1934-01-30

CITY OF OTTAWA AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That, it is expedient to authorize the Minister of Public Works, on behalf of His Majesty, to enter into an agreement with the corporation of the city of Ottawa to extend the period of the existing agreement with the corporation for one year from July 1, 1933.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subj ect matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) :: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question yesterday concerning the Vancouver harbour commission which the minister said he might be in a better position to answer to-day. I should like his answer at this time.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that I have not the exact information before me. I have not yet, nor has my department, received any resignation from the Vancouver harbour commissioners. However I should like to inquire further.



WHEAT AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Prime Minister if a circular is being issued in regard to the wheat agreement, and if so whether or not a copy will be laid on the table?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe a pamphlet has been issued jointly between the government of the western provinces and the dominion, and is being circulated by the provinces.
I shall inquire if there are any copies available, and if so will lay them on the table.



SURVEY OF NATIONAL PORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minis-

The Address-Mr. Bennett
ter of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) whether or not it is the intention of the government to introduce a bill concerning harbours, along the lines recommended in the report of the Gibb commission?


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: And has been, for a long time.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, January 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gobeil for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, we listened with
much interest to the observations made yesterday by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), and his well deserved tributes to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is true that neither of them was a new member of the house. One of them is a new member of this parliament; the other is an older parliamentarian. The practice that has grown up and has now become traditional, by which a member of one of the two great races in this country moves the address one year and a member of the other race the next year, has been maintained both here and in another place during all these years, and I believe that it is conducive to a better understanding between the peoples that constitute this dominion. I should like to join if I might in congratulating the members who have spoken on the character of the addresses they have delivered. It was to be expected that one who had been so closely associated with the growth and development of the eastern townships and was familiar with the problems of those who till the soil, and also that one who had been so familiar with the development of the delta region near the Fraser river in British Columbia, would be able to speak with some authority, and these two members have well warranted our hopes and expectations in that regard.
When, however, I heard the right hon. leader of the opposition condole with the government over the results of the by-elections, I could not but reflect that the government as it stands to-day has exactly the majority that it had when this house was returned. It is true that there was a byelection in South Huron which was carried by the party that secured the seat at the general election. The Dutch have again taken Holland, and Huron still remains a Liberal constituency.
It is true that a Liberal continues to represent Yamaska. He was elected at the general election by one vote. It is also true that the rotes polled at the general eleotion amounted to 709 fewer than those polled at the byelection, when his majority was 84. Therefore on the vote that was polled in the general election he was defeated by 625 votes-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is very simple, and if in order to gain 83 votes it is necessary to poll 709, you can easily by a process of computation ascertain how long it will take the opposition to get into power.
It is also true that a Liberal was elected in the constituency of Mackenzie in which a Conservative has not been a candidate in this generation until the recent by-election, a constituency the then Liberal-Progressive member for which, elected at the last general election, voted in support of the amendment to the budget on the last occasion on which a budget was delivered when he was in this house.
It is equally true that so far as the county of Restigouche-Madawaska is concerned, and which has been referred to as an old Tory county, there never was a Conservative candidate elected in Restigouche since 1896; and in Madawask-a, for reasons that were well understood, Mr. Cormier was elected in the last election, and the gentleman who has succeeded him with his nineteen years experience in the local legislature had those peculiar claims upon the people which brought him the majority that he received. I can only hope, Mr. Speaker, that these gentlemen will give the same measure of satisfactory service to their constituencies in the larger arena which apparently they gave in the legislatures when they were members of them.


Mr. VALLANCE:: What about the Nova Scotia general election?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I might remind the
house that a Conservative candidate was successful in the by-election of Three Rivers and that in the western province of Alberta a seat was carried by this government both of which constituencies were at the general election represented by members of the opposition. With two supporters that we did not have before, and the opposition having two supporters that they did not have before
The Address-Mr. Bennett

we now stand on the very same footing as when this house was first returned and that too notwithstanding the fact that the fate of governments in conditions such as those through which we have passed has been that they have usually suffered defeat. But if one is to judge from the communications one receives and from the statements made by some of those who are within my vision at the moment, many thank God from time to time that this country is not under the guidance of the leader of the opposition in these trying times.
Mr. TOTZIiE: What about-


Richard Bedford Bennett: If hon. gentlemen have anything to say, will they foe good enough to stand up and say it at an appropriate time.


Mr. TOTZKE:: I am sorry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was about to observe that the general opinion of the business people of this country is not that there should be a general election. The business people of this country are concerned with the great problems with which Canadians have grappled with such courage during the last few years, and I can say perfectly frankly that those who sit on this side of the house regard it indeed as having been a great pleasure and a proud privilege to have served Canada in these hours and days of stress, and if the electors are not grateful, and I have every reason to believe that they will be when the appropriate time comes, we are content because we have had the great privilege of serving the people of Canada,


John Vallance: Is this a swan song?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, there
always is some excuse for ignorance and rudeness, but just why we should have it consistently manifested by one particular individual in this house I do not know. Why the house should be afflicted with interruptions from one who failed to secure nomination in his own constituency I do not know.
The leader of the opposition yesterday spent considerable time in endeavouring to prove that the statements made in the speech from the throne with respect to trade and revenue and employment were untrue; in fact, he used that word. Just why one charged with the responsibility of leading a party in opposition to the government should spend time in endeavouring to disprove what 
is known to almost every man in Canada is beyond my understanding.
On the question of revenue, for instance, can there be any doubt as to what the figures indicate? In July of last year this country's revenues were over $15,000,000 less than they were for the corresponding period the previous year. In the interim of six months we have not only picked up that fall in the revenues but have increased our revenues by over $5,000,000 beyond what they were for the same period last year. 'So we have that improvement which he who runs may read and he who sees may understand. There it is written on the public records of the country. What purpose is there in endeavouring to have that appear to be untrue which is true? What purpose is served by endeavouring to belittle the efforts of the Canadian people and their courage and persistence in adversity to achieve success and win through to prosperity? What purpose was served by it I leave to the good judgment of the people of this country.
On the question of expanding trade, there are the figures which speak for themselves. They show a continuous increase in trade since May of 1933. That may be read by anyone who reads the public statistics of the country. That cannot have been manufactured; the figures are there, and they speak for themselves. Take these indices, if you will, showing the gains that have been made since early in 1933:
Especially Significant Signs Of Improvement trams since early in 1933
.	Per	cent
Commodity prices	 g g
Security prices	' ' ''	63 3
Farm prices (wholesale)	 25.\
Increased employment		jg' 9
Contracts awarded	 72 2
Industrial production	 39.7
Mining production	j,	27!o
Kevenue carloadings	 4*3
Domestic exports	 '	43'4
That is the position as it was at the end of the year or thereabouts. These are matters that anyone can see who desires to see. I repeat, what purpose is there in endeavouring to make it appear abroad and elsewhere that things are different from what they are? Everyone has access to these very figures and can study these very reports. The same condition exists in the United States as was indicated by Mr. Marcosson in his recent article, "North of the N.R.A." What purpose is there in endeavouring to mislead when the facts

The Address-Mr. Bennett
can be ascertained from the public records of the country? In so far as trade is concerned, the figures are checked with the reports issued by the countries to which our goods go and from which we receive goods. They are verified from time to time. If the right hon. gentleman desires to cast aspersions upon the accuracy of the figures furnished by the Bureau of Statistics, he may continue to do so, but I repeat: What purpose can be served? I assert to this house that if the committee on public accounts, or any other committee of this house, desires so to do, they can summon before them every employee of the bureau of statistics. It will be found that not a single suggestion has been made by
any minister or anyone connected with the ministry as to how the records were to be kept or as to how the reports were to be prepared. They have made them with a consciousness of their obligation and duty towards those for whom they are prepared, namely, the people of this dominion. These reports have been prepared without fear, favour or affection and made public to those who desire to secure them.
I should like to give the figures showing the increase in our industrial production as compared with the increases in other countries. These figures show the gains in the different countries for the last twelve months, and are as follows:
Industrial production- Canada	
United States	
United Kingdom	
France	
Germany	Month December November November October October	1932 57.5 58.6 90.2 74.8 61.0	1933 72.2 65.8 97.3 85.0 71.2	Increase 25.6 12.3 7.9 13.6 16.9These figures show that in point of fact	portance	and the	following figures show the	Canada leads them all and in some cases the	increase	in Canada	in 1933 over	1932 as comincrease is double that which has occurred in other countries. The production of steel has always been considered a matter of im-	pared with the increases which have occurred in other countries:	Steel production (thousand metric tons) -	- Month	1932	1933	IncreaseCanada	December	31	50	61.3United States	December	857	1,849	115.8United Kingdom	October	447	679	51.9France	October	468	527	12.6Germany	October	522	715	37.0
While the increase in Canada has not been as large as that in the United States, where it reached 115-8 per cent, it is higher than the increases in the United Kingdom, France and Germany.
I shall deal next with wholesale prices. We
have been making an honest endeavour to secure a higher level of wholesale prices on this continent, and the efforts put forward by the United States are known to all. The changes which have taken place in the index figures of wholesale prices are as follows:
Wholesale prices-
Canada-1926=100	
United States

1926 = 100. . United Kingdom

1913=100 France (gold)-1914=100.. Germany-1913=100	
It will be noted that there is a decrease in the case of France and that the years upon which the base index figure is computed varies in the case of the different countries.
I recall hearing the leader of the opposition refer in a budget debate to the fact that
1932	1933	Increase	DecreaseDec.	64.0	69.0	7.8	Nov.	63.9	71.2	11.4	Nov.	101.1	102.8	1.7	Nov.	391	383	2.0Nov.	93.9	96.0	2.2	
the price of common stocks was a fair indication of the improvement in the condition of the country, it being the value of equities in properties. The increases which have occurred in the prices of common stocks in Canada and other countries are as follows:
Common stocks-
Canada-1926=100	
United States-1926=100.. United Kingdom-1924=100
France-1913=100	
Germany-1924-26 = 100.. ..
1932	1933	Increase	DecreaseDec.	58.4	107.6	84.2	Dec.	44.8	78.8	75.9	Nov.	92	114	23.9	Nov.	235	226	3.8Oct.	54.2	60.2	11.1	
The Address-Mr. Bennett

It will be noted again that a decrease has occurred in the case of France. Here again I think we have some reason to realize that our country has been making steady progress forward.
The next figures I shall give show the increases which have occurred in Canada in the production of different commodities. A very substantial increase has occurred in the production of newsprint which gives employment to large numbers of men, both directly and indirectly. There are large numbers employed in the woods in preparing the pulpwood in order that it may come down in the spring to the mills. There has been a considerable increase in the export of planks and boards, as well as in copper and nickel. Car-loadings have always been regarded as a matter of importance, and these show a very substantial increase. I have frequently heard reference made in the house to bank debits. These are the cheques which pass through the banks from time to time. There has been a substantial increase in this item, as well as in the awarding of contracts. The detailed figures are as follows:
Improvement Figures based on Actual Quantities No Adjustment for Seasonal Variations
February	November	Increase	December	IncreaseFlour production	
barrels	814,899	1,650,557 (October)	95-4	1,827,340 (November)	116-3Cotton imports	.... pounds	6,025,511	19,057,844	216 3	19,803,434	228-7Newsprint production	.... tons	125,610	193,718	54-2	175,304	39-6Planks and boards	.... exported board ft.	37,714,000	102,882,000	172-8	99,393,000	163-5Steel production	.... long tons	12,374	43,099	248-3	49,557	300-5Copper exports	1,326,200 (January)	4,498,400	239-2	1,998,400	150-7Nickel exports	3,079,000	8,581,100	178-7	6,424,800	108-7Carloadings	133,147	201,365	51-2	157,581	18-4Bank debits	.... dollars	1,830,276,963	2,837,469,562	55-0	2,491,921,510	36-1Contracts awarded	.... dollars	3,149,300	10,637,200	237-8	8,207,600	160-6The next figures I shall give to the house and provide a comparison between 1933 and refer to the wholesale prices of Canadian farm	1932, the index figure of 100 being for the
products. These figures are given by months year 1926. They are:
	1932			1933		
Vegetable	Animal	Total	Vegetable	Animal	TotalJanuary	42-7	68-5	52-3	35-1	57-9	43-6February	44-3	66-1	52-5	36-0	54-7	43-0March	45-1	65-2	52-6	38-0	56-0	44-7April	45-4	61-7	51-5	41-1	56-4	46-8May	45-5	58-0	50-2	46-9	58-4	51 -2June	41-5	57-8	47-6	49-4	57-9	52-6July	42-6	57-8	48-3	60-8	59-0	60-1August	42-3	58-5	48-4	54-9	60-5	57-0September	39-5	60-4	47-3	49-5	63-4	54-7October	36-8	58-6	45-0	44-6	62-8	51-4November	36-3	57-2	44-1	46-7	65-8	53-8December	33-4	58-1	42-6	45-3	66-6	53-3Yearly average	411	60-7	48-4	45-7	60-0	510
If we take the production of raw material and of partly manufactured goods, we find the same story of a steady and continuous increase in the volume, in the value and in the activity of those engaged in the production of these goods. Of course, I realize the soundness of the criticism which has been 
made that we have been looking forward to better days but that we have been disappointed. That is quite true, but so has all the world. As I indicated to this house upon one occasion, Sir Arthur Salter pointed out that the world had about gotten back to prewar conditions when the unprecedented
JANUARY 30, 1934	g5
The Address-Mr. Bennett
speculation which was carried on on a scale never before heard of brought about disastrous consequences with the result that the second recovery became much more difficult than the first. But allowing for all that, this government, in the discharge of its responsibilities, has never lost courage but has always
remained confident and retained its faith and belief that in the end we will succeed.
Before leaving these statistics which I have given I should like to give the house some further figures which show the percentage of gains since early in 1933 with seasonal adjustments, based on an index figure of 100 for 1926. These are as follows:
Indexes with Seasonal Adjustments (1926 = 100), showing Percentage Gains since early in 1933
Index Numbers
Physical volume of business	
(Includes industrial production and distribution.)
Industrial production	
Flour production	
Cotton imports	
Newsprint production	
Export of planks and boards	
Mining	
Steel production	
Copper exports	
Nickel exports	
Electric power output	
Carloadings	
Bank debits	
Contracts awarded	
Commodity prices	
Security prices	
Cost of living	
Employment-[DOT]
Unadjusted	
Adjusted seasonally	
Agricultural marketings	
Wheat prices	
Feb.	Nov. [DOT]	Gain allowing for Seasonal Variation	Dec.	Gain allowing for Seasonal Variation67-0	85-5	27-6	86-2	28-760-9	83-9	37-8	85-1	39-757-8	74-7 (Oct.)	29-2	98-0 (Nov.)	69-653 * 8	137-5	155-6	135-8	152-485-9	122-3	42-4	117-2	36-429-4	51-8	76-2	63-2	115-080-5 (Jan.)	99-2	23-2	102-2	27-019-8	68-1	243-9	82-9	318-715-3 (Jan.)	51-6	237-3	21-1	37-967-1 (Jan.)	126-4	88-4	112-8	68-1136-1	158-1	16-2	156-5	15-05/ -9	62-9	8-6	60-4	4-385-2 (Feb.)	94-6	11-1	86-3	1-322-7	45-7	101-3	39-1	72-263-6	68-7	8-0	69-0	8-546-6	78-8	69-1	76-1	63-377-0 (May)	78-1	1-4	78-4	1-877-0	91-8 (Dec.)	18-6	88-6 (Jan. 1)	15-181-3	90-9 (Dec.)	8-7	95-0 "	16-956-1 (Jan.)	41-8	-25-5	30-7	- 45*345-8	63-7	39-1	60-3	31-7
If we had given way to phnic or to pessimism it would have been reflected at once upon the minds of the electorate. Sometimes I think the task has been difficult and the way hard but we have never faltered in the faith and confidence that we have had that in the end this country would win through to prosperity. The facts I have now presented to the house are some warrant at least for the confident faith we have had in our ability to do so. I will not take time to indicate at greater length further factors to which reference might be made, but I shall deal at once with the problem of unemployment and the references made to the matter by the leader of the opposition yesterday.
What are the facts? The facts are that the statistical department prepares these reports from time to time without reference to the government, as I have said, and that in the preparation of these reports their endeavour has been not to mislead, as has been suggested. And for any responsible 74726-5
member of this house", much less the leader of the opposition, to suggest that Mr. Coats would be guilty of a manipulation of these figures is something which, I really do submit, is not quite fair. The language used yesterday is language which, I think, should not have been used. The figures as presented, says the leader of the opposition, represent the prosperity of the country, not a prosperity such as is borne out by the facts but a prosperity borne out by the manipulation of statistics. That appears at the top of page 30. Later he says:
. . . I think he ought to look very carefully and see that the right thing is done and that there is no further possibility of the manipulation of figures as is the case in the form in which they are given here.
Obviously, I have not had time to go back over all the reports that have been made, but I had the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) ask for a report; and because Hansard has not been published a sufficient length of time to enable a detailed

The Address-Mr. Bennett

report to be made on the basis of the criticism that has been made, though such a report will be available later, all I can say at the moment is that the report which I have now received reads thus. The leader of the opposition said:
The index figure for the calendar year 1933 was lower than it has been at any time since 1930. Yet this is described as being evidence of increasing employment.
In the statement made by the bureau these words appear:
In the first few months of the year (1933) activity reached its lowest level in recent years, but from April 1 the general trend was steadily upward, the period of improvement extending over eight months.
That is a quotation from the very report to which the right hon. gentleman referred, and the statement I have in my hand reads, in this regard:
The fact that the 1933 average was lower than the 1932 average was due to the first four months; the last five months showed marked improvement over the corresponding months of 1932. The chart from the bureau's report illustrates this.
That chart I hold in my hand; it was available for the right hon. gentleman, as well as for any other hon. member, and it indicates exactly what the facts are in this connection.
Now we come to another matter, namely, the reporting firms. In the United States the Labour Department makes up its figures from industrial reporting firms-trade union firms, if you will, though not .all of them are members of the trade unions but those engaged in industrial activities. The statement I have here reads:
It has always been the policy of the Bureau of Statistics to secure, as far as possible, reports from all firms employing over fifteen persons. The number of these firms has increased, but the bureau in calculating its indexes allows for this by relating the number of employees reported each month to the number reported at the base period of 1926. Thus its indexes do not reflect the change in the number of firms.
The proper relation is established by statistical rules that are applicable here as elsewhere in order that there may be no misleading and that the figures may be comparable and not noncomparable, as some have suggested. When it was stated yesterday that the number of firms reporting had increased, perhaps it will be in the memory of some of those in this chamber to-day that, despite all the difficulties through which we have passed since 1930, there has been increased industrial activity, notably in the Toronto area, and the

number of firms that have reported has increased substantially over preceding years. That in itself indicates that, notwithstanding the difficulties we have had to meet, our industrial activity has not languished, and the number of firms employing fifteen or more has been increased- To quote again from the statement I have in my hand:
The bureau's index does not go below firms of fifteen employees, but the great majority of the firms reporting to it are firms employing between fifteen and fifty. It is believed to be very representative.
It is true that, as indicated by the report, with respect to those who are engaged in what might be called unemployment works these were included in the figures, and special reference was made to them. The right hon. gentleman said that these figures were entirely illusory. The department say that this is what they have done:
The employment statistics of the bureau are issued by exactly the same staff and by exactly the same methods as they have been issued monthly during the past eleven years, or since their inception by the bureau. No one outside the bureau sees these statistics until they are released or has any say whatsoever in their content or purport. In fact, this applies to the staff immediately engaged in their primary compilation, whose results are never altered in the slightest degree. It would be quite futile for the bureau, even if it were so disposed, to "manipulate" statistics of employment, as such manipulation would at once be belied by numerous other current statistical records. For example, the records of car loadings, bank debits, trade, numerous monthly production processes-all confirm and explain the movement of the bureau's employment index. The only current record of unemployment in Canada is that of the Department of Labour, based on reports from trade unions. This showed a marked decline in unemployment between March, 1933, and October, 1933, with a slight seasonal increase in November. The November index was 20.4 per cent compared with 25.1 per cent in March last and with 22.8 per cent in November, 1932.
There you have the trade union report made to the Department of Labour, and as regards those employed in industry and other branches of activity in this country, the report shows that there has been a steady decline in unemployment from March 1933 to October 1933. In the contentions put forward yesterday by the right hon. gentleman, this statement appears:
The bureau does not distinguish between employment arising out of moneys paid out of the public treasury for relief, and employment as provided by private firms.
The bureau's comment is as follows:
The bureau's index is an index of the volume of employment and' is clearly and categorically described as such in each and every issue of

The Address-Mr. Bennett
the figures. It would be absolutely impossible for the bureau to find out monthly wherein the employment provided had its financial source. The record does, however, clearly show the trend of employment from month to month in a very large number of specified industries whose relation to relief is nil. Highway construction is only one of over 60 industrial classifications shown. Such highway construction has been included in the record ever since 1921, and has presumably always been paid for by taxation of one kind or another. The bureau's index of employment is not to be taken as an index of unemployment except in the most general way, and even this general application has never been made by the bureau.
As a matter of general information, we know that there are about 14,000 employed in camps by the Department of National Defence, and about 19,000 by the Ontario Department of Northern Development, while doubtless there are a number employed by other provinces and by municipalities. The aggregate, however, would appear to be under 50,000 included in the bureau's figures out of the total increase of 146,000 between April 1 and December 1. For example, in manufacturing alone, which cannot be associated with relief, the following increases in payrolls as between April 1 and December 1 are shown.
This is an amazing figure which has been published and sent abroad showing the increase in the pay-rolls between, as I have said, April 1 and December 1 of last year.


Mr. DUFF:: May I ask the Prime Minister who is responsible for what he has read?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is from the Bureau of Statistics.


William Duff: Who is responsible for it- the minister or Mr. Coats?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister, so far as I know, has not seen it.


William Duff: Who is responsible for it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whether it was written by the director, Mr. Coats, himself, or by one of his assistants, I am not in a position to say, but it comes from the bureau and the bureau is responsible.


William Duff: The Prime Minister who is reading it should be in a position to tell us who wrote it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that it came from the Bureau of Statistics. The increase in the monthly pay-rolls of the reporting firms from April 1 to December 1, 1933, is as follows:
Economic areas-	Increase
Maritimes	 10,500
Quebec	 52,000
Ontario	 56,900
Prairies	 13,600
British Columbia	 13,900
Total	 146,900
And on the average of 1926 being taken as equal to 100, on April 1 of last year the figure stood at 76 per cent and on December 1 at 91-8 per cent, an increase, as will be observed, of 20-8 per cent. These are facts as they have been gathered by the bureau and if they are disputed I certainly can only say that an opportunity can be afforded to the house and to every member of it to bring before the appropriate committee the gentlemen who prepared these figures.


