1935-01-21

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the Prime Minister moved and this house adopted a resolution to the effect that the speech of His Excellency the Governor General, delivered at the opening of parliament, would be taken into consideration to-day, but the resolution did not state that consideration of His Excellency's speech should have precedence over the other items on the order paper. It was rather the expectation of hon. members of the house that such would be the case, and unless the government's intention is to the contrary I think a resolution to that effect would be in order.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I intended to have the questions asked, because some of them will become orders for returns and they require to be advanced; then to take the notices of motion for the production of papers, which are all starred notices, in order that they might be passed and the work commenced on them. Then it was intended to proceed one step with the two government notices of motion so that we may be able to discuss them when the time comes; this is merely the formal notice that they will be moved in committee of the whole. It is intended to omit the notices of motion and have them stand. That is substantially what the right hon. gentleman has in mind, I take it.



TRADE WITH UNITED STATES


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Before proceeding further I think
it would be well to make the following statement to the house. The Secretary of State of the United States of America has made, this afternoon, the following announcement in Washington:
Pursuant to section 4 of an act of congress approved June 12, 1934, entitled "An Act to amend the Tariff Act of 1930" and executive Order No. 6750 of June 27. 1934. I hereby give notice of intention to negotiate a trade agreement with the government of Canada.
Under the act of congress in question it is provided that, before the conclusion of any foreign trade agreement, interested persons in the United States shall have an opportunity of presenting their views for the consideration of the government of the United States. The announcement of the Secretary of State goes on to set March 11 and March 18 for the reception of written and oral representations, respectively, by the committee appointed by the president for this purpose.
There is attached to the notice a general review of the statistics of trade between Canada and the United States in recent years, and tables showing for the years 1929 and 1933 the volume and value of the trade in the principal commodities which are exchanged between the two countries. When the formal note has been transmitted to the Department of State I will lay it on the table.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: 1.	Is the government aware that residents or citizens of Canada left the country for the purpose of voting in the Saar Basin territory plebiscite of January 13, 1935?
2.	Did any department or official of the government facilitate in any manner, under the law, the going to the Saar Basin territory of any citizen of or resident in Canada?
3.	If the movements of any such persons were aided by the government or any of its officials, what are the names, surnames in full, and addresses of such persons whose going to the Saar was taken cognizance of by the government or its officials?

Questions


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	No, except certain reports in the press of the accuracy of which the government has no knowledge.
2.	No.	.
3.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.


BONAVENTURE PARISH-PROTECTION WORKS
Mr. MARCIL:: Did the Department of Public Works during the year 1934, refuse to repair the protection works constructed by the department in the parish of Bona venture, county of Bonaventure; if so, for what reason?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: (a)	Yes, protection works along provincial highway west from church in village of Bonaventure, Bonaventure county, P.Q.
(b)	As damage was wholly due to natural causes the department decided not to take any further action towards reconstruction of protection works along main street of village and forming part of provincial highway No. 6, it being of the opinion that the work should be done by the municipality and the province of Quebec.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	What was the amount expended in repairs to the post office building at Pictou, Nova Scotia, during 1934?
2.	Were tenders called for the work?
3.	If so, who were the tenderers and what was the amount of each tender?
4.	If tenders were called for different classes of work, who were the tenderers and what was the amount of each tender?
5.	If work was not done under tender and contract, who was the foreman in charge of the work ?


PICTOU, N.S., CUSTOMS HOUSE BUILDINO
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	What was the amount expended in repairs to the customs house building in Pictou, Nova Scotia, during 1934?
2.	Were tenders called in connection with such work?
3.	If so, who were the tenderers and what was the amount of each tender?
4.	If there were tenders for different classes of work, who were the tenderers and what was the amount of each tender?
5.	If the work was not done under tender and contract, who was the foreman in charge?


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-MONTREAL-PORTLAND LINE
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	What amount of money was expended on the Canadian National Railway line from Montreal to Portland, Maine, each year since 1919?
2.	What amount of money was expended on all lines and terminals owned or operated by the Canadian National Railways in the United' States since 1919. showing amount expended each year to date?


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	What subsidies, in cash or land grants, were given to the Canadian Northern Railway, main and Lmnch lines, and on what dates were the various subsidies granted?
2.	What bond issues of the Canadian Northern Railway were guaranteed by the federal government as to principal and interest or both?
3.	What subsidies were granted by the federal government, in cash or land, to the Grand Trunk Railway?
4.	What obligations, in the shape of bonds or otherwise, were accepted by the federal government from the various provinces, or the Canadian National Railways, in taking over the various railroads -which now comprise the Canadian National Railways?
5.	Are these obligations included in the debt due by the Canadian National Railways to the federal government?


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	What was the cost of the construction of the Intercolonial Railway from Levis to Halifax and Sydney, including the acquisition of any railway lines in operation when the Intercolonial was constructed?
2.	What sum was paid for the acquisition of the Drummond Valley Railway when it was added as an extension to the Intercolonial to Montreal?
3.	What portion of the construction of the Intercolonial Railway was paid for by the Imperial government?
4.	What branch lines were acquired by the Canadian National Railways and now form part of the eastern or Atlantic section of the said railways, on what date was each acquired and what were the respective amounts paid?
5.	What amounts for rental of rolling stock, if any. were credited to the Canadian Northern portion of the Canadian National Railways and charged against the Atlantic region of the said railways, showing the yearly charges and name of sections of the Atlantic region against which such charges were made?
6.	What are the similar charges, if any, against Atlantic region and credited to the Grand Trunk Railway?
7.	What amount of rolling stock was transferred' from Atlantic region to other sections of the Canadian National Railways, showing the name of sections to which such transfers were made?
Motions jor Papers


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Wliat	were	the	yearly	receipts	and
expenditures of the Intercolonial Railway from 1880 to tile year when the road was extended to Montreal over the Drummond road?
2.	What	were	the	yearly	expenses	and
receipts of the Intercolonial Railway, including the Drummond section and extension to Montreal. from the date of said extension to and including the year 1919?
3.	When	were	the	freight	rates on	the
Intercolonial Railway increased	to equalize in
part or in whole the freight rates on railways west of Montreal?
4.	What was the average increase of such rates?
5.	What amount was paid yearly from the federal treasury to the Atlantic region of the Canadian National Railways under the Maritime Freight Rates Aet to the end of the calendar year 1934?
6.	What amount was paid yearly, under the said act, to railways not forming part of the Canadian National Railway system?


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-SUBSIDIES
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	What cash subsidies were granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to aid in the construction of its railway line to the Pacific coast?
2.	What land grants were given the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, showing the number of acres and value per acre?
3.	What sum was expended in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway by the government previous to the transfer of the undertaking to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company?
4.	Did the said company reimburse the federal government for the work carried on previous to the railway being taken over by the said company?
5.	What subsidies were paid by the federal government to branch lines now operated under lease or owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, showing the names of such branch lines and amount of subsidies paid to each?



BRITISH COLUMBIA-PORT WARDENS' RETURNS

Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: What are the gross and net returns for port wardens in Vancouver, New Westminster, Victoria, Nanaimo, Port Alberni and Prince Rupert. British Columbia, for the years 1933-34?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. ILSLEY:: For a copy of all papers, telegrams, letters, accounts and other documents relating to expenditures made by the Department of Public Works in connection with repairs to the post office and custom house, respectively, at Pictou, Nova Scotia, during the year 1934.



BONAVENTURE COUNTY, WHARVES AND BREAKWATERS

Charles Marcil: For a statement showing the damages caused to certain wharves and breakwaters under the control of the Department of Public Works, during the month of December, 1934, in the county of Bona venture; also a statement showing what repairs have been authorized, and to what extent.



BONAVENTURE COUNTY, PUBLIC WORKS

Charles Marcil: For a copy of all paylists and accounts for materials in connection with work done by the Department of Public Works in the township of Hope. Hopetown, St. Godfroy, Shigewake, Riviere Nouvelle, Port Daniel, Mclnnes Cove, Gascons East and West, Bonaventure county, during the year 1934-35.



NEW CARLISLE AND PASPEBIAC, QUE., WORKS

Charles Marcil: For a copy of all paylists and accounts for materials in connection with work done by the Department of Public Works at New Carlisle and Paspebiac, county of Bonaventure, during 1934-35.



CAPLAN RIVER-ST. CHARLES DE CAPLAN, QUE., WORKS

Charles Marcil: For a copy of all paylists and accounts for materials used ip connection with work done by the Department of Public Works at Caplan River and St. Charles de Caplan, Bonaventure county, during 1934-35.



BONAVENTURE AND BLACK CAPE, QUE., WORKS

Charles Marcil: For a copy of all paylists and accounts for materials in connection with work done by the Department of Public Works in the parish of Bonaventure and at Black Cape, county of Bonaventure, during 1934-35.



BONAVENTURE PARISH, QUE., PROTECTION WORKS

Charles Marcil: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents in connection with the application made to the Department of Public Works regarding the repairs to protection works in the parish of Bonaventure, county of Bonaventure, during the year 1934.



ST. SIMEON DE BONAVENTURE, QUE., WORKS

Charles Marcil: For a copy of all paylists and accounts for materials used in connection with work done at Ruisseau Leblanc, St. Simeon de Bonaventure and Petit Bonaventure, during the year 1934, by the Department of Public Works.

Unemployment Insurance



BONAVENTURE COUNTY-PUBLIC WORKS

Charles Marcil: For a copy of all paylists and accounts for material used in connection with work done by the Department of Public Works, during 1934-35 at Cross Point, Restigouche, Miguasha. Fleurant, St. Omer, Carleton Maria, Grand Cascapedia and New Richmond, Bonaventure county.



BONAVENTURE COUNTY-MAIL CONTRACTS

Charles Marcil: For a statement showing: (1) The mail contracts awarded in Bonaventure county by the Postmaster General during 1934-35: (a) without tender; (b) by tender; (c) contracts renewed, the names of contractors and amounts in each case; (2) the new post offices opened, new pnetmnstpro appointed. on whose recommendation in each case, the name of postmasters removed, for what reason, in the county of Bonaventure, during the year 1934-35.



BONAVENTURE COUNTY-EXPENDITURES

Charles Marcil: For a statement showing the expenditure authorized in the county of Bonaventure during the year 1934-35: (a) in the regular estimates; (b) under the Public Works Construction Act, 1934. showing the individual items and the nature of the work in each case.



EASTERN POTATO MARKETING BOARD

[Stage Direction]
Mr. VEN'IOT:
For a copy of the order in council approving the organization of the Eastern Potato Marketing Board, together with a copy of regulations under which such board was authorized to act.

Mr. McPHEE:: For a return showing the amount of coal supplied to the Regina constituency for federal buildings each year since 1930, showing the names of the persons or firms supplying same and the price paid per ton in each case.



YORKTON FEDERAL BUILDINGS-COAL SUPPLIES

George Washington McPhee: For a return showing the amount of coal supplied to the Yorkton constituency for federal buildings each year since 1930, showing the names of the persons or firms supplying same and the price paid per ton in each case.



PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION

Mr. POWER moved:: For a copy of all orders in council concerning public works construction under authority of the Statute of 1934, chapter 59, section 9.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the following amendment:
That the expression "section 9" be stricken from the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.

Mr. BOULANGER (For Mr. Lacroix):: For a copy of all correspondence, documents and report of the Auditor General, respecting the wharf (crib-work) at Beauceville, on the Chaudiere River in the parish of St.-Frangois, Beauce county.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might be well if the mover were to state the year or years to which the motion applies. Would the years 1933 and 1934 be sufficient?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, as I do not know anything about the motion I move that it stand.
Motion stands.
UNEMPLOYMENT tvsttp a vni?



MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a bill to establish an employment and social insurance commission; to provide for a national employment service; for insurance against unemployment; for aid to unemployed persons, and for other forms of social insurance and security, and for purposes related thereto; and to provide for such contributions as may be necessary to carry into effect the proposed legislation.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend and consolidate the acts relating to patents and' inventions; to provide for the appointment by the governor in council of a commissioner of patents; to provide for the appointment of an assistant commissioner and such examiners, elerks_ and stenographers as are necessary for the administration of the act; and to prescribe certain additional fees and charges.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.
Empire Defence Plan


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the Prime Minister as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of a statement which recently appeared in a prominent newspaper in London, England, with respect to a new plan for empire defence which, it is alleged, has been worked out and was discussed with Sir Maurice Hankey on the occasion of his recent visit to Canada. The article to which I refer appeared in the Sunday Express, of London, England. The headlines are as follows:
New Plan For Empire Defence Dominion Chiefs'
London
Visit
A Common Pool
Sunday Express Political Correspondent
The article is as follows:
Vitally important discussions on the defence of the empire will take place in London in a few weeks.
The Prime Minister and other leaders representative of all the dominions will be in this country in connection with the King's jubilee celebrations, which open in May, and the opportunity will be taken to hold an informal imperial conference.
An elaborate scheme of empire defence has already been worked out by the committee of Imperial Defence, on which sit technical experts and the heads of all the fighting services.
This scheme has been submitted to the dominion governments by Sir Henry Maurice Hankey, Secretary of the Cabinet, and of the committee of Imperial Defence, who returns to London this week from a tour of the empire.
I understand that the plans Sir Maurice has discussed with the dominion governments propose that the various parts of the empire should contribute to empire defence as a whole in finance, personnel and equipment.
Particular attention will be paid to defence against aerial attack.
It is not improbable that technical experts will accompany the dominion statesmen when they come to this country.
The article is dated January 6, 1935, and the question I wish to ask the Prime Minister is this: Was the recent visit of Sir Maurice Hankey to Canada made the occasion of a discussion or consideration of any plan of empire defence by any member of the government, or by any official or officials of the government, acting under the authority of any minister of the crown?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily I should say that a question of that character should stand until further opportunity was given to
	, Ij,
examine into its several implications, but in order that there may be no delay in dealing with so absolutely false a statement I take the immediate opportunity of stating that it is wholly without foundation. I shall examine the situation in detail to see if there is any phase of it to which any other answer should be given, but so far as the general statement and the statement made in the newspaper are concerned they are wholly without foundation.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Stirling) how many of the single, homeless, unemployed men left the National Defence camps in the province of British Columbia during the month of December, how many of them have returned, and if any investigation has been held into their complaints.
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) was good enough to give me notice of his question, and I think the best way in which I can answer it is to read to the house a telegram to the premier of British Columbia dated December 28, 1934:
You are of course aware that the camps established by the Department of National Defence for single homeless men were to ease the burden on the provinces, and to ensure that homeless men should not be without food, clothing and shelter, which are furnished by the federal government, together with a small daily allowance for necessities not provided in kind. No powers of compulsion are exercised and discipline is maintained only for the purpose of preserving the orderly conduct of the camps. The work is such as will prevent the deterioration of young men who are free to accept -any employment that may offer. When work offered involved transportation, cost thereof is furnished by the Defence department.
All the provinces in which the camps were established are aware of these conditions.
On the seventh of December -a delegation from the camps was received by you. On the invitation of your Minister of Labour, representatives of headquarters military district number eleven were present. The demands of the delegation were made known by one Shaw, alleged to be secretary of a camp workers' union. You explained the situation to the delegates who retired.
On Monday, the tenth, false rumours were circulated as to the action -that was to be taken hy your government. On Tuesday, the eleventh, it was apparent that a considerable number of men had left the camps and were congregating in Vancouver. On investigation it appeared that scrip had been issued, giving the men from

C.N.R.-Equipment Construction
the camps room and lodging at the Salvation Army headquarters for one week. Later a conference was held between Attorney General Sloan, Mr. Griffiths, provincial administrator, and a representative of military district number eleven, at which it was made clear that the only means for keeping men in the camps was the guarantee that they could not obtain relief elsewhere. It was pointed out that if relief were given, as had already been done in the case of several hundred who had congregated in Vancouver from the camps, it would almost be impossible to persuade men that by leaving rhe camps they would not obtain relief in Vancouver.
Your Minister of Labour gave written assurance that relief would not be provided to those who had left the camps for cause or of their own accord, and stated that the relief which had been given would be automatically cancelled from the fifteenth instant and not renewed.
We think it most undesirable that agitators should destroy the value of the camps which have been provided for homeless single men, and we seek your earnest cooperation to the end that the agitators may be dealt with by the attorney general's department as provided by law. In this regard please see my telegram of twenty-fifth February last to Attorney General Sloan. I trust you realize that but for the assistance given to ,tlie few who left the camps, the large numbers would not have congregated in Vancouver.
No investigation is necessary for the press and citizens have been invited to visit these camps ever since they have been established, and of one hundred and thirty applications which have been made for reinstatement in the camps, one hundred and twenty-three have been reinstated, which indicates the sympathetic disposition of the officers in charge to the problem with which they are dealing. The so-called black list included the names of those who have been told to leave the camps because their further presence involved the destruction of the very camps which have been established for the benefit of those who are the victims of propaganda.
R. B. Bennett.
That covers the situation at the end of December last, but to bring it up to date let me further add that the most recent report as of the seventeenth of January last is that there are at present no troubles in Vancouver. The men decided to go back into the camps and continue their organizing there. The revised figures are:
(a)	Total discharged for cause or walked
out during disturbances (covering month of December)	748
(b)	Total applications for reinstatement,
which includes men previously discharged	867
(c)	Applications approved	628
Applications not approved	 86
Applications held for further enquiries 153
Total	867
Every application for reinstatement is being carefully reviewed, and wherever there is reasonable probability of proper behaviour in future the man is accepted.
The records show conclusively that the officers in charge of this work have carried out their duties in a most sympathetic manner.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a question of tilt; Miinatci of Railways. I have under my hand four communications, two letters and two telegrams, from different associations of the Canadian National Railway employees in the city of Stratford, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I propose to read the shortest of the telegrams which will take only a moment. It is addressed to me at the House of Commons, and reads as follows:
Press reports indicate that new equipment for Canadian National Railways may be constructed by private companies. Canadian National Railways employees protest such contracts as equipment can be advantageously constructed in Canadian National repair shops. Respectfully request that you use your influence for this work to be done by the Canadian National Railways in their own shops, whereby former employees may be returned to work. A reply would be appreciated.
J. Thomas.
My question to the minister is this: Is he prepared to-day to make any statement to the house and to the country in connection with this matter, or would he prefer to make it to-morrow or within the next two or three days.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, the same
telegram I assume came to me among many others. There were many telegrams and letters from various sections of the country that were based upon a statement in the press which was not an official statement of any kind, and my reply to all the telegrams and letters has been that the matter has not been decided upon by the government; that there have been proposals put to the government for equipment by railway car equipment companies, but that no decision of any kind has been arrived at.
First Narrows Bridge



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). Is the shipping bill, as passed last session, in effect in Canada, and if not would the minister be good enough to make a short statement why it has not been proclaimed?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: The query of my hon. friend
will be taken as a notice of question, and I shall give an answer within two or three days.



FIRST NARROWS BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works if, after some delay, they have yet arrived at a conclusion in regard to the application respecting the First Narrows bridge?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will answer that question, Mr. Speaker, because it is not a matter affecting the Department of Public Works; it is a matter affecting the Department of External Affairs.
The First Narrows bridge, as I explained last year, is to cross the entrance to the harbour of Vancouver. The harbour of Vancouver has been constructed, and the facilities made available, largely at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada. It is a national port, the only port of consequence upon the Pacific coast able to take care of large traffic. The port of Prince Rupert has not been available for traffic to the extent that was originally thought, and Vancouver cares for most of the traffic on the Pacific slope. The ratepayers of North Vancouver, which is the name of the territory on the north side of the fairway or entrance to Vancouver harbour have approved of the construction of this bridge-


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: And those of Vancouver too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The ratepayers of Vancouver city proper, on the south side of the fairway or entrance, have also approved. The whole area may be called Greater Vancouver.
The proposals contemplate a wire suspension bridge. The only question that this government has to consider is whether or not in the public interest it shall agree to the plans. It has no concern with respect to the arrange-
ments made by the private interests who are promoting the undertaking, nor with the attitude of the communities with respect to its construction. But all Canada is vitally interested in the facilities at the port of Vancouver. The fairway or entrance to the harbour there is narrow, and it is impossible to make it much wider, for on the south side is Stanley park, and on the north side you have the solid foundation of the territory called North Vancouver. It follows therefore that the only question was how far north the pier should be constructed to which the suspension bridge is to be attached on the north side. The government requested the private interests promoting this enterprise to satisfy them that the pier could not be constructed any farther north than was proposed. For if it were not as far north as was physically possible, having regard to the surrounding territory, it followed that the fairway could not be widened, as no dredging could take place between the pier and the north shore. The question is purely one of the public interest. We were not unaware of the great responsibility that attaches to approving of a scheme that would render it impossible for seventy-five years to widen the fairway at the entrance to Vancouver harbour. Recently it has been indicated to the government that the north pier might possibly be constructed fifty feet or more farther north, and that owing to the physical conditions that exist on the southern side, that is in Stanley park, the pier there might be erected a little farther north, with the result that the fairway might be slightly widened. The matter is still under consideration, but I thank the hon. gentleman for bringing it to the attention of the house. It is in no sense a matter of public works or marine and fisheries or anything of the sort, it is a matter of the welfare of the whole of western Canada, and in part of eastern Canada also, and we are fearful lest any mistake be made that would limit the usefulness of Vancouver harbour by lessening the possibility of making a very narrow fairway as wide as possible, to serve the commerce of the world.



HALIFAX-DARTMOUTH BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: May I ask the Prime Minister what the position is as to his promise of 1930 in regard to a bridge from Halifax to Dartmouth?

