be content with the enormous profits he derives from trading in the produce of his own country, and allow to us Canadians the full benefits of what we produce and sell to foreign countries.
I do not think I need add anything more to my argument.


Eccles James Gott: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Again the onion grows
impatient; let the onion be1 quiet, because it means just five minutes more added to my speech. Let the hon. gentleman smell his onions and shed his tears.
With respect to one country, at least- and this is the object of my argument- one aspect of the case has apparently been disregarded. I would be the last man to blame the Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), or the Minister of Finance-who in my opinion represents the most civilized province in Canada-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, although I am not a Nova Scotian, I say that. May I illustrate my thought by a little story concerning an hon. gentleman whom the minister knows very well? This gentleman was asked by a very assertive Toronto or Montreal lawyer- it does not matter from which city, because it would have been the same-how it was that people from down there were so different to what other Canadians were. My friend responded, in his somewhat hoarse voice: I do not know, but perhaps it is because we are a thousand miles nearer than you are to civilization.
I am sure that the ministers never thought for one moment that they were imposing a

special burden upon the province of Quebec and upon French Canadians generally. But, as a matter of fact, this trade agreement imposes a special taxation upon the readers of French books and upon the purchasers of those goods to which I have referred.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): AH law books.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not think hon.
members of the legal profession should object to paying a little more for their law books. That extra payment might represent a return of not always honestly earned money. It would constitute perhaps merely a form of restitution to the state.


Ernest Lapointe: Order.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: My remarks must not be taken as personal at all, and perhaps I can soften them by saying that I am sure my hon. friends read more works of literature, of philosophy and of history than they do dry law books. Therefore I plead with them, and for them, not as lawyers, but as intelligent, honest and cultured men, and similarly in the case of all the others. So, from the broad point of view, and, I am sure, without any intention of being offensive, I repeat that, not only to the French Canadian but to the fast growing number of Canadians who realize that French culture, French literature and even the use of French material objects which form part of French culture, are of use to Canada, it must be evident that the exclusion of Frenh goods, in order to give a little more advantage to British traders, is not good policy. I have no objection to my friends feeling delight at the idea of communing under these treaties with their yellow, black, greyish or bluish brothers of those scattered lands over which the Prime Minister occasionally throws a fatherly eye; but at the same time I claim for us, 3,000,000 French Canadians and, let us say, about half a million English Canadians who commune with us in French culture, the right to ornament our minds and to cure our bodies in a French fashion, which is just as legitimate as the right of my friends to take English drugs, absorb Irish or Scotch whisky and read English books. With all that I leave the matter in the care of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. The other day, the Minister of Finance very kindly said to the hon. member for Rimouski that he would call the attention of the British government to the item of surgical instruments- I may say that I have just as great an objection to being cut with a French as with an English instrument-but, selfishly speak-

United Kingdom
mg, not yet being called upon for an operation to be performed by the hon. member for Rimouski, I still go on reading French books and drinking French wine, which I consider far preferable to Irish or Scotch whisky-


Mr. NEILL:: Oh, no.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I did not say French brandy. I make more use of wine than either brandy or Scotch.
I think the government should bear in mind these observations in the representations they may make to the British government. I am quite sure Mr. Baldwin or Mr. Ramsay MacDonald will understand the situation immediately. They are civilized. They are not ashamed of being close neighbours to France. They were not ashamed during the war to have a vanguard of 2,000,000 Frenchmen die in order to preserve the English coasts. I am quite sure the English government would not object to our government changing somewhat the terms of this treaty in order to enable Canada to make better terms with the French government for trade, racial and cultural purposes.


Eccles James Gott: I regret very much the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) misinterpreted my applause. I may say that I did not utter a word while he was speaking, and if he thought I was applauding in appreciation of his remarks, he was very much mistaken; I was applauding because I thought he had completed his speech.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I heartily apologize to the hon. member if I misunderstood him, and I am glad to tell him so.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has made a very eloquent appeal for certain racial and linguistic groups. I should like to make an appeal for certain economic groups. We in this labour group have had very little to say with regard to these treaties, because we did not feel that on the whole they affected very materially the people whom we represent. But the other day we did speak with regard to the textile industry, because we felt that the protection which was being offered to the textile manufacturers did not in any sense guarantee decent wages or conditions of living for those employed in that industry. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) suggested that there would be an inquiry into conditions in that industry. A correspondent of mine in Montreal has just written me his view of that situation. He
has been an overseer of carding both in Lancashire and in Canada and he has made a computation based on the wages paid and the production in the card room department. He thinks this is sufficiently wide to repudiate the employers' claim that they need to be protected from low wage competitors. Without going into his computations, may I give his conclusions: The Lancashire spinners pay 112.24 for 5,760 pounds of production. The Canadian spinners pay 15.40 for 7,200 pounds of production. Let me put it in another way: the Lancashire spinners pay II for 470 pounds produced, and the Canadian spinners pay $1 for 1,333 pounds produced.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Does that refer to cotton or woollen textiles?


James Shaver Woodsworth: He is dealing with the Valleyfield mills-cotton.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has not perhaps considered the difference in machinery.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Undoubtedly we
have better machinery, but having better machinery we produce a great deal more and the wage cost per unit is not as great.
Not only are our people at a disadvantage from the point of view of wages paid, but as I said the other day there is a difference in general social conditions. Take, for example, the lack in Canada of any protection on the part of trade unions. I hold in my hand a card containing the agreement between the Shawinigan Cotton Company, Limited, and its employees, and I read:
The undersigned hereby agrees with The Shawinigan Cotton Co., Limited, that in consideration of being engaged by the said company, the following conditions shall be a part of the contract and be binding upon the parties.
1.	This said engagement shall be a fortnightly engagement, the wages shall be paid fortnightly and two weeks notice of cancellation shall be required on either side.
2.	All employees being absent from their work for five hours without permission from their respective foreman, and unable to produce a doctor's certificate of illness too severe to admit their attendance at work are to be considered as having left the employ of the company.
I would draw special attention to the third clause:
3.	All persons who become members of or associated or affiliated with any labour organization of any kind whatsoever shall thereby entitle the company on its becoming aware of the fact to immediately discharge them without notice and to hold as forfeited all wages due them by the company at the time of such discharge, notwithstanding anything in this agreement.
4.	All persons having left the employ of the company without having given two weeks' notice and having worked for said two weeks
1444	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
in the employ of the company shall thereby forfeit all wages due them at the time of leaving.	.
5.	The rules and regulations posted up in the mills of the company shall be and are part of the contract between the employees and the company and are binding upon the parties.
6.	It is the right of the company when it closes its mill or part of it on account of a strike or when it closes its mill or part of it on account of repairs, to lay off any person at any time without notice and no action for so doing shall lie against the company notwithstanding anything in this agreement.
In witness whereof the parties hereto have signed.
The Shawinigan Cotton Co., Limited.
And a space is left for the signature of the employee. It seems to me that a contract of that kind indicates a condition nearly approaching that of slavery. The employee signs away practically all the rights that are guaranteed in most civilized countries. We ourselves, as I have frequently pointed out, in signing the Peace treaty, approved the labour provision of the treaty by which the right of labour to organize was recognized. Yet here we have a company, and not the only one by any means, paying miserably small wages, and not only preventing the employees from taking any steps whatever to better their conditions, but going beyond what most civilized countries would permit in causing the wages of their employees to be forfeited if they take action of this kind. Coupled with that is the fact that when there is a rush order they often have to work long hours of overtime. Very frequently the employees have to work, I am informed, from seven in the morning till ten at night, with only one hour's interval from 12 to 1 p.m.
I am not at all concerned with the question whether there are laws on the statute books of the province of Quebec governing such conditions. What I am concerned in at the moment is that we are giving to a company such as this, enormous so-called protection, enormous privileges, when the company is not maintaining any decent sort of living standard for its employees.
In the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday last I find some comparative tariff rates given by a man very well known here. I think this is the first time that I have quoted his statistics, although other hon. members have frequently done so. He gives an excellent list of comparative tariff rates under different administrations and compares them with the new conference rates. Mr. R. J. Deachman says:
Imagine the task of working out a simple item where instead of taking a definite ad valorem tariff rate and multiplying the invoice value of the goods by that rate, we must take the price which would be the invoice value
{Mr. Woodsworth.]
if the pound stood at par, multiply that by the rate and then deduct ten per cent. Then add the weight duty and deduct ten per cent from that. Now take three per cent of the duty paid value and stick that on-this calculated as if the pound were at par, then work out the dump duty which represents 68 cents on the pound (current rate, and subject to constant modification), now divide the result by the actual value in Canadian funds of the goods imported, then you have the ad valorem rate. If you follow this complicated performance you will probably wonder why they did not multiply the whole thing by 100 and divide by Mr. Bennett's age.
Then follows the table:
Comparative Rates Cotton Printed Piece Goods
Per cent
Cons. Borden		25
Cons. Meiglien		25
Lib. King		18
Cons. Bennett		61
Cons. Pref		58-5
White Cotton Flannelette	
Cons. Borden		HI
Cons. Meiglien		171
Lib. King		15
Cons. Bennett		55
Cons. Pref		52
Wool Piece Goods	
Cons. Borden		30
Cons. Meighen		30
Lib. King		242
Cons. Bennett		68
Cons. Pref		64
Wool Overcoating	
Cons. Borden		30
Cons. Meighen		30
Lib. King		24f
Cons. Bennett		100
Cons. Pref		93
High Grade Suitings	
Cons. Borden		30
Cons. Meighen		30
Lib. King		241
Cons. Bennett		72
Cons. Pref		68
Hosiery, Wool	
Cons. Borden		25
Cons. Meighen		25
Lib. King		*18 to 24J
Cons. Bennett		92
Cons. Pref		82
*Depending on value.	
Blankets	
Cons. Borden		22J
Cons. Meighen		25
Lib. King		201
Cons. Bennett		106
Cons. Pref		78
Axminster Carpets	
Cons. Borden		25
Cons. Meighen		25
Lib. King		221
Cons. Bennett		106
Cons. Pref		80
At six o'clock the house took recess.

United Kingdom
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I
have only a few words to add to what I said before recess. There are two economic groups; first, the consumers. One cannot look at a table such as that which I put on Hansard before six o'clock showing the degree of protection accorded the textile manufacturers, without realizing that very heavy tribute is being levied upon the people of Canada. Millions of dollars extra are being paid by the people for clothing, blankets, and other necessities of life by reason of tariff protection. It seems to me it is a very important consideration whether it is worth while for the people of this country to pay such a heavy tribute to a particular industry. Turning from the group of people whom we commonly call the consumers-I suppose we are all consumers-to the class engaged in the production of these commodities, it seems to me that we have to distinguish clearly between the manufacturers themselves, the owners of the factories, and their employees. We have been inclined to take it for granted that whatever was of advantage to the manufacturers would be of advantage to their employees. But this is true to only a very limited degree. It is quite possible that if very large profits were not permitted to the manufacturers they might close their doors, and temporarily a large number of employees might be thrown out of employment. On the other hand, as we tried to emphasize the other evening, it by no means follows that protection to the manufacturer is any guarantee of a decent standard of livelihood to the men engaged in the industry. Protection does not in any way guard against low standards or ensure that our own manufacturers shall not be guilty of what might truly be termed unfair competition.
I want for a moment to call attention to the article contained in the agreement which I read just before recess:
All persons who become members of or associated or affiliated with any labour organization of any kind whatsoever shall thereby entitle the company on its becoming aware of the fact to immediately discharge them without notice and to hold as forfeited all wages due them by the company at the time of such discharge notwithstanding anything in this agreement.
That is very little less than a slave pact. I should think that if our Labour department were really active in the interests of labour they would immediately take steps to protect the worker in his right to organize.
If this country were properly seized of the importance of the inherent rights of citizens it would not tolerate the use of an agreement of this kind by any company engaged in industry.


