1935-01-28

CORRECTION-MR. POULIOT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, at the opening of this sitting, I wish to correct the text of Question No. 38. The subject mentioned therein deals with the UB.S.R., in French the "U.R.SS., Union des Republiques Sovietiques Socialistes," such as Russia is now called.
In the seventh number of the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons, (French version), U.R.R.S. appears four times instead of U.R.S.S. It is almost as if you said "Cadana" instead of "Canada." There are four errors, two Rs, instead of two Ss, each time.
In the French version of the Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day, under No. S, that same question No. 38 refers, the first time, to the U.R.S.S.-which is correct-and three other times to the U.R.R.S.: three additional errors, making a total of seven errors in the French version of the Votes and Proceedings and the Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day for the same question. I have here the original text which I compared with these two officials documents that contain seven errors.
Speaking to a question of privilege, I have before me the votes, and proceedings of the House of Commons, No. 7 of January 25. I refer to question No. 38 on the orders of the day. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is referred to as "U.R.S.S.", but the correct designation in English is "U.S.S.R." and this is the designation we find in the Monthly Summary of the League of Nations. There are six mistakes in that question as it appears in issue No. 7 of the votes and proceedings. "U.R.S.S." is mentioned four times. This is the correct designation in French but it is the wrong one in English. Further, Mr. Maxim Litvinoff is referred to as "peoples Commissary in Foreign Affairs of the U.R. S.S." The word "peoples" should have a capital P and an apostrophe, "People's" and he is not Commissary in Foreign Affairs but Commissary for Foreign Affairs of the U.S.
S.R. I take this designation from the Monthly Summary of the League of Nations, issue of September, 1934.
I have just mentioned in French that there were nine mistakes in that question in French; there are six more in the votes and proceedings, making a total of fifteen mistakes. But
[Stage Direction]
Questions
there are more mistakes than that because in the Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day the same question contains the same mistakes. This is most ridiculous because the French designation of what was formerly Russia is wrong in the French text and the French designation of it has been used in the English text so that it is wrong again. May I draw attention to the fact that in that question there are twenty-one mistakes. I shall not stress this any more because the translator who was responsible has been discharged. But I make one suggestion and it is this: that every piece of translation should be initialed in order that every member might know who is responsible for the mutilation of his text whenever such occurs.
And now, sir, may I have the great pleasure of welcoming to this house our Quebec leader, Hon. Mr. Lapointe.

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

Mr. GIROUARD:: 1.	Were any appointments made to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the province of Quebec, during the years 1933 and 1934?
2.	If so, what are the names of those appointed during each of the said years?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: LAND	FORCE (1933)	
Name	From	Date of EngagementBordeleau, W. R....	Hull, Que	10- 2-3323- 2-332- 3-33Alleyn, A. H. R	1- 4-33Glass, G. F. J	3- 7-33Bell, H. G. S	7- 7-337- 7-3311- 7-33Brakefield,-Moore, E	8- 8-3322- 9-33Vezina, J. G. L	28- 9-33Riviere du Loup....	28-10-332-11-332-11-33Lebel, E. P	Riviere du Loup	25-11-33Lindsay, E. I. C	
McCarthy, E. E	25-11-3330-11-33
MARINE	SECTION (1933)	
Gallinrd, G. W			20- 1-33
		2- 4-33
		2- 4-33
		2- 4-33
		4- 4-33
		13- 7-33


SPECIAL CONSTABLE (1933)
[Stage Direction]
Cote, G			2- 4-33
		
LAND FORCE (1934)		
Charron, J. T. A	
Bourgault, J. J. P....	Gatineau Pte	
Lotbiniere	25- 5-34 2- 6-34 2- 6-34 14- 6-34 19- 6-34 19-	6-34 12- 6-34 1- 7-34 1- 7-34 1- 8-34 16-11-34 16-	11-34 17-	11-34 17-11-34 17-11-34 20-	11-34 24-11-34 6-12-34 22-12-34Fournier, J. V	
Aubut, R	
Lavoie, C. J. M	
Morel, L. P. M	
Elliott, T. G	St. Claire	
Riviere Bleue	
Matane	
Quebec	
Deschenes	Hull	Belzile, J. R. G	
Jolly, H	St. Fabien	Cardinal, J. H. S	
Van Elslande, A. J.. Stevenson, J. A	
Moore, J. S	
Desjardins, J. J. M. D	Montreal	
Montreal	
Danville	
Sherbrooke	Larocque, J. F. M..	Gilmore, J. R	Rock Island	MARINE SECTION (1934)	Fontaine, J. L. P....	Valcourt	22- 1-34 6- 2-34 12- 5-34 16-	5-34 17-	8-34 21- 8-34Deslaurier, J. H	
Bouffard, R. E	
Allard, A. P. J	
Rioux, J. C. B	Quebec	
Quebec	
Carleton	
Riviere du Loup	SPECIAL CONSTABLES (1934)	Name	From	Date of EngagementMacham, J. C. M	Montreal	1-	4-34 2-	4-34 1- 5-34 21- 8-34Elio, V....	Hanna, J. E. M	Montreal