William Duff: Who are the gentlemen who prepared those figures?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The manufacturing industry shows an increase of 41,789 in the same period and they are divided amongst the following:
Animal products-edible.
Fur and products.
Leather and products.
Lumber and products.
Musical instruments.
Plant products-edible.
Pulp and paper products.
Rubber products.
Textile products.
Plant products, not elsewhere specified.
Wood distillates and extracts.
Chemicals and allied products.
Clay, glass and stone products.
Electric current.
Electrical apparatus.
Iron and steel products.
Non-ferrous metal products.
Non-metallic mineral products.
Miscellaneous.
Then there are:
Logging.
Mining.
Communications.
Transportation.
Construction and maintenance.
Services.
Trade.
This shows in respect of the firms reporting monthly to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics a total increase of 146,900 persons during the period to which I have referred. The increases for the months during the period are shown in the appropriate columns. The figures teach their own lesson.
Considering further the matter of Canadian employment I have before me a compilation issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics which shows that 8,061 firms of classified industries reporting in December, 1932, had 765,441 persons employed; 8,428 similar firms reporting in December, 1933, had 850,486 persons employed, an estimated increase in respect of reporting firms of 10-3 per cent. In the face of these facts I submit that Canadians have some reason to feel a sense of pride rather than of pessimism with respect to their country and with the record which
74726-5 j
The Address-Mr. Bennett

they thus establish. I think it is due to those who have been assailed in this house that an early opportunity should be taken to determine the method by which these computations have been made and to demonstrate the soundness of what has been done. That is the position. I do not think it is desirable to take up the time of the house in reading into the record columns of figures one after the other dealing with these matters, because no good purpose would be served by doing so.
In addition to this we have the retail sales which show a marked improvement. I wonder whether there is any member in this chamber who does not realize that every merchant in all the larger communities of this country has said repeatedly that last December was the best month he had had for years. I know one merchant in this city said that it was the best he had had for six years in cash business. I know others who said it was the best they had had for four or five years and others that it was the best they had had for three years, but they have been unanimous in their statement that the retail sales during the month of December have exceeded those of any December in recent years. I therefore conclude that if ever there was justification for stating that there has been an improvement in trade, an expansion in revenue and an increase in employment, it has been in this house to-day. I invite the house to give as close and studious attention as possible to the facts for the purpose of ascertaining whether the bureau upon which we have relied during all these years is the bureau to which we can look with confidence or whether they have manipulated figures, and if so for what purpose I know not, for without direction from someone what purpose would there be in doing this, and without direction from some person, why should they desire to do it? I recall an occasion when the right hon. gentleman waxed somewhat eloquent and angry because attacks were made upon those who could not answer for themselves. It is not in my judgment fitting that those occupying important positions in a department of such transcendent importance to the nation should be attacked without at least some opportunity being afforded to those concerned in making their defence. As there must always be governmental responsibility whether the ministry knows aught of these things or not, I for my part have the greatest satisfaction and pride in saying that I believed the League of Nations was right when it said that our

Bureau of Statistics was one of the best in all the world and that the information supplied had been found to be accurate and reliable in every particular and was a credit to this dominion. I still hold that view.
The next point to which the right hon. gentleman directed considerable attention was the trade agreements. How sad a thing it is for him to contemplate those agreements! I suspect that every time he stands in his place and speaks about them he thinks of his efforts in 1923. Methinks I can hear him still pleading his cause in England to a deaf administration that the very things that have been done should be done and that we should have for our exports the preferences we have now received. All the members of the house should take the time to read the record of the economic conference of 1923. I commend it to them. I have read some parts of it to this house on various occasions. Why should the right hon. gentlemen decry so vigorously agreements that have brought such a measure of additional trade to this country? And not content with doing it at home, we find it abroad also. I hold in my hand the Glasgow Herald for February 1, 1933, and the candidate representing the Liberal party, Mr. Kier, made a speech at the close of the campaign, being supported by Major Gwilym Lloyd George, M.P., and other speakers. He is reported to have said:
*-he could now safely say that no entry made by any candidate into any contest had been more amply justified judging by the enthusiasm and support his candidature had provoked. His supporters and himself were late starters, but he believed they were fast finishers.
Then he proceeds to say that,
-he talked on the transatlantic telephone last night to Mr. Mackenzie King, the leader of the Canadian Liberal party, who told him of the anxiety with which Canadian Liberals were waiting the result of the East Fife by-election. Mr. Mackenzie King reminded him of two by-'elections held recently in Canada in safe Tory seats which resulted in the return of two Liberals pledged to oppose the Ottawa agreements, -which had resulted in increasing the world's tariffs, and pledged to fight for an immediate reduction of Canadian tariffs. He expressed the hope that everywhere in Great Britain there would be encouraged progressive movements designed to promote freer trade and the removal of trade restrictions.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I am sure my right hon. friend will permit me to remind him that at the time of the election to which he refers a dispatch appeared in the press to the effect that I had communicated over the long distance telephone with the gentleman he mentioned, and that I immediately denied in this house the accuracy of that report. I stated

The Address-Mr. Bennett
that I had been rung up by a gentleman from somewhere in Scotland and asked certain questions, and that I had replied to him I did not think it was proper for me even to discuss a matter which related to the domestic affairs of Great Britain, and that I had nothing to say. I said nothing. I made that statement in the house last year, and I am surprised that my right hon. friend does not remember it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly accept the statement of the right hon. gentleman. But apparently Liberalism is as unreliable in England as it is here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been said that as a result of the agreements entered into in Ottawa in 1932 the rest of the world would retaliate against Canada and against the empire. There is of course nothing to warrant any such statement. During the entire period of time that the Liberals were in office after the war they were unable to conclude any agreement at all with Germany, and it was not until after the Ottawa pacts were signed that an agreement was made with Germany, which as I happen to know and as hon. members opposite know, could not be brought about by the late Hon. Mr. Robb or anyone else. So that as far as Germany at least is concerned, one of the large markets of the world, we did make an agreement with them. There was a contract or agreement with France, but under that agreement France three times within a few months, and during the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite, raised the tariff against Canadian wheat. After the Ottawa agreements we negotiated a new treaty with France. So you have at least those two great trading nations with which Canada made trade agreements after the Ottawa agreements. And the agreements that were in force with other countries have not been abrogated. The twenty odd most-favoured-nation clause agreements that were in force, and have been for years, these contracts, treaties and agreements still stand. No country has asked that they be abrogated, no complaint has been made that would indicate reprisals as possible or likely. And as I shall presently show, we have extended our trade with all these nations.
It is desirable to keep in mind the extent to which we as a country have become dependent upon a stable market. I wonder if any member of this house has taken the trouble to realize what it means to have unstable markets for the exports of Canada. Has this house forgotten the observations made by the right hon. gentleman at the close of the budget of 1929 with respect to
trade with the United States of America? Have we forgotten the Hawley-Smoot tariff of that day, and his speech on that? Have we forgotten how he said that it is not desirable that we should do anything to protect ourselves, lest we arouse their anger still more and become the victims of it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I never made a statement of the kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the word was "provoke." I have it among my papers, but it would disturb the sequence of my observations to turn to it now; I will take it when I come to it. "Provocative" I think was the exact word. At any rate it indicated a measure of regret that this country could not protect itself lest it might offend someone.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not a correct interpretation, nor fair comment on what appears in the text.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was also said that even our British preference should not be increased at this time for the same reason. Now, sir, I ask for any evidence that the world has resented the Ottawa pacts.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If there is any we have a right to ask for it. Mere statements do not add to our knowledge. Name the countries, give us some indication of them.


William Duff: There was not anything in them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, i3 that perhaps the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Usley) may be able to give an answer to that with respect to apples.


William Duff: Three cents a barrel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman desires to make a speech his opportunity will come later.


William Duff: But my right hon. friend asked me a question and I answered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has a habit of thinking any question is addressed to him that is addressed to the other side. It is a mistake.
May I point out that there has been a steady increase in trade between the countries comprising the British empire; that we have had an assured and sheltered market for our products, that in certain markets where there was uncertainty before there is now certainty and we know that foT a period of three years, five years from 1932, we have that market with respect to those products. We know that if material comes from a foreign country
The Address-Mr. Bennett

to Great Britain it has to pay a duty of ten to twenty per cent, while Canadian products and products from other parts of the empire enter free.


William Duff: Did they not always enter
free? Was there ever a duty against Canadian goods entering Great Britain?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: our own efforts in the establishment of our own Canadian industries. I shall not dwell further upon that.
There is one matter to which I think I am warranted in referring, which has been largely affected by treaties, and that is the lumber business of this country. I suppose that it is within the knowledge of members of this house that British Columbia exported more lumber last year than in any other year in its history. The largest lumbering trade that goes on in the world is transacted from that province.


Mr. MUNN:: Exported to Great Britain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exported to all the world, to Great Britain and to Australia, New Zealand, China and all the world. I have under my hand the figures of the countries to which that lumber goes and the amounts, and it is amazing the number of countries to which British Columbia lumber is sent- It is not simply to one or two or three or four countries. If I might mention individuals, the gentleman in charge of that particular business has built up a market in almost every country in the world. British Columbia lumber is going to all the seven seas.


William Duff: Did it not always go to the seven seas?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it only went to four. May I direct the attention of the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. Munn) to the fact that the greatest exports of lumber which his province has enjoyed in all its history took place during the past year, and largely that has been due to the exports to Great Britain which have been ensured by reason of the fact that our lumber goes in there free against its competitors who have to pay from ten to twenty per cent of the value to get their lumber into the ports of England. I have the figures before me of the exports from British Columbia, but I shall not take time to give them.
I think it may fairly be said, then, that we have abundantly justified the bargains which we made with respect to trade. We have enhanced and increased our business not only with the British Empire but with the countries of the world.
But the right hon. leader of the opposition asked me yesterday, very pointedly, why did we not negotiate a reciprocity agreement with the United States?


William Duff: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was surprised to hear the right hon. gentleman use the word

reciprocity, because reciprocity might be a very difficult thing to accomplish with any country in the present disturbed conditions of the world. I shall not do more than ask two or three questions with respect to that. I wonder where the right hon. gentleman gets his information that the United States desires to negotiate a treaty with Canada. All I can say is that I do not believe the government of the United States has been communicating with him to that effect, and they certainly have not been with us. It may be that his former minister to Washington among his activities has given him information to that effect, but that I think is doubtful.
I read to this house last year a joint statement prepared by the President of the United States and myself, and I know of no reason why the facts stated in that memorandum are not as accurate to-day as they were then. That is all I shall say with respect to that.


William Duff: If the mountain won't come to Mahomet why does not Mahomet go to the mountain?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There might be some little difference of opinion in some cases as to which constituted Mahomet, but if the hon. gentleman was present no such difficulty would arise.
I find that the right hon. leader of the opposition was in power in this country for many years. Did he negotiate a treaty with the United States?


William Duff: There was a Tory government then in the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I find that on April 9, 1929, at page 1403 of Hansard the right hon. gentleman thus expressed himself:
This year differs from other years in one essential particular. This year, when the government was preparing its budget, it had before it the knowledge which is common throughout the continent, that a neighbouring country was about to make certain changes in its tariff, changes which may materially affect trade between the two countries. Trade between this country and the United States is, I believe, the greatest trade that exists between any two countries in the world, and naturally we are interested in what the citizens of the republic do with respect to matters which may affect that trade. We are interested as well in all that affects the industrial conditions of that country because, as we know from experience, matters are so inter-related in economic affairs that it is seldom that one portion of this continent is appreciably affected by depression or the opposite without other parts being also affected. We have the word of those in authority in the neighbouring republic that there are certain measures to be

The Address-Mr. Bennett
introduced at a special session of congress now about to assemble. An important measure vve are led to believe, is a measure relating to farm relief. Another measure relates to "limited adjustments of the tariff"; that I think is the expression which has been officially used. Having that knowledge before us, I ask hon. gentlemen irrespective of party: In the condition of prosperity which Canada is to-day enjoying would it be desirable on the part of the administration to take any action with respect to the tariff in Canada at the present time which by those across the line who may be interested in seeking to raise the tariff in that country could be regarded as provocative? I say that with the knowledge which we have before us at the present time, were we to do what hon. gentlemen opposite by their amendment apparently wish us to do, namely raise the tariff, we would be creating in the minds of the American people the very sentiment which would cause them to raise their tariff higher perhaps than it was ever their intention to raise it. We do not intend to take any action of that provocative character.
May I say to my hon. friends opposite, in the other corner of the house, that were we to-day to take a step along the lines of increasing the British preference to a greater degree than exists at the present time that step also might be misconstrued, for we know that there are people on the other side of the line who are just as anxious to be troublemakers as certain people on this side of the line, who are ready to misrepresent matters, and we have to take human nature as it is, and deal with it as it is. So facing the situation before us, we have followed the policy that we have followed in the past and that we shall follow at all times, of dealing with each situation as it arises in the light of the conditions as they exist at the time.
I suppose there is no doubt as to the accuracy of that record?


William Duff: Why pause?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think if the hon. gentleman, formerly of Lunenburg, but now of Antigonish-Guysborough, had listened he must have heard what was said by his leader with respect to that matter. But let me ask a question or two as to what is intended by this demand for reciprocity. Reciprocity in cattle, in butter, in eggs, in hogs-reciprocity in all these, I suppose, would be the proper thing to have?


William Duff: What about fish?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am so glad to hear
that-fish, as well as cattle, hogs, butter and eggs, because I will now give you the prices of these commodities in Canada and the United States. I got the market quotation to-day on hogs, and I find the figures are as follows:
Hog Prices
	Monday	Tuesday
	Jan. 29	Jan. 30
	Per 100 pounds	
Toronto-select bacons. . .	$10 15	$10 35Montreal-select bacons. . .	10 10	10 10Winnipeg-select bacons. . .	9 25	to 10 15
Chicago-good to choice

180-220 pounds		3 85	4 00
Buffalo-good to choice- 180-220 pounds		3 75	
So we want reciprocity	to 4 00 in hogs	in orderthat Americans can find in	Canada	a market
for their commodities at twice the price they get at home.


Mr. DONNELLY:: What about the price of wheat?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The price of wheat is the same as the price obtained in Canada having regard to the duty of forty-two cents per bushel imposed by the American congress against Canadian wheat.
Just one more moment while I deal with a further question as to the prices of cattle, bacon, butter and eggs, in the two countries. We have now had expressed in this house by western members a desire that we should have a reciprocity agreement with the United States with respect to these items. The prices being received for these commodities at different points in Canada and the United States are as follows:
Cattle-	Per cwt.
Good weighty steers-Toronto. .. $5.40-$6.50 Good 1,100-1,300-lb. steers-Chicago 5.00 - 6.25 Hogs-	Per cwt.
Select bacons-Calgary	 $8.50
Select bacons-Winnipeg	 9.00
Select bacons-Toronto	 9.45
Select bacons-Montreal	 9.25
Good	to	choice,	180-220	lb.-
Omaha	 $3.25-$3.40
Good	to	choice,	180-220	lb.-
St. Louis	 3.65-3.75
Good	to	choice,	180-220	lb.-
Kansas City	 3.35-3.45
Good	to	choice,	180-220	lb.-
Chicago	 3.60-3.75
Butter-	Per pound
No. 1 pasteurized, wholesale-
Montreal	25Jc. to 26c.
Comparable grade-New York ..	20Jc.
Butter Fat-
For	special	grade	cream-
Alberta	 19c. to 23c.
For	special	grade	cream-
Saskatchewan	 20c.
For	special	grade	cream-
Manitoba	 21Jc.
For	special	grade	cream-
Ontario	27c. to 28c.
For sweet cream-Chicago.. .. 21c. to 21 Jc.
The Address-Mr. Bennett

Eggs-	Per dozen
Wholesale prices-Toronto	 30e.
Wholesale prices-Montreal..	..	29c.
Wholesale prices-Chicago ..	.. 19|c. to 20jc.
Wholesale prices-New York..	..	24Jc.
Prices to country shippers-*
Winnipeg	27c. to 28c.
Prices to country shippers-[DOT]
Kansas City	 17ic.
That is the reciprocity the hon. gentleman says he wants.


John Vallance: There is no reciprocity in that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I asked him distinctly if he wanted reciprocity in those items; I named them and he said he did. He wants an opportunity for the American farmer to sell his agricultural products at Canadian prices which are higher than he can get at home. That is the reciprocity they say they want. Let them tell the agriculturists of Quebec and Ontario that that is the form of agricultural reciprocity that is wanted. Go and tell them that you want the American to come into this market to sell his products under such a reciprocity treaty. The only form of treaty that can be arrived at between countries is one that is just and fair to both and one that affords an opportunity for the products of the one country in the markets of the other under the most fair conditions.


John Vallance: That is all we want.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


John Vallance: That is all right but he
has suggested it to us.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If any other agreement is in the minds of those who have been speaking in this house, I can only say that there will be no agreement possible that imposes unfair conditions upon Canadians or that would subject Canadian dairy farmers, butter producers and hog and cattle raisers to the competition of prices received in the United States for comparable products.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, will the Prime Minister be good enough to give-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, with your permission might I ask the Prime Minister to give the comparative prices received for fish in Boston, New York and Halifax or any other part of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not the figures beside me but I will endeavour to secure them for the hon. gentleman. If he will repair to
IMr. Bennett.]
the library I fancy he will have no difficulty in finding them in a Boston paper.


William Duff: I do not have to go to the
library.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the encyclopaedic mind of the hon. gentleman will provide an answer to his question without reference to the library.


William Duff: There is no comparison.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall now proceed to deal with another matter, the wheat agreement. The right hon. gentleman devoted considerable time yesterday to dealing with the wheat agreement and stated that this arrangement was eminently unsatisfactory to himself [DOT] and his party. I think it well that we should start at the beginning of things and I should like to ask hon. gentlemen opposite whether they represent Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta any better than their [DOT] local governments? I should like to ask them whether they are any closer to the people of Manitoba than the Hon. John Bracken? I should like to ask them whether they are any closer to the people of Alberta than the Hon. J. E. Brownlee? I should like to ask them whether they are any closer to the people of Saskatchewan than the Hon. J. T. M. Anderson?


John Vallance: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


John Vallance: The Prime Minister is
asking a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is out
of order.


John Vallance: The Prime Minister has asked a question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
no right to interrupt a speaker when he is addressing the house.


John Vallance: With all deferenoe to
Your Honour may I suggest-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman should take his seat.


John Vallance: With all deference to
Your Honour may I ask-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


John Vallance: The Prime Minister
has asked a question.

The Address-Mr. Bennett


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member should not interrupt when a speech is being made to this house. I ask him to keep order and take his seat.


John Vallance: May I ask a question?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No.


John Vallance: On a point of order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member wishes to raise a point of order, he has a right to do so.


John Vallance: I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister has asked a question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


John Vallance: He asked whether we
who sit-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The Prime Minister has
directed no question to the hon. member. Sometimes in making a speech words are used which indicate a question but they may not be directed to a definite member of the house.


John Vallance: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I ask the hon. member to take his seat; he is out of order.


John Vallance: If the Prime Minister
does not want to answer me-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On May 30 last a telegram was addressed to me reading as follows:
Winnipeg, Man., May 30, 1933,
___	5.10 a.m.
Honourable R. B. Bennett,
Ottawa, Ont.
The following resolution was passed at a meeting of the wheat problems committee representative of the governments of the three prairie provinces:
_ That in the opinion of the committee an increase in commodity prices generally and wheat prices in particular is essentially a condition precedent to any sustained improvement in Canadian economic conditions;
That in view of the present large world surplus of wheat and the present prospect of a further large Canadian crop, some plan of curtailment of wheat production in or exports from the four principal exporting countries is essential to any such price increase;
That we therefore strongly recommend to the government of Canada that it make every effort to secure for this question an early and prominent place in the discussion of the general economic conference and that the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, pledge the support of their respective provincial governments to the principle of such curtailment of wheat production or control of exports and offer to cooperate with the federal government in formulating plans to carry this principle into operation in Canada;
That ally further discussion at the said economic conference should involve consideration of the possibility of any agreement arrived at between the said exporting countries becoming effective in the marketing of any crop handled after the first day of July, nineteen thirty-three.
Sgd. John E. Brownlee, John Bracken,
M. A. MacPherson.
That telegram was received by me on the eve of my departure for the world economic conference. On my arrival there I found that Mr. Morgenthau, whose committee had been dealing with the matter at Geneva, had set up his committee at London. Representatives of all the wheat exporting countries attended, with the exception of Russia which came in later.	After a
full discussion certain facts were ascertained to which I shall presently refer, but it was realized that in order to make effective any agreement of that character, it was essential that the wheat importing countries should not beli-eve, as in times past they sometimes had, that they were about to be made to pay through the nose for what they bought. Discussions took place with the wheat importing countries, Great Britain being the largest, and they agreed that it was in the interests of world conditions that there should be an increase in the price of wheat to the producer. The only method by which that could be arrived at was by dealing with the problem through the curtailment of production until such time as production and demand were near an equilibrium. Now, let us see just what was involved in that. This country unfortunately has been greatly misled with regard to wheat. I wonder if the house recalls the fact that immediately after the war we believed that we would have in a time of peace a wartime market, and that we should be able to maintain the sales of our wheat abroad on the same basis as during the war. Well, of course it was an unfounded assumption. We increased acreage, going up and up, increasing the production of wheat, until there were millions of unsold bushels, while across the water, in France, in Italy and in other countries they were getting back to prewar conditions and increasing their production of wheat so as to make themselves selfsustaining if possible. That was the position. How far this country has been misled in this matter I should like to point out. Suppose I merely point to a speech made, for instance, by Mr. Crerar, who is reported as follows:
With reference to the unemployment question, Mr. Crerar attributed the present conditions largely to the fact that the crop in western Canada was not so great in 1929 as that of
The Address-Mr. Bennett

the previous year, and he made the prediction that if western Canada has a five hundred million bushel crop this year, and other crops were correspondingly large, within six months the greater part of the unemployment in Canada would have vanished.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the date?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was June 13, 1930. Others had the same view. We were all mistaken. I am not here to place the blame upon the government of the day because the farmers of the west believed that all they had to do was to grow more wheat and they would be rich; I am not here to blame them for a single moment if they believed, as the farmers did, that all they had to do was to grow more wheat and they would find a ready market for it. The then leader of the government-and I am not saying that he is censurable-believed there was always a ready market for Canadian wheat. Indeed, Canadians had always been taught that. They thought it was so, but alas it was not. There is Italy to-day producing more wheat than the specified requirements of her own people. France, since the war, has improved her cultivation ; she has improved the fertility of her soil, so that she is producing more wheat on a smaller acreage than before the war. More than that, she is exporting as a matter of fact certain quantities to Great Britain. And Germany is in exactly the same position.
The French realized the seriousness of the matter, and if any hon. members are interested they can see the form of placard or poster that is being posted up throughout France in connection with the reduction of the acreage of wheat production. One of those posters I have in my hand. Other countries are taking the same position. Now, why is it? The fact is that we had no understanding of the relation of consumption to production; that is all. Yesterday I thought that the leader of the opposition was about to put the case correctly. He said. "If I had a large stock of goods what would I do?" If any of you are familiar with the book written by Mr. Henry Ford during his own crisis you will recall what his answer was: Reduce your inventories. This country has accumulated vast quantities of wheat that cannot be sold. Have tariffs anything to do with it? Nothing in the world. The increased tariff that took place in France took place before this government came into power, three times in a few months; and while I took the view that this was unfair under the treaties, it was a matter which in fact was only incidental to the carrying out of their national policy of being self-sustaining.
IMr. Bennett.l
I wonder if the people of this country realize the extent to which the terror of starvation has seized the people of Europe. They went through a great war. You all know the conditions in England; you know what those conditions were during a few months of the war. On the continent of Europe two fears obsessed the people; one was the fear of the submarine menace and the destruction of ships that might carry grain to their ports if they were again in trouble, and the other was the fear that they would be held up to ransom in the matter of prices so that they could not pay them. They resented the idea of having to pay a ransom, and shall I make this observation in this regard. I think it is within the knowledge of some of the members of this house that some good Canadians believed that the necessity of one community was the opportunity of another. I will say something that may be misunderstood. The late Sir George Foster was the only man I know of who during the war contended, in season and out of season, against charging too high prices for wheat. He ventured always to say that in his view, if we did that, we should pay the price. Sir, we charged $3 per bushel for wheat during the war and got it; hon. gentlemen know that. When the war was over we continued to increase our production of wheat, believing that all we had to do, as Mr. Crerar has said, was to produce five hundred million bushels and we were rich. But what were other people doing? Confronted with the fear of starvation on the one hand and the fear of being held up to ransom on the other, they at once set about improving their methods of cultivation, in some cases vastly increasing acreage, though in France they did not even increase their acreage. There they improved methods of cultivation so as to make it possible for them to grow more wheat than ever before.
Need I remind the house of something that is known to everyone. Man perfected a machine by which he extracted from the air certain nitrogenous elements that enabled him to fertilize the soil cheaply, whereas before he had to bring nitrates from Chile. Now, confronted with such a situation, what would a merchant do? Overstocked, and without any possible market, what would he do? The right hon. gentleman yesterday talked about markets, markets, markets; he said, "Go and get markets."