William Daum Euler: What is my hon. friend
quoting from?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am quoting from an agreement which I cited before recess, between the Shawinigan Cotton Company, Limited, and its employees.


William Daum Euler: Is it still in force?


James Shaver Woodsworth: As far as I am aware. This was sent to me recently; it is a blank card and there are no dates on it, just a place for the date. I should think it would be a matter for investigation by our Labour department. I have not the facilities for investigating it; if I went on the premises of the company I presume I would be immediately ordered off because it might be considered that I was trying to organize the employees. It is an anomaly that we should be giving special privileges to these textile companies, yet refuse to assume any responsibility with regard to the conditions which prevail in these factories. As I showed a few evenings ago, very low wages are paid; the Canada Year Book demonstrates that. So we come back to this position, that we ought to guarantee to the people engaged by these corporations the right of association, the right to decent wages and decent living conditions; and that companies failing to grant these should not be permitted to be the recipients of special privileges. That is a preeminently reasonable position. The government is in a position very readily to put such a principle into effect, notwithstanding any provisions of the British North America Act.
There is only one other matter that I should like to mention before this agreement passes. The arrangements which we are considering tend to stabilize tariffs at a very high level, and this is unsatisfactory both from the standpoint of the consumer in Canada, and from that of international relations. We, with other nations, are putting up tariff barriers that sooner or later will lead us into complications that may easily result in physical war. We are not justified in adopting such a policy, and for that reason I shall have to vote against the bill.


Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief statement before the vote is taken. I am voting against the treaties since in my opinion
1446	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Trade Agreements
they stabilize the Canadian tariff at a high level, the highest it has ever reached. It is a manufacturer's tariff, in which the consumer was forgotten. I vote against the treaties since the monetary policy carried out by this government makes it impossible for the Canadian farmers to sell their goods in the British market, and in so far as they do sell any goods they lose around $1.10 on every British pound's worth of Canadian goods put upon the British market.
I will give you some quotations from actual exporters to prove the truth of that statement. The Country Guide, of November, 1932, a magazine printed in Winnipeg, carried interviews with several exporters. The initials of the interviewer are R.D.C. The first interview was with Mr, Bruce Burns, president of Burns Brothers, a firm which shipped 3,000 cattle to Great Britain this year. The interviewer asked Mr. Burns what would be the effect on cattle prices on the St. Boniface market if the pound were worth $4.86, and he answered:
If the pound were anywhere near par we could pay $20 more on the St. Boniface market for an export steer, if we were exporting. But the exchange situation has got so bad that we went out of the export business last August.
The interviewer then asked Mr. F. M. Baker, western representative of the Industrial and Development Council of Canadian Meat Packers, what he had to say in relation to bacon going on the British market.
Mr. Baker said:
The loss due to exchange alone is approximately $1.40 per 60 pounds of Wiltshire and since that amount of Wiltshire is made from 100 pounds of live hog the loss is $1.40 per 100 pounds on bacon hog.
And since a bacon hog will weigh 200 pounds, that means a loss of $2.80 on every bacon hog put on the British market, due to the monetary policy of the present government.
Then the interviewer interviewed Mr. T. J. Coyle, of T. J. Coyle and Company, dealers in butter and produce, and Mr. Coyle said at the end of quite a long paragraph:
When the pound dropped below $4.25 last August we quit exporting butter to the old country altogether.
The same man, speaking of eggs, said:
With the pound worth $4.86 the loss on sterling is eliminated, and that much added to the producer price brings it up to 18J cents.
Instead of 11 cents a dozen as they are at the moment. That is a very serious thing. There was a loss of $20 on an export animal, $2.80 on an export hog, the stopping of butter exports altogether, a loss of 7 cents a pound on turkeys and 7 cents a dozen on eggs when this interview was given.
I oppose the treaties because the present government does not provide for the free entry of any British goods into Canada. Even on goods called free, the exchange dumping duty of 18 per cent and the 3 per cent excise tax must be paid, making a protection of 21 per cent against so called free goods. Then if the Canadian farmer sells his produce in the British market at world prices and gets paid in the British pound, when he brings that pound back to Canada he gets only S3.78 for it. But if he buys British goods with that British pound this government charges him a duty based on the par value of the pound, plus the exchange dumping duty on the duty paid value plus 3 per cent excise tax. In other words, the government gets the farmer whether he brings back money or goods. Therefore, as a representative of the farmers in the House of Commons I could not possibly support such a treaty.
These treaties will adversely affect our trade with other countries against whom we have raised our intermediate tariff. In this I am giving my own opinion, but I think it is correct. There are possibly twenty of these countries, and I think in this connection we will lose much more than we will gain. Lastly, the treaties do not recognize the economic unity of the world and the right of trade to flow where it will. These treaties have set up another group of obstructions seeking to force trade into new channels. For all these reasons I must vote against the treaty now before the house.


George Spotton: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Robert Edwy Ryerson: I was paired with the
hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Joseph Henry Harris: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


George Gibson Coote: I was paired with the hon.
member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


William Richard Motherwell: I was paired with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Maurice Brasset: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was paired with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was paired with the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


John Howard Myers: I was paired with the hon.
member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I was paired with the hon.
member for Fort William (Mr. Manion). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I was paired with the
hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Parent). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


James Langstaff Bowman: I was paired with the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If hon. members would
wait until the motion is carried, before declaring their pairs, the procedure would be more in order.


Paul Mercier: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. AHEARN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Beaubier). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BRADETTE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for East Algama (Mr. Nicholson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Joseph-Georges-Philippe Laurin: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rou-ville (Mr. Fontaine). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Lucien Dubois: I was paired with the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Ganong). Had I voted I would hav^ voted against the motion.
Motion (Mr. Bennett) agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.



WAYS AND MEANS-UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, November 21, consideration of the motion of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Prime Minister) for committee of ways and means.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Since the government has taken the full responsibility for conditions as they exist, and we are not to have any commission to consider the matter further, I presume that all that any of us can now do is to lay before the house the actual conditions that prevail across Canada today, with a view to having some policy adopted which will help at least in part to alleviate the situation. How do we actually deal with the large number of people who are today unemployed? May I point out that there is a certain class of them whom we are simply getting rid of. Out of a grand total of deportations for the past year and a half of some 15,368, there were 9,446 who were deported simply because they had become public charges. I am not holding the government altogether responsible for this action because I know that there has been a good deal of pressure on the part of municipalities to have these people deported; but it is not fair that when we have invited immigrants to come to this country, people who very often have broken up their homes and given up jobs in the old land, having torn themselves loose to come here, expecting to find the opportunities which were promised to them, we should, as soon as they find themselves unable to obtain work, simply send them back to the countries from which they came. I do not think it is at all fair. In this land of plenty we should have assumed our obligations to care for them.
May I call attention to another class, those who are commonly known as transients. They are the men who had a good deal to do with the construction of our railroads, the building-up of our cities, and pioneering in the west, single men for the most part who

Unemp'oyment-Mr. Woodsworth
went wherever unskilled labour was needed. They were very often imported by contractors, being told that there would be opportunities for work in this country. Now they are regarded as the scum of the earth. No community will accept responsibility for them. I had a letter the other day from a friend of mine in Winnipeg. He writes:
Conditions here have become deplorable. The city seems to be filling up with destitute men. A man called at my house this afternoon and after feeding him I drove him down to the Water street hall for him to get a night's lodging. The place was full to the doors. I saw fully thirty men lying in their filth and rags within five feet of the doors-an abominable sight. We -always provided for our cattle better. I took the fellow to a hotel and got him a bed and intend applying for his deportation tomorrow, as he is an Englishman with two years' residence in this country and told me he had six years' service in the imperial army.
It seems to me that that is not a fair way to deal with our English immigrants, and especially with those who have served their country during the war. I have had another communication from a gentleman connected with the unemployment conference in Winnipeg. He states that a large number of transients were stranded in Winnipeg as the result of the ban by the government upon freight train riding. He writes:
As many of them as can get into the old immigration hall in the industrial bureau are allowed to sleep on the floor there at nights without beds or blankets, and those who are unable to crowd into the sleeping quarters there are compelled to go to the police station.
In the morning these boys are given a bowl of porridge each, a cup of coffee, some dry bread and a little syrup. The only other meal they receive is in the evening, when they get a bowl of thin soup, more dry bread, and a cup of coffee.
I took this matter up with Alderman Andrews, chairman of the unemployed relief committee of Winnipeg, and he advised me the city would not assume responsibility for the feeding of these transients, but from a humanitarian basis the men are given the meagre food they now receive rather than let them starve.
And again:
It is frankly admitted by some of the Winnipeg aldermen that their purpose in giving the transients such meagre food and these horrible sleeping quarters is to force them to leave town and run the risk of being jailed in some other town for a violation of the government's order prohibiting riding on freight trains.


Mr. FAFARD:: On one occasion when I was motoring I gave one of these transients a ride. After I had driven about thirty miles he put a revolver under my nose, but I punched him in the right place.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is possible that there are some of these transients who become 63719-82
outlaws but there are tens of thousands of them who up to very recently have been good workingmen. These men are being made into criminals, and the society which treats them in such a wretched manner is responsible. Some of this group of men of whom I spoke were assisted to come east to their homes, but protests were made by Toronto and Montreal against their coming back. They are kicked around from one place to another, no one will assume any responsibility for their welfare. I should like to quote another instance in connection with the homesteaders from the Peace River district. I received a communication with regard to this matter enclosing a letter which describes the situation and which reads in part:
-homesteaders from the Peace River district who are not allowed to return home as freight riders, the same manner as they were permitted to come to the harvest operations.
They were permitted to go in that manner and then were not allowed to return. The letter continued:
The people of Busby these days see many of the homesteaders making their homeward journey under different circumstances. A week ago fourteen men were stranded in Busby, some of whom had a club used on their hands to make them release their hold on the cars. That night some slept in the bush, some in the United church, others on the floor in the hotel. Next day four more weary and footsore arrived from Edmonton, and that night eighteen men were housed in the church. Sunday, the majority started northward by the tie route. Next day the others scattered, some homeward, others back to the city. Some of the group belonging to the district around Dawson creek, nearly five hundred miles from Edmonton. One man had seven dollars cash, two had less, etc.
And again:
The chief grievance of all these men is that they were allowed to come south freight riding and now denied that privilege to get home.
And again:
The order prohibiting freight riding is inexcusable under the existing circumstances. To say the least, the order is an act of crass stupidity.
Certain of these men have been arrested, some of them complain of having been roughly handled, and they state that at times money has been taken from them by the police without due process of law. I am not in position to investigate that accusation. These men are not to blame for the conditions which exist, they took the only means at hand to get to the places where they hoped to secure work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There has been no change in the law; it has always been enforced persistently.