The Address-Mr. Rowe


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am happy to be able to advise
the hon. gentleman that that proposal has been abandoned by those who made it. And it may interest him to know that recently the residents of that part of Nova Scotia residing on the Dartmouth side of the harbour of Halifax have suggested another scheme which engineers of the Department of Railways and Canals are now investigating.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of the speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session.
Mr. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe) moved:: That an address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, to offer the humble thanks of this house to His Excellency for the gracious speech which he has been pleased to make to both houses of parliament.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before asking the indulgence of this house to consider His Excellency's most gracious speech, may I take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) for giving me the privilege of speaking on this occasion, and also to express to him the appreciation of the people of the riding of Dufferin-Simcoe which I have had the honour to represent in this house during the past ten years. I am sure that there are many things that we all hold, in common in this house and that despite the disagreements and differences of opinion that we may have bad concerning other speeches from the throne, we are agreed that at this time we have to consider one of the most important ever presented to parliament. However, I am sure that we are in common agreement in extending our thanks, and good wishes to His Excellency, as His Majesty's loyal representative in Canada, and also to Her Excellency Lady Bessborough for the coming year. They are not only noble representatives of the crown but also descendants of the two great races that were so conspicuous in the development of Canada in the earlier years.
Let me also congratulate the hon. members who have been so recently elected to this parliament. I extend my felicitations-it is a pleasure indeed to do so-to the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Stirling) and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) on their appointment to these high 92582-2
offices, and I congratulate the government as well on selecting two such admirable representatives, one from the historical province of New Brunswick, and the other from the beautiful province of British Columbia. I am sure that those who have been closely associated with these hon. gentlemen appreciate the combination of ability, long experience and integrity thait they bring to the discharge of their responsible duties, thus giving additional strength to this government.
I also congratulate the Prime Minister on returning to this parliament in such apparent good health and vigour after a year of great activity. It is I believe generally recognized throughout Canada that with respect to energy, ability and integrity he is unsurpassed by any Prime Minister in the lu&tuti y of Canada. I also extend my compliments to the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). I am glad to see that he has returned to this parliament evidently restored to health and vigour. I have always had a good deal of sympathy with the leader of the opposition, lately especially, because I feel that even though his silence has been most conspicuous his task is none the less difficult.
The speech that has been presented to this parliament is indeed an outstanding one. Frankly, it is the most important document that I have ever heard read to this house since I entered it in 1925. It has indeed arrested the imagination of the Canadian people.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: I am glad that those who sit to the left of the Speaker say hear, hear; at any rate the speech has arrested their surprise. It gives a vivid report of a government that has courageously met the national necessities by advanced legislation which has been presented in rapid succession during these years of crisis, and I have no doubt that when this house considers the speech from the throne from an unbiased point of view it will accept it as a fair plan of assured progress in the future. Moreover, when our people throughout the country read it they will be satisfied, I have no doubt, not only with the proposals that are therein contained but more particularly with the fact which it indicates, that this is not the beginning but the continuance of reform -measures that are already on the statute books.
I should be derelict in my responsibilities, especially representing as I do a riding which is engaged chiefly in agriculture, and seeing that I am myself and always have been en-

The Address-Mr. Rowe

gaged in agriculture, if I did not thank His Excellency for the reference to the evidences of this government's continued interest in that great basic industry. I believe that I speak not only for the farmers of that part of Ontario but for those who are engaged in this great industry from one end of Canada to the other, when I say that they deeply appreciate what the government has endeavoured to do to assist agriculture in these very difficult years. The farmers in the drought area of Saskatchewan, and to a lesser extent those in Alberta and Manitoba, must fully appreciate the assistance which the government has extended to them in their hour of greatest need. I am sure they are also fully conscious at the present time of the intention of the government to extend its services and the assistance it has given to agriculture through the extension of the credit system, by a survey of the whole debt structure of the country, and by amendments to the different acts which have been passed. I have no doubt that those who have benefited, thousands in -western Canada and hundreds in the eastern provinces and in old Ontario, fully appreciate what has been done under The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, which is the first attempt that any government has made to give the farmer a second chance in order that he may relieve himself of his burden of debt.
I am satisfied, further, that those who are interested in the expansion of agriculture, not only individually but from the general standpoint of the community, will greatly appreciate the amendments to the Farm Loan Act of last year as well as the proposals contained in the speech from the throne at the present time. And probably I speak on behalf of a wider range of the population when I express appreciation of this interest in agriculture, especially in view of the benefits derived from the imperial trade agreements, and the assurance which the speech from the throne gives us of an expansion of empire markets. I do not think that there are any members in this house, even those who sit to the left of the Speaker, who to-day would vigorously condemn the imperial trade agreements. I am satisfied that after they have learned, as every other citizen of Canada has learned, that we have developed through the imperial trade agreements a freer trade arrangement within one-quarter of the whole world-than at any other time in the last quarter of a century- they will join with the farmers of these old provinces in the east, the mixed farmer, the live stock producer, the bacon hog producer, in appreciation of the benefits that have been derived from the imperial trade agree-
[Mr. Rowp.I
ments. I am gratified to know that the government is still desirous of expanding these markets by treaties with other countries and by consolidation of the arrangement with the mother country, with a promise to renew the agreements. This is not confined only to the live stock breeders of eastern Canada; I know that the apple producers of Nova Scotia as well as those of other parts of Canada realize what it means to them to have the advantage of $1.25 per barrel in the British market. I know that the wheat producers of the three western provinces, notwithstanding that in the drought area some of these districts have not been producing as abundantly in the past, appreciate the preference of 6 cents a bushel in the British market. There are of course some who will smile at this, but may I recall for their benefit the reason why the farmer so deeply appreciates these advantages.
I did not intend to refer to this matter, but I feel that there has been a misapprehension throughout the dominion and possibly a misunderstanding even in this house. Many people have believed and have endeavoured to have others believe that the high tariff reforms of the present government, put into operation in 1930 had something to do with the closing of markets overseas; and many have sought to convey to the public the impression that the imperial trade agreements had also something to do with the closing of those markets. It is needless for me to remind the house, however, that this is further from the fact than anything could be; it is the reverse of the fact, because the tariff reforms that were found necessary in 1930, and the imperial trade agreements which were inaugurated in 1932, -were the consequence of markets having been already closed to the farmers of Canada. Between the year 1922 and the year 1930 practically every great market of the world had been closed to the products of our farmers. Take Czechoslovakia for instance; w'heat had been entering free and a tariff of SI a bushel was put on, before this government came in. The tariff in Germany was raised to 98 cents, it was raised in France from 12 cents to 85 cents, and in Italy it was raised to 73 cents. In Japan the tariff against our bacon was raised from cent to 5 cents per pound. The tariff against wheat entering China and Japan was raised to 40 cents a bushel. There was not a solitary market left to Canadian agricultural products in 1930 save the United Kingdom.
That is why the farmers throughout Canada appreciate the advantages of the imperial trade agreements. The only market that was left

The Address-Mr. Rowe
them was enlarged, giving to Canadian products a preference which has meant an annual increase in exports of over S40,000,000 and has saved Canadian agriculture from absolute ruin. I need not go over the advantages, for they are felt by everyone living on the land from one end of the country to the other. The benefits are felt by the fur producers of Prince Edward Island as well as by the fruit and poultry producers of British Columbia. They extend to the other primary industries of Canada. The lumbermen of British Columbia exported more lumber during the year following the agreements than they had done in any year since 1921. I am satisfied that the mining interests of old Ontario and Quebec as well as of other parts of Canada fully appreciate the fact that they have trebled their exports to the United Kingdom since the coming into operation of the imperial trade agreements; nor have I any doubt that every one who is interested in Canadian . progress at the present time feels that those trade agreements should receive approval, especially in view of the fact that an increase of over 50 per cent in trade has been brought about as a result entirely of the agreements. I am not surprised therefore that those who vigorously opposed the imperial trade agreements when they were presented now reluctantly approve of them in the coimtry.
In the speech from the throne it is true there are many proposals of reform. There are proposals to extend the advantages that have been given to agriculture and as one interested in agriculture I believe those proposals will tend to bring about an all-round improvement. I have always been strongly of opinion that if we are to have any guaranteed insurance for the future prosperity of agriculture, it must be to no small degree through the expansion of the mining, lumbering and industrial activities of this dominion. The survey relative to our debt structure and pi-oposed extension of credit will, I hope, stimulate not only agriculture but industry. I believe the reforms that are proposed will be more equally divided among those who are labouring in those industries so that our whole standard of living may be improved, thereby automatically bringing about an improvement in every industry in this dominion.
I am very much impressed with the fact that in these proposals we have evidence of the sincerity of the government. Some of them are now on the order paper; many are already on our statute books and while some may challenge the right of the present government to bring about the enactment of these reform measures, when one considers that the 92582-21
present government have had enacted more measures of reform, more advanced legislation, during the last year than any other Canadian government in five years, I think that is a good reason that the present government should have the right to continue.
It is an old and true adage that "the best of integrity is in one's day of adversity." Canada has been severely tested during the last four or five years. In order to review the progress that she had made we should recall the period that immediately preceded the advent of the present government. We recall the period of 1929 when every store-house in every importing country of the world was overstocked with unsold commodities. We remember the great stock market crash prior to 1930 when approximately four billion dollars worth of Canadian securities disappeared and thousands and thousands of fortunes were lost. We appreciate how in that period of world economic depression by 1932 world trade had shrunk to one-third and thirty million men stood idly by looking for jobs. Canada, it is true, had a share in that depression and while the government of the day were busily engaged in meeting those gigantic problems changing from day to day, with new and advanced measures of legislation, there were many in the country who preferred to put the blame for the whole situation on the present Prime Minister or the government of the day. May I suggest that when since 1932 and 1933 we have seen a general improvement, a general incline upwards, when we have seen an unfavourable balance of trade which the government accepted when it assumed office, of 865,000,000 in 1929 jump to 8159,000,000 in 1930 and then gradually diminish until to-day we find we have a favourable balance of 8140,000.000 in visible trade and approximately 8240,000,000 in trade visible and invisible, if there are still those in Canada who are so blind they will not see, they will surely read with graciousness the report of the League of Nations stating that Canada and the United Kingdom were leading the world back to prosperity. Therefore those who have blamed the present government for conditions prior to 1932 should in fair play extend to the Prime Minister and his government some credit for leading the world back to prosperity.
1 know this has not been achieved in any easy manner; I know the credit is not all due to the government of to-day; as one who has been closely associated with agriculture and deeply interested in labour conditions in this country, while the present situation may be considered and claimed by those who support the government to be a tribute to itv
The Address-Mr. Rowe

I realize it is also a glowing compliment to the hardihood of the 'Canadian people. We believe that with their rugged character they have endured hardships in a way that no other people in the world have done. On the other hand we are also aware of the fact that when it was necessary to bring in new measures of reform the government was not sitting idly by, it had not a policy of do nothing, of letting the law of supply and demand govern, of laissez faire, of letting things find their own level, but steadily with one step forward after another, it passed a constant succession of new measures. In 1930 the government passed the tariff reform measure and the relief measures. This was followed in quick succession by an emergency act for peace, order and good government, by the Farmers' Creditors' Arrangement Act, the Natural Products Marketing Act, the imperial trade agreements, an amendment to the Farm Loan Act, the price spreads investigation, and all the other measures that may be of minor concern but are still of great importance. Is it any wonder that the man who has been at the head of the government for four or five years and who was accepted in Canada in 1930 as the man of the hour has since been admired 'by the world as a man of action?
In this year of 1935 I feel not only is the speech from the throne important because it contains a more favourable report and more proposals for progressive legislation in the future than any other speech from the throne to which I have ever listened, but it is more important because it comes in this year-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: -and after all the Canadian people stand behind the government in their authority. I am glad to see my hon. friends still smiling despite their hopeless outlook.
In this country there are throe lines of political thought and I know they will be investigated and seriously considered during the coming year. There are two or three, sometimes more, but particularly three distinctive lines of political thought in any country that carries on a similar party system of government. We have that radical line of thought which would suggest inflation, which would socialize industry. In Canada as in every other country there is that radical element that would say in the time of crisis: We will break down the whole structure, we will cast it all aside. Then there is that other element, very often called liberalism, that all through the ages has shown that it sticks to a fixed principle, that its followers believe in an endeavour to cling to the old order of things.
[Mr. Itofre.J


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: Hon. gentlemen may laugh
but if they will read English history they will find that what I say is absolutely true. Having sat in this house for some years I am more convinced than ever that what I say is true despite the fact that my hon. friends opposite may endeavour to smile it off. I know we have been impressed in this house as others have been in the British house, how liberalism has endeavoured to cling to a form of rigid constitutional repose when any reforms are suggested. So far as the other line of political thought is concerned, that which I believe is truly represented by the government of the day, I believe the Conservative party in Canada, as has been the case in the old land has proven that it has to its credit a list of social reforms, regulation of business and financial acts that stands as a credit to its record. I think Lord Tennyson well said:
That man's the true Conservative
Who lops the moulder'd branch away.
I know that at present in this house and throughout the country there are many who would not agree with that idea. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the spectacle we saw in this parliament during the period of crisis; I know that everyone within the sound of my voice will bear me out when I say that from what we saw coming from this side of the house, Tennyson was right. This government has passed more advanced legislation than has been put through in the last twenty-five years. But what has been the sentiment of hon. gentlemen opposite during that time? I well recall when we passed the measure relating to the maintenance of peace, order and good government during those days of emergency. I remember how the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition, and others behind him, fought for days because they thought the measure unconstitutional, and they said we must not put through that act. I also recall, when the farmers from one end of Canada to the other were pleading for relief, how these same constitutional barriers were brought up. I remember that when the farmers had their backs to the wall and faced insolvency the farmers-creditors relief measure was put through parliament, and I remember that hon. gentlemen opposite called it unconstitutional also. I also recall the Natural Products Marketing Act and, as a farmer, I believe I speak for the most successful farmers in Canada when I express their appreciation for the most advanced, important and beneficial piece of legislation, so far as agriculture is con-

The Address-Mr. Rowe
cerned, that has been passed by this parliament since confederation. I well recall, when that act was before us, how the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition and his supporters, who smile to-day, argued that the measure was unconstitutional and should not be passed.
I could go on down the line and give many more examples, but I ask, who has the right to reform; who has the right to continue? This is no rapid change. This is no new policy. This is the continuation of a policy whose sincerity is attested by more reform measures than have been placed upon the statute books by any other government.
I have no right to anticipate what action will be taken by hon. members of this house with regard to the speech from the throne, though I have a good idea of how it will be treated. I do know, however, that there are those who sit to your left who have indicated, by interviews in the press, that they believe that this reform is coming too late. I know that there are those who ask why this did not come two or three years ago, while I am sure there are some, quite close to the leadership of the opposition, who believe it is coming too soon. I know that on the street corners throughout this country-and perhaps in parliament, because sometimes they speak more frankly on the street corners than we do in parliament-it will be said that the Conservative party has stolen the policy of the Liberal party. I know that will be said on many occasions. Well, if that ever was their policy they never followed it. I know that people throughout the Dominion of Canada, and especially the younger people, the boys and girls who are coming out of our universities, who have learned that science leads the way to the very heart of things, will ask if it is not time that science was allowed to unfold the theory of greater social justice. I know that these boys and girls, who have read the speech from the throne with interest, will read the record of the present government, and will ask their seniors to consider carefully this year, or whenever they may be called upon to consider it, whether we do not want the reform that is outlined. I know they will say that, from the national necessities that confront us, their only hope for wider opportunities for themselves and their fellow Canadians not only in the way of employment but also in the way of security against old age and illness, is through more legislative reform than we have had in the past. I know they will say that it is now their duty to take an interest in public affairs and say who is to form the government for
the future, and I feel satisfied that they will say that it is not only their duty to consider the record of the government of the day and carefully weigh their proposals for the future, but that it is also their duty to scan the record of those who seek authority. To do that I am sure they will go to the library and look up the political platforms of 1893 and 1919, but they will search in vain for any sign of social reform. After they search they will find that only two outstanding reforms in Canada can be credited to the opposition. They will find first the railway commission, which was established in 1905 for a noble purpose indeed. The Liberal party established that commission to solve a problem of their own creation; it has laboured ever since, but the problem is greater than ever. They will find that among the policies proposed in 1919 was the enactment of the famous Combines Investigation Act, and they will find that this was the only reform policy carried out from 1921 to 1930. They will know how that has worked in the interests of the common man, how it has worked to help the labouring man, how it has worked to protect us against combines and monopolies, which were organized more rapidly during those nine years than during any other twenty-five years in the history of Canada. In that time we had five hundred smaller concerns amalgamated into one hundred and twenty large concerns, many of which recently have been investigated.
I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that when these young people take all these points into consideration they will conclude that the government which now proposes further reform has given a clear indication of its sincerity by those measures to which I have referred, which already have been placed on the statute books.
At the same time, as I have already said, I believe there are matters in which we meet on common ground. I believe I speak for all hon. members of the house when I compliment the government on having so fittingly commemorated the landing of Jacques Cartier on this continent. That celebration recalls what an important part the members of his great race have played in the development of Canada, and it also reminds us how short a time one hundred years is in the development of a country. We realize how the old prejudices and differences of class, race and creed have been superseded by mutual understanding. We realize also that the original two great races have become, together with the other races in Canada, a solidly united force working for a common progress.
The Address-Mr. Rowe

We contemplate with similar pleasure and satisfaction the coming celebration of the silver jubilee of the reign of His Majesty King George. I am sure that we feel that the bond of our allegiance to the empire has meant a great deal in the past, and I feel that it is stronger than ever at the present time, due perhaps to the times through which we have been passing. We have watched, with satisfaction and pleasure, the influence of the British empire throughout the world at various times when the forces of dissatisfaction seemed to threaten our very civilization. So we have every confidence in the future, and we believe that our children's children will appreciate to a greater degree what that allegiance stands for, because the test of that appreciation comes in our days of adversity.
I do not propose to keep this house longer. It is my pleasure to move, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) that an address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General to offer the humble thanks of this house to His Excellency for the gracious speech which he has been pleased to make to both houses of parliament.


Mr. C. N. DORION (Quebec-Montmorency) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, it is a redoubtable honour to be called upon, one of the very first, to open the debate on the Address in reply to the speech from the throne. I feel that this honour falls to the lot of the official minority of the country as well as to those kindly constituents who, in 1930, were good enough to charge me with representing them on the floor of this parliament. Heir to a mandate that so many illustrious names have made famous, that brought to this Chamber the Chauveaus, the Carons, the Fitzpatricks, the Pelletiers, the Casgrains, I should like at least as a modest disciple, to be the bearer here of something of the convictions that always guided their every act in public life. Those great public men took real pleasure in visiting as frequently as possible this riding with its twenty-five parishes scattered about the foothills of the Lauren-tides and on the lie d'Orleans, where the inhabitants, more than elsewhere, have kept intact their pride of race and the nobility of their customs. Hence it is in their name, on behalf of the thousands of workers and farmers who go to make up almost the entire voting strength of the riding, on behalf of the salaried workers and their employers, the relations between whom are at the very foundation of justice and equity, and particularly on behalf of a numerically strong, and courageous youth whose ideals are still

vibrant with the breath of life, that I intend to take part in the debate which has just begun.
It is meet that I should first express our regret at the resignation of him who, during the last four years, has presided with so much dignity and the freest independence over the deliberations of this honourable house. Always at his post, armed with a profound knowledge of parliamentary law, ever anxious to uphold for every one of the members the exercise of his rights and the enjoyment of his privileges, illness suddenly struck him at his task and forced him to retire to his member's seat. Those were the conditions under which you were called upon to succeed him, Mr. Speaker. The confidence thus shown you proves more eloquently and better than I might ever do, the extent to which your qualities are known and appreciated. Just as to your honourable predecessor we express our hope for his prompt recovery, in the same way are wafted up to you, sir, our homage and our heartiest congratulations.
It is also fitting to recall that with the year 1935 we are approaching the 25th anniversary of the coronation of Our Gracious Sovereign. The entire membership, I feel sure, will permit me to renew, in all humility, the expression of our attachment, of our loyalty and of our admiration. What a glorious reign, and how pregnant with history! What a fruitful and active career! What a series of imposing events have passed before our eyes since, on the death of Edward VII, His Majesty George V ascended the throne, and took in hand the rudder of the British Empire 1 While in other countries, throughout the universe, the most varied political systems were made and unmade, turned topsy-turvy; while here and there thrones that appeared as solid as a rock, were overthrown in tumult amid the violent shocks of revolution; while immediately after the armistice certain countries let diown their masters, laid down tlheir arms and launched headlong into the most venturesome experiments, the British Empire, thanks to Our Sovereign, thanks to wise guidance and the flexibility of British institutions, has remained intact and unshakeable.
Descendent of a Basque who, towards 1680, left France to till the soil at Charlesbourg, offspring of eight generations of ploughmen who remained faithful to their rights, to their language and to their traditions, a number of whom served as militia captains under the English regime, I am none the less proud to belong to a British nation and to have a

The Address-Mr. Donon
share in the freedom, whose supreme safeguard, may I say, is the Royal Family. And if, at times, we Canadians of French origin, have had to fight for the maintenance of our rights; if we have had to defend our heritage against the encroachments of the conqueror, our well-intentioned English-speaking countrymen, and they are greatly in the majority, will assuredly bear witness to our unflinching fidelity to the flag, to our treaties and to the constitution of this country.
Protected by that flag, relying on the substance of those treaties, and on the spirit as well as the letter of our constitution, we will never cease to demand justice and to exact the full blossoming of our liberties. If certain bureaucrats are still tainted with a spirit of francophobia; if, in certain departments we, of French origin, are obstinately refused the representation to which we are entitled; if, in certain places there be some who persist in the attitude of conquerors, we shall never cease to recall that we are at least the descendants of those who first occupied this country and hence are entirely at home here, not only in the province of Quebec, but throughout the length and breadth of Canada, repeating to ourselves the well-known sentence uttered by our chief himself: "You, gentlemen, are true Canadians."
Before speaking these words, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada had accomplished certain things which gave proof of his broadmindedness and which, quite properly, brought the applause of my compatriots. Despite the political partizanry of certain of our opponents, the Conservative party, with the support of such outstanding personalities as the hon. member for Labelle, enacted at the last session a bill, the purpose of which was the centralization of the federal translation services. It is pursuant to this act, that henceforth, as the hon. Solicitor General stated in Montreal, all the reports of the various departments, as also the debates of parliament, will be published simultaneously in English and in French. Of all the monuments that, on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of the discovery of Canada, have been erected to the glory of Jacques Cartier, this law and the results it has brought us this year are assuredly the most eloquent and the best fitted to perpetuate the work and the memory of the great navigator from St. Malo.
Mr. Speaker, last week it was given us to listen to the very moving speech from the throne. With religious attention we listened to a description of the present situation in this country and to the reforms that the government fully intends to bring about. Certain
of our colleagues in this chamber have sat here for a great many years as the representatives of their constituents. I do not believe a single one of them will contradict me when I say that never, since confederation, has a speech from the throne been more imposing, more substantial, more fitted to revive confidence and to satisfy the legitimate demands of all the classes of our society. It was truly meet that the eminent statesman who, in 1931, came home from England with the Statute of Westminster, the definitive charter of our constitutional liberties, should gratify us now with another charter, no less important for the life and the salvation of our country, the great charter of our social freedom and economic liberation.
Like the more intelligent governing authorities of our time, the right honourable Prime Minister of Canada has grasped the very grave nature of the present situation. As he recalled during the very first of his series of speeches which raised to the highest peak the confidence of Canadians, and left speechless the most loquacious of our opponents, the economic system must be reformed whatever the cost: "Great changes" (I quote) "social as well as economic, have taken place in the life and in the organization of every people, grievously upsetting the operation of the established system. What we call the crash of 1929 was in reality the crash of the system: the mechanism was worn out."
A brilliant French economist, Lucien Ro-mier, has told in striking fashion the story of the evolution of capitalism, the road it has followed since the war, the disgraceful state it is falling into to-day. He recalls that in olden times credit had but one source: thrift. The undertakings thus born kept their individual or family characteristics, they were free and independent. At the head of them were to be found real employers, people who were directly interested, whose invested capital did not come from the small savings of lesser people, but was their own money, fruit, very often, of the toil and thrift of several succeeding generations.
Before launching into divers enterprises, more or less certain, before risking fortunes acquired through so much toil and honesty, they weighed things carefully and measured in advance the consequent responsibilities. Before taking a single step forward they would quietly feel with their foot the path before them, to make sure that there was no hollow space anywhere beneath, no hidden bog to entrap them.
All was measure, balance, honesty. A good reputation was as important in such under-
The Address-Mr. Dorian

takings as was the capital itself. There was no question of turning out goods beyond the consumer's needs, of setting up machinery far too costly and of a useless luxury, to experiment ceaselessly. I know of certain businesses in the city of Quebec which were founded on these methods; they have waxed wealthy thereby and during the present depression they have been a shining example. I could mention many of these men in commerce and in industry, who are well known and solidly established, who never had recourse to the thousand and one tricks that are fashionable in the world of high finance, and which the royal enquiry begun last year has shown up in all their hideousness, together with their baleful consequences.
By the side of, and to the detriment of, this sound, honest, worthy capitalism, has sprung up another form of capitalism, infinitely less appealing; it brought with it a host of fraudulent, shady tricksters, who, often under cover of our laws, have exploited the people, deceived the public, and lived opulently at their expense. In this way the multitude of individual fortunes and of independent enterprises, with their character of personal liability which was their guarantee, have been replaced little by little, by groups of capitalists, banking syndicates, industrial mergers, and combines of all kinds, sometimes, but not often, of public necessity-like the railways for instance-but generally to the direct detriment of the masses.
Under the false pretense of developing industry, of opening up natural resources, of improving trade and commerce, even those entrusted with the responsibility of government were caught in this net, offered the schemers the credit of their names, the grace of their privileges and even the help of their laws. In the province of Quebec, which was a veritable paradise for this sort of thing, our raw materials, our water-powers, forests, mineral deposits, in a word all that might ensure our well-being fell into the hands of a few people, whose sole object to-day is to exploit our population. It is with unmentionable cynicism and sans-gene that the Tas-chereau administration threw away our inheritance, in return for the appointment, as corporation directors, of several of their ministers.
In one of his speeches prime minister Tas-chereau himself gave the following figures which tell quite a story about such business methods: In 1920 we had 100 paper mills, and 109 in 1930. The production, in 1920, was valued at $100,000,000; by 1930 it had more than doubled, reaching $215,000,000. But here

is the interesting side of the story: In 1920 this industry represented an investment of only $22,000,000; but by 1930 the figure had risen to $714,000,000, some thirty-three times the original capital. A little figuring will show you that if production had increased, in 1930, in proportion to investment, it would have reached the fabulous sum of $3,245,000,000. As to salaries, there was no change whatever:	In 1920, 31,000 employees
received $45,000,000; and in 1930, 33,000 employees received the same amount, $45,000,000.
To me these figures appear overwhelming. While they indicate a shameful overcapitalization, encouraged, authorized, legalized, by those entrusted with political power, they show, at the same time, to what extent such business practices are prejudicial to the workingman, and how little the latter is protected. It is exploitation not only of money-capital; it is especially, as has been said, the exploitation, or rather the enslavement, of human capital.
Last year serious trouble occurred in the Abitibi lumber camps; and a few individuals were sentenced to prison. Is it really surprising that such seditious occurrences should take place when these corporations, under cover of our laws, obtain their labour on derisive terms, take advantage of unemployment and of the supreme necessity for the worker to earn his livelihood, and really speculate on extreme poverty and human misery? To remedy such a state of things the Canadian people have never been able to rely on the disciples of Liberalism who, forgetting the facts and the pitiable state of our proletarians, prate-like Mr. Taschereau, for example- of the uselessness of all social legislation and upbraid all interference, by the state, in business.
It remained for a Conservative government to champion at last the radical remedies needed to cure these ills and to bring back to the minds of these egotists the great laws of justice and1 of social charity. The speech from the throne informs us that we shall have a Minimum Salary and Wage Act, and that the hours of labour will be strictly controlled. Contrary to the opinion of Liberal economic theorists, the old law of supply and demand is, in the matter of wages, most unfair and the cause of disorders of the worst kind. It is not sufficient to ensure the worker a certain remuneration, even if he accepts it; what must be done is to pay him a decent wage, a fair salary, one that will allow him to provide for himself and his family.
I have mentioned the paper industry to illustrate the kind of capitalism that this