An hon. MEMBER:: Blast them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are certain markets that can be, but this is not one. When you come to deal with wheat you are faced with

The Address-Mr. Bennett
this fact as everyone knows, that France, Spain, Italy, Hungary, Esthonia, Roumania, Bulgaria and other countries are increasing their wheat production, so that the Danubian countries have an exportable surplus. France has an exportable surplus, and Germany after supplying her people has a surplus. Italy, with the draining of lands and improved cultivation, and in the effort to supply the food requirements of her own people, has this year produced more wheat than Canada.
With that situation the three premiers of the provinces affected met together and sent me, before I left for England, the telegram which I have just read, and I took the course I have indicated. Conferences were held from time to time, until finally the conference adjourned, the wheat committee remaining in being. Mr. Morgemthau returned to the United States, and Mr. Murphy of Minneapolis, himself a wheat farmer, took the matter in hand from the standpoint of the Americans, who showed the greatest willingness in the world to assist in meeting the situation. Canada was the worst offender; we had the greatest surplus of unsold wheat. What was to be done? Finally, as the right hon. gentleman said yesterday, they met in the High Commissioner's office, and at that office they signed an agreement. The agreement is predicated upon our not growing more wheat than can reasonably be taken care of with the adjustments that are necessary to get rid of the present surplus. Most hon. members know that but for the intervention of the government the wheat situation would be an intolerable one. They have from time to time asked for a wheat board but they have had practically a wheat board for two years. The wheat surplus in this country is very large. I shall give just .two or three figures in order that there may be no misunderstanding about the matter, and in order that there may be no uncertainty as to what is said I am going to read this statement which to some extent will answer the question of the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Young):
The first warnings of impending change in the wheat situation came in 1925 when Italy and Germany increased their duties on imported wheat. In 1927 France increased her import duties on two occasions, practically doubling the rate. With large domestic crops of foodstuffs in prospect in the summer of 1929, France and Italy again increased their import duties followed by an increase in Germany in December, 1929. In June, 1930, the Italian import duty was increased to eighty-six cents per bushel (later increased to $1.07 per bushel); in October, 1930, the German import duty was increased to $1.62 per bushel; and in June, 1930, France imposed a duty of eighty-five cents a bushel on imported wheat. These severe
tariffs were followed by the inauguration of milling quotas which limited the amount of foreign wheat which could be used in domestic mills. Smaller importing countries followed the example of the larger importing states and, at the present time, there is not a wheat-deficient country in Europe which does not directly or indirectly impose restrictions upon importation of wheat. The abandonment of the gold standard by the United Kingdom started a regime of fluctuating currencies and' as a result importing countries strengthened their quantitative restrictions such as milling quotas and exchange controls. These measures were made more effective than tariffs in regulating imports from countries with inflated currencies.
This one can readily understand.
The question naturally arises as to why this action was taken by importing countries. The answer is simple. Importing countries acted in defence of their own farmers. By taking the action which they did, these countries served notice that they were not going to allow domestic prices to fall to the level of prices in exporting countries where large surpluses of wheat were driving prices downward. They acted to meet the crisis which threatened their economic life. During the past five years the continent of Europe has produced more wheat than North America and therefore the fall in wheat prices vitally affected Europe. The main net importing countries of northern and western Europe had the strategic advantage of being able to withstand the direct effects of the falling international price level through regulating the price of imported wheat by the imposition of import duties and by other devices. In other words, while the Liverpool price of wheat fell to the lowest levels in history, France, Germany, and Italy have maintained prices well in excess of $1.25 a bushel since 1929.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the document from which the right hon. gentleman is reading?
Mr. BENNETT; I am reading from the document that has been circulated by the governments of the western provinces. I am doing so in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Weybum.
The crisis for European countries as well as for exporting countries arose from the emergence of an abnormal world carry-over of wheat as Europe gradually recovered her pre-war position and exporting countries continued to maintain and in some instances to expand acreage which had been sown to wheat when European agriculture was disorganized during the war and early post-war years.
Now, without going into this at further length, may I give just these figures:
When the wheat conference met in London during the latter part of August, the European wheat situation demanded particular attention. It appeared quite obvious that even the record production of 1932 would be exceeded due to the more favourable growing season of 1933. The principal improvement was in the Danubian area, where a partial crop failure occurred in 1932. The four exporting countries in the Danube basin produced about 129,000,000
The Address-Mr. Bennett

bushels more in 1933 than in 1932, with indications that they would have a surplus of nearly 50,000,000 bushels for export in the 1933-34 season. France, Germany, and Italy produced large crops and these were particularly alarming because the effects of the heavy 1932 crops were still evident. The French wheat estimate is 339,000,000 bushels compared with
334.000.	000 bushels in 1932. Germany's harvest is placed at 203,000,000 bushels compared with
184.000.	000 bushels last year. The Italian crop is estimated at 297,000,000 bushels compared with 277,000,000 bushels last year. The United Kingdom estimates its wheat production at about 62,000,000 bushels, a substantial increase over the 44,000,000 bushels garnered in 1932. The Netherlands, Greece and Switzerland each had larger crops on increased acreage, while the crop in Belgium was reduced slightly due to the lower acreage seeded in 1933. Thus seven of the eight major European importing countries produced more wheat in 1933 than the record yields of 1932. The smaller countries were similarly favoured by the weather in 1933. Spain and Portugal are the only European countries which have appreciable decreases in 1933 wheat production compared with 1932 returns. Thus the continent of Europe, which is the principal market for overseas wheat, will have lower import requirements in 1933-34 because of increased acreages and exceptionally high yields per acre during the past growing season.
Without going further into that, I should like to read just this paragraph from the agreement. The agreement was:
To consider the measures which might be taken in concert to adjust the supply of wheat to effective world demand and eliminate the abnormal surpluses which have been depressing the wheat market and to bring about a rise and stabilization of prices at a level remunerative to producers and fair to consumers of bread-stuffs.
May I say that nothing more impressed me than to see the representatives of importing countries rise in their places and say that they believed the only way in which an ultimate return to prosperity would be secured was to bring about for wheat a price that would at least give a profit to the producer. They put that very strongly; they said that they were willing to give the greatest possible assistance to attain that end.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Has the right lion, gentleman the figures of surpluses in exporting countries?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: I thought perhaps he might have them to the date of the conference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have them under my hand, brought down to a later date and I shall mention them before I finish. Let me give Canada's position:
It has been shown that the expansion of production of wheat in exporting countries and

the return to pre-war production of this cereal in Europe resulted in a burdensome surplus of wheat.
I should like the house to listen to these figures:
In 1914, Canadian wheat acreage amounted to
10,000,000 acres. In 1933, Canadian wheat acreage amounted to 26,000,000 acres. While this situation has developed, the 1933 wheat acreage of Europe, where Canada must Bell the bulk of her surplus, has reached and surpassed pre-war levels.
That is the story. I shall see if I can obtain a copy of this document and send it to the hon. gentleman, because there is a great deal of information in it; it answers many questions he would like to have answered, and on the back there is a series of charts bringing the figures reasonably down to date.
What did we undertake to do? First, on the best information available, it was concluded that 560,000,000 bushels of wheat would meet the requirements of the wheat importing countries of the world. It was agreed that Canada should have 200,000,000 bushels of that market. This was somewhat larger, some said, than we had a right to. I am bound to say that the attitude of the delegates was one of extreme fairness. They said this: Canada has been increasing its production in a very marked way and if it has 200,000,000 bushels of that market for the season 1933-34, that will not be unfair. But before the agreement was signed, in order that I might have the assistance and benefit of the views of the western provinces themselves, I cabled to western Canada and Mr. MacPherson, after a conference with the three provinces, came to London and with me signed the agreement. This matter is largely one within the jurisdiction of the provinces. On the large matter of trade we as a nation are affected. With respect to the acreage that shall be placed in wheat, the quantity that shall be delivered to the elevators, over those matters the legislatures of the provinces, of course, have control. The pool organizations in the three provinces have all approved ot this agreement, Manitoba being the first, Saskatchewan, I think, second, and lastly Alberta. They have approved of the terms of the agreement. Why? Because they realize that any man in business who is confronted with an unsaleable surplus should so regulate his affairs as to reduce that surplus to the point where his future production will meet the requirements of those to whom he has to sell.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the Prime Minister if the agreement is in force at the present time-

The Address-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the agreement is in force at the present time. We are this year operating on the two hundred million quota for Canada, subject of course to increase in certain contingencies. That is the position of affairs at the moment. That is, the crop year that ends on July 31, 1934, is to witness the marketing by Canada of not more than
200.000.	000 bushels of wheat. As far as we can at present ascertain there will be less than that quantity required by the importing countries.
I would like to direct attention to one or two further considerations. If the provinces desire that the national government shall assist them to attain a given end, that end not being within their competence, I look upon it as the duty of the national government, the matter being of such importance, to lend assistance. The national government did so, by acting as I have indicated. It is apparent to any thoughtful man who takes the trouble to read the information available, and from the survey that has been made by a Canadian, Mr. Cairns, the secretary of the advisory committee that was set up to remain constantly in action, the position is just as it was in August only that some of the countries in Europe have produced a somewhat larger quantity of wheat than was expected.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has Russia come in yet?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Russia executed the agreement, yes. It was left to the exporting countries to determine the extent of the Russian quota on the assumption that
560.000.	000 bushels would be the entire quantity imported by the importing countries. Russia contended that she had a larger quantity to sell than the other countries said was available for export. I believe Russia has exported some 25,000,000 bushels so far during the present crop year, and in every respect the provisions of the agreement with respect to the exporting countries have been observed. The report read to. this house yesterday by the right hon. gentleman from the Citizen, is,
I think, manifestly unfair. It was obviously a statement made up by a reporter. He gave no warrant in any sense for what he had written, and I say it was not a correct statement of the situation. When the provincial premiers were here we did discuss this matter, except that Mr. MacPherson represented Saskatchewan and not Mr. Anderson, who was busy with the Minister of Finance at the moment. The conclusions at which we arrived after the fullest investigation were that nothing had transpired that in any sense improved the situation over what it was when the agreements were made. The provinces remain firm in their conviction that the only way in which they can meet these difficulties is by seeing that the surplus is absorbed, which means that they will lessen their production,


Mr. BROWN:: Would the Prime Minister give particulars of the methods employed by the government in putting the agreement into force, as he says they are doing?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no necessity for employing any methods at the moment, because until there is some indication that the two hundred million will be exceeded business goes on in its ordinary way. There has been no restriction of any kind because the demand has not been such as would require it.


James J. Donnelly: Does the shipping year end in July?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but they adjust their business as of that date, because as the hon. gentleman knows it is summer in one country when it is winter in another. All these adjustments have been taken into consideration in arriving at the agreement.


John Vallance: Would the Prime Minister tell us how much the carry-over of Canada is this year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The carry-over of Canada began to accumulate in 1929. Those of you who recall what took place at the opening of parliament that year will remember that in the speech from the throne the Prime Minister of the day indicated that the major part of the wheat crop of the year was still in the hands of the Canadian people. The accumulated surplus exceeded 200,000,000 bushels, as the hon. gentleman knows better than I, beginning to accumulate in 1929. Last year we spoke of it as 220,000,000 bushels, the figure being, I think, some
219,000,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask
the Prime Minister one question before he leaves this subject? I ask it because I find difficulty in discovering an answer. How does it come that Canada is bound by an agreement which vitally affects the agricultural policy of the whole country, and which agreement this House of Commons has not had opportunity either to approve or to consider?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In exactly the same way as delegates from this country negotiated the West Indies agreement, that involves us in a loss of a million dollars a year. The

The Address-Mr. Bennett
executive charged with responsibility discharges its duties as such, and comes back to parliament and asks for vindication and support. If it does not receive it it goes out of office; if it does, it remains in office. In the case of the West Indies agreement, negotiated by the right hon. gentleman and his friends, they negotiated a contract which involved this country in certain obligations that affected the whole country because the taxpayers have to pay about a million dollars a year as a result of it. This is done in the same way as all obligations and agreements are entered into by the executive.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If parliament had had or were to have opportunity to approve the agreement there might be some force in what the Prime Minister says. But apparently the agreement is in force now, and this house has not approved its provisions and has had no opportunity to consider it in any particular, nor is it likely to have such opportunity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So were the others in force, as soon as the contracts were made for the building of the ships and matters of that kind. As a matter of fact it is a question whether this agreement requires the approval of parliament; I am rather advised that it does not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the Prime Minister intend to submit it for approval?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That I have not decided, because it may or may not be necessary.


Charles A. Stewart: We will
surely have a chance to discuss it in the house?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is the widest
opportunity for discussion in connection with the estimates, and to make any motion thought desirable for that purpose.


Edward James Young: The Prime Minister made a statement a few moments ago that a way had been found of growing wheat in France much more cheaply than formerly. Can he give any figures as to production costs there?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The information obviously would be available, but I do not carry it in my head, I hardly expected to be asked questions of that kind now. I dare say the hon. gentleman himself has a fair knowledge of what production costs have been since nitrates have been taken from the atmosphere by an electrical process instead of being imported from Chile. But I have no figures before me.

I shall not discuss this matter at greater length beyond saying that it will be within the memory of most hon. members that the former Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that the question of the sale of wheat was not one with respect to which the Department of Trade and Commerce could offer any assistance. He said the federal government could not do that, that it was a matter of supply and demand. We have ventured into the field because the provinces concerned as units of this confederation have asked our assistance, and while personally I have always felt that these are matters which must be considered and dealt with as part of a broad world plan, it is quite apparent that in dealing with questions of wheat there are only four exporting countries, and if the importing countries are going to take the position they have taken I believe it is the duty of the dominion to lend any assistance it can. So far as that is concerned we will be very happy indeed to afford any further information which may be necessary, as it is not clear that it is essential that the agreement should be submitted to parliament for ratification, involving as it does the jurisdiction of the provinces and, to a more limited extent, that of the dominion. At the moment the provinces have expressed their view that the effect of the grasshopper plague and the drought will be such as automatically to bring about a reduction in acreage which will be somewhat less than that provided for by agreement. Because of that fact it is difficult to express any very definite opinion as to what might or what might not have to be done. This, however, I should like to say: I did not think yesterday that the right hon. gentleman did himself justice when he endeavoured to parody a well known prayer from the Anglican prayer book. I did not think so, and I do not now. I am not unfamiliar with the position to which he was referring. I, too, have received communications from those who believe it is wicked and contrary to God's will to interfere with the production of a country. I was not unfamiliar with the matter to which the right hon. gentleman referred. In one instance, however, after pointing out the facts which I have related, I received from the correspondent a reply which indicated entire agreement with the view expressed. Because people pray for peace in our time it does not follow that in times of peril they do not make good soldiers. And because we pray for plenty there is no reason why we might not have to take disciplinary measures to ensure it. Upon reflection I cannot but think the right hon. gentleman will feel he has not done

The Address-Mr. Bennett
justice to himself and to the high position he occupies when, in cold type, he reviews his effort to burlesque, parody, and place on Hansard a very serious prayer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was not burlesquing a prayer; the burlesque concerned the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was a parody of a prayer from the Prayer Book, put in the mouth of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), and I say that it came as near an approach to blasphemy as I have ever heard in this House of Commons.
Then, there is another matter to which perhaps I should refer, and that is that in the last speech from the throne the right hon. gentleman himself prepared, which was delivered on February 20, 1930, these words occur:
The dominion is already recovering from the seasonal slackness evident at the end of the year, and it is not to be forgotten that the bulk of the 1929 wheat crop still remains in Canadian hands for final disposition.
Just why the country should be proud of the fact that it could not sell its wheat, I do not know. However, the right hon. gentleman saw fit to put words in the speech from the throne indicating that up to that time his government had not been able to find markets for Canadian wheat, that he was conscious of the fact, and that the Canadian producers still had on their hands for final disposition the bulk of the 1929 wheat crop. Well, I am bound to say it has remained there, substantially, in that form or from the production of other years, ever since. That is the position. It was at that time the condition arose, and as I indicated it had reached its culminating point last year, when we dealt with it.
Then, the right hon. gentleman referred to rural credits. I think it well to say only this, that the right bon. gentleman doubtless had in his mind his own efforts in that direction. Duiing the period we sat in conference with the provinces it was quite apparent that the efforts to set up short term and intermediate rural credits had been going on indefinitely for a period of twenty-five, thirty or forty years, and that those efforts had not been successful. Various reasons were advanced as to why it had not been possible. It is possible that upon ultimate analysis it will be found that in the older countries there has been no accumulation of capital, at low rates of interest, available for that purpose. I find in the speech from the throne delivered on January 8, 1926, the following:
While it is of importance to attract new settlers it is equally, if not more important, to assist those who are already established on the land by reducing the cost of agricultural production. To this end a measure will be introduced offering wide facilities for rural credits.
Will any hon. member in this chamber say he has felt the effect of the wide facilities for rural credits established in 1926? Will anybody in this country say that those wide facilities were established? Although hon. members opposite held office from 1926 to 1930, and although the right hon. gentleman opposite promised legislation in that year, will he say that at the time he went out of office these wide facilities had been established? He knows now, as perhaps he did not know when he prepared that speech from the throne, the difficulties of establishing cheap money credits for the farming population on short and intermediate terms. Hon. gentlemen in the corner opposite who have given much attention to this matter know from what has transpired from year to year in committees of the house how difficult it is to find any solution for the problem. The matter has engaged the attention of the officers of the Department of Finance. The best minds they have been able to secure to assist them have been made available, and provincial officers have discussed the matter with the federal authorities. I can say only this, however, that while I do not feel too sanguine that an adequate solution will be found, I believe some solution will be found which will be beneficial to the rural population. That is all which I believe can usefully be said in that connection.
I now pass to another matter, and then I have finished with this particular phase of my remarks. The right hon. gentleman dealt with the problem of unemployment relief, and the attitude taken by the Prime Minister with respect to the provinces. I find that in 1922 the right hon. gentleman was confronted with a problem of unemployment. In the speech from the throne delivered on March 9 of that year I find the following:
In many parts of the dominion continued depression of business naturally produced in a much larger degree than usual the misfortune of unemployment. Whilst of the opinion that unemployment relief is fundamentally a municipal and provincial responsibility, my government has felt that as conditions have arisen in a measure out of the late war, they would be justified in continuing for the period of the winter months the expedient of supplementing by grants from the federal treasury the relief contributions of provinces and municipalities for the purpose of alleviating actual distress.