Unemployment-Mr. Woodsworth


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am well aware that riding on freight trains is against the law, but I know also that that law was not enforced, that the government lifted the ban for a while.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They did not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: And allowed these people to ride.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They did not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The papers stated that the law was not being enforced, and the government gave notice that thirty days after a certain date the law would be enforced. Surely that is an implication that the law was not being enforced.
I should like to deal with the conditions which exist in the relief camps. I shall read first an extract from a despatch from Ottawa _ giving a description of these camps. It reads:
_ In these camps, in which up-to-date sanitation has been installed and free medical attention will be given, food, shelter and clothing will be provided.
Opposed to that description, I have the following letter from a gentleman in Winnipeg which seems to indicate that conditions are not as described in the press:
I have been asked by a committee of men, who are working at Riding Mountain park, to bring to your attention the utterly disgraceful situation which exists there. Picture to yourself a tar paper shack 79 feet x 24 with no window's, along each side there is a row of double deck bunks, these are spaced off with 8x1 board so that there is room for two men in each bunk. The bunks are filled with straw and you crawl into them from the foot end. Along the front, of the lower bunk a narrow board is placed upon Which the men may sit. The place is very meagrely lighted and ventilation by three skylights. There are two stoves in the shack in front one of which eordwood is piled up. So narrow is the passageway between the bunks that when the men are sitting on the bench there is scarcely room to pass between them. This shack 79 x 24 houses 88 men. There is a marked resemblance to a hog pen or a dog pound. At all times the place reeks of the foul smell and at night the air is simply fetid. The floor is dirty and the end of the shack, where there is a trough where the men wash, the floor is caked with black mud. I asked several old-timers their opinion of it and they state in fact that it is without any question the worst camp they have ever seen on the American continent. The toilet is thoroughly filthy, unsanitary, and far too small.
And again:
The terrible thing about it is that many of the men who are congregated in this camp are teen aged Canadian boys forced into close association with mature men, who have tramped the streets and bummed their w'ay through the country, with the result that the outlook of

these boys stands a good chance of being completely warped and their characters so degraded and demoralized that their future is unquestionably seriously menaced.
The question may be asked:	Why do men
suffer such indignities, and four reasons are given in the letter, as follows:
1.	Fourteen miles from the nearest railway.
2.	Stool pigeons who report the least attempt at organization.
3.	Intermittent surveillance by mounted police.
4.	General breaking down of morale.
These men are said to be paid twenty cents a day and their board and are working on the completion of an eighteen hole golf course.


Mr. MULLINS:: The hon. gentleman is
entirely wrong in his statement. That camp is located in my constituency and I take exception to his remarks. That letter is absolutely wrong. Those men are taken in and used in the very best way. Their camp is far better than the one at Camp Hughes and the other camps in western Canada. Those men are well treated.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hope that what the hon. gentleman has said may be correct, but I say that the letter from which I have read from a man who I believe thinks he is telling me the truth, and this is another condition which ought to be investigated.


Henry Alfred Mullins: The hon. gentleman knows that when I tell him it is wrong, it is wrong.


Mr. COTNAM:: Has the hon. gentleman attempted to verify the statements he is making before giving them to the house and the country?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have under my hand a letter just received from Dominion, Nova Scotia, in which he may be interested as to conditions in that part of the country. The miners who sign their names to this document report the following survey of their
district:
Number of families visited	 286
Number of people included in above
families	 1,601
Number of children under 16 years
of age	 813
Number of children eligible for school	515
Number of children under school	age.	298
Number of persons over 16 years
never employed	 133
Total income of entire number of
families	 $1,434 50
Average income per head per week. .	0 89
Total number of women in delicate health needing nourishment and unable to get same due to lack of
funds	 50
Total number of children delicate,
underfed, and underweight	 175

Unemployment-Mr. Bennett
Total number of people unable to work through old age, sickness and physical disability, and no income
of any kind	 15
Total number of families in dire need
of clothes, bed clothes, etc	 265
Total number of families in arrears
for rent	 165
Evictions pending	 5
A note says:
We have retained the original sheets, signed by the parties visited, which are open for inspection to all concerned.
If I come to Montreal I find conditions not so very different. I have under my hand a long statement by Alderman J. Schubert. Among other things he says:
Thus $3.19 rvas the highest amount paid per person per month in the form of relief.
And again:
The average family in Montreal has never received more than $17 per month according to the figures of September, 1932.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: They do not have that out in the country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That may be. I am talking about Montreal.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Is this a municipal councillor?


James Shaver Woodsworth: This is Alderman J. Schubert of the city of Montreal. He says:
There were 32,898 people registered as unemployed on the fifteenth of October, 1932.
He says further that the following are not included in this:
Single men are not allowed to register unless they have dependents. Men who are not of six months' residence in the city are not allowed to register. Married men who are boarding, and whose families are elsewhere, are considered as single men. It is needless to add that women are not registered. Also, those unemployed who were once employed as office workers, clerks, typists, stenographers, salesmen, accountants, bookkeepers, machinists, printers, bookbinders, tailors, and highly skilled mechanics, are not registered.
So that there is an enormous volume of unemployed in Montreal. I do not think I need to go into a survey of Ontario. Mr. H. M. Cassidy of Toronto university a few months ago published a survey and report on unemployment and relief in Ontario.
In my own city the situation is very bad. The other day I received a letter from a minister of the United Church, who has a pastorate in one of the suburbs. He wrote me as follows:
The weather is still mild although there has been much snow and rain recently. We are glad because there is no money in our house but seventy-five cents in my purse. . . .


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.
53719-92 k


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the discussion that
is now proceeding is on a motion that the house resolve itself into committee of ways and means. Yesterday evening I directed attention to the fact that I believed the amendment that was proposed was not in order. I did so, not because I had any desire to curtail the discussion, as the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Woodsworth) has suggested, but I used these words:
The government has no objection to the fullest possible discussion of any question, within the rules, on going into committee of ways and means or supply, but it is another thing altogether when a motion of want of confidence is raised in this manner. Therefore 1 regard it as my duty to direct attention to the fact that the rules of the house do not contemplate more than one debate on the same matter during the same session, involving in either case a motion of want of confidence in the. administration.
Later I said:
Tn the meantime, the discussion can proceed on the motion to go into ways and means. It is only the question of the amendment that I am directing attention to. but there is no reason why the discussion should not proceed for the next twenty minutes.
Which meant that we reached the hour of eleven o'clock. I desire to make it abundantly clear, despite what the hon. gentleman has said, that the government has no desire in any sense to curb, lessen, restrict or restrain the discussion; on the contrary, we invite the fullest discussion with respect to the matter that has been brought to the attention of the house. The only reason I had for suggesting that the amendment was out of order was the one I have given, namely, that I am frequently reminded by hon. members that in the position I occupy I am responsible for the proper conduct of the business of the house. The rule is there and when I directed attention to the rule I did so in very moderate language, raising the question as clearly as I could; because I do not think it is conducive to the proper conduct of the business of the house that we should invite decisions upon the same matter more than once in the same session. The rule against that is clear, and only for that purpose did I direct attention to it, believing, as I did, that it was my duty to do so. I think on mature consideration the hon. gentleman will realize that there was no desire on my part to prevent discussion but rather that we should endeavour as far as possible to observe the rules that have been laid down for the conduct of the business of the house.

Unemployment-Mr. Bennett
When by reason of the position which I occupy I am sometimes blamed for not seeing that the rules are observed, I can only add that at times I hesitate to direct attention to what I conceive it to be the duty of the Chair itself to recognize, namely, that there has or has not been a breach of the rules of the house. The Chair of its own motion takes cognizance of the fact that an amendment is or is not in order. In Great Britain that is the almost universal custom. It is, however, the duty of the leader of the house, whoever he may happen to be, to direct attention to the fact if in his judgment the course suggested is not in accordance with the rules. I mention that because I say again that the hon. gentleman suggested that this was an effort to prevent discussion. No such effort was made or conlemplated. Yesterday evening I made it abundantly clear, as I do again now, that the fullest possible discussion may, so far as the government is concerned, be carried on. If there is any doubt upon that point, it can easily be settled by the action of the members themselves in that regard.
I would have preferred to make the statement I am about to make after the reassembling of the house on the 30th of January. It will be within the memory of most hon. members that on the 29th of April, 1931, I made a statement with respect to the question of unemployment. In the course of that statement I discussed at some length the question of unemployment or of social insurance that might become the subject matter of legislation to deal with the question of unemployment and allied problems. I pointed out why the government of Canada could not introduce legislation to deal with that matter. Roughly the reasons are two. One is purely a constitutional or legal reason; the other is an economic reason because of lack of information with respect to the subject matter then under discussion-The first reason has been so fully stated to this house on so many occasions that I shall not do more than refer to it very briefly. The right hon. leader of the opposition, as long ago as 1922, his views being concurred in by the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen, then leading the opposition, said, and in my judgment said truly, that questions of relief arising from any cause, whether from unemployment or from other causes that have brought about the necessity for relief in every province of Canada during the entire life of those provinces, rests primarily with the municipalities, and then with the provinces; but that if extraordinary conditions prevail, as did in 1922, and as did again in 1930, then the 
national character of those conditions may necessitate recourse being had to the federal authority by the provincial authorities to enable the matter to be dealt with.
In 1931, on April 29, as I have said, I directed attention to that matter in some detail. I pointed out what I think is common ground taken by all who have studied the question, that there is a clear distinction between an extraordinary national condition and what is called, in the language of the law books, a national emergency. Unemployment is not a national emergency. It may be a national condition involving the necessity of federal assistance to the provinces; but the fact that the second largest province in the Dominion has made it abundantly clear that it would not tolerate interference on the part of the federal authorities indicates clearly that all that the federal parliament can do by way of legislation is to assist the provinces in the discharge of their constitutional obligations. That course has been pursued by this government. It is the course that has been pursued by parliament on every occasion upon which a similar condition has prevailed. The magnitude of the disease of unemployment from which the body politic now suffers does not in any sense change or modify the character of the obligations resting upon the federal authority. I shall not do more than direct attention to the fact that the definition of the words "national emergency" has been so limited by judicial decision as to make it fairly clear that anything in the nature of national unemployment spreading over the country from one end to the other does not constitute such a national emergency. That is the judgment of the court of last resort so far as we are concerned.
The problem of jurisdiction therefore, to quote once more the language of the right hon. leader of the opposition, raises the question, on the one hand, of the conflict between property and civil rights, which are solely within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures, and, on the other hand, the national obligations of the dominion when it conceives a condition to prevail that warrants assistance to the provinces to enable them to discharge their duties. The question of jurisdiction therefore is at the bottom of all relief which is of a permanent character. Any legislation that may be enacted to deal, for instance with social insurance problems must have the support of the provincial authorities. I made that abundantly clear on more than one occasion here, and it was agreed to I think by every member of the house who had taken the trouble to consider the question. Now pres-