The Address-Mr. Dorion
Conservative government intends to fight to the bitter end. What shall we say, now, of the innumerable corporations which go to make up the power trust, against which our own economists have launched one of the most ardent and most vigorous campaigns? In a most painstaking study Dr. Hamel, of Quebec, proved, figures in hand, that the Montreal Light, Heat & Power Company pockets a return of 70 per cent on an investment that has already been repaid four times over.
A last example among a hundred: the organization of Canada Power & Paper. With assets of $58,000,000 distributed among several companies already overcapitalized, they have found some way to set up a new company with an alleged capitalization of $168,000,000, without adding one bit to the real assets of the company or increasing their value in any way whatsoever.
This unhealthy capitalism, born of the greed for gain and the absence of all Christian spirit, has been upheld partly by the perversion of our economic system and the favour of certain legislators too irresolute or too weak-willed to react vigorously and legislate in such a way as to punish the malefactors and make them desist from their immoral practices. Last year the Conservative government made radical amendments to our federal Companies Act, made it better, more drastic, more in consonance with the immutable la-ws of justice. This year the speech from the throne takes up this theme once more. In accordance with his plan of social and economic restoration, the right hon. Prime Minister of this country intends to protect the thrifty against exploitation and to put an end to the evils which were in large measure responsible for the crisis through which we have just passed. The issuing of shares with no par value, source of the most fraudulent dealings, should be prohibited, and all who transgress the law, instead of being merely made to pay a fine, should be treated as common criminals.
The dual jurisdiction, provincial and federal, sets up very real obstacles, a problem that our legislators should strive to solve. What would be the use of our federal statutes respecting companies if speculators can still invoke our provincial legislation? Uniformity in such matters is imperative. It would be absurd to declare criminal what elsewhere would barely be thought illegal.
At the time of the inquiry into the affairs of the Beauharnois we had occasion to realize how disastrous could be the consequences oi this dual jurisdiction. Millions of dollars were literally swallowed up by this gigantic undertaking, so carefully promoted by unscrupulous financiers, and organized and brought into being through the connivance of venal politicians and thanks to the unpardonable approval of Liberal governments at Quebec and at Ottawa. As is usual in such matters, the investigation conducted by the Conservative ministry brought out the fact that part of the money taken from the people's savings had been diverted from its proper purpose, had gone to fatten campaign funds, to purchase influence and satisfy the appetites of certain friends of the party in power. Rumour has it that this same company is presently striving to obtain further privileges from the federal authorities. We have full confidence that the government, before granting this request, will exact all the necessary guarantees for the protection of what is left of the money already invested in the enterprise, and will make doubly sure that any such new powers will not further encourage the development of the Power Trust that dominates the province of Quebec.
It will always be to the honour of the Conservative government of 1930 that, with uncommon persistence, it turned the searchlight full on the darkest corners of our commerce and of our industry. Following the probe into the affairs of the Beauharnois Company, an enquiry no less interesting was ordered by the hon. minister of Labour, into the organization of the Coal Trust and the scandalous profits it had amassed on the border-line of the Act respecting combines. It is to be noted, Mr. Speaker, that this form of exploitation is not of very recent origin. On February 13th, 1923, under a Liberal administration, when the federal parliament was amending the act, the hon. member for Winnipeg denounced the trust on t'he very floor of this house, and begged the government to intervene. Despite the magnificent promises made in reply by the right hon. leader of the opposition, then Prime Minister, we had to wait for a change of government before, at long last, the voice of the people was heard, heeded and respected.
Nevertheless the inadequacy of the said Act of 1923 has been more than proven. Rather than make the guilty parties common criminals as suggested by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, the act allowed' them to avoid any unpleasantness with the courts by paying a fine which might reach as high as $25,000. Once the thing was done, the companies had merely to resume their combine practices so prejudicial to the public interest. The Coal Trust, in our province,
The Address-Mr. Dorion

has been condemned; but prices to-day are higher than ever before, and independent competitors find organization and development impossible. On this question also the speech from the throne makes precise statements which will doubtless prove very tiresome to the masters of finance, but which will surely bring rejoicing to the common people who want freedom and honesty in business.
The royal commission instituted last year and which, since that time, has pursued a relentless inquiry into the spread between production and consumption prices, has enriched the government of this country with a mass of substantial and fruitful evidence. With prejudice toward no one, but also without fear or favour, this governmental commission has done its utmost to discover the deep-lying causes of economic unrest, to bring to the searching light of day the why and the wherefores of the faulty distribution of wealth, and to provide the authorities of our country with all the information necessary for the emendation of our social and economic legislation, which thus will be brought more in consonance with the dictates of justice.
On this point, as on many another, reforms have aheady been instituted, reforms that our Canadian public have promptly taken advantage of. The Natural Products Marketing Act met with an enthusiastic reception from all classes of our population, but more particularly from the farming community, the members of which have up to now been the victims of parasitic enterprises, promoted against the interests of both producer and consumer, which strove to widen the gap between the two, and kept the cost of living abnormally high at a time when prices paid the producer were relatively low. To these reforms the Conservative government intends to add another by putting the benefits of these laws within reach of a still greater number of our citizens.
At a time of trying stress like that through which we have just passed, when nations everywhere put aside temporarily all internal dissension, we have witnessed in Canada the shocking spectacle of a narrow-minded, obstinate and, at times, senseless opposition to every governmental proposal. There must be criticism, opposition, destruction, at all costs. As was so eloquently recalled by the Prime Minister, those who under their administration had allowed the development of a false and artificial prosperity, the growth of a disgraceful and unwholesome capitalism, pushed their impudence to the extreme of trying to prevent the application of the

remedies that their very own policy had made necessary.
Mr. Speaker, if we had not had to face a faulty distribution of wealth; if wise enactments had made the organizing of trusts and monopolies impossible; if as early as 1920 the doors had been closed to immigration; if the whole system of legislation initiated by the honourable leader of the Conservative party in 1930 and continued since had been established just after the war; when the honourable leader of the opposition came into power; in short, if honourable gentlemen opposite had been equal to their task, instead of being so lavish of vain words and thoughts about the happiness of mankind or universal disarmament, I sincerely ask you: Would the depression subsequent to the crash of 1929 have occurred? Would we have had, in so rich and so vast a country in relation to its population, to suffer so severely from the crisis?
As a matter of fact our Liberal friends are prone to forget that it was in 1929, under their own regime, that illusion started! to vanish. It was indeed in 1929 that the masses became frantic, that business suddenly diminished, and that the plague of unemployment started to show its effect. The evil was done when the Conservative party came into power in 1930. However, thank God, the Canadian people had understood how serious the conditions were and called to their bedside a doctor possesed of remarkable strength and intuition. He set about the task with vigour and fully determined to overcome the evil, sparing neither his time nor his health, leaving aside all that was not in the sphere of his public duties, and risking, if need be, his popularity, better to accomplish the task which had been entrusted to him.
Commenting on the speeches which he delivered early this month, a newspaperman from L'Action Catholique, of Quebec, Mr. Eugene L'Heureux, wrote these most significant words: "Since he presides over the destinies of this Dominion, Mr. Bennett appears to us as a man uncommonly well gifted with intelligence and courage. Our sympathy for Mr. King and some of his colleagues does not prevent us from considering the present prime minister as a man uncommonly well fitted to govern in these very hard times." To those who may reproach him with his policy, we need but point out its benefits and excellent consequences in every field of national activity. If we are at last recovering; if the economic condition of the dominion improved to an unexpected degree, more especially since the last eleven months; if our farm production has increased by more

The Address-Mr. Dorion
than fifteen per cent; if our manufactures have been able to register an increase of at least eighteen per cent, we most certainly owe it to that system of agreements entered into by the various parts of the British Empire and to the various treaties that Canada made with other nations.
Employment increased by twenty-four per cent. The building trades recorded an advance of thirty-five per cent. Car loadings increased by fifteen per cent, which enabled our railways to improve their position and to raise their revenues by 11-5 per cent in the case of the Canadian National Railways, and 10-4 per cent for the Canadian Pacific Railway. Our international exchanges, importations and exportations, have increased 52 per cent over last year, leaving a trade balance of more than $124,000,000 in our favour.
Logically the tendency to improvement is bound to become stronger. The Bank of Canada will undoubtedly play a great part and is bound to be of great value to us. The farmer, on his land, feels better protected against the uncertainties of life and the difficulties with which he has been left so long to struggle. The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act is perhaps, among the good deeds of 'this government, that which produced1 the best results, and best served to restore courage and confidence among the creditors as well as the farmers themselves. One of my constituents who took advantage of the act, assured me that for the first time in three years he felt at ease, and that he never so heartily took to his daily labour.
Last year, in that same respect, we amended the Farm Loan Act in order to facilitate loans and thus to keep on his own land the most essential worker of our economic system, I mean, the toiler of the soil.
The speech from the throne informs us that we will do still better this year. I wonder whether we should not take away the administration of this act from the provinces. This duplication of jurisdiction does not appeal to me. How many times, in Quebec, did they try to throw certain cumbersome responsibilities on the Dominion government? How many legitimate requests were denied? How many inhuman proceedings were taken against poor farmers who were temporarily unable to meet their obligations. We should have a purely federal organization, absolutely free, and above all political parties, to which the working and carrying out of that law would be left entirely.
There are probably many more suggestions just as practical which could be made in connection with this government measure and
also with many equally interesting problems. To give these problems, whether they be of a general or particular nature, a quick, adequate and really effective solution, the authorities have a right to depend on the cooperation of specialists, selected among the various business and social activities. It is with that understanding that the government informs us of the creation of a national economic council, "medium of deliverance and salvation," to use Mr. Eugene L'Heureux's words, who added the following very interesting comments in L'Action Catholique of January 16:
"An era distinguished by a more intensive and more refined production than the preceding one, but in the course of which the proportion of men being a public charge increases, is not an era of progress; it is a backward step for civilization and a disgrace for the Christian world. None but satiated egotists could tolerate such disorder. The people responsible for that disorder are certain financiers, dictators of trade and industry, tormentors of the farmers and often bribers of public institutions. Until we have taken away from pretentious and' incompetent people the control of the economic world to place it in the hands of the governing authorities acting on the advice of the best economists and sociologists of the nation brought together in an organization such as the Economic Council, that disorder will continue, with its hardships, its atrocities, its instigations to revolt. . . . That is why the prospect of an Economic Council at Ottawa really is cheerful."
The situation thus depicted by Air. L'Heu-reux, who cannot be said to be a socialist, is that which I have attempted to describe in this already very long speech of mine, and it justifies more than ever the intervention of the state and the substitution of its power to that of the money interests. With the Liberal economic doctrine we had been used to leave to the individuals some prerogatives which essentially belong to the state and to ignore certain principles of government. If the people put themselves under the authority of a concrete power, of a master, it is because they have always felt the necessity of a proper equilibrium between the various classes of their community. The great theorist of the Thom-istic school, in some pages still very much of present interest, although they were written in the thirteenth century, thus described the part of the government:	" The state is the
collective power that protects the free development of the individual faculties and sees that none usurps the right of another."
The plan put forward by the honourable Prime Minister and the reforms asserted in the speech from the throne will at last enable the state to recover the part which properly is its own. It will thus more easily promote the common welfare, correcting what
The Address-Mr. Dorion

is faulty and improving what is good. No more futile opposition, opposition of words and purely of a political nature. In the exceptionally peculiar circumstances that we are going through, in the face of these proposed reforms which the whole country has welcomed with joy and enthusiasm, and which are after all the logical sequence and like the completion of the government's achievements during the last five years, under the authority of a leader whose superior intelligence and courage all independent minds are pleased to acknowledge, we must necessarily work in unison, leave aside our respective prejudices, gather together in one alliance all the men of good will in the country.
It was to the men of good will that He who was bringing to mankind a cure for its miseries was addressing His message, twenty centuries ago. He came to revise the great truths of the Decalogue, which had been too long forgotten, as in our time. They were however, just as they are to-day, the only expressions of social justice, the only ones capable of reviving in this world the thoughts of peace, justice and charity.
Let us hope that we may honour again these prescriptions and recover these fundamental notions with their full Christian meaning. Let us hope that we may contrive that the community recover its balance, that the state make use of its rights with regards to the rich and poor alike, that it be more and more the champion of the weak, of the common people, of the oppressed, the arbiter of uneven battles between the oppressor and his victims, the stern guardian or order against the forces of disorder. Let us hope that we may come back to the notion of a really humane capitalism, that shares in the moral virtues of thrift and loss, and will drive into contempt all these enterprises which persist in acting contrary to the dictates of justice.
And it is because I am confident that the reforms proposed in the speech from the throne are based upon these principles and calculated to bring happiness to our Canadian homes, that I have the honour, Mr. Speaker, of seconding the address of the bon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, if is customary for the leader of the opposition, when he follows the mover and seconder of the address to extend his cordial congratulations to the hon. members upon the manner in which they have discharged their duties. This custom, like all other customs of parliament, has its foundation in a substantial reason. It

is the rule, where the government can find it possible so to do, to ask newly elected members of the House of Commons to move and second the address, and this gives to the leader of the opposition the privilege of being the first to extend to political opponents his congratulations upon the manner in which each has delivered his maiden speech. Well, the fact is that, since parliament last assembled, we have had five by-elections, and as hon. gentlemen opposite know only too well, there is but one member out of the five who has been returned to the house who now occupies a seat on the government benches. The fact that this new member has not been asked to be one of the number either to move or second the address to my mind rather suggests that perhaps his speech would not be as welcome to the government as that of the gentlemen who have been selected for this purpose.
I might further draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to another fact, and that is that apart from the five vacancies which have been filled, this house meets to-day with four vacancies in its membership. They are vacancies in the constituencies of Halifax; St. Denis, Montreal; East Algoma, in Ontario; and Long Lake in Saskatchewan. There are, as I say, these four vacancies. Why is it that we have not had some newly elected member of the house from one or other of these constituencies to move and second the address? There are two possible reasons. One is that up to the present time the government has not seen fit to bring on by-elections to fill those vacancies, and the reason the government has not brought on those by-elections is that it feared that if they were brought on the results would be what they were in the last five by-elections. In other words, the government has lost confidence in itself, and lost so much confidence in the support it is likely to receive in the country that it would not venture even to bring on by-elections to fill vacancies that occurred-two of them in the month of September last, one of them on the first of October last, and the recent one on January the first. With respect to the last mentioned it would not be expected that that vacancy would be filled by this time, but with respect to the other three there can be no justifiable reason or excuse why this House of Commons should assemble for another session without its representation being as full and complete as it is possible for the government to make it. Had there been members returned from those constituencies I have no doubt the government would still have had to go to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) and the

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) to move and second the address, because in all likelihood the gentlemen who would have been returned would have now been sitting on this side of the house. Perhaps in the circumstances my hon. friends on the government side who have moved and seconded the address will pardon me if I am not too profuse in my congratulations in respect to what they have said. They are both becoming old members of the house. While I cannot congratulate them on what they have said, I can at least congratulate them on the rapidity with which they have followed their ieader in making a volte face in relation to the policies which they have supported and advocated up to the present time. The new regime of regimentation in thought as well as in political action is being demonstrated very effectively by what we have thus far heard.
Now Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe for his kindly reference to the health of the Prime Minister and myself. I am happy to say that I am in the best of health, and am happy to see the Prime Minister in such good health; I think we shall each require in the next few months all the health that may be vouchsafed us by a kindly Providence.
My hon. friend remarked that I had been conspicuous by my silence. I must thank him for drawing the attention of the house and the country to that circumstance. His leader has been telling the public over the radio that he encountered nothing but opposition from the leader of the opposition, that every time he has risen to put forth a reform, or has discussed anything in parliament for the wellbeing of the people, the leader of the opposition was there opposing him, and that his government had been opposed and opposed by those who sat opposite to them. Well, my hon. friend has at least drawn attention to the fact that as far as the Prime Minister's radio broadcasts are concerned he has had an open field, and had it all to himself. I cannot imagine anything that could be more congenial to him than a monopoly in any field, unless indeed it were in every field.
I should like to join with my hon. friend and his seconder in extending congratulations to the two hon. gentlemen who since our last gathering here have been appointed ministers of the crown, my hon. friend the member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) and my hon. friend the member for Yale (Mr. Stirling). Both these gentlemen have been members of this house for a long time. I could not help thinking when I read of their appointment how relieved they must have been to
recall that early in this parliament the government, realizing its own weakness, had taken care to see that any hon. member who might be appointed to the government would not have to go back to the country and get the endorsation of his constituents. These gentlemen had not to follow that old custom. After all it was not such a bad custom. I had a certain sympathy with the idea of not obliging ministers to seek re-election immediately after a general election, but in cases for example, where appointments are made after a government has been in office three or four years and has failed during that time to carry out any of its promises, I think that the old custom of allowing the electorate an opportunity to express their views of the administration in as many ways and at as many times as may be possible is one that might well have been preserved. However, may I say that I think all of us on this side of the house are pleased that these hon. gentlemen have received at last such marked recognition of their abilities and their political services. I extend to them our very warm and cordial congratulations. If they will permit me to give them one little word of counsel as well, I would say that as from the signs of the times it would appear that their tenure of office is not likely to be very long, they should do all they possibly can in the time at their disposal to enhance their reputation as ministers of the crown, because this may be the last chance they will have.
My hon. friend, the former Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mac-Laren), the hon. member for St. Jolin-Albert, who has retired, is I understand to receive in the course of a short time an appointment to a very high office in the gift of the crown as a reward for his resignation. That appointment might perhaps have been made sooner but for the fact that if thereby a vacancy had been occasioned a by-election would of course have been expected; but now we have reached the last session where it is the case that a vacancy may remain unfilled, provided it has not occurred prior to the session. So no doubt we shall be seeing the hon. member for St. John-Albert receive the high appointment which we understand is coming to him. May I say that when that appointment comes he will have the best wishes of all hon. members on this side of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We hope he
may be long spared to fill the high office, as we believe he will, with every credit to himself and to his native province.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
As to the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), we shall probably hear so much in the course of this session as to the circumstances surrounding his resignation that it may be as well for me not to comment upon it at the moment. There is, however, one pertinent circumstance which I think must be apparent to all, and that is that not only has the government realized the extent to which it has lost the confidence of the country as indicated, from its unwillingness to fill vacancies that already exist, but that the minister who resigned did so because he had no confidence in his prime minister. The ministry to-day is without the presence of the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce for the simple reason, as he has publicly stated and as is set forth in the correspondence which the Prime Minister tabled the other day, that he had not confidence in the Prime Minister's intention to carry out any reforms worthy of the name. These are all interesting circumstances and bear immediately upon the situation with which above all others this session of parliament is faced.
At this point I shall have to cease the compliments and come more immediately to the circumstances which have brought us together.
We have been told by the Prime Minister that the old order has gone. I must confess that when I think of what had occurred since the beginning of this new year, it seems that perhaps wrhat the Prime Minister says is correct, that the old order has gone. But let us distinguish carefully as to what phase of the old order we refer. The old order is a pretty big order, if I may use that expression, embracing social conditions, industrial conditions, political conditions. Most of us as members of a British parliament had, 1 believe, rather hoped that the old order of parliamentary government as carried on under the British crown would be an order that would be preserved in this country, and not an order that we would discover was gradually disappearing, if not already gone. Let us stop for a moment to consider the old order of things as those of us who are members of this house recall it.
Usually when His Excellency the Governor General announced that he was summoning parliament and wished to have the attendance of hon. members in order that he might communicate to them the business for which he had called them together, hon. members waited until parliament was summoned to learn what the business was. They have felt

that that was a courtesy at least that was owing to the sovereign or his distinguished representative. That custom as far as I am aware is one that has been followed in British parliaments everywhere, until this year. But someone greater in his own estimation than the crown's representative has appeared, and we are now beginning a new method of having the contents of the speech from the throne disclosed to the general public, before they are made known to hon. members of parliament. Is it not a time honoured custom, Mr. Speaker, that the speech from the throne is supposed, and rightly so, to be the first intimation to be given to hon. members of parliament with respect to the business for which they have been brought together at the call of the sovereign or his representative. Hon. members of parliament have not in the past become acquainted with the subjects which they were to discuss through the medium of newspapers or over the radio-by no means. They have usually waited-not very long; only a few weeks-until they had the privilege of meeting the sovereign's representative and hearing from his own lips what were the measures which upon the advice of his ministers were to be submitted to parliament. That old order apparently' has gone, and I do not know that because of this fact we in Canada are any better off.
Further, it is customary where through the speech from the throne a government makes a statement of policy, or many statements of policy, for the ministry to have had ample opportunity carefully to consider and to mature the various plans proposed in the several policies. Whatever is contained in the speech is supposed to represent the carefully matured views of a united ministry, views that have been discussed in the cabinet, and which have been so formulated as to leave room for no possible divergence of opinion between colleagues. I wonder if that is the case to-day with respect to what appears in the present speech from the throne.
But let me go a step further, speaking of the old order which the present Prime Minister tells us is gone. Under the old order, when a prime minister put forth far-reaching policies, he was supposed to have sought and obtained the substantial backing of the members of his own party voluntarily given, not a backing that had been brought about by some order or command as under a Fascist regime. He was supposed to have had the benefit of the carefully thought out views of his party as expressed either at a convention or in conference or in the party caucus, so that he would be able to state without equi-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
vocation that the views and policies he was setting forth were those of the members of his party. Is it not true also that under the old order members of parliament, when they came together to discuss with ministers of the crown what were to be the policies, sought more or less to represent the views of the constituents who were members of their political party, and that in presenting those views they interpreted their party as meaning something more than simply their own membership. Is it not true that those for example who had been supporting them for years in the press as journalists, those who had been assisting them in various other ways to become a party in office and to be given the opportunity to make the laws of the country, were supposed to have been consulted? But what have we to-day? All this is completely changed.
The old order has gone, the Prime Minister tells us; yes, it has gone in regard to some of the things that are best, some of the things that make for security. The speech from the throne has a paragraph or two respecting the Prime Minister's plans with reference to social reform and security. But what is to become of the services and security that are to be given workers and industry if the very foundations of government are being made insecure by the method that is being taken to attain these alleged ends?
I would ask whether it is not a fact that, before His Excellency the Governor General had had any opportunity of acquainting hon. members with what was to be the business which they were called together to consider at this session, the Prime Minister of Canada himself had not declared over the radio in a broadcast that the speech from the throne would contain such and such measures, such and such policies, mentioning in specific language that they would be sot forth in the speech from the throne. It may be that that is part of the new order, but I confess that, in these particulars, I rather like the old order, under which some courtesy is still extended to the crown, and some recognition taken of the crown's position in matters of the kind.
But let me go a step further. Do we not meet here to-day with statements of policy set forth in the speech from the throne, which members of the government themselves have had no opportunity carefully to consider? It is an open secret that many of the things which the Prime Minister said in his radio broadcast as to the policies of the Conservative party had never been the subject of discussion with his colleagues in council, that he was speaking on his own, giving his own plans? And in
justice to my right hon. friend, it must be said that if you read his speeches you will find that he does not speak of the plans as being those of the government, but as "my plans". And we find the same thing with regard to the designation of the government. In all his speeches my right hon. friend talks about "my government". I have in my hand a copy of the speech from the throne and I find that His Excellency the Governor General has this expression, "My government has under consideration." Whose government is it anyway, may I ask? Is it the government of the present Prime Minister or is it the government of His Majesty's representative in this country, the Governor General of Canada? I suppose, as to which it is, is a matter of the new or the old order.
Now these by some may be said to be small things, but they indicate the difference between the old order and the new. Under the old order there was such a thing as collective responsibility of the ministry; ministers held office from the crown itself and were responsible to those who were elected as the people's representatives in the house. But under this new order which we are entering upon it is "my government"; not spoken by the king or his representative but by the Prime Minister. It is not "the government'' but "my government", "my ministers". That is very significant; it is exactly what we see in Italy and in Germany. We find the leader of a political party there talking about "my government", "my ministers" and the like. As one German chancellor said with respect to some of his ministers and the conditions of government as carried on in a time of autocracy, "Everyone is free to speak his own mind, but God help the one that does." As I look at the vacant seat where the exMinister of Trade and Commerce should be sitting to-day, I cannot help thinking that someone ventured to speak his mind but probably spoke a little too quickly. However, there is the position.
I say, the ministry has not considered this so called reform policy, has not been united upon it, knew nothing about its scope or extent or its implications, until it was announced by the Prime Minister himself. And I go a step further and say that apart from the ministry, hon. members opposite have not so much as been consulted; yet they are all members of the Conservative party, returned to this house as members of parliament and as such immediately responsible for the policies of their party. We are told that they are having a caucus. When? To-morrow