The Address-Mr. Bennett

Further, I find the following in an order in council passed on January 25, 1922:
The present administration, assuming office at the close of the year 1921, finds that a condition of unemployment beginning in the late months of 1920 and continuing throughout the year 1921 does not promise any material abatement during the early winter months of 1922.
Consideration has been given to the means which would seem best adapted to the relief of the distress resulting from severe unemployment conditions, and the provisions to this end of P.C. 3831 have been carefully noted.
The minister concurs in the view that the question of unemployment relief is fundamentally a municipal and provincial responsibility; that the abnormal economic and industrial conditions now existing and arising in a measure out of the late war alone afford justification for action on the part of the federal authorities; that federal action must therefore supplement municipal and provincial efforts-
I repeat the words "must supplement"-
-must be designed on lines permitting close and effective cooperation with and supervision by municipal and provincial authorities, and must be proportioned by the efforts of those authorities.
That was the declaration made by the right hon. gentleman in the order in council P.C. 191, dated January 25, 1922, and I say to him that it is not correct now any more than it would have been correct then to say that the relief that is being given in municipalities by provinces themselves or the relief carried on by the municipalities is federal relief, because it is not. The federal government by grants in aid is assisting the provinces to carry on their constitutional obligations, just as in 1922 the right hon. gentleman in that order in council declared that to be so. So when you refer to direct relief or to doles in this country I should like this house at the very threshold of the session to understand that in no sense was that ever imposed by the federal government on the provinces.
The provinces met together in 1931 with the federal government and said that the only method by which they could continue to discharge their duties was through direct relief. They said the same in 1932. They met again here in 1933, and again the other day. In 1933 they suggested that something might be done further with respect to public works and undertakings with the assistance of the federal power. In 1934 they said the same thing.
With respect to commissions they claimed, the larger provinces in particular, that they were not prepared to hand over the conduct of their provincial and local affairs to any federal commission that we might set up; that they themselves were masters in their
fMr. Bennett.]
own house and would discharge their own constitutional duties, and they sought and obtained from us assistance based on the actual necessities of the situation. All the provinces have received assistance, not the western provinces alone, but the rich great provinces of the central part of Canada, Quebec and Ontario, have also demanded their share on the same basis as the others and have received it; and they have assumed responsibility for administration. We have told them, and I am repeating what I said to them the other day, that in some instances we are not satisfied with their administration. We told them that we intended to impose conditions on grants being given unless there was evidence of better administration. That we have a right to do, and I think you will agree that it should be done. The same conditions that in a smaller way confronted the government of the day in 1922 confronted this government when in an effort to relieve the situation by means of public works and undertakings-to which I shall presently refer, for they also are dealt with in the same order in council-we asked the municipalities and the provinces to give their assistance, as they did. At page 2 of the order in council which I have just read, the then government of the day set out the conditions under which it proposed to give assistance for the purpose of enabling necessary works to be constructed, even at a higher cost. We have believed that it was not wise or provident to spend moneys on public works under conditions where the cost would be out of all proportion to the results obtained during the winter season.
The camps that have been set up under the Department of National Defence and providing food and clothing and shelter and twenty cents per day for fifteen thousand people or more brought the warmest encomiums upon their administration from the premier of Quebec. Without divulging anything that took place at the conference, I may say that he made that abundantly clear both publicly and privately, and the same might be said of the camps carried on by the Parks branch.
With respect to other undertakings carried on by the provinces to which federal assistance is given, it is of course difficult in the three prairie provinces to provide public works and undertakings in a season like this. When the right hon. gentleman says that the government must submit in broad and general outline, and perhaps in detail, what it proposes to do, I can assure him that that is exactly what is intended to be done, because

The Address-Mr. Bennett
it is not our purpose to undertake to spend x sums of money without regard to where it may be spent-not at all. But it is believed that, within limits, essential undertakings can be accomplished by the dominion for the purpose of doing something towards finding employment for that class of the population that is not absorbable in industrial activity. But when you have regard to the seasonal changes in this country; when you recall its economic history; when you remember that the bureau of statistics has indicated that the average of unemployment for the whole of Canada year after year before 1930, prior to this depression coming upon us, amounted to about 144,000 people-that was the average that came about through seasonal changes-and when you remember the conditions under which west of the great lakes men become unemployed after the harvest is garnered, and how in the cities and towns there is unemployment when construction work is ended-it will be realized that with those conditions before us the effort that is being made is an effort, in that season of the year when the work can best be done and the best results obtained, to see that public works of a limited character are carried on.
Again I desire to point out that the criticisms urged by the right bon. gentleman against these schemes are criticisms made of the very same effort which he himself and his government made when they came into office in 1922. Wte were confronted in 1930 with conditions under which sums of money were voted for the purpose of enabling public works and undertakings to be carried on. Level crossings were built and public buildings erected in various cities and towns by the joint effort of the provinces, the municipalities and the dominion; and when the provinces and the municipalities met together in conference and indicated, as they did, their inability further to continue along the lines suggested, we carried out the plan that had been adopted by the late government-the only plan that could be carried out in view of the financial stringency and the difficulty of the provinces in finding means with which to carry on-and that was the giving of grants in aid. What is more, when they met the other day there was a feeling on the part of some that some provinces had not been as economical and as careful as they should have been, that they made larger expenditures in the past than they should have made, and there was quite a critical attitude especially with respect to the four western provinces. But when they heard the story firsthand from those responsible for government, when they realized that these western provinces were not 7*726-6J
responsible for the hundreds and thousands who were brought in from abroad and landed there as new settlers, calling for roads and schools and facilities of various kinds; when they realized that the western provinces were not responsible for the charters granted to railroads that imposed further burdens upon them, they unanimously passed resolution No. 4 which will be found upon the sheet laid on the table the other day, that under special circumstances special consideration should be given some of the provinces in this confederation.
We have advanced them money, loaned them money borrowed from the people of Canada. We have endeavoured to maintain their credit because we believed that for the maintenance of the credit of the unit as a whole it was necessary to maintain the credit of each of the factor units that made the whole, and to that extent so far we have been successful.
It well may be that in dealing with large questions of finance in this country-I believe it will be-we must impose upon ourselves cruel disciplinary measures and make a very large conversion loan, but in view of the conditions that exist that cannot be done at any moment you think it is desirable so to do. So many factors have to be considered and so many matters determined that I can only say that in my judgment it will be some time before this country will be in a position to carry that forward.
But I do deprecate the attitude taken by some of those who represent the provinces. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) speaking in Calgary the other evening said:
In British Columbia the government will offer to pay its creditors a reasonable rate of interest, and' they will be told they can take their money elsewhere if they are not prepared to accept that rate.
That is how it is reported in the press. But Mr. Speaker we cannot repudiate without destroying our credit; we cannot default without destroying our credit and the burden that comes upon the central power by reason of the enormous obligations contracted by the western provinces indeed places us in a most difficult position. But after threshing the matter out as we did the other day involving certain curtailments of expenditures, I believe it will be found that there are no reckless expenditures going forward at this time but that men are being provided with shelter, food and clothing, and with some employment under conditions that preserve their morale and give them at least a few cents per day for the effort which they are making. I be-
The Address-Mr. Bennett

lieve that has commended itself to the judgment of observers in other parts of the world. That is all I can usefully say with respect to that.
There is one thing more with respect to the question raised yesterday regarding the central bank. I do not desire to take a great deal of time in traversing this matter, but what I endeavoured to say in London, Ontario, I repeat here, and it is wholly consistent with what took place. When I realized for the first time that this Dominion of Canada could not carry on direct exchange operations with London for any substantial amounts except through Wall street, I personally was of the opinion that this country should have a central bank. A central organization is essential for the purpose of maintaining exchange rates and proper balances. That did not indicate in any sense that the government had so concluded; it was my personal conclusion. I recorded it the other day in London, Ontario, during the course of my speech there. We said last , year in this house-I said it in 1832-that we believed the matter would require careful consideration at the next revision of the Bank Act. I thought so then and I think so yet. It is not important what one thinks or does not think with relation to it, but it cannot be gainsaid that it was desirable that an opportunity should be afforded to the Canadian people to present their views on this matter to a commission which represented every phase of thought with respect to financial matters. The banking interests were there, the agricultural interests were there, and what might be called the non-partisan judicial interests were there. An opportunity was presented to all. While I deprecate very strongly the statement read yesterday as to what took place at the conference in London, England, far be it from me to suggest that for a single moment was I responsible for the shaping of any resolution. I voted for that resolution and it was unanimous. I am sorry if through an inadvertence a newspaper reporter has made it appear that I endeavoured to accept any credit for that resolution. I merely voted for it as I believed it was desirable that in countries such as this-there are some others-there should be a central banking authority.
The bill to be presented to this housg is not any effort on the part of the government to snatch glory or advantage from their opponents; it is because I believe, with the knowledge I now possess, that twenty years ago there should have been a central bank in Canada. That is a matter of profound conviction at the moment. I trust that the bill

to be submitted to the consideration of this house will receive the careful attention which is essential to its successful operation. I think it is quite clear to everyone that we must have such an organization. However, it will not discharge all the functions which some people think it will. It will not give every man money whether or not he has security.
I quite agree with what the right hon. gentleman has said with respect to conditions in western Canada. I lived thirty years of my life in western Canada. I have seen a man with little capital, with practically nothing but his own hands and courage, go upon a homestead and accumulate a great competence and leave a fairly substantial fortune behind him. Across- the road I have seen another man take another piece of land equally good, and turn out to be an abject failure. You cannot in the west, any more than in the east, estimate what the differences between individuals are that bring success or failure to their undertakings. One succeeds, the other does not. The hail takes one, the other escapes. The grasshoppers destroy the crops of one while they miss the crops of the other. One succeeds, the other fails. Ever since I have been in western Canada there has been an insistent demand for the loosening of credit. Sometimes I have said to the people of western Canada, as I have said in this chamber, that the banker who would lend indiscriminately the money of his depositors would be untrue to his trust by so doing. Sometimes men have the idea that they should be loaned money simply because they are alive, regardless of any other consideration than their own necessities. After all, a bank holds the money of its depositors in trust, and it cannot lend that money to those who have neither character nor possessions to support their applications for loans. These things must be dealt with upon a business basis.
An effort is now being made to launch a central bank in this country so that credit may be available for the banks under conditions which I trust will be satisfactory. It must not be forgotten that the provisions of the Finance Act provide for many credit facilities which were satisfactory but complaint has been made in days past that fundamentally it did not strike at the very roots of a central reserve bank, of exchange, of international balances and of stability. The world is suffering to-day from a lack of stability in its currencies and in its exchanges, and it is my view, rightly or wrongly-it is the view expressed the other day by Mr. Ramsay

The Address-Mr. Bennett
MacDonald-that there can be no return to a permanent prosperity until such time as there is stability of exchanges between the nations of the world. How can it be otherwise? If I buy to-day in sterling and I find it is worth $5, and thirty days from now when my obligations mature, I find it is worth 84.80, or vice versa, how can I hope to have business firmly and steadily established? These are facts that we must consider. It is no more possible for us to solve these problems by mere' words than it is by taking thought to add a cubit unto our stature.
There are great forces in the world which we do not control, forces under the control of the millions of the world. We are but ten and a half millions. We are doing our part, but I am sure that these great forces will bring their power to bear ultimately to settle and agree upon the valuation of currencies in order that the world may continue its international business. Hon. members will recall a speech made not long since by Mr. Owen D. Young. He spoke at one of our great universities and he pointed out that probably the future international trade of the world would rest not with our manufactured commodities as much as it would with our luxuries and primary products. Along with other countries, Canada has become a great industrial1 icountry. All countries are endeavouring to utilize their raw materials and develop them into finished products. Where a market existed thirty years ago, there is none to-day; where one existed ten years ago, there is none to-day. We are endeavouring to supply our own wants and other countries are doing the same. Changes are taking place everywhere which restrict and limit the ambit of our influence with respect to international trade, it is not possible for us to sell our commodities in countries that can produce the same commodity more cheaply than we can. Mr. Young was of the opinion that having regard to the changed conditions, we would be limited in the international field more or less to the sale of luxuries and raw commodities. That is the reason why stability of currencies is so overwhelmingly important, and I trust that the central bank we set up may play its part in bringing about that end.
I do not think I can usefully say anything more about this, phase of the discussion, but before I leave it I want to refer to one matter, in connection with a guarantee given by the government of the day to enable the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to discharge its obligations. This parliament vested the executive with power. It was not power usurped, it was power conferred. Those
opposite were apposed to the granting of that power and authority. But this is fundamentally the keynote of the policies of the United States to-day, that the executive has had conferred upon it power and authority in a manner and to an extent never before known. Why? Because emergencies arise ' from moment to moment which must be dealt with promptly. You cannot set in motion the complex machinery of a parliament or a congress at a moment's notice; the thing must be accomplished by special action. The government that does it must accept the judgment of this house or of congress, as the case may be. If it errs, it will be condemned; if it is wrong, it will reap the punishment of its wrong acts. But if in the discharge of its duties it has kept the public interest always in sight, has used its best judgment, and has seen to it -that honesty and integrity shall characterize its transactions, then at least I believe that the House of Commons as well as the people of the country will say that that condition, arising as it has, should be dealt with promptly. In that regard I should like this house, on the very threshold of the session, to understand how difficult indeed it is for this country to carry on where money is required. We have but limited revenues and but a limited' population from which to draw them; we have but limited wealth. We have no accumulations of wealth as the older countries have, and, what is more, we must bear in mind the vast aggregation of responsibilities incurred by Canada in the great war, by which we pledged the future to an extent far beyond the general understanding of the people of that day. The future was pledged to an extent which means that to-day our debt is nearly three billions of dollars, and we have a second debt-because debts are measured by -the sums on which you have to p<ay interest to those who lend; we have therefore a 'second debt in connection with the railways, of nearly one billion dollars. Under these circumstances you can see why it is that we cannot spend millions as our great neighbour can spend billions. When they have exhausted their program to the extent of twenty billions more they will not have a debt, per capita, as large as that of Canada.
Let it be clearly understood that this country has imposed upon it limitations because of the conditions created in the past, and obligations incurred. With respect to the railway situation, the right hon. gentleman yesterday said that more lines of railway were built under the Conservative than under the

The Address-Mr. Bennett

Liberal administration. I wonder if he realized precisely what that meant. Of course, the last act in the last session of the Liberal government of 1911 was to guarantee the Canadian Northern Ontario bonds, and the road was not finished until years after- finished in the days of their successors. The road was kept in construction as long as possible; for so long as it was in the construction period it could pay interest out of the bond guarantee proceeds, and not otherwise. Therefore they kept it in the construction period as long as possible. But when these miles of road passed into the operating stage we had the Grand Trunk Pacific bankrupt from the day the rails were laid. We had the National Transcontinental, which was to cost thirteen millions, according to Hansard, but cost as a matter of fact hundreds of millions, and which did not earn the money with which to paint the stations. Then too there was the bridge across the St. Lawrence, built twice. All these are part of it, and my complaint in Toronto the other day was that the Liberal party asked the people of the country for support in the light of the fact that during the past their view was so circumscribed, so limited, that they could not see that a population such as ours could not support three transcontinental roads. My complaint was not that we had a system competing with the Canadian Pacific Railway; far from it. Everyone realized that we could support a second road, not in this chamber but in the chamber that stood upon these foundations, Andrew G. Blair, pointed out the inevitable result. He was not listened to, nor were others who pointed out the same thing listened to. These were voices crying in the wilderness. But, sir, we are now reaping the whirlwind; we cannot escape it. We have three transcontinentals. We have the Canadian Northern, built up as it was by the guarantees of parliament, up to Edmonton. I remember the day of the opening there. Then British Columbia stepped in and guaranteed the bonds of the Canadian Northern in British Columbia down to the sea coast. Further, we had the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg to Prince Rupert, and then the National Transcontinental, from Winnipeg to Moncton, crossing the St. Lawrence river. We had the old Grand Trunk linking up with the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern; for instead of linking up these two systems together, without giving a charter for a third, instead of endeavouring to do what sound business men would do, the cry was, "We cannot wait." And so we plunged ourselves into the venture

for two more transcontinental, with the result that all three were destroyed.
Every morning as I go to my work I pass the statue of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and I pay tribute to the fact that his disinterested patriotism was known to all men; he desired to do what was best for Canada. But the fact is that he did not foresee, when he and his - government pledged their support to the construction of two transcontinentals in addition to the one we then had, that this meant certain and sure insolvency to the roads themselves. I do not claim any vision, but I can say that I stood in the hall at Calgary and pointed this out and was denounced as a pessimist. Governments must lead, but they are pushed on by people; and the people of this country in those days, with capital coming in and money being spent, said, "Never mind the morrow." But the morrow has come, and the difficulty that your government experiences at this time is that the limitations imposed upon us by the debts of Canada, incurred alike for the railways and for the great war, place upon us responsibilities that cannot be lightly discharged and that prevent us from taking those forward looking measures which, with capital and credit, we should like to take. Every thoughtful Canadian knows that. And that brings to my mind one thing more.
I hear it said that the late government reduced the national debt of Canada. Well, they did reduce the bonded debt of the nation, but they increased the indirect debt, so that the interest payments upon the latter exceeded by over one hundred and fifty million dollars the sum total that is represented by the decrease in the debt. Everyone knows that. All you have to do is to take the figures of the increase in the indirect responsibilities in connection with the railway and the reduction in debt during the time of Mr. Robb and his predecessor, and strike a balance and you will find that the test of the debt is the sum upon which you pay interest to borrowers. And we are paying in interest, or we were paying at the end of that period of time, over one hundred and fifty millions more than we were paying at the beginning of the period. These are facts, and I mention them because it is important to have a clear appreciation of the situation.
I have dealt now with all the matters I desire to discuss leading up to what I shall hiavje to say with respect to the guarantee given to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I would ask the right hon. gentleman opposite and hon. members of this house to listen to the reading of this document. I shall be content to make no argument with them as

The Address-Mr. Bennett
to whether or not any one of them charged with responsibility would have done what this government did:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a joint report, dated November 28, 1933, from the Right Honourable the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour, submitting:
1.	That they have had under consideration a request to the government from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for a guarantee of a loan of sixty millions of dollars to be borrowed from:
Bank of Montreal
The Royal Bank of Canada
The Canadian Bank of Commerce
The Bank of Nova Scotia
The Dominion Bank
The Bank of Toronto
The Imperial Bank of Canada and
Banque Canadienne Nationale
and to be repaid on or before the 1st day of December, 1938, with interest at the rate of five per centum per annum, payable half-yearly, secured by the deposit with and pledge to the said banks by the said railway company of its perpetual four per cent consolidated debenture stock having a nominal or par value of One Hundred Millions of Dollars.
2. That the amount to be loaned by each of the said several banks to the said railway
company is as follows:
Bank of Montreal	$22,444,000
The Royal Bank of Canada	 12,280,000
The Canadian Bank of Commerce..	10,524,000
The Bank of Nova Scotia	 5,180,000
The Dominion Bank	 2,808,000
The Bank of Toronto	 2,632,000
The Imperial Bank of Canada	 2,632,000
Banque Canadienne Nationale	 1,500,000
Total	$60,000,000
3.	That careful consideration has been given to the request of the said railway company and it appears that the capital obligations and indebtedness payable by the said railway company in the United States of America between the first day of June, 1933, and the first day of December, 1934, amount in the aggregate to $32,788,000. The capital obligations and indebtedness payable in the Dominion of Canada during the same period by the said railway company amount in the aggregate to $27,000,000. Of the said capital obligations and indebtedness of $32,788,000 payable in the United States of America, $2,544,000, part thereof, are payable in either the United States of America or in Great Britain.
4.	That the said capital obligations and indebtedness of the said railway company have been incurred in the usual conduct of the business, and it has been the practice of the said railway company to retire its outstanding capital obligations by the sale, from time to time, of its perpetual four per cent consolidated debenture stock, but, under the economic conditions which have prevailed for some time, it has been impossible and is still impossible to sell such perpetual consolidated debenture stock, or any other securities of the said railway company on satisfactory terais, if at all, either in the Dominion of Canada or in the United States of America.
5.	That the president of the said railway company recently visited London, England, and has reported that it is impossible to secure permission, under existing economic conditions, to make a public offering of the securities of the said railway company in the United Kingdom; and, apart from the existing governmental prohibition against the sale in the United Kingdom of the securities of private companies or corporations domiciled elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, railway securities (other than domestic) of all kinds are not in demand in the United Kingdom; and, further, that it is not practicable presently to renew the obligations of the said railway company maturing in the United States of Amerioa.
6.	That' after careful investigation it was apparent that the only source from which money could be borrowed by the said railway company to meet its said maturing capital obligations and indebtedness was the chartered banks of Canada, and such banks do not make loans for a period of five years unless they are so adequately secured or guaranteed as to enable the said banks to rediscount or obtain advances on the notes of the borrower and thus render available for the conduct of their ordinary commercial business the whole or such portion of the advances made as may be required; and, under existing economic conditions, with the low level of prices for railway securities, the guarantee of repayment by the Dominion of Canada was necessary if the said loan' of $60,000,000 was to be made to the said railway company by the said banks.
7.	That the perpetual four per cent consolidated debenture stock of the said railway company is widely distributed in various parts of the world, particularly in the United Kingdom, where the market price thereof has in recent months been as high as 85 per cent of the par value thereof, and, in the opinion of the ministers, failure by the said railway company to pay and discharge its said capital obligations and indebtedness at maturity would create a situation injurious to the credit and financial position of the dominion.
8.	That, under the provisions of the Relief Act, 1933, the governor in council is authorized and empowered to loan or advance money to or guarantee the payment of money by any public body, corporation or undertaking, and in respect of such loans, advances and guarantees, may accept such security, enter into such agreements, and generally do all such things as the governor in council may deem necessary and expedient in the public interest; and to take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to protect and maintain the credit and financial position of Canada.
9.	That the said railway company is a public corporation carrying on its operations not only in Canada but in other parts of the world; and, in the opinion of the ministers, under present disturbed economic conditions, it is desirable, to prevent default by the said railway company in discharging its said capital obligations and indebtedness as they mature, and in the public interest, to grant the request of the said railway company as a measure for the protection and maintenance of the credit and financial position of Canada.
The ministers, therefore, recommend that the Minister of Finance be authorized and empowered to enter into an agreement with each of the said eight chartered banks, guaranteeing payment to such bank of the sum mentioned
ss
The Address-Mr. Bennett

in the said agreement, being the amount loaned or to be loaned by the said bank to the said railway company, as hereinbefore mentioned, with interest at the rate of five per cent per annum, payable half-yearly, in the following general form.
The form is the same in all cases and I do not think it is necessary to take the time to read the form except these words:
The crown hereby guarantees the repayment to the bank at maturity of the whole or the then unpaid balances of the loans made or to be made by the bank to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.	_
And in the event of default provision is made for taking possession of the securities.