Unemployment-Mr. Bennett
sure has been brought to bear by various organizations throughout the dominion to ensure the passage of what is known as contributory unemployment insurance legislation. That legislation, to be effective in this country, with jurisdiction divided between the provincial legislatures and the federal parliament, could have validity only, if it had the sanction both of the legislatures and of parliament. That I think has been conceded. But that difficulty is one that can be overcome. It can be overcome rather readily if the provinces will agree to such an amendment to our constitution as will clothe parliament with the appropriate authority.
It has been the purpose of this government to call an interprovincial conference between now and the date of the reassembling of this house, to discuss with the representatives of the provinces of Canada this and other problems. I pointed out to the house with respect to another matter that we had hoped to have an interprovincial conference at an early date. Conditions made it impossible to hold that conference last fall. I need hardly point out to this chamber that the government had so much work to do, and the members of this administration were so pushed and driven by the responsibilities that rested upon them that there was not an adequate opportunity to discuss and consider many matters which an interprovincial conference should take under advisement. But we have been making arrangements for such a conference. I had hoped that we would be able to have the conference without making any statement to the house, and that we might be able to report the result of its deliberations after the house reassembled. 1 find it incumbent upon me now to make the statement which I have just made.
There are other questions to consider besides those affecting social insurance and social problems. There are problems with respect to taxation. There are problems with respect to the Companies Act. It has been found by many investors in this country that companies operating under a dominion charter have imposed upon them, and we had contemplated, in fact had drafted, legislation that as we conceived it would amply protect investors against what they have suffered in days gone by, and recently; but it was idle to enact such legislation, for every one of the nine provinces of Canada could grant corporate existence to the same gentlemen who sought to obtain it if they were refused it here. We should have a uniform Companies Act in Canada; that is the law that provides for the creation of an artificial entity. It is a privilege that is conferred, and that law, it seems to me, should, if possible, be uniform
in every province throughout this dominion. But that is a most difficult problem. Tho commission on uniformity of legislation, which came into being largely through the efforts of the Canadian Bar Association, has endeavoured with respect to partnership law, with respect to wills, and with respect to other matters of that kind, to ensure that we shall have uniform provisions throughout the dominion, leaving out, of course, the provisions of the civil law in the province of Quebec. That provision, however, would not obtain with respect to companies.
With regard to the division of the field of taxation, there too is a problem of very great seriousness. I need hardly point out what every member of this house who has given any thought to it knows, that the imposition of a double income tax, sometimes three income taxes, on the same income does not invite the settlement in provinces, from the outside, of people with capital. We have now two income taxes in many provinces, one by the federal and one by the provincial authority; in some others we have no provincial income tax but a municipal income tax. This question has engaged the attention of the governments of the provinces as well as of the government of this dominion. One of the ministers of finance was of the opinion that the field as far as private and individual incomes were concerned should be left to the provinces, and perhaps corporation incomes should be the field to be taken by the dominion. This too is a matter which we hope we may be able to discuss at an interprovincial conference.
There remain many other questions, one for instance being in connection with insurance, about which we have been carrying on negotiations and discussions, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen representing the federal power, and the Premier of Quebec and the Attorney General of Ontario representing the provincial viewpoint. There are differing views there. Some of the western provinces feel that the burden cast upon them, if they undertook to regulate insurance business within the terms of the judgment of the court of last resort, would be too onerous and too expensive. That also must be considered.
There are many other matters which I will not dwell upon, but this is one which we have set down as being of tremendous importance to every part of this dominion. I take it that the judgment of the house, broadly speaking, was that any measure of social insurance should be contributory in its character, that it could not be otherwise. All the representations that have been made to me with respect to the matter lead to that conclusion.

Unemployment-Mr. Bennett
I shall not tonight traverse again the ground covered in my address to this house on the 29th of April, 1931. I indicated there the factors that had to be considered. There was one factor to which I particularly directed attention; it was referred to last evening by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; that is that a measure of unemployment insurance, to have any value whatever, must be based upon actuarial understanding of the situation. I pointed out what I take it is within the memory of every member of this house, that the British unemployment insurance legislation was predicated upon actuarial computation. The difficulties arose because it was found in practice that the fund had to borrow to enable it to discharge its obligations, and the borrowings became so great that, in the language of the government of the day, it threatened the very solvency of the state itself. Hence the difficulties to which reference has been made on more than one occasion in this house. The actuarial computations with respect to this matter cannot be mere guesswork. 1 ventured to point out to the house in April, 1931, that if they were to have any value, if in the language of one hon. gentleman who has spoken in this discussion we are to derive any benefit from the knowledge of the past, it can only be because we can rely upon it to enable us to go forward with plans and proposals that will not be shipwrecked because they are based upon guesswork. I pointed out then that the census would be taken in 1931, and I further pointed out that when the census was completed we proposed to have the figures disclosed by the census so analyzed as to enable us to deal with the subject, assuming, as we did, that we might be able to make a satisfactory arrangement with the provinces. I therefore desire to make it perfectly clear that in pursuance of the statement which I then made, and which I shall now read, it is the purpose of this government to have a conference of the provinces to determine what action may be agreed upon with respect to this and other matters. In that regard these words were used by me on April 29, 1931, as found on page 1103 of Hansard:
Under those circumstances, with a census about to be taken and the necessary figures to become available, with our actuarial force willing and ready to tackle the problem from the angles that I have suggested, does any hon. gentleman think that we would be doing justice to the Dominion of Canada or to ourselves if we now passed a resolution asking the government immediately to do something which it is not equipped to do? I propose, if we are spared as a government and as individuals, that the information we will have before our term of office is ended shall be crystallized

into the form of legislative proposals to be submitted to this house. I have never had any illusions as to what is involved; I have none now. I have never had any desire other than that the legislation placed upon the statute book, whether by this government or by some other, shall be legislation based upon knowledge, and not upon mere guesswork.
And I further said in the concluding words of my observations with respect to a contributory form of insurance:
I say once more that this country will not produce men of the character it has had until men and women begin to realize that life means responsibilities and that one of those responsibilities is to help themselves. That is the only method by which social legislation can effectively and efficiently be enacted. Of that I feel quite certain. Whatever my reading and inquiries may be worth, I have satisfied myself quite clearly that in whatever we do in this regard we must recognize and realize that insurance involves premiums and premiums should be paid by the joint action alike of the insurer and the insured themselves and with the assistance of the state. In that sense, if the hon. gentleman is prepared to accept the suggestions I make, 1 say to him on behalf ot the administration that, at the earliest possible moment consistent with obtaining information that is essential to make any measure of social insurance worth while, we will use that information for the purpose of preparing and submitting to this house a measure embodying the views I have expressed.
That was my statement on the 29th of April, 1931. I merely rise at this moment to reiterate and restate it.
I was rather surprised that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who, 1 judge from what he said, has made careful inquiry into the matter, was not aware of the fact that the census figures to which I referred, despite the utmost efforts of those charged with the responsibility to complete them, had been only partly prepared within the last month; it will not be until after the turn of the year that we shall have a complete set of figures which will enable us with certainty to present the matter to this house. That I am told by the chief statistician is the present condition. We have anxiously, and my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) has persistently endeavoured, to expedite the making available of this information. But it is not easy to do it. If any hon. gentleman desires to visit the chief statistician's office and learn just what is involved, he will understand why we have not that information at the moment. It was because of these facts that, as I have said, I would have preferred to make this statement after the house has reassembled and we shall have accomplished what we had in mind, namely the completion of our discussions with the provincial authorities,

Unemployment-Mr. Bennett
and, availing ourselves of the analysis of the figures supplied by the census department, the submission to our draftsmen of the skeleton of what we conceived to be the necessary measure to meet the situation that exists.
I shall not traverse the ground with respect to what the government has done; the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) will deal with that phase of the question. I can only say this:	I do not believe the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre advances his cause one whit when he reads letters from unknown sources that, to the knowledge of more than one member on this side of the house, contain statements that are incorrect. The minister charged with responsibility for the work that was carried on in Riding Mountain park visited that point for the purpose of observing just what were the facilities provided for the care of those working there, and the expressions of satisfaction on the part of those engaged in that work is, I conceive, the best answer that can be given to the complaints that have been made.
Nor shall I review in detail the statements that have been made as to the impoverished condition that exists in certain sections of this dominion. Sometimes I wonder if it is worth while reminding this chamber, or any body of men and women, that nineteen hundred years ago this statement was made: "For ye have the poor always with you". That has been the case for nineteen centuries. It is true that provision has been made by every province in Canada, I repeat, since it became a province, to care for its indigents, and I know of no municipality in western Canada that has not carried in its budget provision for the poor. I know of no legislature, that has not provided by a vote the means to care for those who are unable to provide for themselves. I do not refer to the sick; I refer to the indigent only.
This I should like to say, not to anticipate what will be said by the Minister of Labour at the appropriate time. Last spring the government called a meeting of representatives of the provinces, who concluded that it was not expedient to continue their efforts for relief along the lines that had prevailed theretofore. They decided they would have recourse to direct relief. The conference was very well attended; half a dozen of our ministers were there, and that conclusion having Been arrived at, the action indicated was taken. With respect to homeless single men the minister will indicate just how the effort has been made to relieve the provinces of responsibility in that regard; because we have realized that an obligation rests upon
the dominion in connection with the floating population of homeless, single men who may belong to one province but become a charge in another. The minister on more than one occasion has made it abundantly clear that as far as our effort is concerned-and we have no direct contact either with the municipality or with the individual, our business being with the provinces, the constituted authority in that regard-it is to see that no one should lack at least food, shelter and clothing. That has been the effort, and so far as we are advised that effort has succeeded. It would be easy to point out cases of apparent and perhaps real destitution, but parliament is not and cannot be the medium to care for that particular condition. It can act only through the constituted authorities, namely the provinces and the municipalities. In that regard I think our assistance at all times has been reasonably generous, and we have endeavoured to exercise such supervisions as might be reasonable without in any sense lessening the autonomy of the provinces or depriving them of their constitutional rights or jurisdiction.
I do not intend to deal further with this matter, Mr. Speaker, I shall only summarize the situation by saying that the government has in course of preparation what we believe will be an appropriate agenda to submit to an interprovincial conference. It is proposed to call that conference so that it may conclude its labours between now and January 30, when the house will reassemble. At that conference it is proposed to discuss all those matters that have engaged the attention of governments, both provincial and federal, with particular reference to the question referred to by myself on April 29, 1931, namely, the problem of unemployment and how it should be and may be dealt with under the divided jurisdiction which exists in Canada.
One further word I should add, and it is this: It is not competent for me to discuss the merits or demerits of commissions or committees of this house, but I should like to point out that parliament has no jurisdiction to appoint a federal relief commission. That is beyond our power; such a commission could not function for the very simple and obvious reason that more than one province has made it abundantly clear that they would not tolerate this interference in their business.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I should like to ask how it functioned in 1919, when the federal parliament appointed a commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My answer to that question is one which I think the hon. gentleman himself will appreciate on reflection. The
Unemployment-Mr. Bennett