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
morning. They are having a caucus to discuss these policies, and to-morrow they will learn the reasons why these particular policies are what they are. And they will be told exactly how they must face, and what they must say, and what they are to do, from now on. That is the new order.
But even when that step in regimentation is over there will still remain the bringing into line of the supporters of the Conservative party throughout Canada; and until we know that the Conservative party as such has favoured all these plans and is prepared to stand behind them and see that they are put into force if the party is returned to power, we shall not know whether, when the Prime Minister says, " This is Conservative policy," he speaks for his party or only for himself. These things are, I think, most significant. They may be considered as a prelude to what is to follow.
There was another part of the old order which, I believe, was important, and that was that a ministry which admitted its policies had failed and found it necessary to create new ones, before seeking to implement new policies by legislation went to the country and placed its policies before the people so as to give the people a chance to consider the new policies and to judge of their value. A ministry which had reason to believe that it had lost the confidence of the people, under the old order of the British system of government usually tendered its resignation to the crown; though some ministries, I will admit, have hung on to office for a longer time than they should. The whole spirit of the British system of government is that government is carried on, not by arbitrary powers secured by a mechanical majority, but by the consent of the governed as known, and when there is reason to believe that consent is withdrawn and that the government no longer enjoys the confidence of the people, then any government that is worthy of the name, any government that is at all true to British traditions in matters of responsible administration of publie affairs, will forthwith tender its resignation, and ask that another ministry be formed, or will ask for immediate dissolution.
Can there be any doubt as to the present government not enjoying the confidence of the people? What is the present government's position in that regard? The surest way of knowing is the results of the by-elections. We have had several by-elections since the Imperial Economic Conference which was held in Ottawa in the summer of 1932 and which was referred to by the hon. member for

Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), and what has been the result? Since then, there have been ten by-elections altogether, and of the ten held in all parts of Canada the government has not carried a single by-election, with the-


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Three
Rivers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was part of ancient history. I am speaking of the period since the meeting here of the economic conference in 1932, and this is 1935. Since then the government has lost every by-election with the exception of one, that of East Toronto, where the Conservative candidate succeeded in getting in by a minority of the votes cast, by taking the position that he was not very enthusiastic about his leader, and by having as his chief support the exminister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) who has since been obliged to leave the ministry.
May I say it is the more remarkable that the old order should have changed so suddenly in that the Prime Minister himself only a few months before took a sort of recognition at least of a part of the old order when he reprimanded his then Minister of Trade and Commerce for having violated what is one of the old established practices and rules of this house, namely, that of not discussing in public matters which are still within the purview of a committee of the house more especially where, as in the case of the ex-minister, he was chairman of the committee. The Prime Minister also criticized his former minister of Trade and Commerce for attempting to proceed as a royal commissioner after having made pubfic statements, some of which, if I am not mistaken, the Prime Minister alleges were incorrect. Further, the ex-minister was asked to apologize before continuing his work as a commissioner, in order that some of the old order might still be maintained and that there might continue to be confidence in a public servant discharging a public trust. Having lectured his colleague to the extent of causing him to feel that there was nothing to do but to resign, the Prime Minister himself might have been a little more careful about preserving some of the customs and constitutional usages which are very dear to the hearts of all who love free institutions and want to see them perpetuated in this country.
But are we so sure that the old order has gone? That the old order with respect to British parliamentary methods in this parliament has gone is apparent; it has been apparent in the last few sessions. On occasions in the past

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
the Prime Minister has criticized me and hon. gentlemen on this side for having taken up a considerable amount of the time of the house in discussing constitutional questions. May I say that we have done so because we have looked upon the constitution of our country as the safeguard of its liberties and as the home of its freedom. When I have seen steps taken which I have believed were gradually dismantling the constitution, gradually destroying the home of the freedom and liberties of the people, I have opposed them just as strongly as I possibly could, and I shall continue to do so no matter by what name measures of the kind may be designated. I shall continue to look with a great deal of care, not upon the alleged but upon the real purpose lying back of each and every measure as disclosed by some of its provisions. That has been the occasion of such opposition as the Prime Minister has had in this house to any measures he has introduced. The opposition has not been to what was good in any measure; it has been to what there has been of stealthy alienation of the authority and control of parliament over many aspects of public affairs. I shall not at this time enumerate them; I may however, follow the Prime Minister's example by saying a few words over the radio some evening and on that occasion I shall attempt to set forth some of these alienations of the authority and control of parliament, and to answer some of the Prime Minister's statements.
It was hardly a chivalrous thing on the part of the Prime Minister to take advantage of the period between the first of the year and the assembling of parliament, notwithstanding the violation of all precedents, to go on the air for six nights in succession, with an interval of, I think, one evening between each broadcast, and, in this favoured position, not only to state his own policies, but to undertake to state what were the policies of the Liberal party and what the Liberal party had and had not done. The most extraordinary of all his performances was the last one of the series delivered over the radio, in which the Prime Minister engaged in that heroic shadow-boxing with myself which entertained the public from one end of Canada to the other. We all know his love for monopolizing the powers of the legislature and the functions of the executive, but in this recital he appeared in a new role; this time he undertook to monopolize the functions of the judiciary. I am not surprised at that; I am not surprised at anything the Prime Minister may do in the way of monopoly effort of one kind or another. He must have the stage to himself, even though 92582-3
all his colleagues be crowded out of sight. The Prime Minister has said that he thought the judiciary was a more important branch of government than the legislative or the executive branches. I must say that I thought it was an extraordinary position for the head of a government to take. However, that is what he has said; so I was not surprised when, the other evening, I saw the importance he was attaching to the judiciary.
What did he do? Well, not satisfied with being the presiding judge, he began at once to act as prosecutor. As leader of the opposition, I was the poor victim, the prisoner in the dock. He started his prosecution, but he went a step further. He constituted himself also counsel for the defence, and began to defend me. I confess that, as I listened at the radio that night, I said to myself, "Heaven help me if I am in that man's hands for defence. I do not believe, however, the public will be quite so dense as to believe that what he is saying about my party and myself is correct, or that fill -the admissions he is making on my behalf are accurate." But that was not all; he was the jury as well. He presented the case to the jury, both as prosecuting attorney and counsel for the defence. Then, after the jury had retired in this imaginary scene, he came in as judge and pronounced that the Liberal party stood for laissez-faire, that it never stood for anything else, and that what Canada needed to-day was government control of all industry, that there must be a policy of interference with industry, a policy of state intervention. This was to be called reform; reform, that was to be the issue. Well, that may be part of the new order, but I tell the Prime Minister that it is a pretty cheap order.
But again may I ask are we so sure about the passing of the old order? We know that much that was best in it is passing, but what about the worst? What was the old order? Essentially, in the minds of the people, the old order is that order of things which pertained to the days of feudalism, an order that stands for autocracy in government, in industry and in social relations. Feudalism with its various embroideries and accessories of one kind or another. I wonder if the restoration of titles in this country is a part of the new order, these knights and ladies that the Prime Minister is determined to bring back to the scene, as the all important personnages in our midst, knights and ladies of the order of St. Michael and St. George, of the Order of the Bath, of the Order of the British Empire. Are all these part of the old order that has gone, or are they part of the new deal, the new order that we are to have? I must say that



The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
I think there is need for careful consideration of just how this new order is being constituted, more particularly when we recall that the decision that there should be an end to titles in Canada was a decision of this House of Commons, set forth in the form of a resolution, a resolution which even yet has not been rescinded, though the old order we are told is gone. The old order did pay some attention to resolutions of the House of Commons which were supposed to be expressive of the will of the people, but the new order expresses apparently only one will, and that according to the Prime Minister's view is his own.
May I say just a word with regard to the new and the old order in relation to industry. The Prime Minister says the thing that, above everything else, needs to be reformed to-day is the capitalist system, yet he is going to reform the capitalist system by bringing in legislation which, while possibly very necessary, only touches the fringe of some of the evils of the system. The legislation proposed keeps very carefully away from the 'heart of the system which in the main is responsible for those evils; it does not touch that, but it touches the fringe of some of the evils. What is the very essence of the capitalist system? It is that industrial policy is controlled by capitalists; that the capital investor, the man who puts his money into the business, to the exclusion of all others, formulates industrial policy. He is the one to say what the hours are to be, who is to be employed, what is to be paid. He is the one who says how large production is to be and when production is to increase or decrease. Under the present system, these things are for the capital investors to decide. But what about the labour investors? What about the man who invests his life? What about the man who invests his skill in industry? Is he to have no consideration in the new order of things? In the new deal, is he to receive no consideration in the shaping of industrial policy? I tell the Prime Minister that, if he wants to reform the capitalist system, the way to begin is by sharing between labour and the community as well as capital, the control of industrial policy. Let labour and the community, which are as essential to industry as capital, be represented around a common board to determine the policy that is to govern, and very soon these questions of maximum hours, minimum wages, sweat shops and other evils that unfortunately prevail only too generally, and have done so for generations, will be remedied in the one effective way, namely, by the parties themselves who are directly concerned
[Mr. Mackenzie King.J
having an effective voice in the determination of the conditions under which they shall work. No changes of the capitalist system which keep the capital investor secure in his position as the controller of industrial policy will ever in this woild bring about any reform worthy of the name. It is going to take more than minimum wage laws passed by parliament, or maximum hour laws, or laws against sweat shops, to bring about the change that is essential in that regard.
I have not arrived at my views on this question by thinking them over very seriously for the last two or three years. I have thought over these questions all my life, and the view I am expressing now is no deathbed repentance on the eve of a general election.


An hon. MEMBER:: What did you do?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will tell you what I did. I put these views in a book-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -which was written so clearly that he who runs may read. For the past eighteen years my views have been before the public, and may I repeat they were not given on the eve of a general election. During the time I have sat in this House of Commons, the views I put in the book to which I refer I have given expression to in a hundred and one practical ways. I did not do as hon. gentlemen opposite evidently had in their minds when they laughed a moment ago: I did not give expression of views on social and industrial reform to serve the purposes of a general election. I placed before the public of Canada, at a time when I was not in parliament, views which I believed were essential to the improvement of industrial conditions and the transformation of the industrial system as a part of industrial reconstruction in post-war days; these views, as opportunity has afforded I have given expression to in legislation. The underlying note in that volume from beginning to close is that where industry and humanity are in conflict, the interests of humanity, not the interests of industry, must be served. More than that, I have set forth clearly my conviction that, while in our political institutions we may have worked out a system of democracy whereby not merely the crown but the different classes are represented in the making of our laws, equally we must secure in the government and control of industry a system which will not be autocratic but democratic. The only way we can bring about an effective transformation in industry is to do away with what remains of autocracy and substitute therefor a real demo-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
cracy in industrial control. These views are on record; they have stood and will continue to stand the test of years.
I will venture a step farther and state that anyone who has read the speech from the throne and the broadcasts of the Prime Minister will discover that possibly within the last few weeks the Prime Minister himself has been reading that book.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no. I could say, "Oh that mine adversary had written a book!"


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the right hon. gentleman and other hon. members have not read it, they reveal how slight their interest in these matters really is when they have neglected this very valuable source of information.
To conclude this part of my remarks I should like very clearly to bring out one feature. You may have democracy in government combined with democracy in industry. You cannot have democracy in government combined with autocracy in industry. The latter two are as ill mated as the former are congenial. And as long as the capitalist system remains-and we find by reading between the lines in the speech from the throne the evident intention that it is to remain-a system whereby industrial policies will be exclusively controlled by capitalist investors, parliament intervening here and there to correct incidental evils only, just so long you will have no reform that is fundamental or far-reaching. The only reform worthy of the name is that which I have already described, namely reform whereby in the determination of industrial policy you give to the labour investor and to the community representing amongst others the consumers, rights equal to those of the capitalist investor.
Let me say-it would be better if the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) would not say "all poppycock" quite so loudly.


Robert James Manion: I did not use any such words, or any words resembling them. I am afraid something is wrong with the right hon. gentleman's hearing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I accept the minister's statement, but there are others who heard it. And may I add-


Robert James Manion: Nobody heard those words. The Prime Minister heard the words I said; I was speaking to him, not to the right hon. gentleman opposite.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not any desire to enter into a discussion with my hon. friend.
92582-3J


Robert James Manion: I think I might have said it, though, and quite truthfully.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That comes nearer to being in line with the old order, yes. My hon. friend is running true to form.
Let me now return to the subject we were discussing previously, namely the procedure usually followed when a ministry no longer enjoys the confidence of parliament. If a ministry true to the British system of government finds it no longer enjoys the confidence of the public, it resigns or secures a dissolution and enables the people to decide for themselves whom they wish to have carry on the affairs of the country. That is doubly so where, as in the case of the present government, a ministry in addition to confessing a failure of its policies, as has been done by the Prime Minister, introduces entirely new policies which have never received the approval of the people, which are not the policies upon which those who support the government have been returned to power, but are policies of an entirely different nature. Are we in Canada to adopt the view that a ministry returned on certain policies may, if it fails, turn round and adopt diametrically opposite policies and still be entitled to carry on the government of the country? It is not possible to defend a system of government carried on in that way. No one will dispute the fact that so far as legal and technical rights are concerned, under the British North America Act, the parliamentary term is fixed for five years. But that term of five years is designated not as the period during which the ministry must hold office, but the period beyond which without a renewal of confidence on the part of the electorate it cannot continue to hold office. If such a clause -were not in the act this government would never leave office, they would stay on from day to day, from month to month, from year to year, for all time. The rule and procedure is that where a ministry has not been successful in its policies, it shall make way for some other ministry capable of so doing, a ministry at all events which the people may desire.
I have said there is no doubt about the loss of confidence in the present government; I do not think I need prove that statement, the truth is everywhere known, and generally admitted. I wish however to place on record some figures which serve to indicate how emphatic the voice of the electors has been in the by-elections which have taken place. In the by-election held in South Huron on September 26, 1932, the Liberal majority was increased from 349 to 1,989. In the by-elec-
36	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
tion held on October 23, 1933, in Yamaska the Liberal majority of one was increased to 84. In Mackenzie on the same date the Progressive majority of 3,076 was changed to a Liberal majority of 1,614. In Restigouehe-Madawaska, also on October 23, 1933, the Conservative majority of 548 was changed to a Liberal majority of 6,472. In the by-election of April 16, 1934, held in the constituency of South Oxford, the Liberal majority of 55 was increased to a majority of 1,493. On September 24, 1934, in the by-election held in West Elgin, the Liberal majority was increased from 1,437 to 2,893. In the by-election held on the same day in Frontenac-Addington the Conservative majority of 3,371 was changed to a Liberal majority of 2,651. That is the first time since confederation a Liberal candidate has been elected for Fron-tenac. In the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River on the same day the Liberal majority was increased from 502 to 6,165. In North York on the same day the Conservative majority of 298 was changed to a Liberal majority of 3,687. In the 1930 elections the Conservative majority in the consituency of Toronto East amounted to 7,075, and in the by-election of 1934, which was held also on September 24, the Conservative party retained the seat. As I have stated however they retained it by a minority of votes; their candidate polled 2,143 votes less than the Liberal and Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidates combined. In the face of those figures representative of the feelings of the people how can a government say it has the right to continue in office? How can it do so? By what right does the government at this time bring in new policies and sock to put other legislation upon the statute book?
May I point out another fact: It has been customary in the past for the government of the day to notify His Honour the Speaker of vacancies as they arise in the membership of this house so that writs may be speedily issued in order to complete its representation. This administration immediately after coming into office did give notice of one or two vacancies, but every vacancy that has arisen in this house in the last three years, notwithstanding that in many cases the vacancies were on the Conservative side, has been notified to the Speaker by Liberal members of this house, showing that the government has so little confidence in the support it enjoys throughout the country that it is unwilling to fill vacancies created by loss even in its own membership. These things make it perfectly clear that what the country had expected rather than

another session of parliament was a general election, a general election in which the people themselves would have had an opportunity to express their views. Why then, have we this additional session?
Yell, the Prime Minister has told us. He let the cat out of the bag in one of his broadcast speeches. In his fourth broadcast speech on the ninth of January my right hon. friend spoke as follows:
As I have said, you will be fully notified by me of the precise nature of these reforms and their estimated effect when the appropriate legislation is presented to parliament. I know you will carefully and earnestly think over all that I have said. Effective action depends upon your steadfast support. Ultimately your approval of my reform program can only be given by your support of me at the polls. That naturally I want.
In other words, " I want votes," that is why the Prime Minister to-day brings in this platform of social reform so-called, on the eve of an election, after having made all kinds of promises five years ago; after saying "I will end unemployment;" after saying " I will blast my way into the markets of the world;" after making promises in every part of the country with respect to every conceivable thing that could influence an electorate. Having failed to carry out those promises and having to admit he has failed, the Prime Minister brings in on the eve of a general election an entirely new set of policies and claims that these are the policies of the party of which he is the head and says:	"I want you to give your support to
these policies"-or rather " I am giving you these policies because I want your votes."
Well, my right hon. friend will not be able to cover up his record of the last four and a half years quite so easily as that. The people of Canada have too intimate a knowledge of what they have had to endure during the last few years through the failure of his policies, and his failure to fulfil any of his promises, to allow any other policies he says he will put into effect to influence their judgment very much.
Now may I point out the position we are in with respect to a general election? I have said that one of the supreme efforts of this administration has been stealthily to alienate the authority and control of parliament, to take power into its own hands and away from parliament with respect to many of the important affairs of the nation. This government has succeeded at last in that effort to the extent of taking away from parliament itself the power of securing for the people, whose representatives its members are, an

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
immediate election. If there is one right above another which the people's representatives should at all times have, it is that of declaring at any moment and at all times that a ministry no longer enjoys the confidence of the country and that an immediate dissolution of parliament is necessary in order that an immediate general election may be held. If there is one right above another which the people of Canada should enjoy it is to have available at all times the machinery that is necessary for the immediate conduct of a general election.
Well, what did we receive in answer the other day from the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) to the question I asked as to the date by which we could expect to have the lists printed?
As hon. members will recall, at the last session the old Dominion Elections Act was repealed. That act had served for many years wholly satisfactorily, and there was no demand for its repeal; at any rate there should have been no final repeal of the act until the machinery under the new measure was in such shape as to make it possible to have an immediate election at any time.


Mr. CAHAN:: Did you ever suggest that
during the discussion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to the Secretary of State that I am not the government; I am not responsible for the government's legislation. Over and over again I have been told that by the Prime Minister. What I did ask was, whether we might expect to be able to hold a general election at any time the country might desire it. More than that, as leader of the official opposition I put faith, as I was obliged to do, in what was told me and told this house by the minister of the crown who on behalf of the government brought in the new elections act and franchise act. I accepted his word, as it was my duty to do, when he introduced the new measures. And what did he say? The statements are very clear. I have in my hand the Hansard of June 13, 1934, and at page 4257 the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) said:
It has been thought by the government that it would be well to devise some improved method to bring on a general or by-election in this country in much less time than is necessary at present.
There was the motive alleged for that act, to have the machinery, an improved method, to bring on a general or by-election in this country in less time than was necessary under the old Dominion Elections Act. That was the whole purpose of it, we were told. The
minister went on to speak of completing the voters' lists, which he said "shall be available at a moment's notice in any part of Canada should a general election or a by-election take place." Express provision was made that the by-elections would continue to be held under the old elections act, but we were told when this new measure was introduced that we would have a measure which would enable elections to be brought on more speedily- brought on, to give the minister's own words
in much less time than is necessary at present"-referring to the situation as in June, 1934, and "at a moment's notice in any part of Canada." As to the availabilty of the lists, at a moment's notice in any part of Canada the lists were to be available when necessary for a general election.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is exactly what you will have. May I say to the right hon. gentleman, if he will allow me to interrupt___


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, my hon. friend may speak in the course of the debate. I have here what my hon. friend (Mr. Cahan) gave me as an answer the other day, and I am going to do him the courtesy of reading it in just a moment. But what else did the Minister of Justice say in introducing the new elections act last year?-"that a basic list shall be undertaken immediately after the prorogation of the present parliament " It was not undertaken immediately, as I shall show in a moment. Those are the statements that were made by the Minister of Justice at the time of introducing the bill last year.
Now what had my hon. friend the Secretary of State to say when I asked him whether the lists had been printed, that were to be available at any moment the country might want to have a general election, and that were, if necessary, to enable an election to be held more quickly than formerly? My hon. friend said at page 5 of Hansard of this year, referring to the Dominion Franchise Act of last year:
The dominion franchise commissioner commenced on November 20 last to deliver to the king s printer copies of the lists of electors for the several electoral districts of Canada as they were severally prepared, with directions to the king's printer for the printing of the same.
These lists comprise approximately 6,000,000 names of electors, of which about 1,000,000 names are now set up in type, although 'the printing of departmental reports, in English and French, for presentation to parliament has been given precedence over other work. The printing bureau, in addition to its other work, is now setting up in type about 75,000 names per day, so that in the ordinary course, without grave accidents to the equipment of the bureau,
38	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
the composition should be completed early in April, and the printing of the lists should be completed about April 15 next.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the hon. gentleman allow me?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend can make his remarks when he speaks later.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I say that is correct in the ordinary course of the work.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What does my hon. friend say?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I say that those lists can be completed any time within thirty-five days, but we are now doing the work in the ordinary course.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why aren't
they ready now?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Because the hon. gentleman as leader of the opposition agreed to a different arrangement for a different form of revision at a different date. He is as much responsible as any member of the government for the condition of which he complains.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend may seek to shift responsibility on to the leader of the opposition, but may I tell him that a government has to take responsibility for all the legislation it introduces and the consequences thereof.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And so has the leader of
(he opposition to take responsibility for acts of parliament in which he concurred.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point
out to my hon. friend that last summer when I saw that the government was deliberately delaying-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I ask the right hon.
gentleman to withdraw that word. There was nothing done deliberately.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then it was
done without deliberation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right, because it was in the hands of the franchise commissioner, who appointed franchise officers sixty per cent of whom were opponents of the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take the
Prime Minister at his word, at the moment. Without deliberation; I have no doubt done by himself-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I was out of the
country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it not a
heroic thing on the part of the Prime Minister to seek to condemn the franchise com-

missioner and put the responsibility on him
especially when the franchise commissioner is a public servant and unable to be here to speak for himself? But it is not true the franchise commissioner was at fault in any way. What was the reason? The franchise commissioner proceeded the very moment he was able to proceed and did his work as expeditiously as it could be done. The reason he was delayed for a couple of months in beginning the enumeration was that the government of the day at the last session saw fit to repeal that section of the old act which provided for returning officers being in office continuously, and for the sake of party patronage introduced a measure which gave to themselves the appointment of returning officers. The franchise commissioner could not commence his work until he knew the limits of the constituencies, which were to be set forth by the returning officers, who were appointed, not by the franchise commissioner, but by my right hon. friend.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the house rose at six o'clock I was discussing with the Prime Minister, if I may use that expression, the question as to who was responsible for the delay in the printing of the lists. Until the lists are printed there can be no general election in this country, and the Secretary of State advised us as late as Friday last that it would be April 15 before the lists would be printed, assuming that there were no mishaps of any kind, such as a breakdown in the machinery of the printing bureau, which was one of the possibilities which he mentioned. I said that in my opinion the government was responsible for the delay in the printing of the lists, and I was rather surprised that the Prime Minister should take the ground that the franchise commissioner, who is not here to speak for himself and who is a public servant, was responsible.
Fortunately I had some correspondence with the Prime Minister on this matter last summer, because I rather anticipated that this issue would be raised. I did not think it would be raised with respect to a general election that might come in April, but it did occur to me that it might be raised during the by-elections which were to take place in the month of September, and that one of the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite would be, as in fact it was during the campaign, that, even supposing their candidates