[Stage Direction]
18- 1-33
		28- 4-33
Stenographer	Miss M. J. Paquette...	12-10-33Stoker	Pollard, W. H	1- 8-33Stenographer	Miss M. F. Valois	21-11-33

[Stage Direction]
1- 1-34
Stenographer			20- 8-34
		15-12-34
		
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
Land Force	 17
Marine Section	   6
Special Constable	 1
Civil Staff and	Enployed Civilians	 5
[Stage Direction]
 29
Land Force	 19
Marine Section	 6
Special Constable	 4
Civil Staff and	Employed	Civilians	 3
[Stage Direction]
 32
Total	 61

Mr. BOULANGER:: Has the Canada Shipping Act of 1934, chapter 44, been put into force?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: I think an oral answer to this question will better serve the purpose.
As the house knows, the Canada Shipping Act, 1934, covers international, inter-empire and domestic matters. As to the domestic matters, such as part V, sick mariners and marine hospitals; part VI, pilotage; part IX, lighthouses, buoys and beacons on Sable island; part X, public harbours and harbour masters; part XI, port wardens, and so forth; it can be proclaimed at any time, and the question of doing so is now under consideration.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Why all the hurry last year?


Alfred Duranleau: As to international and inter-empire matters, as this was the first enactment dealing with merchant shipping to be undertaken by any dominion since the passing of the statute of Westminster, it will be utilized as a guide by other dominions when legislating in regard to merchant shipping, so that the desired measure of uniformity recommended by the conference on the operation of dominion legislation and Merchant Shipping Legislation of 1929, and the terms of the British commonwealth merchant shipping agreement of 1931 may be secured. The act I understand is now being examined from this point of view. No other dominions have yet enacted similar legislation. I may also point out that the conclusions of the international conference regarding safety of life at sea and load lines, which formed a large part of the act of 1934, have already been given effect to by this parliament, in August 1931, by chapter 49 of that year, and are in operation now.
I think this statement will serve as an answer to the query of the hon. member for New Westminster on January 21.


Mr. BROWN:: Would the minister at the same time answer as to that part of the act dealing with navigation on the great lakes, and the coastal laws?


Alfred Duranleau: As I stated, the subject is now under consideration, as to all parts of the act that concern domestic matters.


Mr. DUFF:: In other words, in the doldrums. It has been on the statute books two years.



ST. JUSTE DU LAC, QUE.-LOG AND LUMBER PURCHASES

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did anyone saw logs for the Department of Public Works at St. Juste du Lac in 1934?
2.	If so, what quantity of logs was sawn, what amount was paid for same, and to whom?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 2,000 feet B.M.
(b)	$4.00 per M feet.
(c)	Paul Begin.


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the government purchase lumber for work: (a) at St. Juste d'u Lac, and (b) at Notre-Dame du Lac in 1934?
2.	If so, from whom at each place?
3.	Who was the foreman at each place?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	(a) and (b)-Yes.
2.	(a) Paul Begin
Joseph T. Levesque
Hermel Michaud
(b) Philias Roy
3.	(a) Joseph Dube, village wharf
Phillipe Nadeau, wharf Route Cen-trale
(b) Johnny Ouellet.



NOTRE DAME DU LAC, QUE.-LUMBER PURCHASES

Mr. POULIOT:: What price was paid by the Department of Public Works for lumber: (a) at Notre-Dame du Lac, and (b) at St. Juste du Lac in 1934?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: (a)	3-inch plank-$16.00 per M.
(b)	Square timber-$25.00 per M.
Logs-$9.00 per M.