War Measures Act was then in force, and when I endeavoured to suggest that we should deal with the problem as one of peace, order and good government, which would bring it within the jurisdiction of this government, I was met with opposition such as will be within the memory of the house. We did succeed in securing the legislation for a limited time, but one does not like to face that sort of thing merely for the purpose of having the House of Commons sit for a month without obtaining results. With the aid of the provinces it would be competent for this parliament to enact appropriate legislation; that was done under the War Measures Act. That act now has ceased to have effect, and the condition to which the hon. gentleman has referred is a condition that no longer exists. I repeat that at the moment there is no authority on the part of this government or this parliament to appoint and clothe with appropriate powers a federal relief commission. We have done this: A representative of the Department of Labour has visited the four western provinces, and with them he has gone into this matter. They have appointed their own commissions, by means of which they are endeavouring to discharge their obligations, and the minister is giving them such assistance as may be necessary in the premises. We must realize that there are provinces in this confederation that will not tolerate the dominion interfering with or endeavouring to trench upon their jurisdiction; that they have made quite clear, and therefore any attempt on our part to create a federal unemployment or federal relief commission not only would be beyond our power but would be met at once with the resistance which any interference or trenching upon the jurisdiction of the provinces would involve.
I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for taking longer than I had expected in making this statement. I cannot promise that the legislation I mentioned in my speech of April 29, 1931, will be forthcoming, but I can promise that it will be no fault of ours if we do not meet with the provinces between now and January 30 next, and at least arrive at some conclusion with respect to those controversial matters which must be settled before any appropriate action can be taken by this parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure the
minds of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the house will be greatly relieved at the statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), made at the opening of his remarks, which was to the effect that he had no desire to curtail discussion on the all-important ques-
tion of unemployment relief. My right hon. friend could hardly be surprised if not only those on this side of the house but the country generally gathered from what he said yesterday that such was the purpose of the administration in seeking to avoid discussion of the amendment which had been moved' and which was before the house. May I say also that that impression was made doubly strong by the ruling of his honour the Speaker and by the arguments by which the ruling was supported. The impression certainly did exist very generally that this House of Commons was not to have an opportunity to discuss further or at any considerable length the question of unemployment or unemployment relief. I am not surprised that the Prime Minister came very quickly to recognize how serious would be the consequence of a step of the kind on the part of the administration. As I gather now from the Prime Minister's remarks, the house is free to discuss, on going into committee of ways and means, or on going into committee of supply, any grievance which it may wish to bring to the attention of the administration, and to do so in pursuance of the rights which we have all along assumed and claimed belonged to the House of Commons at any time the government was asking it to consider ways and means or supply.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I am also pleased to find myself very largely in agreement with much that the right hon. the Prime Minister has said this evening, both as to the position of this parliament in dealing with the question of unemployment, and as to the government's intention with respect to certain legislation which I understand, it now hopes may be enacted by parliament at some subsequent session. But may I say to the Prime Minister that, if anyone is responsible for a wrong impression having been created as to the powers and duties of this parliament with respect to the relief of unemployment, that person is the right hon. gentleman himself. The position stated by the Prime Minister this evening in relation to the rights, duties and responsibilities of municipalities, provinces and the dominion with respect to unemployment relief, was the position which wras taken by myself as leader of the government when we were in office. We took the position, which had been taken by a previous administration, namely, that unemployment relief was in the first instance, the responsibility of the municipality; that it became, next, the responsibility of the provinces; and that it was only when one or more of the provinces found themselves unable to cope

Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
with the problem of unemployment that it became a national emergency involving an obligation on the part of the federal government to assist the provinces in meeting the situation. That was the position which we took and maintained.
Hon. gentlemen opposite, however, know full well that, when they were sitting on this side of the house, in the two sessions immediately preceding the last general election, they consistently opposed that position, and no one more so than the present Prime Minister. He denounced us for taking an attitude of the kind, stating that it was an obligation of the federal administration. My right hon. friend not only adopted that attitude in parliament at the time, but, when an appeal was made to the country in a general election and the government of the day sought consistently to maintain in the country the position which it had taken in this house, he led an attack against the then administration on the ground that unemployment was a national obligation, and that the government in asserting the position it had taken, was seeking to evade its responsibility. May I here remind my right hon. friend how often in the course of that campaign, he said, "Mr. King promises you conferences; I promise to end unemployment."
We have heard a good deal from my right hon. friend this evening about conferences. This comes two years or more after the time at which a conference of the kind to which he refers tonight would have been held by a Liberal administration, had it been in office. No one was more emphatic throughout the last campaign than my right hon. friend in stating that the then existing condition constituted a national emergency. It was he who, over and over again in his speeches in different parts of the country, sought to arouse the people to a belief that the federal government was not doing its duty in not so regarding the situation. As my right hon. friend himself will remember, he made frequent references to the sufferings of the poor, the cries of the needy. Time and again he said that if I could not hear them, he at least could and that he would find means whereby those cries would be heard in parliament. That was the position he took at that time. It was not that the poor we have always with us. That was not what he said when appealing to the electorate. He told them in unmistakable terms that it was the duty of the federal government to see that every man who wished to work should have work. He repeatedly told the people that if he were returned to power, they would have work-work, not doles.
I have no desire at the present time to go back over the past. If the seriousness of the unemployment situation today has at least brought-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the hon. member who persists in perpetually interrupting please try to keep quiet when we are discussing so serious a matter as this, and when I am doing my best, in the grave circumstances at present existing to be as nearly in agreement with the Prime Minister as I can.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The right hon. gentleman himself interrupts as much as anyone in this house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The right hon. gentleman interrupts himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have been unable to hear what the hon. member who has just spoken has said, but, inasmuch as I did not mention any hon. gentleman in particular, be evidently takes the remark as applying to himself. When the Prime Minister comes forward, two years and a quarter after we asked him to take the step which he now says he is about to take, and I seek to agree with him, I hope that hon. members will at least give me a chance to show wherein, so far as it is possible so to do, this side of the house will endeavour to work in cooperation with the administration. This country is confronted at the present time with a situation more serious, so far as unemployment is concerned, than it has had to face in the whole of its history. I realize that the government has a very difficult situation confronting it, and that it is finding it extremely hard to cope with that situation. As I have said, I do not wish to go over the past, beyond making perfectly clear what our position has always been. In do particular have we changed our position.
I wish further to make clear wherein the present condition so far as it has to do with state aid has come to be what it is at the moment, namely, that of the great body of the people looking to the federal government for the solution of its problems. The Prime Minister himself, more than any one else, has encouraged the people in that point of view. He did so until the moment he came into office, and for the first and second session afterwards, and he must not be surprised if, at the present time, some of the people still continue to believe that he meant something at least of what he said. May I remind the
145S	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
house that at the special session of 1930, called to deal with the problem of unemployment, I advocated very strongly the immediate calling of a dominion-provincial conference to discuss the very questions referred to this evening by the right hon. the Prime Minister. I pointed out that there were many social services which were being undertaken by the provinces, some of which, I thought, could, to the advantage of Canada as a whole, be taken over by the federal administration and made a matter of federal concern. I pointed out also that there was need for consideration of the financial arrangements between the provinces and the dominion, and their revision, and I begged hon. gentlemen opposite not to continue without further consideration their grants in aid to the provinces for one purpose or another until this conference had been called.
I am sure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) remembers that when, in the session of 1931, he brought in his measure to renew the period for a grant in aid to technical education, I said to him that I thought it would be wiser for the administration to hold that measure over until after a conference of this kind had taken place, and there was a more definite understanding as to what amounts the provinces were to receive from the federal treasury, and knowledge of the respective positions of the dominion and the provinces with regard to these matters. But my hon. friend the Minister of Justice persisted in putting through his measure, and hon. gentlemen opposite supported him. What has been the result? Although the measure is on the statute books, no contributions have as yet been made under its provisions. The government has violated its own act. As I understand, no contributions have been made to the provinces under this act notwithstanding the fact that the statute itself says that they should be made.
That is only one instance, but I cited many others where grants in aid were being made to the provinces from the federal treasury for different purposes, and advocated that, inasmuch as the situation was serious, as those who could see at all must have known, it was desirable to bring about such a conference forthwith.
I am gratified that the Prime Minister has tonight announced that it is at last the intention of the government to take such a step. May I add that I urged him to take that step, not only at the special session, but at the session of 1931, and again this spring at the session of 1932. It is gratifying to know that the government has come to see the wisdom of the course urged upon them from

this side of the house over two years ago. It comes a little late, but it is better late than never, and I, for one, sincerely hope that, when the conference does take place, some of the aims which have been mentioned here tonight may in a large part be realized.
My right hon. friend has spoken of unemployment insurance and has touched upon the question of jurisdiction. Here again there is in more particulars than one no difference between the point of view presented tonight by the Prime Minister and that presented on previous occasions by those who sit on this side. We have always recognized that, if there was to be a national scheme of unemployment insurance, or a national scheme to deal with any phase of social insurance, it would have to be by agreement between the provinces and the dominion, or possibly by an amendment to the British North America Act which could be made as a result of such agreement. Taking that view, we advocated two years and more ago that the government should then and there appoint a commission to deal with the question of unemployment and kindred matters, so that once the necessary data had been secured as a guide to the measure to be drafted, whatever steps might be necessary in the way of an amendment to the British North America Act in order to permit a national scheme of insurance to go into effect could be taken at the earliest possible moment. One can only now say that more than two years have been lost, and that, after the lapse of that time, the government has come to the position which we of the opposition urged upon them from the time they came into office. I am' glad, indeed, that the government has come around to our position. We shall I trust be able to work in harmony and cooperation with them. We commend them for their action, but at the same time, we cannot but regret that so long a period has gone by which might have been turned to good account in furthering and advancing such an all-important measure.
One of the reasons, I think, why so much time has elapsed is that my right hon. friend failed to appreciate the real significance of the depression which had come upon the world. In that again, his view at the outset was entirely different from the view entertained by those of us on this side of the house. During the campaign of 1930, I made, over and over again, the statement that unemployment was beginning to be what it was because of world conditions and that Canada was coming more and more under the shadow of that widening expanse of depression which had begun in

Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
Europe and the effects of which were beginning to be felt in all parts of the world. My right hon. friend, however, took the opposite view; he told the electors that the depression in Canada was due to a local condition, to the mistakes in policy of the government which had been in office for the eight or eight and a half years previous. Wherever he went he stressed with emphasis that the condition was luoal and temporary and would pass if he and his supporters came into office. I think they have discovered since they came into office that we had a more accurate view than they of the economic situation, that our vision was a great deal broader, clearer and truer with respect to the condition of the world elsewhere and its bearing upon conditions in Canada. I remember that at the end of the first or second session I said to my right hon. friend that he had better make up his mind as to what line he was going to pursue from then on, that he would have to decide whether he was going to continue to say that condition was a local one, or assert from then on that it was a world condition. I have noticed that ever since that time hon. gentlemen opposite have been sheltering themselves behind the statement that they are unable to cope with present conditions not because they are local, but because they are world-wide in character. If we are now agreed also on that point, so much more to the good. While I admit that there is a world condition, I wish to emphasize again that the condition so far as Canada is concerned has been intensified many times by the mistaken policies of hon. gentlemen opposite since they came into office.
In dealing with the problem of unemployment a distinction should be made between what is required to meet the present, immediate needs of those who lack food, shelter or clothing and what may be necessary in the way of legislation to meet conditions of unemployment, or rather to ensure against unemployment. It must be obvious to all that unemployment is a recurrent condition and one which under any industrial system, I would say, having regard to the causes, is apt to recur in greater or less measure, regardless of what governments or individuals may seek to do. For this reason, it is essential that the state should make some provision which will help to meet the situation with regard to the unemployed.
Before I speak on the insurance phase may I say a word or two with regard to actual existent unemployent and the necessity of providing immediate relief. The condition in Canada today is such that this federal government must assume, along with the municipalities and provinces, the obligation of helping to relieve unemployment. Apart from all else, we know more than we care to say about the financial condition of the municipalities and the provinces. The sooner all get together, municipalities, provinces and the dominion, and find out just how their finances stand and what they can afford, the better it will be for all concerned. But I say that the condition is such that this federal government must assume some share of the responsibility. I disagree with the Prime Minister when he says that the federal government cannot, under the law as it stands, appoint a commission to deal with federal relief. The federal government can do anything that it wishes to do with respect to grants which it may make, with respect to the expenditure of federal money, and I shall cite as my authority the Prime Minister himself who, time and again, has made that assertion. He has, on each occasion when the unemployment question has been discussed, harked back to some decision which was made by the late Lord Haldane and others in, I think it was, the Board of Commerce case, in respect to some fair prices measure, in which reference was made to what constituted a national emergency. I am not going to quarrel with my right hon. friend's assertion as to what may or may not be done under the constitution with respect to matters of emergency; what I say to him is that all he has stated in that connection is entirely beside the mark. When we on this side of the house have advocated the appointment of a nation-wide commission which would have to do with the administration of relief, in so far as that relief was being given through moneys taken from the federal treasury, we have been speaking entirely of a federal responsibility in regard to the expenditure of federal money, its distribution and supervision. Surely hon. gentlemen opposite will agree that, with the consent of the provinces, a federal commission could function in cooperation with the provinces in the administration of relief. That is entirely a matter of agreement. If there are provinces which do not wish anything in the way of federal assistance, they ought to be quite free to say so and if they so desire, to do without. But, in a situation such as exists in Canada today, there is not, I submit, a province that, if it were called into conference with the federal government and arrangements were made which it was believed would lead to greater care in the expenditure of public moneys which were necessary for the purpose of relief, would not welcome a chance to share jointly in some scheme which would be of service to all concerned.
WOO	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
So that there will be no mistake as to what our federal powers are, may I quote the words of my right hon. friend as given to this house as recently as October 10, just last month, when he was speaking in the debate on the address in reply to the spech from the throne. My right hon. friend, as reported on page 50 of Hansard, made this statement:
While we have power to assist by grants of money; while we have power to impose conditions in those grants, as we have done, under our constitution the administration rests with the provincial authorities, and in all the statutes we have passed we have been careful to point out that while the danger and difficulty are national the administration rests with the provinces and the municipalities, and the duty of this dominion is to lend assistance in that direction.
Note these words:
While we have power to assist by grants of money; while we have power to impose conditions in those grants.
Our conditions might well be the distribution and supervision of expenditure of federal moneys by and in accordance with recommendations of a federal commission. May I in this connection repeat a suggestion that I made when giving to the house the point of view of hon. gentlemen on this side with regard to the manner in which federal relief should be administered? Our position has been that the expenditure of federal moneys on relief should be entrusted to a commission, a non-partisan one preferably to be chosen by a representative conference of parties mostly interested or, even, as I think I stated when speaking on one occasion, a commission which the government itself would appoint, assuming responsibility for its appointees, even if they were all from one political party, but nevertheless a commission which would be charged with the supervision of federal relief and the expenditure of such moneys as came out of the federal treasury. I said that I believed if a step of the kind were taken the mere fact of there being a body of this character charged with supervising relief would go very far in bringing about uniformity in methods of administration throughout Canada, the avoidance of duplication and the effecting of great economies.
I made a concrete suggestion then, and I want to repeat it this evening. I would suggest it to the ministry as a step which even yet should be taken; should be taken this year with regard to federal moneys which are to be expended on unemployment relief for purposes other than the immediate direct relief of necessitous cases. The suggestion is