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
were defeated, it would make no difference inasmuch as in view of the fact that the lists would not be printed there could not be a general election.
The by-elections were fought on the issue whether the government enjoyed the confidence of the country or not. The overwhelming majorities against the Conservative candidates made clear the view of the people, particularly when one considers that all byelections were held in what used to be called the old Tory province of Ontario. Even that province has lost all confidence in this administration.
I have here the correspondence, which will speak for itself; it will settle the question as to whether the government itself has been responsible for the delay or whether the responsibility lies with the franchise commissioner, who is not here to answer for himself. I wrote to the Prime Minister as follows:
House of Commons Canada
Leader of the Opposition
Ottawa, August 20, 1934. The Right Honourable R. B. Bennett, P.C., K.C., M.P.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.
My Dear Prime Minister:
When the franchise bill was under discussion in the house, we were given to understand that, as soon -as the bill was passed, the franchise commissioner would immediately be appointed, and that the preparation of the basic lists, under the provisions of the new act, would be proceeded with at once. Apparently, up to the present time, notwithstanding the immediate appointment of the franchise commissioner, there has been no appointment of the enumerators who have to do with the preparation of the lists.
I should have mentioned that parliament prorogued on July 3.
Under the provisions of the act, it would appear that the franchise commissioner cannot proceed with the preparation of the basic lists of voters until after the returning officers for the different constituencies have been appointed. The boundaries of the polling subdivisions being defined by the returning officers, it is, apparently, impossible for the enumeration or registration of voters to commence until the returning officers have completed this preliminary work.
The appointment of the returning officers now rests with the government, the former appointees no longer remaining continuously in office, as was provided in the act which was repealed last session. It would appear, therefore, that the delay in having the basic lists, demanded by the new act, immediately prepared, is not due to any neglect on the part of the franchise commissioner, but is something for which the government itself is responsible.
The delay in the preparation of the basic lists is the more to be regretted in that the
old Dominion Elections Act having been repealed, save in so far as its provisions have been made to apply to by-elections held prior to a general election, it will be impossible to hold a general election until the basic lists have been prepared under the provisions of the new Franchise Act. I think you will agree that the electorate should not be deprived of its right to have available at any and all times the machinery necessary for the holding of a general election. It was the expectation of members of the House of Commons that the preparation of the basic lists would not be delayed' beyond the summer months. Obviously, their completion should not be delayed beyond the month of September. In the circumstances, I have felt that I should write you without further delay in order to ascertain definitely how soon the country may expect the appointment of all returning officers, and within what time thereafter it may be reasonable to expect that the basic lists will be completed.
I am aware of course that the franchise commissioner has certain powers which he is free and expected to exercise wholly and apart from any action or control on the part of the government. My first thought was to write to the franchise commissioner, asking him for an explanation of the delay in the preparation of the basic lists. Having ascertained, upon inquiry, that the returning officers had not yet been appointed, and it being apparent from the provisions of the act that the franchise commissioner is necessarily restricted in hastening nrocedure until after their appointment, I have felt that, before communicating with the franchise commissioner, I should address this communication to the government.
Yours sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
I received the following reply:
Office of the Prime Minister
Canada
Ottawa, August 22, 1934.
The Rt. Hon.
W. L. Mackenzie King, C.M.G., M.P.,
Leader of the Opposition,
Ottawa.
My Dear Mr. King:
I am in receipt of your letter of the 20th instant which I have read and referred to my colleagues. It is our view that, having regard to the size of this country and the difficulty in obtaining the necessary information, there has been no unreasonable delay in appointing the returning officers for the 245 constituencies. The list is now practically complete and a special Gazette will be issued within the next few days.
I quite agree with you that the machinery for the conduct of a general election should always be upon the statute books, but the amount of effort required to make effective the provisions of the legislation passed at the last session was far greater than I expected. However, from the inquiries I have made, I believe that everything that can reasonably be done is being done and that the preparation of the basic lists will not be unduly delayed.
Yours faithfully,
R. B. Bennett.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
That was August 22 1934. We are now told that these lists will not be in readiness before April 15, 1935. I had stated in my letter to the Prime Minister that in my opinion it was obvious that the lists ought to be completed by September, having in mind the likelihood, which I thought he himself would realize, of his own candidates being defeated, and that the country would expect a general election thereafter. But what I anticipated at that moment was, as I have already said, that we should be told that somebody else had been responsible for the delay and for the lists not being in readiness. I wish therefore to make it quite clear, as the Prime Minister himself in his acknowledgment conceded, that the franchise commissioner was in no way responsible, because up to the time the Prime Minister's letter was written on August 22 no returning officers had been gazetted, and the franchise commissioner could not begin his work until after that time.
Let me direct attention to the wording of one paragraph of the Prime Minister's reply. Perhaps the Prime Minister will see in it why I have just a little suspicion about the value of any or of all his social legislation or, indeed, any legislation that he might seek to have put upon the statute books. In my letter I made the statement:
I think you will agree that the electorate should not be deprived of its right to have available at any and all times the machinery necessary for the holding of a general election.
That was a statement of the right of the electorate to have, not on some statute book but available and ready at all times, the ma chinery necessary for the holding of a general election. How does the Prime Minister answer me? He begins with the words: "I quite agree with you," but the agreement is not with me at all; all he agrees to is as follows: "That the machinery for the conduct of general elections should always be upon the statute books." There is a great deal of difference in having machinery on the statute books, and having it available and ready. The machinery is on the statute books now, but according to the statement of the Secretary of State the lists will not be available till April 15 and we cannot have a general election until that date. I say that the answer given there by the Prime Minister was a sidestepping of the real issue and, may I say, it accounted for my answer to him this afternoon, that I thought the delay in the preparation of the lists had been deliberate. The Prime Minister knew as well as anyone that the franchise commissioner could not begin his work until after the returning officers had been appointed. The
fMr. Mackenzie King. |
Prime Minister knew as well as anyone possibly could that when I spoke about having lists available at any and all times for a general election I meant exactly what I said. I did not mean having them on the statute books but that the provisions in the statute should be such that the electorate would have available at any and all times whatever machinery was necessary for the purpose. We have not those lists available, and, apparently, according to what has been stated, we cannot have a general election before April 15.
In these circumstances I am confronted with this situation:	If (I do what I should
like to do, what I said at the end of last session I would do, that is, move an amendment to the motion that has been proposed and seconded this afternoon, to the effect that this government does not enjoy the confidence of the people and that we should have an immediate dissolution, I shall be told that such procedure is very heroic on my part, knowing full well from what the Secretary of State said the other afternoon, that we cannot have any election until at least April 15, if not later, and that all my talk about the government not enjoying the confidence of the people and the need for a general election is perfect nonsense, and beside the mark. Before I close I shall indicate what I think wise in the circumstances.
Having cleared up that point, let me say a word in regard to the Prime Minister's broadcast. I hope hon. members will observe that he has made no less than six nationwide broadcasts, each running over half an hour, in which he has set forth his policies and also attacked the opposition, and that in addition we have to-day before us for the first time since Thursday last the speech from the throne, with which as leader of the opposition, I am expected to deal at some length. I am supposed, I imagine, by hon. members and the country, to deal also with the speeches of the Prime Minister. Obviously I cannot in any short compass of time begin to attempt to answer many of the misleading statements that have been made, and, therefore, this evening I do not purpose to attempt to answer many of the things the Prime Minister has said. I shall reserve that for a later occasion, and, if I can be as fortunate as he appears to have been in getting the wherewithal to have nation-wide broadcasts, I shall undoubtedly avail myself of the opportunity to speak to the people of this country through the medium of the radio.
May I immediately deal very briefly with
what the Prime Minister has said in the broad-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
casts is to be the real issue in the general election. Speaking on January 2, the Prime Minister, having said that reform was to be the issue, gave his definition of reform. He said that reform means government intervention; that it means government control and regulation; that it means the end of laissez-faire. May I say to the Prime Minister in all frankness that I think in speaking thus of government intervention and laissez-faire he does not understand the meaning of the terms, and that he has mistaken what is a means for an end. He has said that the end of reform is state intervention. That is a new definition of reform. My understanding of laissez-faire is "to let alone." My understanding of state intervention is "to interfere." In dealing with the relation of the government to public flairs the extent to which it is advisable to leave alone will be determined by the nature of the questions which are before the government and country for consideration, and the extent to which it is advisable to interfere will likewise be determined by the nature of the questions that are before the government and country for consideration. May I say that no political party of which I have knowledge has at any time had a monopoly of the one means or of the other. Both means have been available and made use of by all parties, true enough in the case of each to serve its own ends. It is quite true that sometimes the Liberal party has availed itself more of a policy of laissez-faire than of intervention; at other times it has availed itself more of a policy of state intervention than of laissez-faire. The Liberal party intends to continue to avail itself of both means, and of the two, the one perhaps most necessary at the present time in one direction and equally necessary with any policy of state intervention in another if we are going to make possible these reforms about which the Prime Minister alleges he is so much concerned, is a policy of more in the way of laissez-faire with respect to matters of trade and trade barriers and restrictions.
What has this country witnessed since the present government came into office? Instead of the unemployed numbering 117,000 as was the case when the Prime Minister came to office, the numbers, according to latest estimates stated to be receiving direct relief, have become 1,000,000. What is responsible for conditions in Canada being as depressed as they are more than the excessive intervention with the course of trade, a policy of state intervention? When the government came into office, they began to raise the tariffs. That was state intervention. Every tariff is an interference on the part of the state with
the regular course of business. They began to increase the tariff out of all bounds; they interfered by means of dumping duties; they interfered by means of embargoes, by means of quotas, by means of artificial valuations, they interfered by fixing exchange rates. All along the line, in fact clear across this country there is to-day a network of barbed wire entanglements in the nature of restrictions upon trade that will have to be torn away if in this dominion we are to have greater freedom of trade. I do not mean to say that any party would advocate the abolition of all tariffs, but, if we are to have trade and any possibility of improvement of conditions, we must take away from this ministry or, indeed, from any ministry, the power of arbitrarily interfering with the laws passed by parliament, of making tariff rates by order in council, and of creating by order in council those other restrictions which prevent the natural flow of trade. Where the Liberal party has thought it advisable in greater or less measure to get rid of restrictions of this kind, it has followed, and will continue to follow, a policy of laissez-faire, not absolutely, but relatively in comparison and contrast with what has been done by way of government interference with trade by the present administration.
In regard to intervention I shall indicate a little later some of the instances in connection with social legislation in which the Liberal party has thought it advisable to interfere, and where its policy has been consistently one of intervention on the part of the state. But where the policy has been one of intervention it has not been for the sake of intervention itself; it has been intervention for the sake of preserving freedom, or giving a larger measure of freedom.
Here may I just point out the difference between the two parties in their use of these methods in obtaining their ends. Study the history of Liberalism and what do you find it to be? It has been an effort at all times to subject the particular interest to the general interest. Wherever it has been found that the general interest is being made subordinate to some special privilege or some particular interest, there Liberalism has come along and, either by laissez-faire or by state intervention, has sought to secure a larger freedom by preserving the general interest in its control over the particular interest. But what has been the history of Conservatism, of the Tory party? It has been the very opposite; it has been to see that particular interests were made superior to the general interest, that the general interest should be subordinated to particular interests.
42	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
That is exactly what you have in regard to all these protected industries to-day; every one is a matter of special privilege; every one is a matter of giving to particular interests a superior place, and of subordinating by means of state intervention the general interest to the particular. Is that the end the present government has in mind when it says state intervention is to be the objective hereafter? It may be so. I shall be very much surprised if there is much in the way of laissez-faire in any of its policies so far as the tariff is concerned; I think we may expect more and more in the way of state intervention in that regard if certain particular interests have to be served.
But now let us see just how sincere hon. gentlemen opposite are in their views-or perhaps I should limit it to the Prime Minister for the present-in the matter of state intervention in industry which is the reform to be brought about in the future. What is the largest single industrial enterprise we have to-day in this country? If I am not mistaken it is the Canadian National Railways, the government owned railways. How has the present Prime Minister revealed his confidence in state intervention as a means of reform in dealing with the Canadian National Railways? If I recollect aright, the :hanges that have been made by this govem-nent since it came into office, with respect to the Canadian National Railways, have all been of a nature designed to put the Canadian National Railways farther and farther away from any authority or control on the part of parliament, from any possibility of state intervention. They have appointed a board of trustees; they have fixed terms during which those trustees are to remain in office. The chairman of the railways has been placed in office for I have forgotten for the moment just how many years; I think it is for a period of either seven or ten years. Perhaps the Prime Minister can tell me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Seven years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The chairman of the board has been appointed for a period of seven years, and care has been taken to see that he cannot be removed from that position except by a resolution of both houses of parliament. When we talk of the control of parliament to-day the general public have in mind the control that is exercised by the elected representatives of the people sitting in the House of Commons. I wish to say, however, to this house and to the country that so long as we have an allpowerful Conservative majority in the upper house which is able to defeat any measure 
that may come from this house; so long as it is within the power of the upper chamber to prevent any particular reform that may be desired by this house, you cannot say that this House of Commons has any final or necessarily effective authority or control over the business of the country.
That is the position with respect to the Canadian National Railways. I might say a great deal more on the subject, but I think I am quite within the statement that was made over and over again by the ministry that business of that magnitude ought to be put beyond the power of interference by the government. I am not at the moment debating the question or discussing whether or not a particular course is wise; I am simply directing attention to the contradiction between the statement of the Prime Minister with regard to state interference as being synonymous with reform and the action of the government itself with respect to the Canadian National Railways. In the matter of the largest business in this country the one that touches the people in the most intimate way-except for one other that I shall mention in a moment-the Prime Minister has put the control of that enterprise beyond parliament, and he has alienated the authority and control of parliament in respect thereto.
I said I would speak of one other business. It is most important in connection with this reform which is to be brought about, as the Prime Minister says, through the regulation of business by parliament. In broadcast No. 3, on January 7, he defines in another way the reform which he says is to be the issue: the reform of the capitalist system effected by state intervention. Here is how he introduced the subject. He said:
The keystone of the capitalist arch was the profit system, and the profit system still remains.
The capitalist system is to be reformed by the interference of the state, and the Prime Minister says that the keystone of the capitalist arch is the profit system, which still remains. May I say to the Prime Minister that I think the keystone of the capitalist arch is the private control of a nation's credit and currency. The keystone of the capitalist arch is that particular symbol in the capitalist structure that stands for money control and money power, and how that money control and money power are to be exercised, how that credit and currency are to be controlled. In the capitalist system it is to be carefully and securely kept in the control of capitalists.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
How has the Prime Minister dealt with that question? Last session we had a bill before this house, and by the way he tells the country now that this is part of the reform program, part of the program that has to do with reform by means of interference by the state in business. How has he dealt with that matter? Some three years ago the Liberal party put forward in specific terms as one of its policies the establishment of a national central bank as an agency for the control of credit and currency considered in terms of public need. We proposed that the bank should be an agency of control in the interests of the country's social as well as industrial and financial needs; in other words that credit was a public matter, not of interest to bankers only but of direct concern to the average citizens. To that end we put forward repeatedly the necessity of a central bank properly constituted for that purpose. A properly constituted central bank for the purpose of controlling currency and credit to meet social needs necessitated in our opinion that to some extent at least-just what extent might remain a matter of difference of opinion

the government representing and responsible to parliament and the members of parliament should have some control over the central bank; that with respect to currency, banking and those matters that have to do with credit, the voice of the people, through their representatives in parliament, should be heard with respect to such policies as might be thought necessary, should be felt and should be capable of being made effective. How did the Prime Minister show his faith in government intervention then? He brought before this house a bill establishing a central bank. On the second reading his Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) said that the question whether it should be publicly or privately owned was a perfectly open question which might be discussed in committee, and that the views of the committee and of hon. members composing it would not be prejudiced in any way by hon. members on the second reading voting simply for or against a central bank as the only principle involved. It was stated at that time that the government Would allow on this question of public or private control t'he freest discussion in committee itself. Well, the bill went- to the committee, and when it got there what was discovered? It was discovered that members of the committee belonging to the party opposite were opposed to any bank that would be other than privately owned and controlled, and that they stood as a unit for a privately owned and controlled bank. Wat that because they believed in state intervention and interference in business, or was it because they entirely and absolutely disagreed with any such policy call it reform or whatever you like, and did not approve of it? When the measure came back to this house it was found that the Liberal members of that committee had made a very strenuous fight to secure control on the part of the government and parliament over that central bank. They were prepared to consider any steps that would admit of any degree of control, but the government was adamant in the matter. During the discussion on the third reading of the bill I spoke with great emphasis as to the importance of allowing the government to have some control over this central bank. I pleaded with the Prime Minister to at least allow one or two directors to be named by the government, but I pleaded in vain. This bank was to be a private corporation and was to be removed entirely from all government authority or control. That was the objective, and that is how the Prime Minister then viewed reform of the capitalist system-at all costs to keep free of intervention the keystone in the arch of the capitalist system.
What was the position before this central bank came into being? The control of the currency of the country was in the hands of this parliament. Control of social credit was in the hands of parliament. The securities of the country, the gold of the country, were in the treasury of the country. Where are they to-day? They have all been taken out of the public treasury and put into the vaults of this private corporation. Are all the gold and securities of the country to-day subject to the control of parliament or are they in the vaults of this privately owned bank removed altogether from government control? Who has charge of the issue of the currency today; who has control of the currency? That responsibility has been handed over by this government to the central bank. Yet the Prime Minister comes along and talks about some scheme of planned economy which will help to reform the capitalist system. I tell him no program of planned economy can succeed if it is not based upon the intelligent public control of national currency and credit. I say as long as we have a government standing solidly behind the principle of a privately owned and controlled institution such as the central bank is, a private corporation controlling the currency and credit of the country, sve can have no faith whatever in any profession made by the government when it states that government intervention in its mind is an all important objective. So much for what
44	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
the Prime Minister professes, let his professions be judged by his actions.
Speaking in Montreal a short time ago the Prime Minister revealed what he has in mind in proposing social legislation. He gave away his hand pretty clearly. I have already stated that I believe it is an election scheme, and 1 hold that belief very strongly. I did not think however that the Prime Minister would be prepared to go quite so far towards seeking to make it an issue fraught with all kinds of possible dangers to the unity of this country. It was quite apparent however, he had something of the kind in his mind when only a few evenings ago he spoke in the city of Montreal. That was his last address; I believe it was on January 15, only two days before the opening of the session. I heard him saying- and I have no doubt many other people heard him-"Do you want minimum wages and maximum hours of work? If you do not, then vote for Taschereau and King." Then he went on to say, "Do you want your old people not cared for? Well, if you do not, then vote for Taschereau and King." These were the terms used by the Prime Minister in addressing the people of Montreal.
First of all, remember that these statements were made over the radio. They were not made in parliament where there is opportunity to reply. The Prime Minister referred to Mr. Taschereau. He, by the way, is not a member of this chamber and cannot appear on its floor to speak for himself.


An hon. MEMBER:: Over the radio.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Over the radio? My hon. friends talk about radio. Well, they may have a fathomless chest into which to dip for radio purposes, but other people have not.
May I proceed to follow up the Prime Minister's statements. I have not the slightest doubt about Mr. Taschereau being able to take care of himself; he will in his own way and at his own time; to-night I do not purpose to speak either for or against Mr. Taschereau. I am not dealing with absent personages; I am concerned only with those in front of me. I shall confine my remarks to the Prime Minister's attack upon myself.
What else did the Prime Minister say? "When they had a chance did they do anything about these things?" "When they had a chance"-in other words when Mr. King had a chance did he do anything about minimum wages, maximum hours, old age pensions and other social problems? I suppose we will hear the Prime Minister and some of his followers answer, "Yes, he wrote [DOT]Mr. Mackenzie King.]
a book, and he put his principles and ideas in that book." I purpose this evening, even if it takes me a little longer than I had intended, to show that before the book was written many of the principles and ideas therein set forth found expression in legislation. I shall show that after its publication many more of the principles and ideas therein set forth found expression in legislation and I shall support my statements not by my own assertions merely but from the ranks of hon. gentlemen opposite. There are some fortunately amongst us who have a sense of chivalry and decency in public life and who do not make statements about others when they are not present to answer or to refute what is said about them. There are some who like to see fair play in public life. I admit we have very little of that practice at times, but I believe it is well to encourage it when we can.
Even before the Prime Minister had made these statements in Montreal and before his remarks had been broadcast over the radio network he had been accusing the Liberal party, and particularly myself of having done nothing on behalf of labour. I hold in my hand a copy of an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Gazette.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am pleased to see in his seat tonight, although I am sorry to see him sitting on the government side, a former distinguished editor of the Montreal Gazette.