Mr. POULIOT:: Much worse than the
Canadian Northern deal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The position is this, that the capital expenditures of the railway company, as I have said, had in times past been made and I recall very clearly that they were made in connection with branch line construction because the company had substantial cash surplus balances. They made those expenditures, such as on the Royal York hotel, steamships and so forth, hoping and believing that they could sell their debenture stock. Then came 1930 and the following years and the capital obligations borrowed from banks in Canada and the United States to the extent indicated in the order in council, and having been renewed, when the crisis came again, fell due. The company could do one of two things: should they default or should they not? Some hon. members are familiar with financial transactions in Great Britain and probably know the four per cent perpetual debenture stock of the Canadian Pacific ranks higher than any other security that this country has issued apart from its national securities. This stock is held largely by trustees and family settlements. It is held in the United States; it is held in Canada. What would be the effect upon Canada of default? The government had to consider that question. The president of the railway company went to England. The right hon. gentleman wondered about the delay and and I said that if he had read the document he would see that the fact is that it was put off from time to time in the hope that conditions might clarify in either the United States or Great Britain and an opportunity to sell the securities would arise. The president visited Great Britain at the time I was there- and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) was there. It was impossible to secure permission to make any issue there and an issue in the United States under the

Securities Act was, with the then situation of railroads, also impossible. It must be remembered that the United States has advanced hundreds of millions of dollars under the Reconstruction Finance Corporation from advances made by the nation on borrowings, to its railways, the New York Central, the Pennsylvania and the other great systems of that country. In the light of those facts, we decided to make this grant.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister has just said that it was in August that the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway . was in England and unable to accomplish what he hoped he might be able to. How does it happen that it was as late as November 29 before the order in council was passed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can easily explain that. The obligations maturing on December I, it did not become necessary to close out the transaction until then. That is the reason for the order in council being passed on November 29, because the money had to be available on December 1.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Were the
banks, as early as, say the month of August, given to understand that the government would guarantee the loan?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The banks were given to understand that if all other efforts failed the company would have to get the money from them and a guarantee would be given.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would that
be as early as the month of May?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My memory is that it would not be May. My memory is that it was much later than that. At any rate, as I have said, my memory is that it was August. The right hon. gentleman speaks of August, and that is my recollection.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He left Canada on July 30.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it was July. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre was there at the time. I recall that he sailed on the same ship. At that time it was apparent that the government would guarantee the advance, but the money was not required until December 1, although part of the maturity, I think, had been paid before that date, but the order in council was not passed until November 29, as I have indicated. That was the transaction. If hon. members think the government is censurable for the step it took, it will, of course, have to abide by the con-

The Address-Mr. Bennett
sequences. I need hardly say that this action was taken reluctantly. I need hardly say that the closest examination was given to ascertain where these capital obligations had been created and what they represented. It is a matter of satisfaction to believe that within the time limited there will be no liability upon this country. And if there is, the four per cent consolidated debenture stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company empowers its holders on default to take possession of the system. It is a very distinctive kind of security, and it was upon that security the banks made their advances in order that if business improves within that time not only might the money be available for commercial purposes by rediscounting, but the fullest opportunity would be given during that period of time for the railway company to readjust its financial position.
The only other matter that remains to be discussed is that having to do with honours and awards. I had not thought that I would take up so much time in my efforts to answer so many matters brought to the attention of the house at the beginning of the session. In view of the fact that it is within a few minutes of six o'clock I would ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and conclude on the matter of honours and awards after recess.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, there are two matters I should mention before taking up the question of honours and awards. Yesterday the right hon. gentleman referred to a statement made by me in Montreal upon my return from Great Britain in which I had indicated that Canada could not experiment with hours of labour and rates of pay. What I was dealing with, of course, was the question of export trade, and while I did not at that time, I did later state that the question of hours of labour and compensation and matters of that sort had been settled by a conference called by the League of Nations, and that the provinces had been charged with jurisdiction in that regard.
It has been said that the law has not been enforced by the provinces, and a reference to the order paper will show that it is proposed to ascertain to what extent the laws with respect to hours of labour and compensation have been observed in Canada by the provinces. The extent to which the sweating process may have obtained in the provinces is a matter over which the dominion has no jurisdiction. I endeavoured to point out at some length that experiments could not be practised by a country in our position. The allimportant matter to which I did refer, and which does not appear in the report, was that we were a debtor nation, and that while a creditor nation might do almost anything it pleased, being under no necessity to consider matters external to its own country with respect to credit, currency, stability or matters of that kind, the Dominion of Canada, being a debtor country, was compelled by the very nature of things to give consideration to them to an extent other nations did not find necessary. This is true especially of the great republic to the south of us, which is a creditor nation.
I desire also to make some observations with respect to what was said yesterday concerning my remarks in Toronto. I do not think that the right hon. gentleman could have done it purposely, but the fact is that he misrepresented the situation. Although I remained silent while the right hon. gentleman read what I was supposed to have said that evening, upon looking at Toronto journals I find that the statements made in the paper from which he quoted were, as I knew, completely inaccurate. I took the trouble to inquire of one who was sitting not far from me at that gathering as to what had taken place. I did give credit to George Brown for having assisted in bringing about confederation. I said that shortly after confederation he had left Macdonald and then I pointed to the position of the Liberal party led by Mr. Blake, to the building of the Canadian Pacific, and the rounding out of the confederation by extending it to the Pacific slope. I think upon comparison of reports appearing in Toronto papers with that read by the right hon. gentleman it will be seen that an injustice was done to me in that particular. Newspapers having to make summaries quickly, in the very nature of things one who speaks with rapidity, as I usually do, is on the following day likely to find himself reported somewhat at variance with what he said. I fancy the right hon. gentleman himself must have observed that frequently. It is not that the newspaper reporters are not fair, but it is due to the inability to compress into a few sentences an address which may have taken thirty or forty minutes to deliver. I make this observation only because I have always endeavoured to pay full tribute to those who brought about

The Address-Mr. Bennett
confederation by yielding their own strong personal convictions to a compromise view in order that confederation might become an accomplished fact. What I have said, and undoubtedly will continue ito say so far as I am at present advised, is that those who study dispassionately the history of Canada will realize that it has been the party with which I have the honour to be associated that had to bear responsibility for great national endeavours resulting in bringing to a successful conclusion the federation of the provinces, a national policy, and that ultimately responsibility has usually rested with the Conservative party at times of great crises, such as the great war and other oooasions to which references might be made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope the
Prime Minister has made it evident, and that he is clear in his own mind, that I quoted from an Ottawa paper, exactly as I read it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it was the Ottawa Journal. Not for one moment would I suggest that the right hon. gentleman did not read what was in the paper.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I read the article in the first instance in the Ottawa Citiz-en, and was so astonished that I looked up the Journal report, and found that it was similar. I used the Journal report intentionally so as to do the Prime Minister full justice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Undoubtedly it was a Canadian Press dispatch. I took the trouble to look at the reports in the Montreal Star, in the Evening Telegram of Toronto, in the Mail and Empire and in the Toronto Globe. There is a lengthy report in. the Globe as to what I said with respect to Mr. Blake. There is also an extended report in the Mail and Empire. It will be observed that the summary is not a fair summary of what I said. In order to make definitely certain I conferred with those who were there and heard my remarks. Not long since I was attacked venomously in one newspaper on the basis of a statement copied from another which was wholly at variance with what had been said. Fortunately I had spoken on the radio, and therefore was able to contradict the statement made in the press. That is one of the reasons radio becomes of extraordinary value, because usually there are people behind it who can take down what may have been said and are able to verify the correctness of summaries.
I believe I have dealt with the matters to which attention was directed by the right hon. gentleman, with the exception of his 
reference to honours and awards. There is standing on the order paper a resolution in the name of the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell), the discussion upon which could hardly be anticipated in its entirety. I purpose however to endeavour to indicate to this chamber that the action taken was to save the House of Commons from being unjustly attacked. I will not to-night discuss the question of honours and awards from the standpoint of their desirability; I will only say this, that in all nations there is usually recognition by the state in some form or another of those who render persistent and continuous service to it. It may be a humble service that they render, or it may be a very exalted one. There have been many men and women in all walks of life who have believed that recognition by the head of the state of services rendered is a proper act on the part of the chief executive. Those who remember the life of Nelson will recall his views on that subject. Those who recall the life of Lord Curzon will remember a speech he delivered in the House of Lords complaining of the scanty recognition of his services which, he said, was wholly at variance with the general custom which had been followed. There is in a new democracy a fairly widespread belief that those who make a statement to the effect that they believe in these things are subject to ridicule on the ground that the basis of their belief is a desire to be recognized themselves. That is usually the difficulty in new democracies ; it has been so in days gone by. In this very country, from the earliest days of the establishment of responsible government, the crown in the person of the sovereign has granted awards and honours to those who have served the state in whatever capacity they may have served. The fathers of confederation, it will be recalled, were honoured, some being Companions of the Bath, others Knights Commanders, Sir George Cartier ultimately being made a baronet. These are matters of history. It will also be recalled that in 1802 Napoleon established the Legion of Honour, of four grades, and those in this country who wear on the lapel of their coat the insignia of that honour value it very highly. Honours of other countries are conferred upon Canadians as a matter of courtesy. Some of the great nations of the earth have named Canadians for services rendered as vice-consuls or for some particular service that may have been rendered, whatever it may be. There are illustrations of that about us everywhere. The late Chief Justice of Canada and the late Speaker of the House

The Address-Mr. Bennett
of Commons were honoured by being made Knights Commanders of St. Gregory the Great. Those who will look at the reports of the Supreme Court of Canada will find the indication of that honour after the name of the late chief justice. These are facts that are known to all of us, as well as within the British Empire, the recognition by the sovereign of those who have rendered signal service-legal, military or naval service, or perhaps for the establishment of a great art building, of which an illustration I have in mind is the Tate gallery in London. You will find many instances in an old country of people who have been ennobled by the sovereign for such services rendered. Whether or not there should be created a claim that is satisfied only by wealth is another matter altogether. Most people believe that any effort to recognize the services only of wealthy persons and to make material positions the criterion of the determination of merit and service to the state is wrong. I am one of them. I believe that every citizen of the British Empire has of right a claim to separate recognition from the crown of services that may have been rendered in any walk of life; I have never hesitated to say so, and I offer no apologies for expressing that view in this chamber. On the other hand, there are those who honestly differ from that view. But it will be borne in mind that no man and no woman receives recognition from the state unless he or she is ready and willing to accept the recognition offered. The right hon. leader of the opposition in 1906 was honoured by his sovereign by being made a Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. There was no reason why the Deputy Minister of Labour, who had rendered signal service with respect to matters of great importance, should not thus have been recognized. Other deputy ministers had been recognized. It would be idle for me to say that I did not believe that one who had served the state for forty-five years and had finally attained to the position of Deputy Minister of the Interior should not upon retirement be recognized by being made a Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. There are other instances that I shall not name. It has been the custom in this country generally and broadly that those who had served the state in positions, shall I say, of great importance, but not in a legislative capacity nor where they had ministerial rank, should be recognized. I think that the late Sir Joseph Pope was one of the most striking instances of that, and there are others of the same kind.
However, there was the view expressed in this country prior to 1919, that the appointments, shall I say, were not such as to commend themselves in all instances to the judgment of the Canadian people. That at least was alleged, and it was of course long believed in this country that there was no place in a new soil such as this for hereditary honours which are largely, if not wholly, indigenous to countries where the law of primogeniture prevails. That has been the experience of the world. Only a few days ago I was reading the debates of the British House of Lords in which the Marquess of Salisbury was dealing with a measure looking to the reform of that body. He pointed out what the hereditary principle had meant, and in addition he said:
None of us is defending our privileges. But what we do claim is the opportunity to render service to the country in which we live, and the atmosphere that has been created by centuries of tradition, in consequence of the hereditary principle being followed, has enabled this house to exercise a jurisdiction and power and authority denied to any other chamber presently in the world.
That is very true. But the principle should not end there, as he pointed out, and he went on to discuss the matter at further length.
I desire to submit to this chamber a few propositions. The first one is this, that the granting or conferring of honours or distinctions is a prerogative of the crown. One would think it unnecessary to argue the matter, that it might be taken for granted by all, but since doubts are sometimes expressed with respect to that, I shall relieve them all by quoting from Halsbury's Laws of England, second edition, that the crown is the fountain of justice and the source of all honours. That principle has been acted upon for a long, long time; it has been acted upon in theory from the very beginning of our institutions. I quote from Halsbury's Laws of England:
As all public offices are derived either mediately or immediately from the crown, so the sovereign enjoys the sole right of conferring all titles of honour, dignities, and precedence, and no subject can acquire a new title or dignity except by grant from the crown, unless it be conferred by act of parliament, or acquired by marriage (in case of a female), or obtained by prescription, which, however, presupposes a lost grant.
Titles of honour are conferred either by express grant in the form of letters patent, or by writ of summons in the case of peerages, or by direct corporeal investiture, as in the case of knights.
That being so, we have established I think beyond peradventure that the granting or
The Address-Mr. Bennett

conferring of marks of distinction, whatever they may be, by the crown is a prerogative of the crown.
Secondly, what is a prerogative of the crown? It has always been difficult to explain or to define, but in article 511, second edition, volume 6, of Halsbury, it is defined in this way:
The royal prerogative may be defined as being that preeminence which the sovereign enjoys over and above all other persons by virtue of the common law, but out of its ordinary course, in right of his regal dignity, and comprehends all the special dignities, liberties, privileges, powers, and royalties allowed by the common law to the crown of England.
The third proposition is this, that the prerogative of the crown extends to all parts of the British dominions. It is hardly necessary in this connection to refer to a decision, but there was a decision in the courts in England, and the words of the vice chancellor in 1873 were these:
I cannot hesitate to say and to decide, that the queen's prerogative is as extensive in New South Wales as it is here, in this county of Middlesex. It has been contended that the title of the crown by forfeiture was confined to this soil-the soil of England. But the queen is as much the queen of New South Wales as she is the queen of England, and' I must hold that every right which the queen possessed by forfeiture extended as much to the colonies as to this country.
So I think we have it clearly established that the prerogative extends to this country.
The next question is, how can that prerogative be parted with? Some of those with whom I have discussed this question in days long since past seemed to have the impression that the prerogative of the crown was something operating in favour of the crown or representing something protecting the crown from the people. On the contrary, the prerogative of the crown is usually the bulwark between aggression on the one hand by those who are aggressors and, on the other hand, the rights of the people. That prerogative of the crown is exercisable, as was very properly said yesterday, upon the advice of the ministry of the day. In the king's commission to his governor general in this country, the prerogative of mercy is referred to. It may not be known but is a fact that under the early commissions of governors general of Canada the prerogative of mercy was exercised by the governor general after he bad made his own inquiries and without recommendation of his ministry. To-day the prerogative of mercy is exercisable in accordance with the terms of the patent by which His Excellency is appointed. According to his commission that prerogative is exercised on the instructions and advice

of his ministers. Hence, from time to time, when the Minister of Justice has indicated, it is our unhappy experience to have these circumstances in connection with capital cases brought before us for decision as to whether the prerogative of mercy shall be exercised on our advice or otherwise. That prerogative of mercy pertaining to the crown by right of kingship is exercised in this country upon the advice of the ministers of the day.
It has been said, and properly so-it is pointed out in Halsbury-that the medium of communication between the sovereign and the ministry is the Prime Minister, and the recommendations made by the Prime Minister to the crown with respect to honours and awards is something that is now well understood. I believe Halsbury points out that the sovereign still retains the exclusive right without reference, although as a matter of fact it is referred to those in whom he has confidence. He has the supreme control over the Order of Merit and the Victorian Order. However, that is entirely beside the question.
In 1902 the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier's order in council, to which reference was made yesterday, frankly recognized that the prerogative of the crown was in existence and that it was operative in the Dominion of Canada. He suggested, as has been later established, that that right or prerogative should be exercised upon the advice of the ministry. As I have said, in this country that is the Prime Minister. In England-to finish the historical side of it-as soon as a government comes into power a committee of the privy council composed of three privy councillors is set up to determine what action shall be taken with respect to recommendations to the sovereign, that is, to decide the adequacy or inadequacy of the award for services rendered and matters of that kind. Lord Macmillan, who was here quite recently, is a member of one committee in Great Britain which deals with these matters. Another committee deals with awards of a different character. A committee of the treasury may make recommendations as to awards and honours that shall be received by the public servants of the country. Since this matter has arisen I think it is well that I should state frankly what the position is in the old country with respect to these matters.
In 1919 a motion was made in this chamber with respect to honours and awards. May I point out that yesterday the right hon. gentleman opposite read from the Winnipeg Tribune and stated that Mr. Bennett had defied parliament. That is the difficulty in connection with these matters. Those who write about them do not take the trouble to ascertain that parliament does not consist of the House of

The Address-Mr. Bennett
Commons only; it consists of three estates. For those who may be interested I would point out, as I pointed out during the last session, that section 17 of the British North America Act gives a definition of parliament. It reads:
There shall be one parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an upper house styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.
Therefore, it follows that parliament is not acting unless all three estates combine. There must be action alike by the Senate, by the Commons and by the Sovereign. We call it the royal assent when dealing with the sovereign's will. The Commons enacts its legislation and the Senate does likewise. It is:
His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: . . .
In England it is:
Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords' Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: . . .
After the Parliament Act was passed in 1911 there was still provision made to provide for that particular case where legislation becomes effective after it has been rejected more than once by the House of Lords. Those of us who are familiar with the development of constitutional practice in this country will recall that when the referendum measure was submitted to the courts of Manitoba it was held to be ultra vires. It went to the privy council and the privy council held that it was an illegal exercise of power on the part of the legislature to act as it did to provide, for making legislation effective by referendum. Otherwise it would have meant that a measure might become law without the two estates of the legislative assembly acting together.
What was done in 1919? It will be observed that the House of Commons passed a resolution, but bear in mind that it was the House of Commons. The operative words of the resolution are;
-humbly approach Your Majesty praying that Your Majesty hereafter may be graciously pleased to refrain from conferring any titles upon your subjects domiciled or living in Canada,
In other words, iit asks the sovereign by resolution of the House of Commons to cease to exercise his prerogative in Canada. That was as ineffective in law as it is possible for any group of words to be. It was not only ineffective but I am sorry to say, it was an affront to the sovereign himself. Every constitutional lawyer, or anyone who has taken the trouble to study this matter realizes that
that is what was done. I shall refer presently to the matter in the light of the discussion the other day in the House of Lords.
Let us see how the prerogative can be parted with. The prerogative of mercy stands on exactly the same level as the prerogative with respect to honours and awards. Will anyone in this house say that if this House of Commons passes a resolution asking His Majesty to refrain from the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, it would be effective? The life of an individual may tremble in the balance if the construction placed upon this resolution is the construction to be placed upon the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. There is no difficulty in seeing that when one branch only of the legislature acts there can be no measure passed that will affect any question. That must be the subject matter of legislation and a resolution cannot be law and it cannot be made into law. A resolution of the House of Commons is the pious opinion expressed in form of a majority of a group of gentlemen acting within their legislative power or otherwise. The matter of the prerogative and how it may be taken away is stated so clearly that I shall not do more than make a single observation with respect to it, that is, the only method by which the crown can be deprived of its prerogative is by statute. It must be a very special form of statute. Halsbury says:
The powers of the crown when acting in association with parliament are unlimited. The king in parliament is the sovereign power in the state. It is for this reason that there is no law which the king in parliament cannot make or unmake, whether relating to the constitution itself or otherwise; there is no necessity, as in states whose constitutions are drawn up in a fixed and rigid form and contained in written documents, for the existence of a judicial body to determine whether any particular legislative act is within the constitutional powers of parliament or not; and laws affecting the constitution itself may be enacted with the same ease, and subject to the same procedure, as ordinary laws.
In practice, however, the King now plays a purely formal part in the making of statutes, for, by convention, he has lost the power of refusing his assent to a bill passed by both houses, or in terms of the Parliament Act, 1911, by the House of Commons alone.