this, that the federal government work in combination with the municipalities and the provinces, undertaking to grant its share of relief, but on the condition that all money which goes from the federal treasury for purposes of relief must go to the unemployed as wages in payment for the work which they will be given to perform; that no part of the federal money shall be paid to contractors or to those furnishing supplies or used for purposes of paying for superintendence of work, for equipment, the buying of tools and the like; that the federal government see to it that moneys voted- by this parliament be placed in the hands of a body of trustees, so to speak-call them by whatever name you like-to be paid out in the manner I have indicated.
May I illustrate concretely what I mean? There has just been completed in the city of Ottawa a campaign for the raising of money for unemployment relief. The money raised in this city is to be supplemented by money from the province and also by money from the federal treasury. I believe it would lead to economy in the interests of the municipality, the province and the dominion, if the federal government said: With respect to such money as we grant, it must be used for payment of actual labour performed on relief work of one kind or another which may be undertaken by the municipality and the province. What then would happen? The provinces then, in the event of their doing provincial work, would provide supplies and the necessary superintendence. The municipalities would cooperate in the same way. They already have organization at hand for the purpose of carrying out important municipal work. It would be to their interest to keep down the expenditure or superintendence, cost of construction apart from labour cost, and cost of materials and the like. With federal money going simply to pay for the actual labour that was performed, we would be sure that every dollar that was voted by the federal government would go into the pockets of the needy, the unemployed, who were being given employment, instead of a large part of it going to pay contractors for their part of the job, to pay for the material needed to put up construction camps, buildings and the like and what is to be paid for services or superintendence and the like. A step of that kind is not only feasible but has been worked out elsewhere on this continent with very great success. It helps to bring about cooperation between different parties and interests and, as I have indicated, it serves the ends of economy as well.

Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
That, I would say, should be the method of proceeding with regard to moneys voted from the federal treasury excepting such as must go to supply immediate needs in the matter of food, fuel and shelter and clothing for those who are without any one or more or all of those. There is a distinction between the immediate necessity of assisting the destitute and those who cannot work till they are fed, and the need, almost as immediate, of giving employment to those who are out of employment but who are capable of working. I believe, wherever it is possible to have work done or relief given in the form of actual work, it is altogether desirable and preferable that this should be done. After all, there is nothing that will more demoralize the manhood of our country than for men to become recipients of doles if it is all possible for them to avoid anything of the kind through getting work and being paid for the services which they are rendering. The government should take account of that, aspect of the effect of some of its own endeavours to assist those who are in need. So much for the immediate situation.
May I point out, in coming to the question of unemployment insurance, another advantage we might have had today, had the government taken the step of appointing a commission or committee to supervise the expenditure of federal moneys, not at this time or at some time later on, 'but two or two and a quarter years ago. If a body of that kind had been appointed it would by now have collected a fund of information which would be at the disposal of the government and of parliament at this time. My right hon. friend is probably going to appoint some commission to study this whole question. I should like to know how any commission appointed now or at any subsequent time could possibly acquire information at all comparable to that which would have been acquired by a commission appointed two years ago to deal with the question of unemployment relief, and which by this time would have had full knowledge of conditions as they exist in the different industries and in all parts of this dominion. So I say that, (here again, a couple of years have been lost in carrying out a policy which, apparently, the government at the moment is beginning favourably to consider.
As to the question of jurisdiction, I do not think there will be much trouble in overcoming that difficulty, provided the government is prepared to consider a national scheme. During the summer of 1930, the Prime Minister told the people of Canada in no uncertain terms that, so far as old age pensions, which are one form of social insurance, were
concerned, they could just as readily be administered by the federal government as by the provinces, and that, if the federal government could contribute fifty per cent, it could just as well contribute 75 or 99 or 100 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not wish to interrupt, but I did not say administer just as well. The administration, is for the provinces.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I accept what my right hon. friend says. He says he does not wish to claim that the dominion could carry out the administration. After all, what is perhaps of more concern to the taxpayer than the question of administration is the cost of the contribution itself. If the federal government were about to contribute one hundred per cent of what is required to meet the cost of old age pensions and made an agreement with the provinces that it would; do so only on the understanding that that one hundred per cent would be administered by the federal government instead of by the different provincial governments, I do not think the provincial governments would very long hesitate in allowing the dominion government all that was necessary in the way of latitude to secure an amendment to the British North America Act for that purpose. So I believe, Mr. Speaker, there should be little difficulty in surmounting the question of jurisdiction. I believe the day is rapidly coming when, so far as practically all forms of social insurance are concerned, it will be recognized as in the interests of the country in every way that whatever scheme there may be should be national in its scope. A national social insurance scheme, which would take care of matters of this kind on a nation-wide scale, would be much more in the interests of the country as a whole than a series of measures carried out in different ways by each of the nine provinces, to all of which the federal government would be contributing either in whole or in part. That, I believe, covers most of the points which have been referred to by my right hon. friend tonight.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that in my remarks this evening I have shown at least a desire not to be combative and not to embarrass the administration. But I do feel that I have a right to say that the steps which are now being suggested by the government are steps which we on this side advocated two years and more ago, and have consistently ever since urged upon the administration. That much I think I am entitled to claim for this side. But having said that, may I say to my right hon. friend that, in carrying out the project which he has proposed, so far as unemployment relief and unemployment insurance are concerned,
1462	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
we on this side of the house will endeavour to cooperate with him to the utmost of our ability.
I hope that when he comes to speak, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), will indicate that the government is going to place in the hands of some body of trustees, or some committee, or some commission, call it by whatever name you please, some body of independent minded men who will give their whole time and thought to this problem, the distribution and supervision of such federal moneys as may be voted by this parliament for the purpose of unemployment relief. The Minister of Labour himself must be willing to admit that the task of dealing with unemployment relief is one which is really not of a departmental nature. It has come to be a task national in its proportions and quite beyond departmental routine. The Department of Labour was established to carry on certain services, all of which have been set forth in acts of parliament. It was never contemplated that any department of the government would deal, year in and year out, with a condition in the nature of a national emergency. It is not fair to the minister, or to his staff, or to the government, or to the country, that the minister and his departmental staff should continue to seek to cope with something which they must confess they have up to the present time been unable to deal with successfully. Having been unable successfully to meet the situation, I hope now that we are facing a winter which promises to present a problem even more difficult of solution than those of the past, the government will call to its assistance some body of experts which may be able to help it in this all-important matter of the distribution and supervision of unemployment relief from federal funds.
While I am dealing with unemployment relief, may I say to my right hon. friend and the house that there is one other question closely allied to it which I believe is a matter of equally grave concern, if not of even graver conoern, to this country, and that is the condition of agriculture in Canada at the present time. Here again I do not wish to embarrass the Prime Minister or the administration. We realize that in dealing with the question of agricultural conditions in Canada the government is facing probably the largest and the most serious industrial problem which it or any other government in Canada has been called upon to face. I need not go into the reasons which make me feel that there are aspects of the situation which are too serious even to mention in this house at this stage of the debate, but what I would say to my right

hon. friend is this, that while we have been here now for nearly two months and are about to adjourn possibly at the end of the present week, up to the present time there has been no opportunity given to the house to discuss this all-important question. Apart from that, the country has been looking forward to.some declaration of policy on the part of the administration with respect to agricultural conditions. We have heard from the Prime Minister what was done last year and the year before; we have heard from him about the special moneys that were voted for the relief of western agriculture; we have heard since about what has been done in other directions; but what the country wants to know at the present time is what is going to be done this winter? What is going to be done between now and the time parliament reassembles? That is the question which I hope my right hon. friend will answer. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that at this time I am speaking on a motion to go into committee of ways and means, and that unless some amendment which is in order is moved I shall not have another opportunity to speak until that motion is disposed of. It has been my intention if necessary to move an amendment on going into committee of ways and means which would express the views of hon. gentlemen on this side as to what they believe as respects policy the country would like to know from the ministiy, and the position which we on this side would be obliged to take should the ministry not find it possible to make some declaration. I am not going to move this amendment at the present time, but I am going to read what I have had in mind to the house, and shall say to my right hon. friend that, if he will make a statement to the effect that he himself will announce what the government's policy is and will be through this winter with respect to agricultural relief, and will give opportunity to hon. members on this side of the house to consider that policy, to discuss it so that the government may have the benefit of views from all sides, then this amendment will not be moved. Unless my right hon. friend is prepared to give some such undertaking, I feel it will be our duty at an appropriate time to make a motion on going into supply or committee of ways and means-


An hon. MEMBER:: No bargaining.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, if hon.
gentlemen opposite would rather have me secure what I am seeking by an amendment to avoid placing the government in a position in which it would be obliged to be faced by an amendment which it would regard as one

Unemployment-Mr. Lawson
of want of confidence, I am quite prepared to meet their wishes in that regard. What I wish to make clear at the moment is this:
I have no desire to have the government construe a wish on our part to secure a declaration of policy as any desire to promote a motion in the nature of one of want of confidence. But, if the government has no policy with respect to farm relief and agricultural distress, and is not prepared to make a statement to the house, then we cannot let this stage of the session go by without registering our position in reference thereto.
The amendment which, in that event, I would move at a subsequent stage, would be as follows:
Whereas parliament has been in session since October 6, of the present year, and is shortly to adjourn until January 30, 1933;
And whereas, since parliament assembled the government has not made any statement of policy with respect to the relief of existing agricultural conditions;
And whereas, the position of agriculture in Canada has become increasingly deplorable and, unless relieved, will bring about a condition of distress hitherto unparalleled;
This house is of the opinion that the government should immediately announce what policy, if any, it has w'ith respect to the relief of agricultural distress, and permit full consideration of the same before parliament adjourns over the months of December and January.
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, if that motion should happen to come into your hands, that it does not relate to the past; it does not relate to any discussions which have taken place; it relates entirely to the present and to the future, to what is to be done between now and the time parliament reassembles on January 30 next. As such I hope that, if it should be necessary to move it, the amendment will be found in order. But I hope, even more, that my right hon. friend will find it possible to accord to the house, with respect to a consideration of farm relief, the relief of agricultural distress, the same latitude which he now says will be accorded with respect to the discussion of unemployment relief, and that he will go one step farther and give to the house in that discussion a clear and definite statement as to the government's policy in this all-important matter.