BANK OP CANADA-TRANSFER OF GOLD FROM CHARTERED BANKS

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Has the gold formerly in possession of the chartered banks been transferred to the Bank of Canada?
2.	If so, how much has been transferred?
3.	At what valuation?
4.	How much gold, if any, has been left with the chartered banks for foreign exchange purposes ?

Questions


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	No. Transfer does not take place until the Bank of Canada is authorized to commence business.
2,	3 & 4. Answered by No. 1.



PENSION RATES

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Has the Minister of Pensions received representations from former members of the Inland' Water Transport Royal Engineers with regard to pension rates?
2.	If so, has the government decided what action should be taken on such representations?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.



BERT HIERVILLE, QUE. POST OFFICE

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Who is the owner of the premises now occupied by the post office in Berthierville, Quebec ?
2.	What is the name and address of the person from whom the government leased such premises?
3.	What rent is paid for same?
4.	Who recommended the leasing of said premises and on what date?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	G. A. Daviault.
2.	G. A. Daviault, Berthierville.
3.	S70 per month.
4.	(a) Clerk of Works, Montreal.
(b) August 18, 1934.


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Has the old post office at Berthierville been demolished?
2.	If so, on what date and upon whose recommendation ?
3.	Have plans been prepared by the Department of Public Works for a new post office?
4.	If so, what are the names and addresses of the architects and what amount was paid to each?
5.	Has the cost of the new post office been fixed?
6.	If so, what will be the amount?
7.	Has an amount been voted for this purpose?
8.	If so, on what date and for what amount?
9.	Has a contract been awarded for this work ?
10.	If so, to whom and for what amount?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) On September 21, 1934, the tender of J. H. Aube of Berthierville amounting to $175.00 was accepted for the demolition of the building.
92582-14i
(b) The demolition was necessary in order to erect the proposed new building.
3.	Plans and specifications have been prepared by Mr. Alcide Chausse, architect of Montreal, for the Department of Public W orks.
4.	(a) Answered by No. 3.	>
'
(b) Nothing paid to date.
5.	The cost will be determined by the amount of the lowest tender, but the contract has not yet been awarded.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7 & 8. Item No. 8 for $48,500 included in Schedule "A" of the Public Works Construction Act, 1934.
9 & 10. Answered by No. 5.



MONTREAL POST OFFICE-PURCHASES OF

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Since the month of August, 1930, has the Postmaster General bought any letter sorting machines for the general post office in Montreal?
2.	If so, what price was paid for each machine ?
3.	Since their purchase, have these machines been regularly used on the work for which they were purchased?
4.	If not, for what were they used?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No. Purchase for experimental purposes was made by Public Works Department on the recommendation of the Post Office Department prepared by the previous administration.
2.	$3,302.47, by public tender.
3 & 4. Answered by No. 1.



IMMIGRATION-1934

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	How many were admitted into Canada by the Department of Immigration during the calendar year 1934?
2.	From which countries did such immigrants come?
3.	To which provinces of Canada in approximate numbers did such immigrants go?
4.	How many were deported from Canada in the calendar year 1934?
5.	To which countries were such, in approximate numbers, deported?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	12,476.
2.	Statement attached.
3.	Statement attached.
4.	1,545.
5.	Statement attached.
Questions

Statement of Immigration to Canada, showing Racial Origin during the Calendar Year 1934
Albanian	 4
Arabian	 1
Belgian	 62
British

English	 1,362
Irish	 298
Scotch	 450
Welsh		56
Bulgarian	  5
Chinese	 1
Croatian	 149
Czech	   68
Dutch	 49
East Indian	 33
Esthonian	 2
Finnish	 63
French	  79
German	 304
Greek	 39
Hebrew	  577
Italian	  320
Japanese	 125
Jugo-Slav	 102
Lettish	 1
Lithuanian	 43
Magyar	 427
Negro	 9
Polish	 392
Portuguese	 3
Roumanian	 40
Russian	 47
Ruthenian	 563
.Scandinavi an-
Danish	 23
Norwegian	 34
Swedish	   15
Serbian	 35
Slovak	 588
Spanish	 8
Swiss	 15
Syrian	   13
Total, via ocean ports	 6,405
From the United States	 6,071
Grand total	12,476
Statement of Immigration to Canada, showing Province of Destination, for the Calendar Year 1934
Nova Scotia	 652
New Brunswick	 323
Prince Edward Island	 52
Quebec	 2,456
Ontario	 5,582
Manitoba	 390
Saskatchewan	 519
Alberta	 1,098
British Columbia	 1,394
Yukon Territory	 8
Northwest Territories	 2
Total	12,476
Statement of Deportations from Canada, showing Countries to which Deported, for the Calendar Year 1934
Austria	
Belgium	 3
British-
England	 316
Ireland, Northern	 62
Ireland, Free	State	 9
Scotland	 201