Mr. WHITE (Mount Royal):: And who
retired from the editorial chair nine years ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is why
I used the expression "a former editor"; I was not referring to the present editor. I was seeking to make it quite clear that the Montreal Gazette is not an organ of the Liberal party but is one which throughout this country has been regarded as the stalwart of the stalwarts among Conservative organs. At any rate it is perfectly clear that when the editorial to which I am referring was written the Montreal Gazette was not holding any brief for me, because the paragraph I am about to read began with those very words. It is as follows:
We hold no brief for Mr. Mackenzie King, but when the Prime Minister refers to Liberal history and speaks of child labour, sweatshops, slave wages and so on as being among the faults and injustices of the capitalistic system it is impossible to disregard the appeal for fair play which has been made. It is a matter of record that Mr. King personally has always interested himself very keenly and practically in these evils and that it was in fact his crusade against them that bro<ught him into public life,

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
that resulted in the creation of the Department of Labour and in the enactment of remedial legislation of various kinds; and this happened many years before Mr. Bennett himself awoke to the imperative necessity of a reform policy on the eve of a general election.
Mr. BENNETT; What date is that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: January 12.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, this year.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: The new order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Montreal Gazette is not the only Conservative organ which has recorded the part I have taken in these industrial matters and in the matter of legislative reform. I might quote many comments, but upon this occasion I shall confine myself to only one further extract. I now refer to the Ottawa Evening Journal of January 18, 1935. This is not a reference to something which has happened on the eve of an election; it finds its place in that column of the Journal which goes under the heading "Ottawa 25 years ago." Quoting from the Journal of January 19, 1910, it states:
Hon. Mackenzie King, Minister of Labour, introduced a 'bill to provide for the investigation of combines, monopolies, trusts and mergers which may enhance prices or restrict competition to the detriment of the consumer.
At that time, some twenty-five years ago, the Ottawa Journal, a Conservative organ, wa3 recording some efforts of mine in this parliament to further investigation into industrial abuses, and the reference was as I have given it.
But that is not the first time I had anything to do with the matter of the investigation, or reforms of this kind, all of which, may I say, were in the nature of state intervention. What I am dealing with now is the charge that the Liberal party has been a party of laissez-faire, that it has not been a party of state intervention where state intervention was necessary.
I have in my hand a copy of a document which bears the imprint of the Ottawa government printing bureau, 1898. That is nearly forty years ago, and when the Prime Minister says, " If you do not want minimum wages, then support Mr. King;" "if you do not want maximum hours, then support Mr. King;" "if you are in favour of sweating, then support Mr. King "-and so forth and so forth, I think in these circumstances perhaps I am justified in pointing out to the Prime Minister and to hon. members just when I began publicly to assert in relation to Canadian government work the necessity for
state intervention. This report is headed, " A report to the hon. Postmaster General on methods adopted in Canada in the carrying out of government clothing contracts, by W. L. Mackenzie King, M.A., LL.B." That report, as I have said, was presented to the government on January 5, 1898, and that report, I may say, associated as it was with the interviews that I had with members of the government of the day, was the report that led to the adoption in this House of Commons of what is known as the fair wages resolution of the House of Commons, under which all government contracts relating to clothing, contracts with the Post Office department, with Militia and Defence, with the mounted police, and subsequently contracts in the nature of public works, all come to contain provisions setting forth maximum hours for the workers, and the minimum rates of wages that were to be paid, and the conditions under which the work was to be performed.
I shall not attempt even to mention what is stated in the report itself. Hon. members will be able to see that for themselves if they wish. I shall read, however, the concluding paragraph because it indicates whether, as a matter of fact, as a Liberal I believe in state intervention and whether the Liberal party believes in state intervention; because, remember, these reforms were introduced by a Liberal administration, the Liberal administration of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thirtyseven years ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Thirty-seven
years ago, as my colleague remarks. This was my conclusion:
I need scarcely add that the existence of such conditions, apart from any other attendant evils of the sweating system, constitute emphatically in the words of your communication "sufficient grounds for government interference in order that future contracts may be performed in a manner free from all such objectionable features." The step in this direction which has already been taken by your department cannot fail to bring about a much-needed reform and be productive of great and lasting good to the industrial classes of this country.
I have the honour to be,
Your obedient servant,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
May I come now to one other matter? I shall not attempt to enumerate the different instances that I might of government intervention by Liberal administrations. I shall confine what I have to say to-night to just what was referred to by the Minister of

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Labour (Mr. Gordon) himself on Friday last when he tabled the report of the Department of Labour. I was quite interested in noticing what the Minister of Labour said when he presented his report. He did not simply say, " I present the report of the Department of Labour for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1934," but he went a step further than his colleagues, and a step further than he generally goes, and he gave the contents of the report in part. I thought at the time that he did so in an endeavour to make apparent the extent in his department of government intervention through social legislation and with respect to labour.
I find in the votes and proceedings of Janu-uary 18, 1935, the following:
Mr. Gordon, a member of the King's Privy Council, laid before the house, by command of His Excellency the Governor General,-Annual Report of the Department of Labour for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1934, which includes reports of proceedings under the following statutes: Labour Department Act, Conciliation and Labour Act. Fair Wages and Eight Hour Day Act, Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. Government Annuities Act, Employment Offices Co-ordination Act, Technical Education Act, Combines Investigation Act, Old Age Pensions Act, and relief measures.
That is the statement. Now, Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at these various statutes, all of which are in the nature of state intervention, and see where they came from. I will say now that, with the exception of one, all owe their existence to Liberal initiative and Liberal administrations. The one exception is the relief measures, which as the Prime Minister said over the radio are wholly of an exceptional and emergency character and are, to use his characterization, "in the nature of priming the pump." These measures were necessary only because the government's policies in other directions have wholly failed and because times were so bad that constructive measures were not even thought of, let alone introduced. Let us see where the other measures came from.
Take first the Labour Department Act. The Labour department was established originally in the year 1900. The Labour Department Act was not a Conservative measure; it was introduced by the government of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a Liberal government, and the Labour department was established as a department of government to emphasize from a Liberal point of view the necessity of state intervention in labour matters. Speak of all the reforms you wish, but where was it possible to introduce on behalf of labour in parliament a greater measure of reform than to establish a department of government to be concerned
lMr. Mackenzie King.]
with the problems of labour to the exclusion of alT others? That was a reform introduced by a Liberal government. Perhaps I may be pardoned for reminding the house that I was honoured by the then Postmaster General, who was the minister of the Crown who introduced the measure, the Right Hon. Sir William Mulock, to-day Chief Justice of Ontario, by being invited to come to Ottawa and, under his direction, to organize the Department of Labour of Canada and to become the editor of the Labour Gazette, which was to contain the records and information which would be a guide for future legislation and which would assemble material which would be of assistance to legislators dealing with these matters. I accepted this position. I came to Ottawa and began in the year 1900, now nearly thirty-five years ago, the organization of the Department of Labour in Canada, and for eight years I held the office of deputy minister of that department. During those years I edited the Labour Gazette, a publication which continues to be published, and of which now there are something like thirty-five annual volumes. In that time I outlined more or less the particular subjects that were to be investigated by the department, the methods to be adopted in collecting and disseminating information on labour matters, and I find on looking at the report that the minister laid on the table last week, and at copies of the Labour Gazette, that they all continue to follow the lines then charted out.
There was another act passed at that time, the Conciliation Act, which concerned the Department of Labour. It was the first act of this federal parliament for intervention in industrial disputes-not compulsory, but voluntary intervention by the government-with machinery for bringing opinion to bear on any existing dispute. During the time I was deputy minister I intervened I think in something like forty at least of the most important strikes of that time. The record will speak for itself as to how successful I was. Out of the experience of those eight years in a practical and immediate way with labour questions, I believe I learned a few things supplemented later by wider experience and study that it was worth while to pass on to others in the form I have already indicated.
The next act referred to here is the Conciliation and Labour Act. That reminds me that there has been a consolidation of the measures since, but there was another conciliation act dealing with disputes on railways. It was known as the Railway Disputes Arbitration Act. It was introduced as a compulsory measure, but at the time of its introduction the minister of the day indicated that

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
he did not intend to press it at that session because he was not sure that compulsion was acceptable either to employers or to employees, and that he would re-introduce it at the next session in the form thought most desirable. At the next session it was introduced, not as a compulsory measure but nevertheless as a measure of state intervention in labour disputes on railways.
Then another measure is the Fair Wages and Eight Hour Day Act, which is nothing more than the embodying in the form of a statute of the fair wages resolution to which I have referred, and the various orders in council by which its provisions have been extended. The right hon. gentleman says: "What did Mr. King do when he was in office in regard to these matters?" I have indicated what I had to do with the beginnings. Here is one of the things I bad to do towards the end; as Prime Minister I supported and endorsed the Minister of Labour of the day, the Hon. Peter Heenan, in introducing this act respecting fair wages and an eight hour day for labour employed on public works of the Dominion of Canada. That was on the 30th of May, 1930. May I pause to say that it has always been assumed-I say always; possibly within the last month or two there has been a change in the mind of some-that most of these matters of social legislation come exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces. At least that is the opinion that has been given by the law officers; it may be that the government has since received some later opinion. The reason that many of these measures have not been extended by /his parliament has been that all members of this house, those of the Conservative party, of the Progressive party, of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and the Liberal party, have understood that these measures came exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces except in so far as they related to federal work. As far as they related to federal work Liberal administrations, either that of Sir Wilfrid Laurier or of the government which I had the honour to lead, put these measures on the statute book, and in so doing set an example to the provincial governments. Except in Ontario, which under a Liberal government in the same year as the federal department of labour was created, established a bureau of labour, there were no bureaux of labour in any of the provinces at the time the federal department was established. There were no fair wages resolutions or laws. These fair wages resolutions fixing minimum wages and maximum hours have extended to provinces and municipalities through the example
set under a Liberal administration in this country. What we have to-day in many of the provinces in the way of minimum wage boards and the like have been in large part the outcome of the example set by the Liberal administration at Ottawa.
The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is ;he next mentioned here. The Act was passed in 1907; it has remained upon the statutes ever since. It has been amended here and there, but essentially the act is what it was at the time it was passed by this house. I think it is an open secret that, while the act was introduced in this House of Commons by the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, who was Minister of Labour at the time, I was the one who drafted the act. I was still at the time deputy minister of the department. I am not taking that credit to myself, because time and time again that credit has been given publicly by Mr. Lemieux himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The privy council declared it ultra vires.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says the privy council declared it ultra vires. Well, it is still on the statutes and is being enforced by his own government. May I say to the Prime Minister that I think he does not mean the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act but the Combines Investigation Act or the Fair Prices Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the Combines Investigation Act was sustained.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, the best answer I can give to the Prime Minister that the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is not ultra vires is that I have here the report of his own Minister of Labour giving an account of what was done under the act last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman knows that the provincial legislatures enacted certain measures.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is a federal measure and has nothing to do with the provincial legislatures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, everything. It was declared ultra vires.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister of Labour is administering the act to-day, and there have been I do not know how many different boards established under the act within the past year. The act is still in force, it may have required amendment as the result of some appeal to the privy council. If however, as the Prime Minister says, it had been declared ultra vires, it would be all the more reason why he should proceed very

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
carefully with any industrial legislation and make sure that he gets in advance an opinion of the law officers or of the supreme court or any other authority available as to the intra vires of any legislation he may attempt to introduce.
Now we come to another act, the Government Annuities Act, a further piece of social legislation. Who was responsible for that act? It was passed in 1908 under the Liberal government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and the minister who introduced it was Sir Richard Cartwright, Minister of Trade and Commerce at the time. The annuities branch was organized under the Department of Trade and Commerce but was later transferred to the Department of Labour.
The next measure mentioned is the Employment Offices Coordination Act. One might think we were getting somewhere near the point at which the Conservative party could claim something, but this act was passed in 1918. At that time we had no longer a Conservative administration but a union government composed of both Liberals and Conservatives, and this act I have no doubt owes its existence to the Liberals who were members of that government.
Then we come to the Technical Education Act, 1919. What was the genesis of that measure? The Technical Education Act embodied in legislation certain recommendations of a royal commission on technical education. Here again may I say, when the Prime Minister asks, "What has Mr. King done?" and hon, gentlemen say, "What has he done in these matters," that, in addition to having been deputy minister of Labour, I was for two or three years Minister of Labour in the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and when I was Minister of Labour I was responsible for some measures which I thought would be helpful in improving social and industrial conditions. One was the appointment of a royal commission on technical education. That commission made an extensive study of the question, made its recommendations, and it was on the basis of the recommendations of that commission that the Technical Education Act was subsequently enacted. The war intervened between the time the report was made and the time the legislation was enacted, but the legislation was enacted not by a Conservative government but by a union government in 1919 carrying out recommendations arising out of the report made by the Commission appointed by the previous Liberal administration.
The next measure mentioned is the Combines Investigation Act. That act has an interesting history. The Combines Investigation Act was first introduced in this parliament by my-

self as Minister of Labour. It was a measure for the drafting of which I was responsible. It was as far as I know the first measure that was at all effective as a means of investigating alleged anti-social practices of large businesses in the nature of combines, monopolies, trusts and mergers. That act was passed in 1909, and remained on the statutes until a Conservative administration came into office. In 1919 when the Union government had begun to lose its union complexion and became more and more a Conservative government, the act was repealed, and in its place was substituted what was called the Fair Prices Act as well as the Board of Commerce Act. The Prime Minister talks about measures being declared ultra vires. Both those measures were declared ultra vires. The Combines Act had been previously repealed, so that the country was left without any measure to investigate the anti-social practices of large commercial institutions in the nature of combines, monopolies, mergers, trusts and the like. When, however, a Liberal government was returned in 1921, there being no legislation of the kind, a measure of state intervention providing for the investigation of combines, monopolies, mergers, trusts and the like, was at the time I was holding the office of prime minister re-introduced and re-enacted. It was introduced by the then Minister of Labour the Hon. James Murdock, who brought in the measure at. the instance of the government.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) this afternoon said, "We had a lot of mergers during the period that act was on the statute books." Certainly there were mergers, because mergers were the order of the day all over the world. This act was not aimed against mergers as such. They were in the same class under the act as combines, monopolies or any other agency that might operate in restraint of trade. The provisions of the act were not intended to prohibit parties in Canada from combining or forming a merger or anything of that sort wherever business endeavoured to hold its own in competition with similar concerns in other provinces or in other parts of the world. They were, however, intended to cope with the inimical effects of large combination where its operations were against the public interest. It was because large combination was so powerful, because it could in one way or another take advantage of those in unprotected spheres of life, that this measure was enacted. I will not go into the details at present because the question will undoubtedly come up for discussion on another occasion.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Hon. gentlemen say, " What did Mr. Mackenzie King and his government do, while in office, in the way of furthering social legislation? I have spoken of the Combines Act, of the Fair Wages and Eight Hour Day Act, enacted the one in 1923, the other in 1930. I might have added that we gave to labour a place on the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways, but there was one measure more important than all the others. It is the Old Age Pensions Act, enacted in 1927. We began to work toward that end in 1924. If anyone will give careful study to the question of social insurance and of social legislation generally, he will realize that the place to begin with legislation of that kind is with the older members of the community, those who have spent their lives in industry and who because of age, because of the introduction of machinery as it is used to-day, demanding extreme exertion, are prevented from continuing in their work and are consequently thrown out of employment- thrown out, through no fault of their own but simply as a result of the way in which industry is operated. Now, these are the persons for whom first of all the state ought to care.
But before legislation of the kind can be introduced and made operative something else is necessary, and of this I am afraid the present government is losing sight. You may have all the social legislation you please, old age pensions, insurance for sickness, invalidity, unemployment, and so on; but, unless you have money wherewith to make the payments necessary, you cannot carry out that legislation. I shall be able to show that hon. gentlemen opposite have themselves given that reason for not carrying out legislation which they have passed. The first thing is to make sure of where the money will come from.
I have always held the view that we could not have much in the way of prosperity in the country if we had not much in the way of trade; and, therefore, as part of the policy of the Liberal administration, seeking to improve industrial conditions, I have always endeavoured, as the basis of Liberal legislation, to introduce measures that would further rather than restrict trade, measures that would help to develop the trade of the country and, by developing its trade, provide employment in the natural and proper wav.
What good are minimum wages to men who have no work? What good are maximum hours to men who have no work? The sweating system is usually to be found where there is very little work. How are old age pensions to be paid if there is no general employment?
How are you to take care of the sick if you have insufficient revenues out of which to meet the necessary disbursements? Can you go on developing all these services on borrowed money indefinitely and not have the credit of the nation suffer? Can you carry on any scheme of social legislation unless you have the wherewithal to do so?
In that view of things will be seen the foundation of Liberal policy on social legislation as well as much else; and if the Liberal party in the federal field, during the time I had the honour to be Prime Minister, did not introduce more in the way of so-called social legislation than it did, it was in the main for two reasons, one of which I have already indicated, namely, that up to the present time, until within the last few weeks, it has been understood that practically all legislation of a social character came exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces, the other reason being that we did not know where we should obtain the wherewithal to carry out these policies until we got rid of the cumulative deficits which we had inherited when we assumed office.
We started out with a policy of balancing the budget; a policy which would develop trade by reducing the duties on the implements of production in the basic industries; by reducing the tariff on many of the necessaries of life which enter so largely into the budget of the working classes; and by lowering other tariffs which would further trade by means of reciprocal agreements, and in other ways. As a result of these policies, we not only succeeded in putting an end to the deficits, but for seven years we had surpluses instead. Equally, we felt the necessity of reducing taxation, and our policies were the means, as hon. gentlemen know very well, of bringing down very materially the taxation of this country in a way which helped industry and all classes connected with industries. The sales tax, which at one time was 6 per cent, was brought down to one per cent before we went out of office. The Tate of the income tax was lowered with respect to the lower incomes, while small incomes were wholly exempted. The various nuisance taxes, so-called, were completely abolished. The postage rate, which had been 3 cents, was brought down to 2.
All these measures were part of a policy designed to make possible the development of trade and to improve social and industrial conditions throughout the country in order that

50	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
work might be provided, that the revenues themselves might be increased and that we might have the means whereby to carry out some of our social ideas.
Let me recall the Prime Minister's question asked at Montreal: "If you don't want your old people cared for then vote for Taschereau and King?" Here is my answer to the falsity of an assertion of that character. In April 1924, on the records of the house, there is a statement that a special committee was appointed on the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King to make inquiries into an old age pensions system for Canada. It was recommended that the provinces should be communicated with in that connection. In other words, the Liberal party proceeded, as it always has in social as well as in other matters, on the basis, not of seeking to stir up enmity between the dominion and the provinces, not of making such appeals as, "Are you going to support Taschereau and King," but of endeavouring to have the provinces and the dominion work harmoniously together for the purpose of furthering great social objectives. We have sought to communicate with the provinces and to secure their good will in matters of the kind. We succeeded in getting it with regard to old age pensions, but we had to act within the lines that the officers of the crown told us were possible. On May 1, 1925, the special committee was again appointed. On June 16, 1925, the committee recommended in favour of setting up a scheme but also that an effort be made to receive cooperative action on the part of the provinces. In 1926 the bill, after much debate and criticism from the then Conservative opposition, was adopted in the house. The Conservative party, however had a majority in the Senate and the bill was defeated in that chamber. Such was the initial fate of this Liberal measure of social reform. I wonder what the fate is going to be of these measures of social reform, when they go to the Senate, should they ever get through a Conservative majority in the house. I hope the electorate will bear in mind the complexion of the Senate as it was all the time the late Liberal administration was in office and is likely to be for many years to come, and I hope it will remember the Senate's action on the first extensive measure of social reform that was introduced by a Liberal government-an old age pension measure passed by the House of Commons under Liberal administration and defeated in the upper house by a Conservative majority. The matter, however, was not allowed to drop there. The following year, after the general election of 1926, a bill identical in terms was

introduced in this house by the then Minister of Labour, Mr. Heenan. After considerable discussion it passed both houses and received royal assent on March 31, 1927. There in part is my answer to the Prime Minister as to whether as a Liberal I have done my share as opportunity has presented itself to further social and labour legislation in this house and in the country, and as to whether, when I was Prime Minister, I sought to give practical effect to the principles laid down in the work on industrial reconstruction to which I referred this afternoon.
There is one other measure to which I should like to refer but which is not mentioned by the Minister of Labour in his report. It is significant that it is a measure of social legislation. With the exception of the relief measures, it is the only social legislation that this government has passed since it came to office. I refer to the Act for the promotion of vocational education in Canada passed by the House of Commons on July 23, 1931. There are some of us here to-day who well remember the discussion on that measure. At the time it was introduced I said to hon. gentlemen opposite that I thought they were in for a pretty large outlay in connection with their unemployment relief schemes; that they haid better have a conference with the provinces to discuss the financial relations between the provinces and the dominion and the financial circumstances of the provinces and of the dominion in regard to these matters; that before they went in for making further grants in aid of one bind or another to the provinces, they had better find out if they were prepared for the taxation and revenues necessary to meet those obligations. But, no, they were persistent, they were going to have this measure upon the statute books. Well, it is there, just as the Prime Minister said it was important that the people should have on the statute books an act pertaining to elections whether its provisions were available for use or not. What happened in regard to the vocational education measure? In the report of the minister (there is no mention of the act. It is not there because it is buried. The government sent a communication privately to the different provinces to say it could not be carried into effect. There was to be a payment of $750,000 annually for fifteen years; that was what they were committing themselves to. I do not know how much they are going to commit themselves to on their social projects; probably they may run into many millions of dollars, but if they do not mean more than this measure, let the Lord help those who are expected to benefit by them and those who are in suffering and in need. Here is

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
what was said about this act in a letter dated September 15, 1931, from the deputy minister of labour at Ottawa to the provincial governments :
I am instructed by the minister, however, to advise all provinces that after careful consideration by the government it has been decided to postpone the operation of the act until such time as the economic conditions of the country warrant expenditures being made in connection with the work to be promoted under the terms of the act.
I suppose that is what we shall hear in regard to any more social legislation hon. gentlemen opposite may introduce. If they are going to attempt all this social legislation and at the same time keep up the tariff walls of this country and restrict trade as they have been doing, I am afraid all the social legislation will go by the boards just as this measure in regard to vocational training has gone and for the same reason. So much by way of reply for the present to the Prime Minister's question to the people of Canada as to whom they should support, when they came to consider matters of social and industrial legislation, whether they should support him or support me.
I said this afternoon that I thought the Prime Minister might have been reading this book of mine on Industry and Humanity and obtained some of his social views from that perusal, but he shook his head, so I conclude that he has not yet seen it and that somebody has told him about the contents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not yet. I have not seen anybody that has read it; that is the trouble.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is one
document, however, with which I know the Prime Minister is familiar and that is one embodying the statement that I made in this house, not just on the eve of an election but on February 27, 1933, two years ago, when I set out the position of the Liberal party in regard to some immediate problems. My right hon. friend has been saying that the Liberal party has no constructive policy; he has passed the word around among his followers that the cry is to be that the Liberal party has no policy. He has said as much in his radio broadcasts. He says however, that our policy is at once activity and inactivity. That is pretty much the line he takes all through; he gets in the opposites on all occasions, so that the compass will be boxed on all sides. While he did say that we had no policy at all, there is one thing I feel a little pleased about and it is that in the speech from the throne the Prime Minister has embodied amongst his measures a good many that have heen put forward as their policies by the 92582-4J
Liberal party. There can be no dispute on this fact, as all that is needed by way of comparison with what appears in the speech from the throne is a reference to Hansard of February 27, 1933, where there is set forth an exact statement of what those policies are.
I shall take a few minutes to refer to those parts of the speech from the throne which deal with the matters which the Prime Minister says constitute a part of his reform program. The speech otherwise is not so important. Part of it has pleasant references, I am glad to see, to the Jacques Cartier celebration and also to His Majesty's silver jubilee. Then there are references to some administration measures and references to some agreements and commissions which are to be further dealt with, which by the way happen to be also Liberal measures. The Duncan commission to which reference was made was appointed by a Liberal administration and a large part of its findings were implemented by the late Liberal administration. The agreements with Saskatchewan and Alberta were part of the agreements made by the late Liberal administration with the western provinces, including Manitoba, whereby the natural resources of these provinces were returned to them. There are a few matters of that kind, and one or two administrative measures that we may hear about during this session. Apart from that the speech from the throne relates to proposed social legislation.
Where, may I ask, do these proposed measures come from? We read this in the speech:
In these improved' conditions, there may now successfully be carried forward those great tasks of reform upon which the well-being of this country depends . . . reform measures will therefore be submitted to you as part of a comprehensive plan designed to remedy the social and economic injustices now prevailing, and to ensure to all classes and to all parts of the country a greater degree of equality and the distribution of the benefits of the capitalist system.
The first of these-and it has to be read along with one which appears a little further on-relates to the social matters that I have just recited:
Better provision will be made for the security of the worker during unemployment, in sickness and in old age.
Also:
Action will be taken to ameliorate the conditions of labour, to provide a better and more assured standard of living for the worker, to secure minimum wages and a maximum working week, and to alter the incidence of taxation so that it will more directly conform to capacity to pay.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
I think I have already indicated where part of the policy there outlined has come from. May I indicate where the rest of it has come from? Here, as elsewhere, I wish to cite a part of Liberal policy which is not being put forward to-day for the first time on the eve of an election but which has been our policy from the start. It is the policy which I advocated years ago and at the first session of this parliament and which I have advocated every session since, as hon. members well know. What is the first item which appears in the published statement of Liberal policy?
Unemployment of First Concern
The Liberal party believes unemployment is Canada's most urgent national problem. It would deal with the present emergency conditions through a representative national commission, which would cooperate with the provinces and municipalities in the administration of unemployment relief, and in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed.
That is a step which, if it had been taken at the time, or if it had been taken in any year up to the present, would have served to coordinate all the efforts that are being put forth by the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities to provide work for the unemployed. It would have saved a waste of millions of dollars and would have helped relieve the situation to a degree to which it has not begun to be relieved. The Prime Minister has no constructive plan of that character even yet, and he has not put anything of that kind in the speech from the throne. Again I say to him that if he wants to deal with this problem as it should be dealt with, he should have a representative national commission to deal with this matter. What else might have been done? What did I point out at the time I was advocating this step? I pointed out that such a commission could, amongst other of its duties, gather the necessary data on which to base an unemployment insurance scheme. Had this step been taken we would have known ere this who were the men and women best qualified to hold positions in connection with any national commission dealing with these questions.
What else is set forth in this statement of Liberal policy?
As permanent measures the Liberal party is pledged to introduce policies which will serve to provide employment by reviving industry and trade; and to introduce a national system of unemployment insurance.
Does the Prime Minister claim that this is his policy, a national system of unemployment insurance? We have been advocating it since 1930. Why have we had to wait until 1935 to have it even mentioned that it is to be part of the policy of the Prime Minister?