Charles A. Stewart: Passed by the Commons alone?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is special provision with respect to that. The language makes special provision for the ternis in which the king is to act. It refers to a measure passed by the Commons on two occasions and then reviewed by the Lords, and there is a special provision under the Parliament Act, to which the king became a party, as I shall
The Address-Mr. Bennett

point out in a moment. Let me quote what
he says:
Where the king acts with the cooperation of other persons, those persons are responsible for his acts. _ If they are wrongful, the king's part in them is disregarded, for it is a maxim of the common law that the king can do no wrong; but the other person who assists him is liable. ... It is clear therefore that the powers of government are divided. The executive, legislative, and judicial powers are in the main entrusted to diiferent persons and bodies; and the local government is entrusted to another separate set of persons and bodies.
Therefore the judicial, the executive and the legislative bodies must be considered in their relation to the crown, and so far as any act of legislation is concerned, it can be made effective only by the act of both bodies and of the crown. In section 17 of the British North America Act, to which I referred, that provision is made.
I will not do more than try to make it clear beyond peradventure that the only method by which the prerogative of the Crown can be abrogated, curtailed, restricted or lost is entirely by act of Parliament itself, which means, so far as Canada is concerned, not only the king but the Senate and the House of Commons.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is the Prime
Minister arguing that if both our houses in Canada passed legislation that would restrict the prerogative of the king?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. That matter came
up the other day in the House of Lords; I had the report but it is not beside me at the moment. I shall have the report presently, when I will deal with that phase of the matter. That is the question as it stood in 1919 when there was enacted the resolution to which I have referred. Now, for the moment, let us see what the courts of England have said with respect to that. Yesterday, in discussing the case of Stockdale and Hansard, the right hon. gentleman said that it occurred in 1839, which is correct; and the decision has never been questioned since. It has been acted upon as sound constitutional law, and the language used is so strong that I venture to bring it to the attention of the house. It was in part referred to by the right hon. gentleman. Lord Chief Justice Denman, delivering an exhaustive judgment in that case, said:
The House of Commons is not the parliament, but only a coordinate and component part of parliament. The sovereign power can make and unmake laws; but the concurrence of the three legislative estates is necessary; the resolution of any one of them cannot alter the law, or place anyone beyond its control. The proposition is therefore wholly untenable, and

abhorrent to the first principles of the constitution of England. . . . Parliament is said to be supreme. I most fully acknowledge its supremacy. It follows, then, as before observed, that neither branch of it is supreme when acting by itself.
Discussing previous cases he cited with approval the decision of the House of Lords:
That an attempt, in any one branch of the legislature, to suspend the execution of the law, by separately assuming to itself the direction of a discretionary power, which, by an act of parliament, is vested in any body of men to be exercised as they shall deem expedient, is unconstitutional. In both cases the law would be superseded by one assembly; and, however dignified and respectable that body, in whatever degree superior to all temptations of abusing their power, the power claimed is arbitrary and irresponsible, in itself the most monstrous and intolerable of all abuses.
Patteson, J. concurred, and Coleridge, J. used these words:
As to that part of their answer in which they speak of parliament being able to make that law which was not law, it is plainly beside the question proposed; for it must relate to the power of the three branches of the legislature concurring, and not to any resolutions of any one of them separately, or even of any two of them. . . . It_ would be easy to put striking instances of this kind; but they may be summed up at once, and without the least exaggeration, in the remark that there is nothing dear to us, our property, liberty, lives or characters, which' if this proposition be true, is not, by the constitution of the country, placed at the mercy of the resolutions of a single branch of the legislature.
The observations of the Lord Chancellor in 1874, when discussing the effect of a resolution of the House of Commons, is reported in the Parliamentary History as follows:
This plainly proved, that the Commons literally, as to the question then under the consideration of their lordships expressed it, assumed to itself the direction of a discretionary power vested in a body of men to be exercised as they should judge expedient. His Lordship reasoned very forcibly upon this, and said, that had he been a lord of the treasury, even though he had risked the loss of his place, he would not have obeyed the resolution; and his refusal would have proceeded from 'a consciousness that nothing short of an act of parliament formally passed by the three estates, had the power of suspending either a part of the statute or any part of the common law of the kingdom. He said he would suppose that a power similar to this was lodged in a board of seven commissioners constituted by act of parliament. He should then say, if the House of Commons passed such a resolution, directing those commissioners how to exercise a discretion the law had given them the sole control over, they would act wisely by treating the resolution with contempt and paying it no regard whatsoever.
Bear these words in mind, because they constitute the basis of the action which has been taken. I should like the house to under-

The Address-Mr. Bennett
stand that I have as high a regard for the dignity of parliament as any man, but I am also conscious of the fact that the abuse of power, whether with respect to honours and awards or in any other regard, is something against which every sound constitutionalist must raise his voice, because an abuse by the Commons House of Parliament is no less an abuse for the reason that it is done by the elected body and not by the appointed. It might be well always to remember that fact. It was Coleridge, J., who put it so powerfully, in words that have been quoted with approval throughout the years for nearly a century- words that should be constantly in our minds -that if one branch of parliament, by passing a resolution, can either restrict or restrain or amend the law, or change or alter in any respect the provisions of the common law which comprise the prerogative, then, as he said, without the least exaggeration, there is nothing dear to us, our property, our liberty, lives or characters which, if this proposition be true, is not by the constitution of the country placed at the mercy of resolutions of a single branch of the legislature.
Such is not the law of Canada; it has never been the law of Canada; and when this House of Commons passed a resolution asking His Majesty to refrain from exercising his prerogative it attempted to do something which it was wholly powerless to do. I suppose that someone will say, "Why was that not thought of at the time? There were in the house at that time, Mr. Bennett, constitutional lawyers just as good as you." Well, I have learned that in the stress and strain of parliamentary life many things are overlooked. For instance, during my short tenure of office I came across an order in council appointing an administrator following the death of a lieutenant governor. Everyone knows that cannot constitutionally be done; everyone knows that you cannot appoint an administrator when the lieutenant governor dies. But there it was solemnly done and the chief justice was appointed administrator when the lieutenant governor was dead, the appointment reciting that the lieutenant governor was dead and that the chief justice was to remain administrator until a new one was appointed. I fancy it is not stating the position too strongly to say that many people were greatly disgusted with the discussions that took place in connection with that resolution, the circumstances in connection with it, the way in which it was discussed, the lack of, shall I say, control of the situation by the government itself. Look at the language that is used: a prohibition against the sovereign exercising his prerogative. That is all.
I shall point out presently that within the last two weeks when Lord Salisbury was moving his motion in the House of Lords, the question became acute and the Marquess of Reading, one of the most eminent lawyers of his time, gave his opinion as to the proper method to be pursued in dealing with questions of the prerogative. He said that not only did it require the royal assent by statute to destroy the prerogative, but the consent of the crown to the introduction of a measure to do this should first be received; because he realized, as everyone now does, that the prerogative under modern practice where the executive acts under the advice of the administration, is the bulwark of protection for the subject himself. When the matter came up, the question whether Lord Salisbury's bill could be given its first reading until after an address had been passed and leave given him by the crown to introduce it, became acute, and after some discussion Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, leading the opposition, opposed the granting of the power. Then the Marquess of Reading took the matter in hand, as did the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham. When the discussion proceeded, it was found on an examination of precedents that the situation was somewhat different from what had been expected. The Marquess of Reading, as reported on column 594, said:
My lords, I desire on this point to add a few observations because, owing to the courtesy of the noble lord who has just spoken, I was informed of the course he intended to take and I have devoted such time as was at my disposal to examine the precedents in order that we might see how the matter stands. It cannot be doubted by your lordships that any bill which will affect the prerogative and powers of the crown must receive the royal assent before it is passed in parliament. The question that is raised to-day is of a somewhat different character, as I understand it, and one for which undoubtedly there is very notable precedent-that is, that there should be a motion for an address to the crown for permission to consider the restriction or alteration of the prerogative of the crown. As I understand the precedent there has been much discussion on the subject-not as to the actual existence of the obligation of parliament to have the assent of the crown before a bill is passed; that I assume will be quite beyond dispute. If we consider this bill, which we have not seen but of which we have had some indications in the press, it seems apparent, pa7 tieularly if it is to follow the lines of former bills, that if passed it would curtail and restrict the prerogative of the crown. First it woul d prevent the creation of new peers of parliament and it would also limit the right of summoning peers to attend parliament. Therefore it does -and I should think this would not be controverted-affect the prerogative.
The question to which I desire to address myself, and to give such information as I can to your lordships upon a subject which affects our
9(5
The Address-Mr. Bennett

procedure in a vitally important point, is as to whether or not it is essential to have this motion for the royal assent before the bill is introduced, or whether it can be given at any time before the bill is passed. It seems to me so far as I am able to gather from the precedents that that is the true position and that there is some difference of opinion on this subject.
He concluded that as long as the consent was given before the bill was finally passed, that was all that was essential. As reported on column 599, Lord Hailsham uses these words:
The practice which has been very fully stated is conveniently summarized in the little book to which we sometimes refer, "The Companion to the Standing Orders," in which it is set out that: "The consent of the crown, as distinguished from its assent, is requisite to every bill or amendment to a bill affecting the royal prerogative or the interests of the crown. It may be given at any time during the progress of the bill, which ought not to be allowed to pass if such consent be not given."
It therefore follows, as I pointed out last session, that there are special circumstances which surround the enactment of legislation that deprives the crown of its prerogative. Those special circumstances are that consent must be given through an address to the crown before the bill passes the house. In this instance it will be observed that all that was done was to ask the crown not to exercise its prerogative, the language being that the crown refrain from conferring any titles. In other words, this was placing a prohibition upon the exercise of the prerogative. I submit to this chamber that that is beyond the competence of this body, and in addition, in the language of Lord Reading, it is in itself an affront to the crown. Aa the crown possesses the prerogative, and as that prerogative can be taken away only by statute after prior consent has been given, to pass a resolution asking the sovereign to place a prohibition upon his own prerogative is in itself, as Lord Reading says, what should not be contemplated for a moment-an affront to the sovereign himself. But that was what was done by this house.
Last year the matter was raised when a question was asked by the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier), to which an answer was given on May 17. The answer I gave was this:
The promotion of the Right Honourable Sir George Halsey Perley, K.C.M.G., to be an ordinary member of the first class or Knights Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of St. Michael and St. George, was nmde in conformity with established constitutional practice, it being the considered view of His Majesty's government in Canada that the motion, with respect to honours, adopted on
[Mr. Bennett.J
the 22nd day of May, 1919, by a majority vote of the members of the Commons House only of the thirteenth parliament (which was dissolved on the 4th day of October, 1921) is not binding upon His Majesty or His Majesty's government in Canada or the seventeenth parliament of Canada.
There is only one further point to be noted, and that is that later the leader of the opposition asked a question to which I gave the answer that he read yesterday indicating that parliament consists of three estates and that until they combine in action, the prerogative was not affected. This year, recommendations having been made by the Prime Minister for the New Year's honour list, so-called, the names of certain Canadians appeared on that list. That was in the exercise of the prerogative of the sovereign on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The action is that of the Prime Minister; he must assume the responsibility, and the responsibility too for advising the crown that the resolution passed by the House of Commons was without validity, force or effect with respect to the sovereign's prerogative. That seems to me to be reasonably clear.
I am asked two questions.	One is why
action of this kind was taken at the time it was in view of the fact that parliament had been called on December 12 for the dispatch of business. I suppose it is unnecessary to say to this house that matters of this kind have, in the nature of things, to be disposed of weeks in advance of the first day of January and long before the 12th day of December had been reached and parliament was called for the dispatch of business, this matter had been acted upon. Everyone who is familiar with the conduct of public business knows that is so. On the second point, namely, as to why, in view of a resolution placed on the order paper, action was taken knowing the matter would be brought up for consideration, I think it is only necessary to point to the resolution itself. The resolution is in these words:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that Your Majesty hereafter may be graciously pleased to refrain from conferring any titles upon your subjects domiciled or living in Canada, it being always understood that this humble prayer has no reference to professional or vocational appellations conferred in respect to commissions issued by Your Majesty to persons in military or naval services of Canada or to persons engaged in the administration of justice of the dominion.
It will be observed that the only two that received titles were chief justices, the one of Canada and the other of the province of

The Address-Mr. Bennett
Quebec, so coming absolutely within the terms of the resolution to be moved by the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell). In other words his resolution is met in exact terms.


Mr.   M@: I would like to point
out that the Prime Minister has misconstrued the intent of the resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am only saying how
it reads.


Mr. MITCHELL:: The right hon. gentleman must recognize that I am at a disadvantage. My impression of the whole discussion, both yesterday and to-day, is that it is out of order in view of the resolution on the order paper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact I
felt somewhat as the hon. gentleman does, that it is anticipating a discussion that must take place, but as the right hon. leader of opposition proceeded with it, it became my duty to place this statement before the house. I merely say that this resolution as it reads excepts persons engaged in the administration of justice in the dominion, and the only two persons who received titular distinction were the Chief Justice of Canada and the Chief Justice of the province of Quebec. The rest received recognition for services rendered in various walks of life; I will not discuss that now, that may be discussed later, but this I will say, that it could not be said that any of them received titular distinctions, none of them had any title conferred upon them except the two to whom I have referred. I take the view that if it was fit and proper for the right hon. leader of the opposition to become a Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George in 1906 it is quite proper for a woman who has devoted fifty years of her life to caring for mothers and children from door to door and establishing homes, to receive recognition by becoming an officer of the Order of the British Empire.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No title is conferred;
no social precedence is given. Our table of precedence, as is noted in the little red book, very clearly and positively says that neither knighthood nor recognition of this kind confers any precedence. That is in the order itself. In this young democracy, believing as we do that there should be just and proper awards for meritorious service given to the state, that there should be recognition of these men and women who toil without thought of reward, who live lives that are
honourable and effective and that are in themselves incentives to better citizenship, why should not the head of the state, on the recommendation of whoever happens for the moment to be in charge of the government, recognize their services in some way as an indication that their services have not passed unnoticed? I can say with respect to one of these cases that came to my attention-none of them, fortunately or unfortunately, are people of wealth or money position-a woman w'orking in one of these remote communities where the task is difficult and the conditions bad, said in a letter to a friend-my memory is clear upon it- that on this particular day, worn and tired from caring for the poor and looking after children and mothers, a spirit of great despondency came over her. Was it worth while? Later in the day she said: "As I was sitting at my desk a letter came from the Prime Minister asking me whether I was content that my name might be recommended to the sovereign for recognition of the service which I was carrying on in this remote place. I went to work with renewed vigour; mjr work had not been in vain, was not unnoticed." There is recognition of the fine service-she did not say that, but I say it -the fine service given to the state. Have we so lost that sense of regard for really effective service, based not on money or the hope of money, as not to be willing to extend some recognition to those who in remote parts of Ibis country thus serve their fellowmen and the state?


William Duff: Why not recognize the
thousands of women who did the same thing?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is always so; there must be recognition of individuals on behalf of all. All may not be at once recognized, but those who represent classes, those who represent particular activities in remote sections, are fairly recognized as typical for all.


William Duff: No, you pick out a few
among many.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All may not be; thus recognized, but those who are, bring credit and distinction upon those with whom they are associated. Despite what the right hon. gentleman said, we- see in the newspapers that in remote sections of western Canada the people have gathered together from long distances to do honour to one whose services to humanity have been recognized. They did so with no thought of politics, no thought of religion, no thought of race, but with the realization only that here was service worthy

The Address-Mr. Bennett

of recognition; they were proud of that service, proud of this woman as representing that great class of women whose magnificent efforts on behalf of humanity had thus been recognized.


William Duff: But is it only one of thousands. Why not recognize them all?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That need not be further discussed. I have only to point out that I am informed that in one part of this country at one time there was an effort on the part of the provinces themselves to give such recognition. And in 1027 when we were celebrating the sixtieth anniversary of confederation the right hon. gentleman himself passed an order in council conferring the title of "Honourable" upon all who had been lieutenant governors in any part of Canada and who were then living. What is the difference between conferring the title of "Honourable" on every man who may have been a lieutenant governor, ex post facto, retroactive legislation, and giving recognition to women who toil in remote outposts for the benefit of their kind?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Here are the words of that order in council, passed on June 30, 1927:
The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated the 29th June, 1927, from the Right Honourable the Prime Minister, submitting that at present it is provided that the lieutenant-governor of each province is to be styled "His Honour" during his term of office only, and it appears that it would be more consistent with the dignity of the representative of the crown in the province that he should be accorded a designation which, once received, he may retain, not only during his term of office, but for life.
The Prime Minister further submits that at this time, when the position of the Governor General has come to be definitely accepted as that of the personal representative of His Majesty the King in the Dominion of Canada, it would be fitting on the occasion of the diamond jubilee of confederation-
Birthday honours, you see.
-for His Majesty's government in Canada to recognize more appropriately the important place held by the provinces in the Canadian federal system by according to the representatives of the crown in the provinces the designation of "Honourable" for life.
The committee, on the recommendation of the Right Honourable the Prime Minister, therefore advise that hereafter upon assuming office a lieutenant-governor of a province of Canada shall be entitled to the designation "Honourable" and shall be permitted to retain it after his term of office.

The committee, on the same recommendation further advise that lieutenant-governors at present in office or persons who have held the office of lieutenant-governor and are still living, shall, as from July first of this year, be entitled to the designation of "Honourable" for life.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point
out that that order in council was in no way contrary either to the letter or to the spirit of the 1919 resolution of this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the right hon. gentleman is not serious. It confers the title of "Honourable" upon those who have been lieutenant governors.


William Duff: Without any reduction in
salary!


Richard Bedford Bennett: It confers the title of
"Honourable" upon those who were -then in office and upon those thereafter appointed, yet the right hon. gentleman says it does not conflict. He means, I suppose, that it does not give a titular distinction, but it gives the title of "Honourable", or says it does at any rate. The old title, "His Honour", which is referred to as having been abolished, is now superseded by the title for life of "Honourable" with respect to those, past, present and future, who may fill the office of lieutenant governor.
One question more, and it is this: The right hon. gentleman referred to two cases as having some bearing upon this subject. I did not think my memory played me false. One of them was a case in which Mr. Gladstone in 1870 had introduced a bill to abolish purchase in the army, when the bill went to the House of Lords it was opposed and it looked as though it might be defeated, whereupon Mr. Gladstone asked the Queen to sign a warrant abolishing purchase in the army. In other words, in the exercise of her powers, whether as a commander-in-chief or in the exercise of her prerogative, she signed that order, and the acquisition of places in the army by purchase passed out of existence. If anyone can tell me just what relation that has to the present circumstances I shall certainly be obliged. It was a case in which, fearing legislation would not pass, recourse was had to the prerogative. The other case in 1890 had to do with Heligoland. Lord Salisbury was of the opinion that when a part of the British Empire was to be ceded to a foreign power it was desirable to pass a statute so to do. When it reached the House of Commons from the Lords and was up for second reading, the position taken by Mr. Gladstone, was, "This is not the way this business has always been done; it has always been done by treaty, by the prerogative of the sovereign being invoked,

The Address-Mr. Bennett
and when the treaty was signed by the sovereign it was laid upon the table of the house, the house in turn either approving or disapproving of it. If it disapproves, the government is beaten, and if it approves, that is the end of it." He made a lengthy speech in which he pointed out that recourse to the prerogative was far better than legislation. The matter was taken up by Mr. Balfour in which he pointed out caustically that it was a new doctrine for Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Harcourt to contend that recourse should be had to the sovereign prerogative instead of legislation by the Commons and the Lords, with the assent of the sovereign. Finally, driven to the position which he had to adopt with respect to it, Mr. Gladstone said, "The reason I do that is this, that if it is a statute we have the Lords to contend with, and if it is done through the exercise of the royal prerogative, we have not." But they proceeded with the statute and passed it in the House of Commons on division. Ultimately it passed through without division on the third reading. What relation all that has to this I do not know; but I put it to every thoughtful man in this house: Can it be said that the exercise of a power by resolution is authority for anything in the world?


Mr. EULER:: If instead of requesting the
sovereign directly not to exereise its prerogative, the House of Commons had expressed its desire that the Prime Minister himself should not make any recommendation, would the Prime Minister in that case feel himself bound?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member is coming to the point I was about to make. Rarely have I found an argument adduced against a position I have taken which so completely supported my position as that taken yesterday by the right hon. gentleman. He argued that this House of Commons is a body from which I derive authority as leader. That is true. But it was not the house of 1919 from which I derived authority; it was not the House of Commons of 1919 which permitted me to stand in this place in the house. This house would be within its constitutional rights if it passed a resolution asking the Prime Minister to make no further recommendations during the life of this parliament for titular distinction of any person domiciled in Canada. As Lord Reading has said, that would be no affront to the sovereign; that would be treating the crown as the crown should be treated. That would 'be treating the crown as the crown is bound to be treated. The reason I have not stood in my place and asked this House of
74726-7i
Commons to rescind the resolution was that I would thereby be indicating that it had some validity. There is no one in this house who does not know, and particularly does this apply to the legal members, that once you accept jurisdiction by attorning to it you cannot question the jurisdiction. And if I had sat in this house and asked for the rescission of that resolution I would thereby have been a party to the acceptance of its validity.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Did the Prime Minister support the resolution of the present Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) asking the House of Commons to consider the . matter?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and I am not sure, but I believe I spoke upon it. I was most anxious that it should go to a committee, because the discussion which is taking place here could then have taken place before the committee, and the committee could determine whether or not the resolution should be rescinded. I am perfectly willing that the question as to whether or not there is any validity in this resolution should be referred to any court in the world. There is not only no validity in it, but the resolution itself, in the language of the Marquis of Reading, is an affront to the sovereign. But if to-morrow or the next day or, in fact any day, this House of Commons sees fit to pass a resolution asking the Prime Minister to refrain from making recommendations to the sovereign, the House of Commons is of course within its rights, because it is from the house that the Prime Minister must derive his authority to act. It is one thing to see to it that our actions are buttressed with the authority of precedent, and another thing to act according to the rule of law. It has been a matter of passing comment, as pointed out by an eminent lawyer not long ago, that a resolution of a House of Commons which has long since ceased to be, could not bind future parliaments and future Houses of Commons.
This happened in Australia: Mr. Bavin came into office desiring to recommend that his chief justice be given a knighthood Recommendations were made to the Secretary of State for the Dominions and the recommendation was so made by the king The Secretary of State for the Dominions had no hesitancy in saying that he would act upon the recommendations that were made. The power of a mere resolution by this house, if acceded to, would create such a condition that no principle which secures life or liberty would be safe. That is what Judge Coleridge pointed out. It was stated by Mr. Gladstone
100	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Bennett
in 1870 that the reasonable application of rules was a very important thing. 1 am putting to this house in the language of Judge Coleridge just what we may expect if we disregard the rule of law which has declared that the prerogative of the sovereign cannot be abrogated, restricted or amended except by act of parliament to which he antecedently consents; and in that lies the safety of the subject, for the prerogative is not of honours and awards alone, but of mercy, of pardon, and of those innumerable things that have grown up in the body of common law in all British countries which protect the life and freedom and the institutions and the liberty of the subject.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: May I ask whether according to the ordinary rules of parliamentary practice and procedure there was any acknowledgment from the sovereign of the resolution that was submitted to His Majesty?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My memory is that an acknowledgment of the receipt of the resolution was received by the Duke of Devonshire from the private secretary of the king. I was looking that up to-day. It will be recalled that Mr. Nickle moved that the resolution be engrossed and sent through the governor general to the crown, and it was so sent, and an acknowledgment was sent from the private secretary of the king.
I have traversed this matter at some length. I have put before the house the facts as they are, and if there is any doubt as to the soundness of the legal position that this parliament consists of three estates, I am perfectly content that it should be referred to the supreme court or to any court in the world. When I see the language of an editorial in the Winnipeg Tribune talking of doing away with parliament when only one house was concerned, I realize the confusion that is brought about in the public mind by those endeavouring to speak with authority who have no knowledge of that about which they speak. That difficulty always arises in complex and difficult matters of this kind. Anyone who will read the debate in the House of Lords on December 19, 1933, will there see a clear indication of the principles that underlie the exercise of the prerogative by the sovereign with respect to honours and awards.
I have endeavoured in the action that I have taken to protect this House of Commons and all houses of commons from being charged with having been guilty of an affront to the sovereign. Lord Reading has indicated in his speech the true pathway along which

hon. gentlemen may proceed, if they so desire. They may pass a resolution, if they so wish, asking, nay, instructing the Prime Minister by a majority of the chamber that they do not wish any further recommendations to be made. By that I would be bound while leading the Commons House of this Parliament. It is always open for any member of this house to move a vote of censure againsl the Prime Minister for the recommendations that have been made, and it would not be the first time that matters of this kind have been made the subject of a vote of censure in this house. That privilege lies in this House of Commons. But I do entreat those who are concerned about the maintenance of our institutions, who love our constitutional liberties and realize the extent to which they rest upon the exercise of prerogative, an extent of which some have little understanding because they have not investigated, not for one moment to conclude that the House of Commons by a majority vote in 1919 could divest the sovereign of this empire and of this dominion of the prerogative which he possesses in respect of honours and awards.
Sir, I have trespassed longer upon the time of the house with respect to the speech from the throne and the speech made by the right hon. gentleman than I had ever expected to do again in this chamber. I apologize for having spoken at such length, but I found it incumbent upon me to traverse many of the matters referred to yesterday, and there are some with which I should have liked to deal at even greater length, because in these days it is so easy to make charges and to underestimate the recovery and the spirit of courage and optimism that pervades the Canadian people, and to try to depress them by showing signs of pessimism and reflecting upon the progress of the country. I offer no apologies for having taken time to indicate to this House of Commons the progress we have made and the faith and confidence we have in the future, and I say to those who sit beside me here; let us look forward, let us advance, let us discharge the duties that lie before us with high courage and to the best of our ability.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to continue the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne and the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), the first duty I have to perform is indeed a pleasant one. May I take this opportunity of congratulating the mover (Mr. Gobeil) and the seconder (Mr. Barber)