Wales	 51
Australia	 10
Barbados	 1
Bermuda	 1
British Guiana	 1
British West Indies	 3
St. Kitts (British West Indies.. ..	3
Trinidad (British West Indies).. ..	1
India	 1
Lesser British Isles	 2
Newfoundland	 29
South Africa	 4
Bulgaria	 5
China	 61
Czeeho-Slovakia	 43
Danzig	 1
Esthonia	 3
Finland	 42
France	 6
Germany	 108
Greece	 8
Guiana (Dutch)	 1
Holland	 5
Hungary	 32
Italy	 8
Japan	 19
Jugo-Slavia	 33
Latvia	 1
Lithuania	 7
Mexico	 1
Poland	 117
Roumania	 64
Russia	 2
Scandinavian-
Denmark	 25
Norway	 24
Sweden	 14
Spain	 2
Switzerland	 4
Turkey	 1
West Indies (Not British)	 1
Ocean port totals	 1,338
U.S.A. citizens	 207
Totals, less accompanying	 1,545
Accompanying deported persons	 156
Grand totals, including accompanying. 1,701
^BRITISH COLUMBIA-PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	How much has been expended of the special appropriation of $40,000,000 for public works, voted in 1934?
2.	How much has been expended to date in the province of British Columbia?
3.	At what points and on what projects in British Columbia have such expenditures, if any, been made?
4.	Is the government prepared to announce when other public works announced in 1934 will be proceeded with in British Columbia?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No doubt my hon. friend has observed that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) has just laid on the table a statement covering all expenditures under the Public Works Construction Act. I assume it contains the information for which my hon. friend asks, and I suggest that this

Questions
question be dropped. If there is any other information required we shall be glad to furnish it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am very glad my question brought so quick a response.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Question dropped.



CANADIAN SILVER DOLLARS

Mr. REID:: 1.	What 16 the total amount of the new silver Canadian dollars authorized to be issued from the mint?
2.	What will be the silver content of the new silver dollar to be issued on May 6?
3.	From what source or sources is the silver to be used in the new silver dollars being obtained?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	No amount yet authorized.
2.	As set by the Currency Act-360 grains, 800 fine.
3.	Silver bullion on hand or to be acquired from time to time.
admiralty act enforcement


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: What aTe the reasons why the Admiralty Act, 1934, chapter 31 of the statutes of Canada of 1934, has not yet been put into force?


Hugh Guthrie: I object to the form of this question; it does not make inquiry in regard to any fact. It is the kind of question that was nded out of order a day or two ago.
However, to shorten the matter I furnish a reply:
To give reasonable time to enable the public to become familiar with its provisions.
farm loan act applications


Mr. MICHAUD:: How many applications for loans, under the Farm Loan Act, were made by farmers in the province of New Brunswick during each of the years 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934?
How many of such applications were granted during each of said yeare?
What was the total amount of loans asked for during each of the years 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932. 1933 and 1934, in New Brunswick?
^What was the total amount of loans made in New Brunswick during the years 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934?


Mr. RHODES:: New Brunswick
Amount of	Applications	Amount ofApplications	Loans	Approved for	LoansReceived	Applied for	Loans	ApprovedFiscal year ended	March 31,	1930.	563	S	963,304	217 $	342,750it it	31,	1931.	197	367,290	68	102,600ii it	31,	1932.	350	626,765	87	123,200ii it	31,	1933.	177	278,206	53	73,500ii ii	31,	1934.	105	128,900	20	24,7001,392	$	2,364,465	445 S	666,750



CANADLAN BANK LOANS

Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What was the amount of current loans in Canada of Canadian chartered banks on December 31st in each year, 1926 to 1934, inclusive?
2.	What was the total amount of bonds, stock or other securities held by the banks on December 31st in each of the above years?