Now let me come to the next matter mentioned in the speech:
My ministers are now engaged upon a survey of the national debt structure to determine what action may be practicable and advisable to effect further improvement in it.
Where did the Prime Minister get that? I read here, from the same statement of the position of the Liberal party on some immediate problems, the following;
The Liberal party believes the aim of every government should be the balancing of its budget.
It would seek to effect that end, by retrenchment of public expenditures, by reduction of principal and interest on the public debt, by a reduction in taxation, and by increasing revenues through the encouragement of trade.
It will seek to effect a reduction of the cost of government in Canada by a careful inquiry into federal, provincial and municipal costs.
In all of these matters, as the house will observe, the Liberal statement of policy is a much more comprehensive and extensive statement than anything embodied in the speech from the throne.
Now let us come to the next point in the speech:
It is the policy of my ministers to pursue vigorously every opportunity by which our world trade may be increased.
Where did the Prime Minister get this idea with regard to world trade? I find in the Liberal statement of policy, as given by me in this house in 1933 and as urged from the outset, the following:
The Liberal party believes that trade is the basis of industrial and commercial development, and that Canada needs trade.
It will promote trade with all nations-
That is what the Prime Minister is just now saying here, that the policy of the government is to encourage world trade:
-^and negotiate trade agreements with any countries willing to trade with Canada on a reciprocal basis.
This afternoon we had from the Prime Minister a statement telling us that now, at the end of this parliament, just on the eve of an election, his government and the government of the United States are negotiating with regard to a reciprocal trade agreement. For years we have been advocating that some steps should be taken in that direction. Over and over again we have asked the Prime Minister whether any progress was being made in negotiations with respect to a reciprocal agreement between Canada and the United States. I am not so sure that he has got very far even yet. If I caught his statement correctly this afternoon it was to the effect that it would be

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
March or later before the United States would be able to say definitely what they were going to be able to do. At any rate the Prime Minister will hardly say that a reciprocal agreement with the United States has not been a part of the Liberal policy at all times. If there is in the offing the negotiation of an agreement with the United States with respect to reciprocal trade with Canada, it is all the more reason why the people of this country should be given the opportunity immediately of saying who they wish to negotiate that treaty, whether they wish it to be negotiated by a party that defeated reciprocity when a reciprocal agreement had been arrived at, now many years ago, or whether they want it negotiated by a party which was prepared to sacrifice, and did sacrifice, its political life in order to obtain a larger measure of freedom in trade between these two countries. I am reminded of the cry with which we were met when the Liberal party negotiated that agreement; it was that there should be no truck or trade with the Yankees. Now my right hon. friend, who was perhaps loudest in his objections to the reciprocal agreement, is the one who says he is negotiating with the United States.
What is the next paragraph in the speech from the throne?
You will be invited to enact measures designed to safeguard the consumer and primary producer against unfair trading practices and to regulate, in the public interest, concentrations in production and distribution.
Where did the Prime Minister get that idea? I find under the heading Liberation of Internal Trade, among the policies laid down as those of the Liberal party, the following:
The Liberal party will seek to end artificial price control, and agreements in restraint of trade. Price fixing by agreements restrict and hamper trade internally. The internal trade of our country has become honeycombed and enmeshed by secret understandings and agreements.
There, in other words, as in the other instances I have cited, is a more comprehensive statement than is embodied in what I have just read from the speech from the throne.
Then what is next? The speech says:
You will be invited also to enact measures to provide the investing public with means to protect itself against exploitation.
What did we say a couple of years ago. in specific words, in our statement of policy with regard to the control of investments?
The Liberal party believes the financial mismanagement of industry is largely responsible for many conditions obtaining to-day.
To prevent exploitation of the public through the sale of watered stock and worthless securities, it believes an investment control board should be established, with supervision of issues of securities by companies incorporated under federal charters.
Yet on top of all this the Prime Minister says the Liberal party has no policy.
Now may I come to another reference. After speaking of the government's renewed determination to make use of the agencies of conciliation and cooperation provided by the League of Nations, the speech from the throne continues:
It will be the object of my government to support this policy and to work towards the progressive reduction of armaments and the stabilization of international economic relations.
Just to show that his is not the only party favourable to the League of Nations and policies advanced by the League let me read what appears under International Relations in the statement of the position of the Liberal party.
The Liberal party will seek to further wherever possible those courses in international relations which make for peace and good-will among nations, and promote friendly intercourse between them. It will seek to further the work of the League of Nations.
I have read from statements that appear in the speech from the throne, the whole of the program of social reform, as it is put forth there by the Prime Minister, and which are the most important of the measures he is bringing before the house this session. Naturally if these measures are at all in accord with what we had in mind in our statement of policy, they will receive very sympathetic consideration from this side of the house, but may I say that some things are wholly wanting in the declarations which appear in the speech from the throne. Their omission in any statement of policy by the Prime Minister is just about as significant as is their inclusion in the Liberal statement of policy. In the one case it means that the government opposite intend to do nothing, whereas in the other case it means that a Liberal administration stands in addition for these things as part of its policy. I have read only one part of the statement of the Liberal position with regard to trade. Let me read the whole statement as it is set forth, and remember that these are policies for which the Liberal party stands, for which it has stood in the past, and which it will put in force if it is returned to office. I might add they are all policies which have received the unanimous endorsation of the entire Liberal parliamentary party, and in addition the unanimous endorsation of the National Liberal Federation which represents the Liberal party as organized in associations and clubs throughout the country.
54	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Here is the statement in regard to trade:
The Liberal party believes that trade is the basis of industrial and commercial development and that Canada needs trade.
It will promote trade with all nations and negotiate trade agreements with any countries willing to trade with Canada on a reciprocal basis.
It will abolish the extravagant increases in the tariff made by the present administration, which have had the effect of strangling trade, exploiting consumers and robbing railways of business.
It will abolish all unwarranted extra taxes on imports, such as the exchange and dumping duties, as imposed by the present administration.
It will end the making and altering of tariffs by executive action.
It will substitute stability for uncertainty in the administration of customs laws.
It will continue the Liberal policy of British preference by a percentage reduction in existing tariffs rather than by a percentage increase against foreign countries in existing tariffs.
It will grant to British imports a real preference.
I have already referred to the liberation of internal trade. Let me now read the Liberal policy with respect to the development of primary industries:
The Liberal party, by its policies, will continue to further the development of agriculture, lumbering, mining and fishing by effecting reductions in the costs of production of Canada's basic products, by obtaining wider markets therefor, by encouraging export trade, and by state assistance in the marketing of natural products.
Looking at the speech from the throne and listening to the speeches of the Prime Minister over the radio I have come to the conclusion that his policies are a sort of omnium gatherum, they are intended to take in a little of everything he can discover in anybody's policy. He has a little from the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation; he has a great deal from the Liberal party, but he has very little that is new, so far as his own party is concerned. However I can see pretty clearly the trend of affairs. He has told us that his policy is going to be a continuing affair; these promises are not going to stop now. They are to go on, on, on, on, until the moment of the last hour of the election. The promises which have not been redeemed are to be redeemed by promissory notes carrying other promises. That is the effect of it. I want to say here and now, and particularly after what we have heard this afternoon, what I think will happen before an appeal is made to the people. We see appearing the thin edge of the wedge of reciprocity with the United States. That much is brought forth at this stage to carry along what may appear as, up to the right moment, the government's intended course of action. If it does not suit 
the Tory party to have the terms of any agreement made known, or to have the agreement itself submitted to parliament, or to have any agreement entered into before the election, the prospect will be kept dangling along as a sort of half realized promise. We will also find that on the question of tariffs there will also probably be a conversion on the part of the Prime Minister which will bring him in the direction of the Liberal camp. He will come along and perhaps offer free agricultural implements or possibly free motor cars, or very considerable reductions in tariffs on implements and motor cars and other commodities. Let me say to the Prime Minister here and now that all of these are Liberal objectives, and have been right along. If he wishes to join us in our endeavour to get the duties lowered or taken off some of these things which are unduly protected, now is the time to come over here and help to advocate such changes-not wait until the last moment of the election.
Let me now refer again to another matter of Liberal policy namely the control of credit. Here is what the Liberal party advocates-not a central bank put into the hands of a private corporation, but a properly constituted central bank. I read again from the statement made in this House on February 27, 1933:
Liberalism believes that credit is a public matter, not of interest to bankers only, but of direct concern to the average citizen. It stands for the immediate establishment of a property constituted national central bank, to perform the functions of rediscount, and the control of currency issue, considered in terms of public need. A central bank is necessary to determine the supply of currency in relation to the domestic, social and industrial requirements of the Canadian people; and also to deal with the problems of international commerce and exchange.
Then we come to the National railways; let me make clear the Liberal policy in that regard). I read from the same statement of policy under the heading Safeguarding of national railways.
The Liberal party stands for the maintenance of the integrity of the Canadian National Railways. as a publicly owned and publicly controlled service.
Not as some private enterprise, but as a publicly owned and publicly controlled service.
Now, let me read our statement of policy on the democratization of industry, a phase of industrial reconstruction upon which I touched in my remarks this afternoon, but which is far ahead of anything suggested by the Prime Minister in the way of an improvement in industrial conditions.
The Liberal party believes that industrial reconstruction is the problem of the future.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
It will seek in industrial relations as opportunity offers, to give to workers and consumers a larger share in the government of industry.
Then I come to what has grown to be an even more urgent matter of policy, the restoration of responsible government, a reform which is becoming increasingly important.
The Liberal party believes that the present crisis has been made an excuse for the usurpation of the rights of parliament and the assumption of autocratic powers by the executive. Liberalism stands, as always, for the principle of a free parliament, and for the supremacy of parliament. To this end it would repeal the legislation enacted by the present administration, which deprives parliament of its control over expenditures and taxation, and invests the executive with unwarranted arbitrary powers, as for example:
(1)	legislation permitting the executive to enact measures by order in council for peace, order and good government, and
(2)	legislation providing the executive with a "blank cheque" for expenditures of any kind.
And equally and increasingly important our policy with respect to the reassertion of personal liberty:
The Liberal party believes that under the excuse of the present crisis, the rights of the individual have been violated. Liberalism stands, as always, for the British principle of free speech and free association, and to this end will repeal section 98 of the Criminal Code, and end the present practice of arbitrary deportation.
Then there is the party policy with respect to electoral reform, a timely subject in view amongst other things of costly expenditures for radio purposes, especially nation-wide broadcasts:
The Liberal party stands for electoral laws which will ensure a true parliamentary representation of the Canadian people, and such legislation as may help to reduce the cost of election campaigns.
Finally I come to what I regard as next to our trade policies the most important of all, our policies with respect to the more equitable distribution of wealth, which covers the matter of social legislation:
The Liberal party recognizes that the problem of distribution has become more important than that of production, and believes that personality is more sacred than property. It will devote itself to finding ways and means of effecting a fair and just distribution of wealth with increasing regard to human need, to the furtherance of social justice, and to the promotion of the common good.
Let me repeat these statements of policy are not statements put forward in a speech from the throne in the present year. They are not something which has been sent broadcast by means of the radio within the past few weeks. They are policies upon which all the by-elections to which I have referred have been fought.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are
policies amongst others upon which the general election will be fought.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are other policies which at the present time I have not time to mention.
The point above all others to be considered at the moment is this: In view of the circumstances with which we are confronted, what should be the attitude of the Liberal party? We are informed that there can be no general election until April 15, unless as a result of what has been said this afternoon and this evening the government should change its mind; I trust it will. At any rate, we have all been summoned and are now assembled together in parliament. I do not propose to move any amendment which might protract or delay proceedings, but I do propose to suggest to the Prime Minister and hon. gentlemen opposite that we should lose as little time as we possibly can in taking into consideration all these measures of social reform which are so urgent. We have been called together to consider these matters; we have been told over the radio by the Prime Minister that the main purpose of this session is the reform of the capitalist system, and the enactment before its close of the measures necessary to this end.
Well then, let us see if we cannot manage at least that much. Let the government come forward with their measures. If the measures are of a character which are likely to ameliorate and improve conditions in any effective way, I can say immediately that they will receive the very hearty support of hon. gentlemen on this side of the house. But we will reserve to ourselves the right to consider very carefully on its merits every single measure, and every provision of every bill. We do not propose, under the guise of legislation to help the working classes, to have further reactionary legislation passed by this House of Commons, or to allow the government to put through legislation of a character which is going to make more difficult than ever the solution of the great problems with which the country is faced.
As a means of expediting and hastening the consideration of these matters, I would ask the Prime Minister when he gets up to speak this evening, as I hope he will, to tell this house whether as leader of the government, knowing that a question will come up immediately as to the jurisdiction of this parliament and of the provincial legislatures in matters of social legislation, he has secured

The Address*-Mr. Mackenzie King
an opinion from the law officers of the crown or from the Supreme Court of Canada which will be a sufficient guarantee to this house to proceed with these measures as being without question within its jurisdiction.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not feel that a matter of jurisdiction should be allowed in the last analysis to stand in the way of anything in the nature of a national reform that may be generally recognized as necessary and urgent. If it be found that jurisdiction does interfere, that it is an obstacle, then f think the proper step should be taken to see that the British North America Act is so amended as to make possible the enactment of such legislation. In taking any step of this kind I think we should remember that perhaps the most serious subject with which parliament at any time can be called upon to deal is one which raises a question of the relationship between this dominion and the provinces, and in all such matters we must consider very carefully the views the provinces may hold in regard to what are their rights and the views which this dominion may hold in regard to what are its rights. For my part I believe that through conference and good-will it will be possible to obtain by reason and consent-though not by coercion -whatever is needed by way of amendment to the British North America Act. But I do say that any effort to secure social reform by means of coercion of one or more of the provinces by the dominion, rather than by an endeavour to secure the consent of all, is going to make the situation in this country much more difficult than anything we have thus far faced. It is a situation that cannot be watched too carefully at the present time. I do not mean that with respect to all matters the consent of all the provinces should be necessary to any amendment. That has never been the case. A reasonable formula can I believe be worked out as a result of a conference between the provinces and this dominion which will serve to meet the situations that are likely to arise, but such a conference would have to be one worthy of the great objective being sought; not any two-day affair.
I make this statement now for this reason, that the Prime Minister to-day gave us an earnest of his desire to proceed rapidly with these measures by moving forward one stage, a resolution with regard to a bill on employment and social insurance which stands on the order paper in his name. The resolution moved by the Prime Minister this afternoon was as follows:
That to-morrow the house take into consideration the following resolution:

That it is expedient to introduce a bill to establish an employment and social insurance commission; to provide for a national employment service; for insurance against unemployment; for aid to unemployed persons, and for other forms of social insurance and security, and for purposes related thereto; and to provide for such contributions as may be necessary to carry into effect the proposed legislation.
The reason I have asked the Prime Minister to state as soon as he can to this house on what authority he is proceeding with these measures is that I find that in the past both he himself and his ministers have taken the view that this parliament is not competent to deal with many of the matters that are mentioned in his resolution. Now I am not making that contention. I am not setting forth any attitude other than what the government itself has taken in stating its position from time to time. Sir Henry Drayton, when the old age pensions bill was under consideration-he was one of the Conservative leaders in the House of Commons at the time and had been Minister of Finance-said on March 26, 1926, as will be found at page 1943 of Hansard:
Simply this: if you make the scheme contributory you enter at once upon the do-main of property and civil rights, and that is absolutely in the hands of the provinces.
He was referring to the contributory feature, which is a feature the Prime Minister has in his resolution, where it speaks of providing for such contributions as may be necessary to carry into effect the proposed legislation.
Sir Henry Drayton went on:
The whole thing is provincial, and my hon. friend's point is well taken. No contributory scheme, no insurance nor anything of that kind could be worked out through the agency of the dominion. It must be left to the provinces.
I am not giving that as my opinion, but as the opinion of one who was a Conservative minister of finance in his day.
Let me give the Prime Minister's own statement on these matters. This is very important, I think. The present Prime Minister, speaking in this house on March 26, 1926, said, at page 1970 of Hansard:
In the first place, it is quite clear, although it has never been exactly determined, that the provinces have perhaps sole jurisdiction with respect to the granting of old age pensions, and secondly, that this parliament has power by the grant of money to supplement the action of the provinces in that regard.
Later on in the same debate the present Prime Minister said:
Faulty legislation placed upon the statute books the effect of which is to bring about chaos is very much to be deprecated. Anyone who has followed the course of legislation in any country, especially legislation of this char-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
acter, will realize that where you rely solely and entirely upon experiments you have nothing but political action, following political action and what was intended to be a great benefit has in many instances been a positive disadvantage to the very class it was intended to benefit.
Holding that view myself, I think it is very important that this whole question of jurisdiction should be cleared up in a manner which can give cause for no occasion either of doubt or debate. For that reason I want to ask the Prime Minister if he has obtained from the law officers of the crown an opinion different from any that has been given in the past, or if he has obtained an opinion from the supreme court in these matters. I say the law officers of the crown because at the time when the old age pensions matter was before parliament we had an opinion from them in the matter. It was an opinion given to the committee which was considering the bill, and it is an opinion which has governed parliament ever since in matters of social reform. It will be found in the votes and proceedings of June 16, 1925, and from it I will quote just this one paragraph:
In view of the position taken by several of the provinces and more particularly by Saskatchewan. Alberta and British Columbia, and having in mind what the British North America Act, under sections 91 and 92 defines, your committee resolved to obtain an authoritative opinion from the Department of Justice in respect of the points thus raised, and on the twenty-third of May last, the Deputy Minister of Justice replied as follows:-
"Referring to your letter of the twelfth instant, asking to be advised with regard to the authority of parliament to legislate on the subject of old age pensions, I may say that this subject does not fall specifically within any of the enumerated subjects given to the dominion under section 91 of the British North America Act. but does in my judgment fall within the subject "Property and Civil Rights in the Province'" committed to the provinces under section 92. I am of opinion, therefore, that the subject matter of pensions has been entrusted to the provincial legislatures rather than to parliament. I do not mean to suggest that parliament has not the power to legislate upon the subject so as to assist the provinces or to establish an independent voluntary scheme, provided that in either case the legislation does not trench upon the subject matter of property and civil rights in the province, as for example by obligating any province or person to contribute to the scheme.
The enactment of such legislation would, however. involve the assumption by the dominion of obligations involving heavy expenditures with regard to a matter which does not fall specifically within the dominion field of legislation."
Until we get that opinion authoritatively reversed it seems to me we will be at sixes and sevens discussing what may or may not be possible under the legislation that is being introduced.
May I point this out to the Prime Minister and the government? It has evidently been seen by previous parliaments that questions of this kind would arise. The wisdom of not inviting debate on the subject on the floor of parliament in any acrimonious fashion and of avoiding steps which might create dissension between the provinces and the federal government, has been recognized in the Supreme Court Act. I would ask the Prime Minister whether he has obtained, under the provision of this statute, any opinion from the supreme court. If he has not obtained an opinion, may I suggest to him now, before we begin a discussion of this matter, that in order to ensure all the expedition possible in the light of certainty, he ask the supreme court to give him an opinion with respect to the question of jurisdiction in any of these social matters that may be introduced, and to oblige parliament by giving that opinion in the shortest order possible. The provision to which I refer is section 55 of the Supreme Court Act, chapter 35, revised statutes, 1927, which reads as follows:
55. Important questions of law or fact touching

(a)	the interpretation of the British North America acts, or
(b)	the constitutionality or interpretation of any dominion or provincial legislation; or
(d) the powers of the parliament of Canada, or of the legislatures of the provinces, or of the respective governments thereof, whether or not the particular power in question has been or is proposed to be exercised;
may be referred by the governor in council to the supreme court for hearing and consideration; and any question touching any of the matters aforesaid, so referred by the governor in council, shall be conclusively deemed to be an important question.
(2) When any such references is made to the court it shall be the duty of the court to hear and consider it, and to answer each question so referred; and the court shall certify to the governor in council, for his information, its opinion upon each such question, with the reasons for each such answer; and such opinion shall he pronounced in like manner as in the case of a judgment upon an appeal to the court: and any judge who differs from the opinion of the majority shall in like manner certify his opinion and his reasons.
f6) The opinion of the court upon any such reference, although advisory only, shall, for all purposes of appeal to His Majesty in council, be treated as a final judgment of the said court between parties.
If that step has been taken, I think we shall be on sure ground. If it has not, I think it is the obvious duty of the government to take it at once. I wish to make it clear that not only have some Liberal provincial governments been questioning the right of the federal government to interfere with provincial rights, but Conservative provincial

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
governments equally have been jealous of their rights. My right hon. friend will recall what happened at the time of the enactment of the Statute of Westminster; how the present high commissioner, Hon. Howard Ferguson, his own representative in London, then Premier of Ontario, took very strong exception to any course being taken by the federal government which might in any way interfere with the rights of his province. I have here a copy of an article from the Montreal Gazette of September 20, 1930, when the matter was under consideration. It states that a memorandum was given to the Prime Minister in which Mr. Ferguson said:
I am deeply interested in the deliberations of the conference because I have been battling to prevent the destruction of the whole fabric of the Canadian constitution.
So apparently I am not the only one who is trying to save the constitution.
The memorandum deals with provincial rights under the British North America Act and various treaties and amendments since its inception.
Mr. Ferguson went on to say:
The result of these precedents has been to undermine the constitutional right of the provinces to be consulted. . . .
He said further:
[DOT]-the right of the various provinces of Canada to an equal voice concerning any contemplated changes in the law or the constitution of the dominion rests upon fundamental facts, which are as binding to-day as ever they were upon all the parties to confederation.
That was Mr. Ferguson's view. I am not saying it is right, but it is the view taken by a Conservative premier of Ontario when he was in office. What about another Conservative government, a Conservative government in Saskatchewan which made its voice heard at the same time? On September 19, 1930, the attorney general of Saskatchewan had this word to say:
"We in this province," said Hon. M. A. Maepherson, attorney general and acting premier, "will endorse Premier Ferguson's attitude that the constitution should not be interfered with in any way until the individual provinces have been given ample time for consideration of any such changes, and the entire matter has been given consideration at an interprovincial conference."
I wish again to say that I think the British North America Act has been a marvelous achievement; thus far it has served its purpose remarkably well, but I wish to make it clear that I think the British North America Act requires amendment in some particulars, and the first amendment that should be secured is the recognition of the right of this country to amend its own constitution. Can-

ada, as far as I know, is the only British dominion that has not that right. There ought to be an amendment arrived at as a result of agreement, as I believe it can be, which will enable this parliament to amend this act with regard to many subjects which will become increasingly national in their character as time goes on. But, I repeat, I believe the way to effect that change is by conference and by securing consent and agreement if at all possible. At all events that should be the first step.
There is one more reason why I think it imperative that this government should quickly let us have a definite statement on these matters; it is that members of the government themselves have been questioning the right of the government to deal with them. My hon. friend the Secretary of State has been active to some extent in the debate this afternoon. Speaking in Montreal as recently as November 27, he is reported in the Montreal Star of that date to have said:
Political and social propagandists, blind leaders of the blind, were persistent in efforts to induce Parliament to exercise illegal powers inseparably vested in the provinces. No purpose could be served by an illegal attempt by either parliament or the provinces to exercise powers vested in one or the other.
That must be the position of the ministry,
if collective responsibility means anything. The Secretary of State was speaking as a minister of the crown, and he made his position very clear. May I add that the Prime Minister himself has been hardly less emphatic on this very point. Read the correspondence, placed on the table only on Friday last by the Prime Minister, the correspondence that passed between himself and the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce, the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Stevens). What did the Prime Minister say in writing Mr. Stevens at the time of the latter's resignation? Here is one passage taken from the correspondence:
We pointed out to you the danger of creating in the minds of those interested, especially in retail business, the impression that parliament could provide a remedy for the conditions of which they complained in view of the decisions of the courts as to the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures over contracts and price fixing.
Now there is the position, and I repeat that it is all-important that there should be no doubt left with resipect to the authority of this parliament concerning anything that it may do or attempt to do in regard to this most important matter of social legislation.
In conclusion let me say this word, that important as all of these matters are, important as all the suggested social- legislation may be, consideration of these things should