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
upon the efforts which they made in moving and seconding the address? Unfortunately 1 do not understand the French language; consequently I could follow only a portion of the address of the mover yesterday. I did, however, appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber). Having in mind the fact that he had only a very slim foundation upon which to build a speech, may I congratulate the hon. member upon his efforts?
I should also like to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Toronto East Centre (Mr. Matthews) upon his elevation to a position in the cabinet. The department over which he presides I am sure he will find a very strenuous one, and I wish him every' success in his direction of it.
Before I discuss the speech from the throne I desire to say a few words with regard to a statement that was made by the leader of the opposition yesterday in regard to the former member for Mackenzie, Mr. Milton Campbell. It will be remembered that the leader of the opposition took a great deal of delight out of the fact that in the recent by-elections all the members returned to this house had been Liberals, and speaking of the former member for Mackenzie the right hon. gentleman stated that he was a former Conservative C.C.F. member of this house. I think that that was a very unfair and very unjust statement for the leader of the opposition to make. In the first place the former member for Mackenzie was not a Conservative, and in the second place, so far as I am aware, I am not sure that he ever was a member of an organization affiliated with the C.C.F. Consequently under those circumstances it is indeed unfortunate that the leader of the opposition should have made the statement that he did. As a matter of fact the former member for Mackenzie was elected in 1921 as a Progressive, and in the elections of 1925, 1926 and 1930 he was again returned as a Progressive. So far as I know, he not only entered this house as a Progressive but also left this house as a Progressive.
I wish now to discuss some of the items in the speech from the throne. The very first paragraph in the speech states that Canada is to be congratulated upon her expanding trade, improving revenues, increasing employment and a more confident outlook upon the future. From the figures given by the leader of the opposition yesterday it would appear that this statement in the speech from the
throne was not altogether correct, but when we take into consideration the figures, and the further information which the Prime Minister gave to-day, it would appear that there is some doubt as to just where the truth lies.
If there is an improvement in this country no one will appreciate it more than myself. I am not one of those who are imbued with pessimism; I am looking forward to the time when there will be some easing in the situation in so far as the conditions which have existed for the last four years are concerned. But I wish to take exception to the last sentence in this paragraph which states:
Canada occupies a leading position amongst those countries where the evidence of a return to permanent prosperity is most convincing.
Whoever was responsible for the insertion of the word "permanent" in that sentence had no regard for economic conditions as they have existed in the past and as they will exist in the futture. So long as the profit system remains there can be no permanent prosperity. It would be well for hon. vmembers of this house to recognize that fact. From the beginning of the industrial era right down to the present time we have had swings of prosperity and of depression. In later years the periods of prosperity have become shorter than on former occasions, while the periods of depression have lengthened. I take exception to that word " permanent," and point out to the house that under ithe profit system there is no possibility of permanent prosperity. If I have time, I shall return to this point later on in my address.
The next paragraph to which I shall refer is in connection with the prices of agricultural products. It is quite true that these prices have increased somewhat and I am sure that every hon. member appreciates that fact. It is quite evident that so long as the purchasing power of the agriculturist is almost nonexistent, other industries and professions cannot attain any great prosperity. Therefore, we hope that this price increase will continue for a considerable time.
I should like to say just a word with regard to the last sentence in this paragraph, which reads:
You will be invited to consider legislation designed to facilitate the efficient and profitable marketing of live stock and agricultural products.
So far as agriculture is concerned, I believe that that sentence is the most important one in the whole speech from the throne. For years we in this corner of the chamber have
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

been advocating that similar action should be taken. Hon. members will recall that two years ago it was proposed to introduce legislation along these lines for the purpose of controlling the marketing of live stock. I do not know whether or not it is correct, but I have been informed that legislation was prepared for that purpose but was not introduced into the house- Under these circumstances may I express my appreciation of the fact that it is proposed to bring down legislation during this session for the purpose stated in this sentence.
Before I proceed further may I direct the attention of the house to the important significance of that sentence. It means that at last Canada is commencing a national planning. Because of things which have occurred during the past four or five years the government is now finding it necessary to begin a national planning in the interests of the Canadian people. While it is only a very small amount of planning that is proposed, at the same time the fact that the government has found it expedient to commence this thing is in my judgment worthy of our notice.
The next paragraph to which I desire to refer is the one dealing with the world monetary and economic conference. As hon. members know, this conference was held in London last summer but I think it is admitted on all sides that that conference was to all intents and purposes a failure. While some slight progress may have been made with regard to the possibility of future conferences, on the whole the conference was a failure. There are good reasons for its failure, and, in. my judgment, one is the fact that the countries represented did not take into consideration the real economic factors which underlie the present depression. It was stated in the press that one of the most important functions which the conference undertook was to determine if possible in what commodities there could be a reduction in the volume of production. In my judgment that is not the crux of the situation. Would it not have been better for the conference to recognize the fact that we are now living in the midst of plenty and that the era of scarcity has long since passed? The conference should have given consideration to the distribution of the plenty now available. Just so long as these conferences meet and evade that important question, so long will they continue to be failures.
The next paragraph refers to the appointment of a royal commission to inquire into the banking and monetary system of Canada. Two important recommendations are made by

this commission. One is the establishment of a central bank in Canada and the other is that a further investigation should be made into agricultural credits. So far as the central bank is concerned may I remind this house that for the last ten years the group in this comer have been advocating the establishment of such an organization. Almost year after year we have presented resolutions asking that a central bank should be established and now we are hoping, in view of the recommendations of this commission, that that action will be taken. In my judgment the value of this bank to the Canadian people will depend upon the plan of its organization. Under our present banking system the credit of Canada is placed at the disposal of our banking institutions; this has been so ever since the Bank Act came into existence. I believe that if this central bank is properly organized, if it is publicly owned and operated, it can render a great service to the various governments in Canada and at the same time be an important factor in the welfare of the masses of the Canadian people. But should this bank be privately owned, and operated for profit, the service given to Canada as a whole will be almost next to nothing; the profit factor will intervene almost entirely. Of course, I am not in the confidence of the government and I do not know what the Prime Minister and his colleagues have in their minds in this regard. It may be that they intend to have a publicly owned bank to be operated in the public interest. If it is privately owned, and operated in the interests of those who are its shareholders, then I shall be very much disappointed, as I am sure the people of Canada will be. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), when discussing the centfal bank yesterday, did not make a declaration of his position in regard to the manner in which the bank will be financed

whether it will be a publicly owned or a privately owned bank. The nearest he came to an explanation was to say that he hoped the bank would be Canadian owned. It is quite true that it may be Canadian owned, and yet it might not render that service which the people would expect a central bank to give. I am not one of those who believe that it is the function of a central bank to lend money to all and sundry, but I do believe that through the efforts that may be put forward, provided the government assume control over the central bank, the monetary and credit situation in this country can be better taken care of than if the bank were privately owned and managed for profit. We shall have to wait and see

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
what the proposals are in this regard, but I am still hoping that the Prime Minister will rise to the occasion and create a central bank to be publicly owned and operated in the interests of the people, thereby giving some assistance to the masses in Canada.
The next matter in the speech from the throne, to which I wish to refer for a moment or two, is the wheat quota. The Prime Minister this afternoon read a telegram from the premiers of the three prairie provinces. He gave a history of the negotiations, and in this respect he gave the house information which was not before available. When I approach the question of the restriction of production I ask myself first of all whether enough of this commodity is produced to satisfy the needs of all the people who require it. That is the first question I ask myself, and it would appear, from the vast surpluses that exist at the present time, that undoubtedly there is a world surplus of wheat, sufficient to meet all present requirements. Moreover, we have run up against something quite new in the history of western Canada, at least in the last four or five years, for we see that countries that formerly took large quantities of our wheat are now developing their wheat growing areas to such an extent as to be almost self-sustaining. Further than that, they have been giving bonuses, and have been placing restrictions upon wheat importations. That being so, we have to face a new condition, and it is not surprising that the premiers of the three western provinces should intimate to the Prime Minister of Canada that some effort was necessary along these lines in order to bring down the volume of production until such time as some of the surplus had been consumed. That of course is a very important matter.
Going through western Canada I find that this proposal is being received with mixed feelings by the producers. Some are of the opinion that in the administration of this quota preferences may be given internally, and the view has been expressed to me on many occasions that the producers of the west would feel more at ease if the federal government, in conjunction with the provincial governments of the three prairie provinces, would create a central selling agency through which all wheat exported from Canada would be handled, with powers similar to those exercised by the wheat board of 1919.
I am satisfied that the great bulk of the producers would feel more content if such a selling agency were established as soon as possible. I submit to the Prime Minister that he should give further consideration, in
consultation with the representatives of the three provincial governments, if he thinks fit, to the necessity of creating a wheat board in this connection, a board with ample powers to deal with the situation.
The next paragraph in the speech from the throne reads:
Since prorogation, my government, under the authority of The Relief Act, 1933, have continued to assist financially the provinces in the discharge of their constitutional obligations.
That paragraph, to my mind, is more significant than appears on the surface, for it demonstrates that the present economic system has broken down badly. When the federal government has to come to the assistance of provincial governments to enable the provinces to carry out their constitutional obligations, surely we must look for the reason why such assistance is necessary. According to the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon, it has been necessary to give this assistance to the provincial governments in order that they may fulfil their constitutional obligations in providing relief and work for the unemployed, and so on; and this, in my judgment, is ample evidence of the fact that the present economic system had badly broken down. In my judgment, it is not the function of governments to provide food, clothing and shelter for the people. That is the function of the economic system, and when we find that this government, during the time it has been in power, has had to pay something like $130,000,000 towards the provision of relief through the provincial governments and also to assist those governments financially, what more proof is needed to convince anyone who wishes to understand the situation that the system has collapsed almost entirely?
If the present economic system cannot provide the people with food, clothing and shelter, or give them an opportunity for securing these things, then the time has come when we should do more planning than we have done in the past, and should inve stigate more closely the reasons why the economic system cannot fulfil this function. And wherever it is necessary we should change or strengthen the system so that it might function properly in this regard.
It is not my purpose to take up more time discussing the speech from the throne. I should like to take just a few moments to deal with what I think is the crux of the problem 'that we have before us, namely, the reason the present economic system is not functioning efficiently. My judgment is that because of the profit nature of the system, the concentration of wealth in this and other countries
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

has proceeded at such a pace that it is endangering the livelihood of the great mass of the people throughout the world. We have in Canada no figures; in fact we are not permitted by law to secure the figures from the returns made to the income tax branch. Therefore we have to go to another country similarly situated to ours in order to get data which will give us some information on this important question, namely, the concentration of wealth. We have to go to the United States, for instance, to secure such information as is available at the present time. Recently official figures came from there showing that in the opinion of officers in the employment of the United States government, three per cent of the people of that country control 67 per cent of its wealth, leaving only 33 per cent of the wealth to be distributed amongst 97 per cent of its people. 1 do not know whether we have succeeded in the concentration of wealth to the same extent in Canada. As I have already stated, those figures are not available, but I am satisfied that in that regard we are pretty close behind the United States. This is the crux of the situation as I see it-three per cent of the people of the United States owning 67 per cent of the wealth.


Edward James Young: Did the hon. member say "owning" or "controlling"?


Robert Gardiner: Owning. That is not all. Let me give the house further information which comes from the United States, because we cannot get similar information in this country. The Comptroller of Currency of the United States government last year made a survey of the banks numbering over
5.000	affiliated with the federal reserve system, including a survey of the deposits in those banks. He found that there were some
30.556.000	depositors in those banks; he found also that the total deposits amounted to $23,542,307,000, but more than that, when he analysed the figures, he found that three and a half per cent of the depositors owned 76-3 per cent of the deposits, showing a very close relationship of deposits in banks to ownership of wealth. If you reduce the three and a half per cent as represented by the depositors to three per cent, you will find that this conforms very closely to the three per cent owning 67 per cent of the wealth of that nation. The point is this, that those who control the wealth of a nation control its purchasing power. This $23,000,000,000 deposited in those banks can be withdrawn at any time to buy anything the owners of those deposits may require, but it will appear that the great bulk of those deposits are the sur-

plus purchasing power of those people, they already having provided for their needs. Inasmuch as there is very little opening to-day for the investment of surplus purchasing power in the form of savings, one can readily understand why it is that this purchasing power, not being used as it has been formerly to provide new plant and equipment, to develop new industries, cannot come into the hands of the people who require the necessary food, clothing and shelter. That being the case, we come to this point that, in my judgment, until such time as there is a redistribution of wealth in Canada and other countries there can be no permanent prosperity for the masses of the people. A redistribution of wealth is essential, and the sooner we make up our minds on that important point, the better it will be for all concerned, not only in Canada but elsewhere.
One thing that struck me, in listening yesterday to the remarks of the leader of the opposition, as a very important omission on his part was this: it will be remembered that he moved an amendment making an addition to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the amendment being to this effect:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's present advisers and the official opposition do not possess the confidence of the country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was not my amendment. May I correct my hon. friend?


Robert Gardiner: I should have said:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's advisers do not possess the confidence of the country.
I quite appreciate the fact that I have read an amendment which I may move, but that does not alter what I have to say as to the situation in regard to the leader of the opposition. The right hon. gentleman yesterday afternoon and night spoke for four hours and ten minutes; he was very critical of the administration, but to my mind the outstanding feature was that the leader of the opposition did not give to the house or country any indication what, if he were called upon to form a government, would be the policy of his party.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not want to take another four hours.


Mr. BOURASSA:: Take the time on his amendment.


Robert Gardiner: If the program of the Liberal party would take four hours to expound, it must be some program. But inasmuch as all that I could take out of his

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
address as to the policy of the Liberal party was that if they came into power there might be some reduction in tariff duties, and they hoped that the central bank to be created would be Canadian owned. I believe the time is ripe for the people of Canada to demand from all political parties a clear statement as to exactly what their program or platform will be. As I am limited to forty minutes I have not at my disposal the time, for instance, to give an outline of the program of the United Farmers of Alberta; nor have I at my disposal the time to give an outline of the program of the Labour group and other groups affiliated with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I have not the time to discuss the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation platform, but we have given it to the world; it is open to anyone to know what that program is. The program of these different groups is available to all who desire to know exactly what we are aiming at. And that is something of which the people of Canada have no knowledge, as far as the Liberal party is concerned.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
about the three by-elections we have had?


Robert Gardiner: We appreciate the way
the by-elections went, but after all, byelections are not always a good indication of what the people are thinking.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Fairly
good.


Robert Gardiner: They may be or they
may not, therefore I am not disposed to place too much confidence in the results of byelections. But seeing that my hon. friend the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) has raised that point, is it the purpose of the Liberal party to wait and see whether the discontent of the people with the present government is such that that party will be returned to power without committing itself to any program?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The platform of the Liberal party was fully outlined on the 27th of February in this house by the leader of the party.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Also in 1919.


Robert Gardiner: Therefore, Mr. Speaker,
I am going to move the amendment I read a few minutes ago. It is as follows, moved by myself, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth):
That the amendment be amended by inserting after the word "advisers'' the words "and official opposition."
The amendment as amended would then read:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's present advisers and official opposition do not possess the confidence of this house or of the country.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, if the rules of the house permitted, I might be tempted to move a subamendment to the amendment to the amendment, making it a full confession that we have lost all confidence in ourselves, individually and collectively. It may appear a joke, but perhaps it would be nearer to the growing feeling of a large number of people in the country than my friends on either side of the house majr think. This maj' be one of the last utterances of my public life. My remaining days in public, and all my days to come, are few. But suppose this were my last declaration, I may repeat here the advice which was given to me nearly forty years ago when I entered parliament for the first time, by a man who had much experience in public life, that is Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who told me: "Do not fall into the mistake into which most of us parliamentarians fall, of believing that people outside think and feel and react as we do. So long as you are in parliament think of the people outside." I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, and I say this quite seriously, after a good deal of thought and reflection and study of history, both of this country and foreign countries, that the confidence of the people in the power of parliaments and parties composing parliaments, to alleviate the sufferings of the people, is in our day very much shaken. I am no revolutionist by temperament; but I come in contact with the people who suffer, who have suffered for years, who see their children suffering around them, and who are told alternately by the interpreters of one party and the other: "It is the fault of the others; put us in power and we will cure your sufferings." Governments change but the sufferings continue, with the result that the people are beginning to doubt either the will or strength of parliaments and governments and parties to remedy the situation. In older, more civilized and more cultured countries than ours, that struggle is seen. Fascism or bolshevism or communism are not the outcome of an instinct to resort to brute force, but of this desire for a change. That is what brought Mussolini into power in Italy and Hitler into power in Germany. That is what is in a measure threatening the condition of things in France, perhaps the best ordered
The Address-Mr. Bourassa

country in the world, socially and economically, but where there is a growing feeling of discontent on the part of an increasing number of people of all classes, and decreasing confidence in the power of their institutions to cure their evils.
My purpose in speaking to-night, heaven knows, is not that I believe that I can offer any cure. In the sincerity of my heart, as a Canadian unconnected with political parties -which may be a fault; I am not putting the parties on trial-I am simply stating what I feel; and in doing so I believe I express the thought of a large number of people in all the provinces of Canada. It is this: could there not be a truce between the fighting groups in parliament and outside of parliament in order to try for something other than merely the retention of power or the conquest of power?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Of course my friends of the Liberal party will claim that they were defeated by an appeal to the feelings of despair of the people, that they were slandered before the people of Canada because they happened to be in power at the beginning of the crisis, and that their opponents must suffer the deserved retribution for what they did in 1930. There is some truth in that. But do they in the bottom of their hearts believe that if they come back into power this year or next, they are by themselves capable, without any moral support from some people outside of their party, either in parliament or out of parliament, of doing any better than their opponents? No, they cannot. I wish to be fair to everyone. I hope I have no enemies in this house. I was a strong fighter in my day, for a short time as a party man and for a long time outside of parties, alternately with and against both parties. But in my growing age I have come to the conclusion that there is more good in each party and every party than their opponents will admit, and sometimes than even their own friends believe. But with the party system, with its traditions of party strife, with the conviction-is it a conviction?-in each party that they must charge their opponents with all the faults and crimes and errors of the past and claim for their party the credit for all that has been done that is good; with that system you cannot expect the growth of a public conscience, intelligent and constructive, and you cannot expect an increase in the confidence of the people.
May I be somewhat personal and address myself to, I shall not say the three leaders of

the different parties, but the leader of the government (Mr. Bennett), the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the chairman of the new cooperative association? May I say quite frankly that I have much admiration and sympathy for the three of them? The Prime Minister I have known for over twenty years. Were I not afraid of hurting his extreme modesty I would say that I have the deepest admiration for him. I do say, however, quite unreservedly that he is one of the strongest-willed statesmen we have had in Canada. I will go farther and state that he has a clearness of mind, a quickness of thought and a strength of action which has rarely been possessed by any man loaded with the responsibility of office. I give that credit to him with the greatest of pleasure. But, he knows that he is but a man; he knows that. I believe I could state more accurately than many of his fellow members that I fully understand his desire to do his duty by his country. I know he is public-spirited; I know that he gives the best of himself to what he considers to be his task. But I repeat that he is a man, and only a man. If the whole problem was that of maintaining what he calls sound money or of giving to the country an effective administration in matters of finance and commerce I have no hesitation in saying that I do not think he has his equal in Canada at the present time, and has had very few in past days. But the maintenance of the dollar, the development of trade and the increase of our exports and imports, is not the whole problem; he knows that. That is not the whole economic problem-still less the social problem-it is much more than that. When you deal with nations, with communities composed of millions of men, women and children, you have to consider something more than material problems. You have to take into account what Bismarck, a statesman who was never styled as a dreamer or a poet, called the imponderables, without the consideration of which no statesman can rule his country and entertain proper relations with foreign countries.. I state to the three leaders that they must take into account the feelings, the needs, the habits, the requirements, not only 'material but moral and social, of all the elements of the community. In that regard I appeal to the three parties in this house. They consider primarily the interests of the classes they represent, some having at heart the interest of the farmers, others organized labour, others the interests

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
of the manufacturers. When I refer to that class I am not making any improper insinuation.
There is one class however of which I hear very little, a class which is difficult to count, but which is very important morally, socially and economically. I refer to the small bourgeoisie, as they called it in France, the lower middle class as they called it in England years ago. I was struck with an observation made not long before his death by that highly regretted European statesman, Doctor Stresemann, who unfortunately died too soon for the good of Germany, of Europe and of the world. His remark was this: "The loss that Germany has suffered is not defeat and humiliation; that will pass over. It is not the loss of Alsace and Lorraine; we can make that sacrifice. They have been a source of dispute between French and Germans for centuries. It is not even the loss of Silesia and the building up of the Danzig corridor which separates eastern Prussia from the rest of our country. It is not the loss of land, of men or money; but it is the downfall for generations to come of that humble middle class which have been deprived of savings accumulated during twenty, thirty or forty years." That same class exists here. They are individuals; they are not organized as a class. Therefore they cannot present their views as can the organized farmers, the organized workers, the organized professional men or manufacturers. Nevertheless they constitute the mainstay of the body politic. They contribute their share of direct and indirect taxation to the governments of the provinces and the dominion.
What care has been taken of them during the crisis of the last five years? I will take for example my native city of Montreal, and will appeal for verification to every hon. member representing a constituency of that city. There are to-day on the paupers' list of Montreal men who for twenty, thirty or forty years worked earnestly and honestly as carpenters, plasterers, bricklayers, masons, small contractors and so on. Others were the small employees of large concerns like the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company, a corporation which has grown tremendously at the expense of both the consuming population of Montreal and its own employees. In the words of my friend to my left, they represent a testimony to the rottenness of our present economic and social system. Some of those small employees, after twenty-five or thirty years, were in a position, like the small traders and labourers, to purchase a piece of land upon which they erected tenements. They lived in one tenement and counted upon
the rental of the other one or two so that they might die in peace and leave a small property to their children. Those properties are now empty. The occupants of the tenements pay no rental, yet taxation is being piled up. The owners continue to pay tribute to the electric monopoly of Montreal. Nobody comes to their rescue. They are proprietors, and why? Because they followed for thirty or forty years the laws of God and man; because they were moral and sober, and because they gave an honest day of labour to rhemselves or to their employers without making use of the threat of a union to claim so much more pay or so many less hours of work. What is the result of their practising for forty or fifty years those social, Christian and human virtues? They are disregarded by everybody, because they are not an organized class, and are not represented in parliament. Well, belonging to no party and having no electoral fund to draw from either a trade union or manufacturers' association, I raise this evening my humble voice and ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to think of those people when they are preparing their budgets. I repeat that while the money question is a big one, and while the increase in trade is of great importance and is in itself a worthy objective, they are not everything.
But, even that is not all. I am quite sure that the three leaders agree on certain things which are not contained in the program of the two old parties but are contained in the program of the Canadian Cooperative Commonwealth. For example, there is the point mentioned by my hon. friend from Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), the better distribution of wealth. Of course, everybody admits in his heart and conscience that it must come, but the question is: how shall it come? Three or four years ago, at the beginning of this crisis, I ventured in this house the opinion that the government should invite men of wealth, bankers and directors of large insurance companies, to think among themselves what they should do to bring about a better equilibrium between the wealthy man and the pauper, between large corporations and the individual; because if they did not do so of their own will, under the guidance-and let it be a strong guidance-of the rulers of the land; if they did not of their own accord help to bring about an economic and social readjustment in this country, it would not be my friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) who would raise the cry of revolution; it would be raised from Montreal or from Winnipeg or from anywhere; it would come from the crowds of people in the streets.
The Address-Mr. Bourassa



Was there ever a truer statement than that contained in the famous encyclical of the pope on labour and social questions, that observation which he makes to all rulers-after having denounced communism, after having denounced even socialism as incapable of remedying the evils of the day, after having also denounced the abuses of capitalism, the concentration of wealth and what he calls, quite properly, the economic dictatorship that has taken the place of the public power in most countries,-when	he
says, addressing himself to the men responsible for the maintenance of law in the countries of the world: "More guilty than the preachers of communism are those who, having received from the people and from God the power to legislate, neglect to make use of their power to correct those abuses out of which revolutions spring up." That happens to have been written by a pope; but I hope that my friends in this house, to whatever creed they may belong, realize that this is not the dictum of the chief of a religion or of a sect. It is the opinion of a man who receives information from the whole world over, who relies upon traditions of order, upon justice and charity, and who appeals to the men who govern in order to make justice prevail in the lands that are confided to their care.
Can that be done by any one party? I do not believe it. I do not believe you can have the strength of public opinion in this country, or in any country, that must be at the back of the necessary measures of reform to curb the power of finance, to liquidate abnormal capital, to distinguish between real capital and false capital, to wipe out what has been stolen from the public and make safer thereby what is legitimate in investment; nor can you bring about a better distribution of the goods necessary to the welfare of the people in such a way that the farmer will get a better price for his produce and the poor devil in the city will not have to pay three times as much to buy food for his family-you cannot, I say, readjust these great questions of economic balance and bring about a better distribution of wealth through the control of capital unless you have a very strong opinion at your back, and unless you can be sure that your opponents will not denounce you as revolutionists or bolshevists. On the other hand you cannot maintain the present state of things by creating the fear of arousing a revolution, without being exposed, and rightly exposed, to the charge that you are making use of power and of a majority to maintain abuses such as have brought revolution in all countries where they have existed.