Mr. RHODES:: 1. December 31:
1926		$ 970,053,595
1927		 1,082,732,324
1928		 1,230,985,708
1929		 1,402,787,330
1930		 1,149,175,118
1931		 1,082,097,360
1932			 964,023,809
1933			 898,159,673
1934			 838,796,579
Member 31:	
1926			8483,619,008
1927			 529,444,178
1928			 524,560,843
1929			 448,409,736
1930			 604,10S,8S3
1931			 694,032,678
1932			 778,252,015
1933			 861,006,151
1934			 966,547,701



DOMINION NOTES OUTSTANDING

Mr. COOTE:: 1. What was the amount of dominion notes outstanding on October 31, 1934?
Questions

2. What portion of this amount was in denominations of $500 or over, and what part in denominations under $500?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	$210,483,160.69.
2.	Denominations of S500 or over $170,-
442,000.00.
Denominations under $500, $40,041,160.69.



IMMIGRATION-1934

Mr. BRADETTE:: 1.	What was the total number of immigrants that came into Canada from every country of the world during the year 1934?
2.	In the same year, how many immigrants came from Great Britain, exclusive of the Irish Free State?
3.	How many came from the Irish Free State?
4.	How many came from the countries of Europe, stating the country of origin and the number from each country?
5.	How many came from the United States of America?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	12,476. Statement attached.
2.	2,068 (exclusive of those born in the Irish Free State).
3.	98 (born in Irish Free State).
4.	Statement attached.
5.	6,071.
Statement of immigration to Canada, showing
racial origin during the calendar year 1934
Albanian	 4
Arabian	
Belgian	 62
British

English	 1,362
Irish	 298
Scotch	 450
Welsh	 56
Bulgarian	 5
Chinese	 1
Croatian	 149
Czech	 68
Dutch	  49
East Indian	 33
Esthonian	
Finnish	 63
French	 79
German	 304
Greek	 39
Hebrew		577
Italian	 320
Japanese	 125
Jugo-Slav	 102
Lettish	 1
Lithuanian	 43
Magyar	   427
Negro	  9
Polish	 392
Portuguese	 3
Roumanian	 40
Russian	 47
Ruthenian	 563
Scandinavian-
Danish	 23
Norwegian	 34
Swedish	 15
Serbian	 35

Slovak	 588
Spanish	 8
Swiss	 15
Syrian	 13
Total, via ocean ports	 6,405
From the United States	 6,071
Grand Total	 12,476
Statement of continental European immigration to Canada, during the calendar year 1934
Albanian	 4
Belgian	 62
Bulgarian	 5
Croatian	 149
Czech	 68
Dutch	 49
Esthonian	 2
Finnish	 63
French	 79
German	 304
Greek	 39
Hebrew	 577
Italian	 320
Jugo-Slav	 102
Lettish	 1
Lithuanian	 43
Magyar	 427
Polish	 392
Portuguese	 3
Roumanian	 40
Russian	 47
Ruthenian	 563
Scandinavian-
Danish	 23
Norwegian	 34
Swedish	 15
Serbian	 35
Slovak	 588
Spanish	 8
Swiss	 15
Total	 4,057



DEPORTATIONS FROM CANADA

Mr. BRADETTE:: 1.	How many persons were deported from Canada during the year 1934?
2.	To what countries were they deported and what number were deported to each country ?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	1,545.
2.	Statement attached.
Statement of deportations from Canada, showing countries to which deported, for the calendar year 1934
Austria	 2
Belgium	 3
British-
England	 316
Ireland, Northern	 62
Ireland, Free State	 9
Scotland	 201
Wales	 51
Australia	 10
Barbados	 1
Bermuda	 1
British Guiana	 1
British West Indies	 3

Questions as Orders for Returns
Statement of deportations from Canada, showing countries to which deported, foir the calendar year 1934-Concluded
British-Concluded
St. Kitts (British West Indies).. ..	3
Trinidad (British West Indies).. ..	1
India	 1
Lesser British Isles	 2
Newfoundland	 29
South Africa	 4
Bulgaria	 5
China	 61
Czecho-Slovakia	 43
Danzig	 1
Esthonia	 3
Finland	 42
France	 6
Germany	 108
Greece	 8
Guiana (Dutch)	 1
Holland	 5
Hungary	 32
Italy	 8
Japan	 19
Jugo-Sfavia	 33
Latvia	
Lithuania	 7
Mexico	 1
Poland	 117
Roumania	 64
Russia	 2
Scandinavian-
Denmark	 25
Norway	 24
Sweden	 14
Spain	
Switzerland	 4
Turkey	 _	 1
West Indies (not British)	 1
Ocean port totals	 1,338
U.S.A. citizens	 207
Totals, less accompanying	 1,545
Accompanying deported persons	 156
Grand totals-
Including accompanying	 1,701



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. REID:: 1.	What was the total amount of money collected by the harbour commissioners of New Westminster, showing the various amounts collected, during 1934?
2.	How many pilots were engaged by the harbour commissioners of New Westminster during the year 1934?
3.	How much money did each of them receive during the above-mentioned year?