James Earl Lawson: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the house is desirous of hearing the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), but I crave its indulgence for a few minutes, in view of the statement just made by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) with reference to those of us who sat to the left of the Speaker in 1930 and opposed what he alleges was his then policy for unemployment relief. I submit that in the statement made to the house this evening not only has the right hon. gentleman endeavoured to misrepresent the policy, as enunciated tonight by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), but he also misrepresents the position which those of us who sat to the left of the Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. To accuse another hon. member of misrepresentation is not parliamentary.


James Earl Lawson: Mr. Speaker, I retract unreservedly the word "misrepresent." I will say that the words used by the right hon. gentleman would lead this house and the country to believe that the right hon. gentleman took in 1930 a certain position which he now takes. That I say is not the fact.
The right hon. gentleman this evening said that in 1930 he enunciated the principle that unemployment relief was primarily a municipal responsibility, then a provincial responsibility, and thirdly, under certain conditions, a federal responsibility. He also said that the right hon. Prime Minister tonight recognized that doctrine which he had propounded in 1930. So far I agTee with the doctrine as stated by him. But tonight, sir, he goes a step further, and endeavours to have this house conclude that the Prime Minister said tonight that only when the provinces were unable to cope with the situation is there responsibility upon the dominion government. That, sir, is the position which he took in 1930. That is not the position which was taken by those of us who sat to your left at that time. At that time, Mr. Speaker, it was made abundantly clear by the then leader of the opposition that we then had in Canada a national condition. The Conservative members of the house then recognized, as we now recognize, that we had a national condition, and recognizing that fact, the Prime Minister immediately called a special session of parliament and voted large sums of money to assist the provinces and the municipalities in administering unemployment relief. If, sir, any proof were required of the position taken by the right hon. leader of the opposition in 1930 other than what I have already stated, surely one need only read his speech in this house, in which he positively and absolutely refused to contribute any sum whatever to any Tory province.
The right hon. gentleman tonight, with pious words and with great lamentation, regrets that this government has allowed two years to go by since it has been in power without bringing in an unemployment insurance measure. May I point out that the right hon. gentleman allowed nine years to go by while he was in
Unemployment-Mr. Gordon

power, although unemployment insurance was a plank in the Liberal platform of 1919. So far as I am concerned, sir, and those excellent labouring people whom I represent in this house, I do not propose to allow our position in 1930 or today to be understood from words used by the right hon. leader of the opposition to be other than what it is. So far as we are concerned, we recognized in 1930 and we recognize today that the conditions with which we were confronted were largely world conditions. But we also realized, as I stated during the election in 1930, and as I state here again tonight, that had it not been for the Liberal policies in this country for nine years preceding 1930, our local condition, to which the right hon. gentleman now refers, would be much better than it is today.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I will avoid tonight,
and at any future time if possible, getting into any discussion with the economists in this chamber. I do not think I could add anything to their knowledge, nor do I think the advancement of any of my views would be understood by them. Therefore in the observations I have to make I shall endeavour to confine myself to those matters of administration that for the moment are under my guidance in the Department of Labour.
I assume that I do not need to tell this house that so far as the federal end is concerned, if I may so describe it, of the relief afforded those in need in Canada, that portion has been administered through the Department of Labour,. with such additional staff as has been found necessary in order that the efforts of those primarily responsible may be rendered more effective. I offer my thanks to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), for his kindly and magnanimous suggestion with respect to the setting up of a federal commission to follow the course of the moneys which the dominion government may subscribe to the provinces and through them to the municipalities, but I hazard the suggestion that if the right hon. gentleman will give a little more thought to the plan it will become more and more apparent that by the adoption of such a course the overlapping to which he has made reference will be accentuated rather than reduced. I have a good deal of faith in the municipal councils, the provincial administrations and the voluntary charitable organizations of this dominion. The men who comprise those bodies are elected to the positions they hold; they are just as good Canadians, probably, as the right hon. leader of the opposition and myself. I do not say this in any critical 
sense, 'but they understand their responsibilities very clearly. This dominion is so wide and offers so many complexities with respect to its domestic management, if I may so term it, that I am convinced we cannot do better than continue as we have carried on in the past and allow the intimate administration of the relief measures to be carried out under the supervision of those upon whom the primary responsibility falls, those who have to answer to their immediate communities for the success or failure of their efforts. There is, however, a measure of protection, perhaps of control and of the giving of sound advice exercised by the Department of Labour, by reason of the information at hand in the department which probably is not available to the municipalities and the provinces. That advice is being given constantly to those administering relief throughout the Dominion of Canada.
At this juncture, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make this observation: I always listen with a great deal of attention and interest to the speeches of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). Someone says it is a waste of time and thought, but I do not so consider it. A review of the pages of Hansard, however, from the first year the hon. gentleman graced this chamber, will show that in every pronouncement he has made, the phraseology is nearly always the same, he voices almost the same fears, the same suspicions, the same lack of confidence in any other human being in the world but himself, and always with patient regularity he sets up something that never resolves itself into fact. In my view that sort of declamation does not advance his position one iota. Again, there is the persistent reading of such documents as hon. members heard this evening. I am almost convinced that if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had taken the opportunity to go from coast to coast investigating camp conditions, he would have fought shy of ninety-five per cent or even ninety-nine per cent of the camps in order to pick out one where perhaps the administration was not what it should be, so that he might condemn the whole effort of every other Canadian interested in this matter, During the course of my efforts, such as they have been, in directing the expenditure of federal moneys and endeavouring to assist the provinces and municipalities in the careful expenditure of their moneys, I have made it my business on many occasions to visit these very camps, though I have not had very much time to spare. I did not see any evidence of the squalor or the disorganized effort to which reference has been made. On the

Unemployment-Mr. Gordon
contrary, I saw many hundreds of single men in those camps, happy indeed during this time of stress, which I hope will not be prolonged, to have an opportunity of working out the relief given them by the state, the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion, which really means the relief granted to them by levying tribute upon their fellow Canadians who are engaged in some kind of productive work.
It is quite true that I should like to see, as every member in this chamber would like to see, men in all walks of life guaranteed happy, productive employment. That never has been the case if I read history correctly, and I doubt if it ever will come to pass; there is always a percentage that cannot realize that sort of thing. But I do say this, that under the arrangements now made and in operation throughout the provinces of Canada, there is no reason today why any person in the dominion should go without food, without clothing, without fuel and without shelter, because the municipalities are bearing their share of the burden and bearing it manfully. The province is assuming its proper place, and so far as this dominion is concerned, while I am just as sure as I am standing here that there will be no such demand made upon it, yet if it became necessary in the last analysis, every available dollar would be directed towards seeing that the distress was relieved.
Now let us see what has been done since the first relief measures were introduced and passed by this house-and I will ask the house to pardon me if I stay fairly closely to the notes I have here, because there are a great many figures in this. The Unemployment Relief Act of 1930, which came into effect in September of that year, covered expenditures for the carrying-out of public works and the giving to direct relief to relieve unemployment until August, 1931. Under the provisions of the 1930 act, the Dominion government contributed $14,396,956.79 to public works, and to direct relief, $3,556,928.47. The total cost of administration was $43,061.97. The total expenditures under the 1930 act by the Dominion government were $17,996,947.23. This expenditure resulted in public and other works being carried out to the exent of approximately $69,000,000, including the contributions of provinces and municipalities. The direct relief expenditures by the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities totalled about $11,000,000. The carrying out of the work under the provisions of the 1930 act afforded work to 337,633 individuals for varying periods, the amount of work thus afforded 53719-93
being 7,481,449 man-days. In August of the following year, 1931, the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931 became effective, and contributions were made for the relief of unemployment under this act until the 1st day of March, 1932, and under the continuance act of 1932 operations under the 1931 act were continued until the first of May, 1932. Under the 1931 act the Dominion government agreed to contribute the sum of $35,739,312.19 towards the carrying on of works by the provinces, municipalities and the federal departments for the relief of unemployment, the total cost of such works being approximately $81,000,000. Some of this work was not finished at the expiration of the agreements on May 1, 1932. Extensions of time were arranged to different dates, extending to the fall of 1932, the gross cost of the works thus extended being approximately $14,778,000. For direct relief, the expenditures of the Dominion government, under the 1931 act, to date, amount to $11,536,789.73, which includes $5,250,000 to the Saskatchewan relief commission. Under the 1931 act the expenditures for public works gave employment to 579,024 individuals to the end of September, 1932, the total wages paid being $38,802,101.63, and a total of 13,152,384 man-days work being afforded.
After a survey of employment conditions in the shops of the Canadian National Railways, it was decided to maintain operations so as to permit of intermittent employment being given to a large number of employees. In the month of September, 1931 the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was compelled, as you all know, to shut down its shops and the former workers of these shops were without employment, concerning whom applications were made to the government for assistance. The government arranged, as has been already stated in this house, with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to open its shops on November 17, 1931, and to keep them open until December 31, of the same year, the government paying the wages of the workers employed in the shops, the railway company, however, to reimburse the government for expenditures so made. The total number of railway shop employees thus given employment was 8,455, the wages involved being $1,447,222. The cost of administration under the 1931 legislation was $84,487.57.
In the spring of this year, 1932, it became apparent to the municipalities throughout the dominion, and to the provinces, that the projection of works by the municipalities and by the provinces themselves was rapidly becoming so great a burden that the municipalities and probably the provinces would soon be