Is it two years ago that my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition compared the present state of things to the old feudal system? I felt disposed to tell him then what I say now, that J think that was a slander on the feudal lords; because although some feudal lords abused their power, and although there came a time, of course, when the balance between their privileges and their social obligations was disturbed, yet every privilege that was granted to a high or a small lord under the feudal system was at once a reward for his public services and an inducement for him and his descendants to continue those services. But under the present system the possessors of wealth, the creators of false wealth, especially, those who, like the electric monopoly in Montreal, connected with the Royal Bank and the Montreal Trust, and which exercises upon the city of Montreal and upon all the municipalities within a radius of one hundred miles from that city a domination which no feudal lord ever exercised over his domain- what responsibility do they carry? None. It is an anonymous corporation which has received its power from a government in Quebec, and every time it is attacked it invokes the constitution.
Now I am a friend of the constitution and I stand for its maintenance; but just as I say you will not maintain what is legitimate, I will not say in the capitalistic system, but in the use of capital for the development of industry, by allowing the owners of capital to do whatever they like, neither will you maintain the constitution of Canada by making use of the constitutional argument in the province to say: This is not our business; it is Ottawa's business; nor by us here saying: We cannot interfere because it is a matter that belongs to the province.
The Prime Minister has started on a good path. I was delighted at those two conferences at comparatively short intervals between the federal authority and the provincial. That is a beginning of cooperation. But the Prime Minister of Canada, who has a larger responsibility than the premier of any province, must make them understand quite clearly at those conferences that if this parliament does something to remedy not merely the surface but the real causes of the evil, they must follow suit or he will let the people know where the responsibility lies. It is all very well for purposes of discussion to keep these conferences secret; but when it comes to a decision, if the premier of any province, or the premiers of two or more provinces take upon themselves to block any remedial legislation that may be suggested by the Prime

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
Minister of Canada or by the premier of any province, then let them take their responsibility and put their objections in writing, and let those objections as well as the resolutions adopted be published, so that the people in each province will know where the responsibility rests.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: There must be cooperation between the federal government and the provincial governments, first, to make the present laws work better than they do. Look at that matter of the coal monopoly. Is n not three or four years ago that the order in council was passed prohibiting the importation of Russian coal? I took the liberty of denouncing it, but I am sorry to say that not one of my Liberal friends supported me publicly in the house, and the reason given to me was that they were afraid that they would be condemned by the bishops of the province of Quebec because the Conservatives of Quebec were claiming for the Prime Minister the title of the saviour of religion. I took the liberty of pointing out that the only religion involved in the case was that of Senator Webster and his monopoly. How long did it take to get action, and how long is this amalgamation of coal companies into one, directly or indirectly, openly or secretly, under Senator Webster to continue? They are making enough profit in a week's time to pay the $10,000 fine which has been imposed upon them. It is the same with the monopolist here as it was with the sellers of contraband whisky in the United States, the pirates on the high seas; they made enough from the sale of their cargoes to be able to stand the loss of one cargo out of ten without impairing their previously ill-gained profits.
If there must be cooperation between organized political powers, federal, provincial and municipal, wo cannot expect this parliament to give a general direction to the country at large, to appeal to public conscience, to take strong measures-strong measures are needed, but I shall not discuss them to-night-unless you make sure that upon certain points at least all parties will agree and will not denounce each other. Can that not be done? All parties united during the war to induce Canadians to shed their blood and ruin their country in a foreign quarrel. I shall not discuss that either, but surely the need of assuring the victory of one set of nations in Europe over another was not a greater or more pressing duty on the people of Canada than the assurance of the life of their children and the future of their country. There was
understanding and more than cooperation between the two parties at that time. The constitution was overridden and parliament was prolonged in order to carry on the business of war and increase the number of Canadians who would shed their blood upon the battlefields of Europe. Why cannot something of that nature be done in order to save our country and preserve the lives of some of our boys? Cannot the parties cooperate in order to remedy some of the economic and financial disasters which arose from that, war? It is not only the huge war debt of $2,500,000,000 which we are transmitting to our children without having paid one cent, but think of the debts piled up by the provinces, by the municipalities and by the corporations, all because of the folly of the war. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister denounce this afternoon the mistake we made when we sold our wheat at higher prices than it was worth. I came back from Europe in 1922 and advised my friends, some from the west, that a crisis was coming. that the people of Europe would not be foolish enough to go on paying tribute to us to the extent of two or three dollars per bushel of wheat, and the same proportion in the case of other commodities. I told them that those countries were preparing not only to supply their own needs but if possible to make us pay back some of the ill-gained profits which were derived by us during the war.
I am an old timer and a believer in old things. I believe in the law of permanent justice administered by an all-providing God rather than in the laws of a short-thinking humanity. The crimes of one generation are always expiated by the next. That may seem cruel, but it is one of the mysteries of life. 1 do not ask the adhesion of anyone to my views. I respect the views of all those who thought that we were right in entering the war; but whether we approve or disapprove of that war, there is one thing sure, the contribution of Canada was imposed upon our people without, as the Prime Minister has said, their realizing what the consequences would be. They are now reaping the results. Are we not to do something in the way of cooperation between men of good will in this parliament to remedy some of these dire results? I do not ask you to break the bonds of party; I do not ask you to renounce your fealty to anjr of your leaders or to any of your ideals; I simply ask you if you do not have sufficient breadth in your minds and sentiment in your hearts as Canadians to look for what is common to all of you. Even at my age I am optimist enough to believe
The Address-Mr. Bourassa

that there is more good in the hearts and brains of all of you than would seem to appear at times. You should try to look for what is best instead of always rehashing old quarrels, old wrangles and old charges. Instead of accusing each other of all the crimes and errors of the past, you should try to find out some means to adjust the present and prepare a better future for the generations to come. If you did that I think you would have accomplished your duty as representatives of the people of Canada to a greater extent than by settling, resettling and never settling old scores.
I present these views with the fullest amity and from the simpleness of my heart. My days have passed, but in my younger days I appealed frequently to those who were also young and full of enthusiasm. My youth is gone, my health is failing; but there is something here which remains youthful because it is eternal, that is, the belief in duty to God, in duty to country and in duty to humanity. By humanity I mean all the people of this country, whether they be Grits or Tories, Catholics or Protestants, Jews, Mohammedans or unbelievers; I mean all the men and women who are gathered in this land under the emblem of the British crown. They are under the immediate care, tutelage and responsibility of this parliament. If we fail in our duty in these present circumstances, the memory of us as a body and perhaps as individuals will be cursed by generations to come. We shall be. cursed, not for any crime that has been committed by either party, but perhaps for what might be termed the greatest crime of all, that is, the failure to accomplish one's duty at a time when it should be accomplished. That time is upon us. Our duty is not to squander money, it is not to pile up debts or to maintain a certain number of people without work, including those who do not want to work; as the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) says, it is to try to get to the root and remedy the deep-seated causes of the evil.
I turn now to my friends to my left. They are full of hope. They are a new group with a new program. Let us be frank and admit that there is much in them which is good. I commend this one thing to my young Conservative friends from Quebec:	Cease the
campaign of slander which has been carried on by calling these men the agents of Moscow. Do you know what you are going to get from such a practice? When the people begin to read, and there are people in Quebec who do read; when they find out that there is so much good in that platform, they will draw the conclusion-they have the logical French

mind-that if that is Moscow, then Moscow is not so bad. When you slander an opponent by tacking upon his program or his name or his person something of ill repute coming from a man or party that cannot be reached, the people make a simple application and conclude that the men you denounce or the men with whom you compare them are not so bad as you claim. I give you that advice.
To my Liberal friends in the province of Quebec I give this further advice: Do not raise your hands in horror and say, "Oh no, we have nothing in common with these men from the west, these semi-bolsheviks and quarter-communists." Of course, I would not answer for all of them, I can tell you quite frankly. I no longer answer for any public man or party; I have enough to do answering for myself. But suppose there are among them men of advanced views. Are you prepared to say that there is no one in your party who does not hold some wrong views on some things? When you make use of the pope's encyclical to denounce the C.C.F., why do you not read that part of it which denounces the system that has been built up, maintained and protected by the two great historic parties since confederation? If you do, you will find in the pope's encyclical as much against our social and economic system as there is against communism and socialism. Let us admit that there is much good in the program of the C.C.F., and let my hon. friends of the C.C.F. realize that they cannot expect to have their whole program swallowed by all the people of Canada. There must be give and take between men and parties: only by so doing can we hope to settle our difficulties. Surely we could agree upon some measures to control finance. As regards the central bank, can we not come to some agreement, I will not say to repudiate debts, but to deal with them in such a way that they will be attenuated, so to speak, debts both public and semi-public. Whatever more in the way of trade we do with New Zealand and England will not counteract the tremendous fact that less than eleven million people in Canada bear to-day a public and semi-public debt, including in this the debt of corporations, religious and civil, of over ten billion dollars. Do you realize what that means for a country like Canada which, as the Prime Minister said this afternoon, has no accumulated wealth? It is all very well to talk about natural resources. I remember the observation of a sensible old Londoner who gave a bit of advice to a new statesman coming from Canada to address the people in England. He asked this old Englishman what he would advise him to say in order to be agree-


The Address-Mr. Gershaw
able. The Englishman replied, "I don't know, but I would offer you this bit of advice at any rate: Don't talk of Canada's natural resources, because we have heard so much about them, and they have cost us some money."
This is probably the last session of this parliament before the electoral wrangle takes place, and hon. gentlemen will go back to their constituents and appeal to party spirit and try to make the best they can of their party's cause. I submit that neither party would endanger its chances of victory by making some concessions, by trying to create an operating understanding among all parties with regard to a few questions, because thereby they would enhance the confidence of the people in the sincerity of each group, and also do something to restore, what is badly needed, the faith of the people in our parliamentary institutions and in parliamentary government. For 1 can tell you that it is going down and dowm and down quite rapidly. Denunciation of this group may bring victory to one party or the other once or twice; but if this group is ever victorious, if a group which might be, from the point of view of the other parties, worse than this group, ever takes its place, it will be because of the failure of the old parties to realize their responsibility to the people of Canada, to their own members, and to their friends and supporters.
Mr. F. W. GERjSHAW (Medicine Hat): In the few moments that remain before eleven o'clock I desire to bring to the attention of the house some problems that are of particular interest to the district whence I come. I wish first of all to congratulate the mover (Mr. Gobeil) and the seconder (Mr. Barber) of the address on the splendid speeches which they made in opening this debate. I have had the pleasure of knowing the seconder of the debate for many years and it is all the more pleasing to congratulate him.
All through the west, particularly in the district from which I come, there are people who have suffered greatly from the conditions in which they now find themselves. They have borne their troubles with a brave spirit and have carried on in spite of great difficulties. But debt and despondency are facing them. In many places the crops have been a failure; in some sections they have failed three and four years in succession. These people are therefore at the present time in desperate straits. Their gardens failed to grow; fodder was not available, and their live stock are dying from the hard winter. It is true that relief is being given, and in most instances the bare necessities of life are being
supplied; but in a general way the condition is most unfortunate and many are discouraged. Even	where	crops	did grow, the	lowprices which	have	been	received have	not
covered the actual out-of-pocket costs of production. The people are asking themselves this question: How can we continue to sell cattle at 2, 3 and 3i cents a pound when it costs us 5 cents a pound to produce them?
The speech from the throne indicates that some marketing board will be established, and therefore we shall have another opportunity of discussing the whoG problem of the marketing of cattle.	The	cattle	industry is one ofthe oldest of	which	we have any record.	All
down through the ages it has been the chief occupation of mankind, and in Alberta it is still an industry that holds out great hope, with a future probably greater than that of the wheat industry, especially in the southern parts of the province. Yet we find that these large ranchers, who have had vision, who have struggled along year in and year out, meeting conditions as they have come, are now on the verge of bankruptcy because of the low prices they are receiving. When the price of beef was 7, 8 and 9 cents a pound there were certain transportation charges that had to be met; and now that the price is as low as H cents, sometimes 2 and 3 cents, we find practically the same charges. The same freight rates are in existence; the same loading charges, the same stockyard charges, the same insurance charges, and so on, that existed previously exist to-day. The same high price must be paid for hay in the terminals, and altogether these expenses are so great that the returns from carloads of fine steers have been as low as one and one-half cents and one and one-quarter cents per pound live weight. These things tend to discourage those ranchers who have become famous for their hospitality, vision, and hard-working ability.
We have heard a great deal about wheat and the people are asking the same question in regard to it. How, they say, can we continue to grow wheat at from 40 to 45 cents a bushel when it is costing us at least 60 cents a bushel to produce it. During the last few days we have heard a good deal about the wheat situation in Europe, and although it does not hold out much hope, we must look forward with the expectation that the price of wheat will meet production costs, because we cannot to any great extent turn our farms into producing any other article of food or use them for any other purposes. With the spirit that is abroad, it is no wonder that the people in the west are turning toward state ownership, communism; that they are looking
The Address-Mr. Gershaw

with anxious eyes toward the Douglas system, inflation, bimetallism and many other isms. They are groping around expecting to find some solution., some system which will improve the standard of living.
I want to speak for just a few moments on an industry which I discussed before in this house, and that is the beet sugar industry. On February 24,	1932, I had
the honour of introducing in the house a resolution dealing with the beet sugar industry. At that time I pointed out that it was one which would be a great help to the people of western Canada. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Stewart) also spoke on this question, because he has within his constituency a beet sugar factory. We pointed out that in Canada only 10 per cent of the raw material used for the manufacture of sugar was home grown, whereas in the United States the percentage was from 20 to 25 per cent and in the mother country also from 20 to 25 per cent. We pointed out that the establishment of a beet sugar factory wrould be a great help to the district in which it would be located, because it would mean the employment of a number of people, would provide traffic for the transportation companies and would consume a great deal of material, thus creating a market for the dealers in and manufacturers of that material. We pointed out also that the valuable by-products would help other secondary industries and that the cattle industry would be greatly benefited thereby.
This resolution was amended in such a way as to have the matter referred to a committee of this house, and the agriculture committee dealt very thoroughly with the question. They called before them witnesses from every part of the country. These witnesses stated that sugar beets constituted a very profitable crop; they pointed out that it was of great value in the rotation of crops, and they gave much information regarding this industry in Canada. Among the men who appeared before the committee were:
H. Marshall, Bureau of Statistics, Ottawa._
Doctor T. W. Grindley, Bureau of Statistics, Ottawa.
W. R. Reek, Director of Experimental Farms, Ridgetown, Ontario.
Thomas Simpson, farmer, Pretoria, Ontario.
G. L. Rogers, President. British Columbia Sugar Refining Company, Vancouver.
B. R. McMullen, Alberta Beet Growers' Association.
Charles Houston, President, Canada and Dominion Sugar Company, Limited, Chatham, Ontario.	.
Alexander W. McIntyre, Canada and Dominion Sugar Company, Limited, Chatham, Ontario.
W. F. Russell. Alberta Beet Growers' Association.

Day after day these witnesses were examined; the whole question was thoroughly discussed, and I should like to say that the discussion was watched with great interest by hundreds of people who had located on irrigated farms, who had tried year after year to make their overhead costs and who had failed owing to the collapse of prices. It was watched by people who had some hope that they would be able to produce sugar beets, a crop of high acreage value, and in that way be able to meet their overhead on their irrigated farms. They have been rather disappointed. The report of the committee came into the house on April 1, 1932, and I should like briefly to indicate its nature. It was in part as follows:
The evidence submitted established the following facts regarding the industry:
1.	That the production of sugar beets has been carried on very profitably in certain districts of Ontario and Alberta.
The amount paid to the farmers for beets in 1931 was about $2,500,000; during the period of normal commodity prices for farm products, an average price of $7.48 per ton was paid to the farmers for sugar beets, but owing to the present low price of raw cane and refined sugar, the factories claim that they are unable to guarantee more than $5 per ton for the 1932 crop.
2.	That large additional areas, suitable for the growth of sugar beets, are available in Canada.
3.	That during the past ten years the annual average production of refined sugar in Canada was 963,000,000 pounds; the percentage of beet sugar production has varied from 6.2 per cent in 1926 to approximately 10 per cent in 1930 and 1931.
4.	That the sugar beet factories at Chatham, Wallaceburg and Raymond, are now operating at full capacity, and that no further development of the beet sugar industry in Canada _ is possible until manufacturing capacity is increased.
5.	That world stocks of sugar on hand are very large and that an extended surplus of some 4,000,000 tons will be carried over to next year.
6.	That there is sufficient capacity in the
cane sugar refineries of Canada to refine two and one half times the amount of sugar necessary to meet the demands of the Canadian consumers.	.
7.	That the granting of bonuses or subsidies at present to encourage the production of sugar from beets was not favoured by the representatives of the growers or the refiners.
8.	That the consumption of sugar from Winnipeg to British Columbia is approximately 255,000,060 pounds, supplied from eastern Canada as far westward as the Brandon district, and from Vancouver eastward to the Brandon district, except for the 30,000,000 pounds of beet sugar manufactured at Raymond, Alberta.
9.	That freight rates on sugar from Raymond to prairie points are from one-half to three-quarters of a cent per pound less than rates to similar points from Vancouver or Montreal.

rn
Criminal Code
Summing up, they say:
Your committee therefore recommend that in view of the existing tariff on sugar and in consideration of the substantial payments being made to agriculture and labour by the beet sugar factories at present in operation, the cane sugar refineries should undertake to provide for a gradual increase in factory facilities for the refining of beet sugar in Canada, and that, with the additional advantages in freight rates to points in the middle west, heretofore described, factory facilities should now be steadily increased in western areas where beets are grown, thereby making it possible to produce from beets a more substantial percentage of the sugar consumption of Canada.
Your committee further recommends that if no successful attempt be made in the immediate future by the refineries to increase the facilities for the manufacture of beet sugar, the government should take into consideration steps to accomplish that end.
That was the report, Mr. Speaker, about two years ago. Since then, of course, times have been unusual, but so far as we have been able to understand, nothing has yet been done to carry out that recommendation, which passed this house unanimously. I think that the government should give this matter their immediate attention, in the hope and expectation of doing something to ameliorate the desperate conditions that exist in that part of the country. Money spent by the beet sugar factory is spread over a wide area and goes into many hands. The factory at Raymond spends something like $630,000 a year in the purchase of beets and another $665,000 for supplies, freight and labour. The chief item of cost is fuel, and if the factory could be established in Medicine Hat where natural gas is available that item of cost would be much less. I wanted to bring these facts to the attention of the government and the house because I believe that something can be done which will bring joy and satisfaction to a great many people on these irrigated farms. True, someone has said that there is a great overproduction of sugar throughout the world, but that obtains in respect to other articles as well. There seems to be over-production of wheat, yet we find the nations of Europe using their lands to produce wheat when they might use them for other purposes. We cannot do that to any great extent, but I do feel that if some encouragement were given to the industry, some tariff adjustments made to force the refineries to expand their plants according to the spirit of this report, much good would be accomplished.
We have taken this matter up with some of the refiners, with Mr. Rogers in particular. He points out that he has no intention of expanding refining capacity at the present 74726-8
time, and although the report was published in this form, no arrangement has been made to decide which refineries shall take charge of certain areas. I wish to close by expressing the hope that the government will find time to review this whole problem, and will be able to give some hope of relief to the people concerned.
On motion of Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.58 p.m.
Wednesday, January 31, 1934