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
not be permitted to sidetrack what still remains the most pressing of all problems to-day, namely how those who are unemployed at the present time are to be provided for. Legislation of a nature which requires men to contribute to an unemployment insurance scheme can be of no service whatever to men who have nothing to contribute. Before these contributory schemes for unemployment insurance, for sickness, for invalidity, accident and the like, can work you have to have in the pockets of the people who are to contribute the means of making the necessary contributions. You cannot either effectively begin these schemes or maintain them unless you have in the public treasury money sufficient to enable them to be carried out. Therefore I say that while the matters we have mentioned here are important, all of them relate to the future; they may even go on the statute books, but they may remain there just as the vocational act, passed three years ago, has remained, embalmed for the time being, good for nothing. The provinces may again be told, "Yes, we have legislation, but we are sorry we cannot put it into force because we have not in the treasury the means to carry it out." I therefore say that whatever we do in these matters must be secondary to the immediate need, which is becoming increasingly imperative.
The Prime Minister says that conditions are better to-day than they were in 1932. It would be extraordinary if there were not some improvement, when we consider the millions of dollars spent out of the public treasuries artificially to provide work in this country and in the great country to the south of us. But prosperity brought about by the expenditure of millions of dollars in the form of revenues derived from taxation or borrowing is not real prosperity, for once these expenditures cease the last stage may be worse than the first. What is spent, moreover, will have to be paid for by some incoming government later on. The present problem is how to provide for those people who have no work to do. The numbers of them were 117,000 when the present administration came into office; the numbers on direct relief to-day are over 1,000,00. They are not as great as they were two years ago; then they were 1,240,000 but they are still well over 1,000,000, and relief is being paid out by the dominion, the provinces and from other sources.
Let this House of Commons direct itself first and foremost to dealing with the problem of unemployment. The Prime Minister said in 1930 "I will end unemployment;" and he had the nerve to say over the radio the other evening, "Yes, I said I would end unemployment and I stand by it". If he stands by it, let him end it before this session is over. At any rate, I say to him now that so far as we of the Liberal party are concerned, any reasonable and defensible legislation that will help to ameliorate the situation, whether in the present or in the future, will be received sympathetically. But we well know that the Prime Minister will, if it suits his purpose, allow one measure after another to be brought forward here which has nothing to do with unemployment, and have discussion take place on the estimates from day to day as well as time consumed by the discussion on private members' resolutions, and hold off dealing with unemployment and these government measures of social legislation until well on towards the month of March or April, just as the reciprocity measure is to be held off, and then suddenly dissolve parliament and say, "I should like to have gone through with these measures but the opposition would not let me, and I am going to appeal to the country to allow me to end unemployment and carry this social program through".
I say to the Prime Minister that we are here dealing not with a theory but with a condition. We are assembled at the summons of His Excellency, the Crown's representative, and we are to be here, according to the Secretary of State, at least until the 15th of April. Let us therefore, between now and that time, take as first measures those dealing with the problem of unemployment and social reform and give to them our undivided attention from day to day so that, working together, we may, if at all possible, produce something in the way of a solution. I suggest that to that end this debate be permitted to end very speedily afteT the Prime Minister and the leader of the third party have spoken, unless there is something controversial in what they say. At any rate, so far as the members of the Liberal opposition are concerned, we are prepared in order to deal with the question of unemployment to end the discussion at once. And in order to get on with the program of social legislation in this and other particulars, and the reform of the capitalist system I say further that we shall be in favour of a motion which will postpone the consideration of private members' resolutions until after we have completed this program. We shall be quite prepared, with respect to supply, to allow the matter to remain over while we are considering these social measures, and if we can get these measures through, I for one will do what I can to join with the Prime Minister in making some arrangement with respect to supply, so that that part of our proceedings will not occupy too much time.
The Address-Mr. Bennett

Let the Prime Minister no longer declare that he has met. only with opposition in this house. I ask him to join with the Liberal members of this house, and with myself, in seeking to supplement those measures of social and industrial reform; measures in which I have been interested, not on the eve of an election only, but throughout- my life.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assume that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) knew that during the latter part of his discourse he was entirely out of order, for our rules provide that the subject matter of a future debate may not be discussed in the present debate. But owing to his assumption of wide knowledge, as explained in his book, I thought it undesirable to intervene.
I do not know that I have listened to anything that more clearly demonstrated the soundness of the views I have put forward in the last few weeks than the speech which we have just heard. Nothing more clearly indicated the necessity for the reforms I have proposed, nothing more clearly indicated the urgent need of them, than the speech to which we have just listened. But the difference between the two parties is readily explained in one sentence of the right hon. gentleman. He said, "I put these things in a book".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is more than the Prime Minister has ever done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman now makes it clear that the book he referred to is Industry and Humanity. Well, I have always found it a little difficult to discover what Job meant when he said he wished his adversary had written a book, until I heard the speech this afternoon, and then I realized the full meaning of the observation. But I turned to a more modern and relevant comment to be found in Revelation:
And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.


William Duff: Let the Prime Minister read verse 11 of the same chapter.


Mr. GRAY:: Bitter or sweet, the right hon. gentleman has swallowed the book.


Richard Bedford Bennett: lam sorry to see that
an observation from Scripture so disconcerts hon. gentlemen opposite, but it was to be expected. Now, let us have a clear understanding. I said in the broadcast addresses to which reference was made that my concern is with the Liberal party in Canada

since the war. My concern is with the Liberal party in Canada since the war, confronted with conditions such as have never been known in the world. I endeavoured to inquire, and I now propose to inquire, just what the right hon. gentleman did-besides putting it in a book-with respect to the problems to which he has referred. To start with, he came into office in December, 1921. He was in power during 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926 with a short break, 1927, 1928, 1929 and part of 1930. During the latter part of his term of office this country was in a higher degree of speculation than it had ever before been in its history, and as a result of the failure of his government to take adequate measures to safeguard the public interest, thousands of people became bankrupt and were ruined. Further, the very friends upon whom he relies and upon whom he has relied were those who accomplished those purposes. That is the reason I say that the times cry for reform and that the right hon. gentleman is wholly incapable of effecting reform, because during the period when he had the opportunity in the full flush of power, when he appealed to the electorate in 1925, when he did not receive the majority he sought, and when he came back in 1926, the only reform he put upon the statute books in that year, the measure to which he referred to-night, was a reform forced upon him by the hon. gentlemen who sit to his left. The record of Hansard shows conclusively that that is so and the issue is plain and simple: Are these evils to which he has referred, these evils which we see all about us and which are known to every one of us, the result or not of the capitalist system as it flourished during those years? That is the question. Are they or are they not the result of capitalism as it flourished during those years? If ever there were a case proven it has been by the evidence given by the right hon. gentleman himself to-night. With the amplitude of his power, with all the surrounding he had, he sat quietly by and let those evils flourish to the extent of thousands of his fellow citizens being ruined, and yet his voice was not raised against those evils.
That is not all. When in 1928 I ventured in this chamber to point out the way in which we were proceeding what happened? Those hon. members who may be interested will read in Hansard that on June 9, 1928, I used these words:
It is true that we have a vast, untouched estate, and that new wealth may be produced much more readily from that than from an old and cultivated estate. But it is also true that where we cultivate, it is necessary that we

The Address-Mr. Bennett
should sell, and if we find a curtailment and shrinkage of trade among the nations of the world, we find a limitation placed upon our ability to dispose of that which we produce. The minister knows that. He has been told time and time again by the great heads of financial institutions to be cautious, to look ahead. Every thoughtful business man is doing it; everybody is shortening sail except the speculators. Do you realize, sir, that this great speculative era that we now have on the American continent is one fraught with possibilities of the gravest disaster for this country? The brokers' loans alone in New York last week were over $5,000,000,000. an unheard of figure. In this country speculation is rampant. Some people imagine that trading in pieces of paper upon which there are engraved words and figures constitutes the creation of new wealth. It is not so. The new wealth of the country is being created by the application of labour and capital to the natural resources of the country, and this trading in stock certificates, this great era of speculation in this country and on this continent, is one fraught with possibilities of the gravest danger to Canada, because we have not as they have in the United States a vast accumulation of wealth that will enable us to meet the approa-hing conditions with ease.
Look at the movement of securities; look at the movement of gold; look at every indication there is with respect to speculation in this country. I know great brokers' houses that have declined to take new accounts in this country for over twelve months, one perhaps the greatest brokerage house in this country, because they fear what they see in the distance. But no one in the government seems to care, and if we point out the conditions we are " pessimists," if we venture to direct attention to the conditions we are " decrying our country." That is the talk that hon. gentlemen opposite hurl at us and before the country. But I recall the language of one who was regarded in after years as one of the very greatest of British statesmen, who observed that when this orgy was through, when they had at last recovered from the debauch in which they were then enjoying themselves, possibly then in their sober and quiet moments they would look back and recall the warning that had been given by those who looking into the future as best they could, guided by those economic signs that were apparent, and by beacon lights, warning of the future, had pointed out the conditions as they also had come to pass. You perhaps will look back upon our warnings, and perhaps remember with at least some degree of fair-minded justice the observations that were made by those of us who have pointed out the national disaster that is inevitable if this orgy of mad expenditure continues.
It is for these reasons, sir, that we make this motion

And so forth. In 1928 those observations were made by me in this chamber. Were they listened to? I recall one of the ministers that night while walking down from the house with another member and myself, saying: "Why is it that you always talk blue ruin about these matters?" I said to him then that I did not know whether this would come to pass in my
time or not. I was reminded again the other day by the third person that it was inevitable disaster would come if we pursued the course we were pursuing. That was the time that action should have been taken with respect to the capitalist system in this country. I urged it then. I urge it now. Not until this time have I had power or opportunity to carry into effect the necessary reform. I have not had the time to deal with the matter during the four long years I have been endeavouring to the best of my ability to sail this ship of state safely into the harbour through the dangers that have been encountered by us. Reference has been made by the right hon. gentleman this afternoon to what has been said by others. I can name leading Liberals in this country who have indicated to me in my office how grateful they were that I was at the head of affairs during those four years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The right hon. gentleman has made statements like this before. It is about time that he gave us the names.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of them is Mr. Burton, the head of the Simpson Company. I could give my right hon. friend a dozen others.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us have them all.
Mr. BENNETT; I am not going to waste the time of the house in doing so. They are the very men who by reason of their general attitude toward public matters have ranked as Liberals, but they have rejoiced in the fact that we have been enabled to deal with the problems of this country as we have. I shall always regard it as a great privilege that in the period of greatest stress through which this country has ever passed, I have had an opportunity of rendering some service to the state.
There is not an hon. member in this house who does not know that during the last four years we were concerned with problems of recovery. We were concerned with the problem of saving the financial, the industrial structure of Canada. We were concerned with the problem of saving this country from absolute ruin, from bankruptcy. Day in and day out, week in and week out, month in and month out, year after year our concern has been the safety of Canada, the preservation of this country, the introduction of such measures of recovery as would enable us to pass through the stress and storm we encountered. It is a matter of satisfaction to me at least, if not to hon. gentlemen opposite, that other countries bear testimony to the fact that Canada emerged from this crisis better than did any
The Address-Mr. Bennett

other country in the world. So I say that when the evidence became clear that the greatest danger of the depression had passed, that the country was on the upward grade and moving towards complete recovery, I conceived it to be my solemn duty to introduce into this house such measures as I believed would prevent a recurrence in part of those dangers which we had encountered and those difficulties which we had to overcome. Have I had any opportunity to do this before? Has this government had any opportunity to do it before? Every hon. member knows in his soul better than that. He knows as a matter of fair play and justice that those were not the times when we could deal with these matters. That time was only when this country had shown some sign of emerging from the valley, not of humiliation but of depression and was coming back to prosperity. Now, with the opportunity-because if we have not a majority in the house we have not the opportunity-we are proposing to press forward those reforms in the capitalist system which, had they been passed in the years when the right hon. gentleman was in power, would not have left this country in the condition in which it was in 1930.
Is there an hon. member opposite who is not fair enough to realize the conditions that we faced in 1930? Does he recall the language of the then Prime Minister when he said there was no unemployment in Canada, when he read statistics to prove it? Does he recall that? Does he recall the trade balances of this country? Did' he see our exports diminish and our imports increase by hundreds of millions of dollars? Did he see this country sliding down to bankruptcy and insolvency? Was there a thoughtful man who did not see it and know it? Any country is like an individual; when its adverse balances increase there comes a time when they can no longer be redressed by borrowings, and ruin and disaster are the result. Is there a fair minded man in this house to-night who does not realize that this was the condition we faced?
When we had to succeed to those conditions there were before us two pathways; we had to deal with two matters. One was the immediate problem of employment and relief to the people of the country. I was not on the inside until August 7, but when I came into power on that date and we formed a government I learned what the real conditions were after I made the examinations, after I ascertained what the balances really were, when I learned of the contracts that had been let during the last ten days of the life of the
IMr. Bennett.]
administration that had preceded me, and after I realized the obligations and debts that had been created and that we must meet. Almost as soon as we took office we were confronted with the necessity of raising a loan of $100,009,000. Was that a light undertaking just at the time when conditions were breaking all over the world? We had to save the credit and solvency of Canada; we had to raise $100,000,000. One hundred million dollars was a large sum of money. We raised it in New York, and it cost us something over four per cent. It was a difficult task. On the one hand we had the increasing deficits of the railways. We had increasing unemployment. Relief measures were being demanded, and we had adverse trade balances which threatened our solvency. We borrowed that money and then we did the other thing; we passed legislation to provide for the immediate wants of the unemployed and for public works and undertakings to give employment, so far as might be possible, to those who required work. We did not know or understand then, as we did later, that this was not a continentwide but a world-wide condition, that it was growing worse from day to day, that in every part of the globe those conditions prevailed, that those who should have foreseen such conditions in this country had taken no steps at all to deal with them. In fact from time to time-and I will deal with the tariffs now- they had rejoiced, at Geneva and elsewhere, because Canada had lowered its tariffs twice since 1921. Yet, sir, when this government oame into office, the markets of the world in all the great countries were more closed against Canada than they .had been at any other period in her history.
Let me repeat that. The markets of the world were closed more against Canada when we oame into power in 1930 than they had been at any time in the history of this dominion. Think what that involves.


Mr. RALSTON:: And we exported more
goods.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We did not export more goods. As soon as the depression began we exported less goods, and the last tariff that was placed against us by the United States of America radically changed our exports, as the hon. gentleman should know. The tariffs placed against us by France in 1930, while hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, limited and restricted our exports. The tariffs of Germany restricted our exports. In all the great countries of the world there was a complete restriction of our exports going on from day to day, reaching its full height in

The Address-Mr. Bennett
the years that came after, while there had been no changes in the tariffs of those countries until we were able to secure better terms from them than prevailed when we came into office. Let it be known that the restrictions that France raised against us reached their very highest when we came into office. Let it be known that a treaty has been negotiated with that republic under which we receive preferred treatment with respect to many commodities. Let it be known that we have negotiated treaties with Germany, with Austria and with other countries in Europe under the same conditions, and now we are negotiating a treaty with the United States of America.
This afternoon the right hon. gentleman suggested that this was a deathbed effort on our part. Let me ask him this: When he was in office, in that very year when the United States was raising its tariffs against Canada higher than they had been at any time in our history; when our people were suffering as they had never suffered before, because of the loss of that market to our agriculturists and others, what did we find him doing? He was standing in this very place, and the right hon. gentleman dared to say to the Canadian people, "Do not provoke them; we must not raise our tariffs against them." Let there be no misunderstanding.


Mr. HANBURY:: It did not take you long to provoke them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so, for there has been no increase in the tariffs of the United States against us since we came into power.


Wilfred Hanbury: I would ask the right hon. gentleman if there was not an excise tax.


Mr. VENIOT:: What about the increase in the duty on lumber?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was no tariff increase on lumber, for there has been no touching of the tariffs by the congress of the United States since we came into office. Any hon. gentleman who takes the trouble to read the records knows that.
Mr. HANBURY': Just an excise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was not a tariff increase against lumber.


Wilfred Hanbury: That is a play on words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no play on words; the president of the United States has put himself clearly on record as stating that there was no interference with tariffs by congress after 1930.


James Layton Ralston: Just a $3 tax.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was an excise tax, of course, of which I am aware, but I would point out to this house that there was no tariff legislation; that is a fact.
Now let us go a step further. We opened up markets for lumber in the United Kingdom on a scale that had never been known before, and this gives me an opportunity to say what I want to say just here. By the introduction into the Ottawa agreements of a provision with respect to unfair competition we were able to secure for this country a favoured position. Now I come to the attitude of the right hon. gentleman opposite, who this afternoon said that the majorities secured by his recently elected supporters were obtained after the Ottawa agreements had been in force. Those agreements expire shortly, and we are told by those who are urging upon the British government the necessity for action that the lumber people say that the leader of the opposition in Canada says he is the man who should be in power, and that he has embarrassed and hurt this country in its dealings with the lumber industry. Not only has he embarrassed Canada but he has destroyed, to a very large extent, through the representations made by him and his friends, that which we were able to secure.
We will continue to fight that sort of thing, for I do believe that the Canadian people are coming more fully to realize just what has been meant by the opposition of hon. gentlemen opposite to the Ottawa agreements. In season and out of season they have exerted their force agamst them. They have said, as I shall show presently, that if they were in office they would repeal them, that they would destroy them. The fact is that they have endeavoured, and to a large extent succeeded in doing so, to build up in the old country the idea that the Canadian people are opposed to those agreements and that therefore they are no longer sought or desired. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite, do you wish these agreements or not?


Wilfred Hanbury: We wish better ones.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then why did you not
get them during the nine years you were in power? I will not trouble this house by reading the records that I have, not only from this house but also from the hustings, as to what the right hon. gentleman and his followers have said they would do with these agreements if they came into power. I ask them now, are you prepared to rescind the Ottawa agreements? Are you prepared again to vote against those agreements? Well, you
The Address-Mr. Bennett

will have the chance. Are you prepared to do so? We will see.
The right hon. gentleman was endeavouring to anticipate many things to-day. I am not going to anticipate any debate upon the matter, but I just ask each hon. gentleman here if he is prepared to vote against these agreements, because it is vital to Canada that we should know. If the operation of these agreements has done this country any good, then those abroad with whom we deal must know, because the negotiation of the lumber agreements was not included in the agreements themselves. They were arrangements made with the British government through the board of trade in pursuance of powers that were secured in the agreement against unfair competition with Russia. And the opportunity is necessary, nay it is imperative, that this house should say whether or not we in the representations we have been making speak for the Canadian people. Whether or not Canada desires these agreements, or whether with respect to lumber and matters of that kind we no longer require this provision and desire that it should be destroyed.
Let us go a step farther. With respect to the United States of America we found conditions that we could not alter for the simple and obvious reason that the president at that time, Mr. Hoover, was holding office, and his congress had enacted the legislation which had imposed this tariff against Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: A Tory government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A Tory government?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then we will leave it at that; but it was a government that the leader of the Liberal party, the then Prime Minister, would not provoke. I shall not stop now with merely making the statement; I shall read from Hansard of April 9, 1929:
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 could be regarded as provocative by those across the line who may be interested in seeking to raise the tariff in that country?
That is the high-minded type of caring for the welfare of Canada which was manifested by the then government, and the Liberal party say the same thing to-day. I quote further:
I say that 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.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad the hon. gentleman cheers that sentiment, because it marks him as just what I know him to be, namely one whose concern is for the capitalist system and not for his country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to the Prime Minister, as this is a matter of record, that I did not cheer at all; I sat perfectly quiet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was referring to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). I am sorry the right hon. gentleman put on the cap, but I was referring to the other leader.
Now, let me go a step farther. Not content with that, they enacted countervailing duties and permitted Washington to control the tariff of this country. When the new president came into office he indicated at once his willingness to enter into discussions concerning a trade agreement with Canada. At his mvitation we discussed the matter, but be did not secure from congress power to deal with it until June, 1934. Under the statute which he did secure, an act of congress, he is enabled to enter into an agreement, first giving notice of intention so to do, and then fixing the date within which it is possible not only to lodge written or printed briefs but also to permit verbal representations by citizens of the United States for or against certain action being taken. The government of the United States to-day gave notice of their intention so to do. That is the end of the negotiations which we have been carrying on all these months since June, 1934, when the statute was passed. They have now given us notice that they will proceed to negotiate a trade agreement with Canada, And further, they have fixed a date within which written briefs and oral representalions may be , made for and against the proposals. The proposals cover every kind and form of commodity, natural products as well as others. We will proceed to that discussion in the same manner as we proceeded in connection with the treaty with France and in the same manner as we proceeded to negotiate the empire agreements. To speak frankly, I believe that if the Canadian people have to choose between one who has stood up for his country in the face of great opposition and one who is fearful of provoking someone, they will choose the man who has stood up for them. I am willing to leave that issue to the Canadian people.

The Address-Mr. Bennett


An hon. MEMBER:: Make it soon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are now discussing a trade agreem; nt with the United States. I repeat that if we are permitted to negotiate a trade agreement with the United States I hare no intention, as the right hon. gentleman has suggested, of endeavouring to terminate the agreement, as was done in 1911-terminate it by an election at the moment. I have no such thought; I propose to go forward as we did with France and with other countries, and as we did in connection with the empire agreements, and negotiate on the basis of this country being able to take care of itself and not being afraid to negotiate with another country.
Let me go farther. I have it on the authority of United States officials that it was the tariff action Canada took in 1930 and under the Ottawa agreements of 1932 which induced the United States to want to lower their tariffs and deal with this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the Prime Minister give us the names of the officials? He should not make a general statement of that kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the right hon. gentleman will read the statements made by the Secretary of State in London, the statements made in New York and in Washington, he will have no difficulty in understanding what I mean. The United States has no hesitancy in saying, under its present administration that with respect to its tariffs they are high, but it is impossible to reduce tariffs in the United States just by saying so. I am sorry to say the time in which the agreements may exist is limited to three years from the date of their being made, with power, of course, that they may be continued if notice is given. Congress has reluctantly enabled the president thus to deal with the matter. The president knew that if he had to appear before the committee of ways and means it would be quite impossible to effect the purpose; that is known by everyone who takes the trouble to understand the conditions. So congress has given him the power to deal with the matter as I have indicated. What is more, we propose to do what, after all, the right hon. gentleman suggested should be done in his day; he placed upon the statute books legislation enabling members of the government to make negotiations to become effective with the United States. We propose to carry on our negotiations as a responsible executive.
I repeat what I said previously-allow me to remind you of it again-that there is no bargain good enough for me which would involve the sacrifice of my country. I am not prepared to do that, whether it be with the mother country or with the United States of America. My duty, my obligation and what I conceive to be the duty of this government is to negotiate agreements fair to all parties, agreements which do not sacrifice Canadian interests to foreign or external interests, whatever they may be, and that impels us to insist that justice and fair play must be the basis of any agreement we make.
I have dealt with the matter of trade-


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: Blasting your way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes blasting our way into the markets of the world.


William Alexander Fraser: "No
truck or trade with the Yankees."


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; it was Sir Wilfrid Laurier who said, "No more pilgrimages to Washington." You might remember that. I am not to-night reviewing this matter, but I desire to remind hon. members that there may be some within the sound of my voice who heard him when he made that observation at Brandon-"No more pilgrimages to Washington."


William Alexander Fraser: It was the Tory party that said, "No more truck or trade with the Yankees."


Richard Bedford Bennett: It well may have been that there are members of the Conservative party who made that observation, but the leader of the Liberal party made this statement, "No more pilgrimages to Washington." That is the position, and I shall not do more to-night than to leave it just there, with this additional observation.
The other day Mr. Lloyd George made a statement, and I wonder if hon. gentlemen will take the trouble to observe what he said about tariffs. He spoke of the use of tariffs exactly as I have spoken in this house of the use of tariffs, just as I spoke of them when I was dealing with them in Winnipeg, just as I have spoken of them when we were dealing with them in this house on previous occasions. I shall take the trouble to read what Mr. Lloyd George said in order that there may be no misapprehension as to what the views of that venerable statesman are as to the use of tariffs at such a time as this, because it is strange, in all this discussion that has gone on during the years and having regard to the attitude he took with respect to these matters in the days of Mr. Asquith, that now in his old age, offering to his people



C.N.R.-Equipment Construction
a plan to take them further out of the slough of despond and give them greater opportunities for expansion, Mr. Lloyd George should see fit to refer to tariffs in the terms in which he did. I shall just read the extract as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of January 18, 1935, in these words:
Since Britain now had tariffs he would use them ruthlessly as a means of inducing removal of or at least reductions in trading difficulties with other countries, said Lloyd George.
There is the considered judgment of an elder statesman, a Liberal statesman. Why has he changed his viewpoint? Because he saw all about him throughout the world tariff barriers, and he was going to use this instrument for the purpose of effecting the prosperity of his people. Is there anyone within the sound of my voice to-night who does not know that had we not taken the action we did in 1930 we would not now be in a position to negotiate with our great neighbour? Everybody knows that that is so, and what is more, had we not done it, we could not have remained a solvent people. I shall elaborate that statement because, in view of the observations made this afternoon, I think it is desirable that I should do so.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Tuesday, January 22, 1935