Unemployment-Mr. Gordon

impoverished and unable to carry that burden further. Intimation of this condition was made to the government by various communications, and following the custom that had prevailed from the beginning of the tenure of office of this administration, no time was lost in inviting the premiers of the various provinces to come to Ottawa in order that they might sit in conference with this government to see what steps could be taken, or what other course could be adopted so that people should not suffer for lack of the necessities of life in this country, and at the same time to try to inaugurate a plan that was within the financial competence of those concerned. As a result of that invitation, on the 9th of April last, I believe it was, that conference convened in this city. All the provinces of Canada were represented, and a general and prolonged discussion took place with respect to all the various matters and the complexities of the position as it faced those interested. It was the unanimous view of the representatives of all the provinces that they could no longer finanoe works and undertakings on the same scale that had obtained in the year prior to that date. These representations were heard by this government, and further representation was made by the provincial premiers, headed, I think I am not unfair in saying, by the premier of the province of Quebec, for whom I have the utmost and profoundest respect. He made it very clear, and he was supported in his contention by the other provinces, that he wished to promote the scheme of direct relief. Obviously the expenses to those concerned would be materially reduced. Just as soon as the scheme of direct relief could be perfected, it was put into motion, save for the completion of works which had been commenced, the stoppage of which would have resulted in a total or partial loss of the benefit of the work done. Appropriate action was taken by the Dominion government to seek the advice of the provinces as to what works should be completed, and agreements were made and understandings arrived at in this connection. Many of these works have not yet been completed; others have been.
The relief act of 1932 received assent on May 13, 1932. Under this act agreements have been completed with all the provinces except Prince Edward Island providing for a dominion non-recoverable expenditure of one-third of an amount not to exceed $600 per family for the purpose of providing a measure of self-sustaining relief to families who would otherwise be in receipt of direct relief. This scheme was to provide for the placing of such families upon the land, the

remaining two-thirds of the expenditure to be contributed by the province and municipality concerned. Agreements have been completed with respect to this project with Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia, and provide for a total dominion expenditure of $1,385,675. It may be said by some that that is a huge sum of money to be devoted to the endeavour to place some of our citizens upon the land where they can become self-supporting, but I do not think it is. This is not a colonization scheme, state-aided; it is not offered as a solution for unemployment; it is a measure which I believe to be constructive whereby selected families with agricultural background are placed upon the land where they can sustain themselves and get into some productive vocation. These families would have received at least the amount of our subscription to this scheme under direct relief.
Let me point out to the house something which I think is often overlooked. During the period from 1919 to March 31, 1932, this Dominion spent in its immigration department the sum of $36,718,454.97. That expenditure had nothing to do with the soldier settlement scheme, the three thousand family scheme or the New Brunswick five hundred scheme; that is simply the amount spent by this dominion in order to induce, invite and encourage anybody from anywhere to come to this country. Hon. gentlemen opposite may say; Oh, well, we are not all to blame because others on this side of the house, when the positions were reversed, advocated the same thing. I have searched the records and I find that when hon. members on this side were in opposition they advocated the encouraging of people to come and settle upon our lands to consolidate those lands which were served by the railways of Canada. So far as I have been able to learn they never advanced the idea that the people who were to be encouraged to come here should be other than those who were ready, willing and able to take up farm settlement along the lines of our then projected transportation system. Anyone who cares to survey the immigration into this country during the period I have mentioned will find that there was no hope of any considerable percentage of those immigrants ever taking up land and being out of competition with the industrial workers in our cities. That fact is borne out by what has happened. Go through our industrial centres, go through our lumber camps and our mines and you will see there the men who were encouraged to come to this country by the booking agents in

Unemployment-Mr. Gordon
Europe, by the steamship lines and by the iniquitous system of permits which was in vogue for a few years, displacing Canadian labour-they are not on our farms at all.
One of the first duties which this administration had to face when it came into office was to see that that condition of affairs no longer should prevail, and, as hon. members of this house now know, prompt action was taken to revise the regulations with respect to immigration into Canada. In passing let me say that very large numbers of the immigrants to whom I have referred are good workmen. The first criticism I have to make is that they are not on our lands, they are in our industrial centres; my next criticism is that their coming here was not so regulated that we could at least exclude the major portion of those who are today the instrument contributing largely to the sentiment growing up in Canada condemning their compatriots who are trying to make good.
I should like to pursue this matter a little further. We had to take measures to correct this situation. I find by reference to the figures that in the fiscal years ending March 31, we encouraged the following numbers of immigrants to come into this country:
Number of
Fiscal Year	Immigrants
1927		 143,991
1928		 151,597
1929		 167,722
1930		 163,288
1931		 88,223
Perhaps that last figure will require an explanation. When, in August, 1930, I came first into contact, as the responsible minister, with the Immigration department, having this situation under review and desiring if I could, without being unjust and unfair to those who had perhaps started to come to Canada and had broken connections with the old land or the land of their birth, I inquired as to how many would probably still be on their way or be covered by permits, and it was most difficult even to make an estimate of how many there were. For some reason or another the early spring of 1930 was a prolific season for permits and a great number of people whose permits had not expired because they were for five months, came forward after this government came into power. It would be obviously unjust were this government to say:	You must not and shall not
enter Canada. They had been granted the right to do so, and I think we did only what was fair and just in permitting them to come. But in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1932, immigration to Canada dropped to 25,752. Many of those are the wives and children 53719-931
under eighteen years of age of men who had come forward preceding their families, and in each case I gave very strict instructions that the settlement arrangements must be of such a kind and character that the man in this country would be able to receive and care for his dependents.
Having in mind what I have just said, and the amount of money that has been spent in those few years in the Immigration department, I think hon. members will all agree with me that the principle involved in the allocation of $1,385,675 for the purpose of carrying on from a federal standpoint what I believe has not before been attempted with the exception of the soldier settlement, is a proper one, namely, that if any Canadian money is to be spent for these purposes it should be devoted to colonization at home: until we have by a proper corrective process^ remedied to some extent the urban and rural complexion of our population, which complexion is today, as I say, most disproportionate. Only forty-five or fifty years ago our urban population was only 18 per cent; today it is almost 54 per cent of our total population. The reason is obvious.	;


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The reason is obvious-the tariff policy.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: My right hon. friend says
the tariff. The tariff has been blamed for so many things and the resort to the tariff in times of stress by hon. gentlemen opposite is so frequent that I could almost put the word to music.
There were, of course, contributing causes. Industry attracted the young men and some young women from the rural to the urban districts. They were attracted undoubtedly by high wages and other considerations regarded as inducements to take up urban life. At any rate, this money has been allocated for the purpose to which I have made reference.
Prior to this step being taken I had an interview in November, 1930, after some correspondence, with the presidents of the two railway companies, Mr. Beatty and Sir Henry Thornton. In answer to a joint letter directed to me by the presidents of the two railway companies, in which they rather urged a continuance of the railways agreement in a modified and restrictive form, I directed this letter to each of them. Perhaps I may be pardoned if I read it. This one is dated October 30, 1931, and is addressed to Mr. Beatty; a similar letter was sent to Sir Henry Thornton:
I have received the joint communication of October 1st from Sir Henry Thornton and yourself, giving a review of the colonization
146S

Unemployment-Mr. Gordon
activities of the two railways for the past five years and submitting your views with respect to an immigration and colonization program for 1931. I thank you for this letter and have to state that illness which has confined me to my room for several days has prevented an earlier acknowledgment.
We have a common purpose I trust when considering a colonization policy for this country, namely, to do that which is best for Canada both socially and industrially, giving these terms their widest construction, always bearing in mind that this is a British country with two major peoples, English and French speaking. We may differ in points regarding such policy but there is no ground for difference regarding the desired objective. I wish to state further that the conduct of immigration and colonization as a national business function must take proper cognizance of the importance of our Canadian transportation systems, particularly in view of their bearing on our whole financial and economic structure. I will not dwell on the soundness of the railways' policy as stated in your letter, namely that of projecting railways in advance of settlement. You have made it abundantly clear, both in previous public utterances and in your letter of the 1st instant, that actual and sound land settlement from a purely business point of view (as well as from the national standpoint) results in the type of business that is best for the railways, namely, the production of freight traffic, which I understand constitutes approximately 70 per cent of the total earnings of the railways. Colonization of this character conforms to my own view.
We have just concluded an emergency session of parliament, summoned to cope with a national unemployment problem. When parliament met in September it was reported on the basis of the most accurate survey and information available that 117,000 people in Canada were unemployed and that this number would be increased to 200,000 by the end of the calendar year. As Minister of Immigration and Colonization, it was my duty to analyse the situation with respect to the bearing that immigration had on the problem in hand. Analysis showed that of the total immigration of 221,561 people admitted to Canada in the sixteen months ending with July 31st of this year no less than 99,367 were males over eighteen years of age, and of this latter number 25,305 had entered in the first four months of the present fiscal year. It is clear, therefore, beyond peradventure that either substantial numbers of immigrants who have recently arrived in Canada are in the ranks of the unemployed, or conversely, they have displaced Canadians who are now unemployed.
Confronted *with this situation I could choose one of two positions-blame the immigration policy of the previous administration, including the Continental Railways agreement under which very substantial numbers of immigrants were brought to Canada in recent months; or address myself (in so far as it is my duty as Minister of Immigration and Colonization so to do) seriously to the task of assimilation and absorption of these people. I have chosen the latter course, and it is my view that Canada is now faced -with a colonization and assimilation problem of major importance within her own boundaries, and she will have little time to devote in the immediate future to the question
IMr. Gordon]
of active solicitation looking to the entry of any substantial number of people now resident in other countries. Unqualified expressions from responsible representatives in several of the provinces amply support this opinion.
It is my view that, confronted as we are with this assimilation and colonization problem within Canada, there is ample scope for constructive colonization work on the part of the railways, provinces, and the Dominion Department of Immigration and Colonization-work of a character that while primarily putting people into productive enterprise, will at the same time result in the type of colonization and settlement which your letter of October 1st so clearly points out as such sound business from the point of view of the railways. I may say that at the present time I am giving careful study to a submission from one of the western provinces which outlines a comprehensive colonization plan for settlement on the land of Canadian residents. This particular plan appeals to me as eminently constructive, and in fact for some years past I have held the view that there was a sound field within our own borders where the activities of all concerned in this great problem could in a large measure be usefully employed.
In this letter I am not attempting to reply in detail to the various points raised in your letter of October 1st. In view of the general position I have outlined I do not see that any good purpose is to be served at this juncture by attempting to fix responsibility for mistakes that have occurred, and we must all try to learn aright and apply with courage the lessons pictured by the mistakes of the past without dwelling unduly on the question as to whether these mistakes yvere made by the government, the railways, or both. Your letter, from your point of view, points out that the immigration and colonization activities of the railways have been conducted in a manner resulting only in actual placement and land settlement. I have carefully noted your reference to the issue of . "government permits" by the previous administration. I may state that as long as I am Minister of Immigration and Colonization I will take full responsibility for the number of such "permits" it will be my duty to issue. Making due allowance for the "permits" issued in 1929, and up to July 31st of the current year, together with the commitments of my predecessors, I hope that the railways will assume responsibility with respect to immigrants they have brought in or may bring in to Canada.
With regard to your recommendations, I may say that as far as assisted immigration from the British Isles is concerned we are in agreement that assistance shall continue for juvenile immigrants. For agricultural families I think passage assistance should be limited to British families coming under the New Brunswick Scheme, or any similar scheme for families, as well as the wives and children under eighteen years, of men already settled on the land.
The assistance for juvenile immigrants and the New Brunswick Scheme have since been discontinued. The letter continues:
With respect to female domestics, my view is that having regard to existing conditions, passage assistance should be discontinued for the coming year.	,
I suggest that immigration from the Continent should be limited for the time being to

Questions
those classes admissible under P.C. 183 as amended on the 14th of August last. Existing conditions indicate that we will have next year an ample supply of farm labour and I suggest no encouragement can be offered to a movement even of agricultural families who are without sufficient funds to begin farming on their own account. I am of the opinion that our inquiries into family settlement, both British and continental, will show that many of the families who came in last year and this year have drifted away from the farms either through lack of capital or because of insufficient wages. Until this condition clears up I am convinced that our immigration, particularly from the continent of Europe, must, in the interests of Canada as well as of the immigrants themselves, be limited to those agricultural families who have sufficient capital to establish and maintain themselves on the land.
In conclusion, it is very gratifying to find that you are of the same opinion as myself with reference to directing our joint efforts toward promoting British immigration in preference to any other.	_
As suggested by you, I should like very much to have a full discussion of the situation with Sir Henry Thornton and yourself here in Ottawa at a date mutually convenient.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: By whom is that letter signed?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I thought it was a very good letter, so I signed it myself.
At 11.05 the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, November 23, 1932