QUEBEC UNEMPLOYMENT CAMP EXPENDITURES
Mr. POWER:: 1. What was the total amount expended during the calendar year 1934 in connection with:	(a) Valcartier unemployment camp; (b) Quebec citadel unemployment camp?
2. What was the nature of the work or works carried on by the unemployed at: (a)
Yalcartier unemployment camp; (b) Quebec citadel unemployment camp?
3.	What were the amounts expended on each such work?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	What	were	the	names	of	all	persons,
firms or corporations who furnished supplies or services to the Valcartier unemployment camp from December 1, 1933, to December 1, 1934?
2.	What were the amounts paid to each such person, firm or corporation?
3.	Were tenders called for in any case?
4.	If so, who were the tenderers and to whom was the contract awarded?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	What	were	the	names	of	all	persons,
firms or corporations who furnished supplies or services to the Quebec citadel unemployment camp from December 1, 1933, to December 1, 1934?
2.	What were the amounts paid to each such person, firm or corporation?
3.	Were tenders called for in any case?
4.	If so, who were the tenderers and to whom was the contract awarded?


DISCONTINUED PENSIONS OF EX-SERVICEMEN
Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	Have any ex-service men had their pensions discontinued in any of the following years, namely: (a) 1931; (b) 1932; (c) 1933; (d) 1934?
2.	If so, how many pensions were discontinued in each of the said years?
3.	What are the several reasons for the discontinuance of their pensions?
4.	Have any ex-service men had their pensions reduced in any of the following years, namely: (a) 1931; (b) 1932; (c) 1933; (d) 1934?
5.	If so, how many pensions were reduced in each of the said years?
6.	What are the several reasons for the reduction of their pensions?
7.	Have any ex-service men had their allowances under the War Veterans Allowance Act discontinued in the following years, namely: (a) 1931; (b) 1932; (c) 1933; (d) 1934?
8.	If so, how many allowances have been discontinued in each of the said years?
9.	What were the several reasons for the discontinuance of their allowances?
10.	Have any ex-seirvice men had their allowances under the War Veterans Allowances Act reduced in any of the following years, namely: (a) 1931; (b) 1932; (c) 1933; (d) 1934?
11.	If so, how many have been reduced in each of the said years?
12.	What were the several reasons for the reduction in their allowances?


ROCKPORT, ONT.-WHARF AND CUSTOMS HOUSE
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	What was the cost of the site on which the wharf was constructed in the village of Rockport, on the St. Lawrence river, in Leeds constituency?
2.	What was the cost of the construction of the wharf: (a) the cost of materials; (b) labour costs?
3.	What was the cost of the customs house
erected on the wharf:	(a) the cost of
materials; (b) labour costs?
Motions jor Papers

4.	On what date was the work commenced, and the date of completion?
5.	What use has been made of the wharf and customs house up to the present time?


PUBLIC DEBT-SUGAR TAX
Mr. FONTAINE:: 1.	What is the exact amount of Canada's debt now?
2.	How much did the tax on sugar yield: (a) for the year 1933; (b) for the year 1934?



RADIO BROADCAST OF OPENING

Alfred Duranleau: On January 22, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) asked the Minister of Marine if the statement appearing in the Vancouver Province of January 17, that millions of listeners in Great Britain had been deprived of hearing the broadcast of the opening of the Canadian parliament, was correct. At that time I told my hon. friend that within a few days I would lay before the house the answer of the radio commission. The answer of the commission is that no request was made by the British Broadcasting Corporation for the broadcast of the opening of the Canadian parliament. They also add that it is well known that even the opening of parliament in London is never broadcast.



FOREIGN MARKETS FOR POTATOES

Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Before we leave questions I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) if he will bring down the names of the members of the committee appointed to find foreign markets for potatoes.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: I have sent the information to the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). The other day I was not certain as to what was required, whether it was the committee appointed to explore possible markets or the Quebec committee which took part in the first discussions.


Charles Marcil: I should like to have both, if possible, but I have not received them yet.


Robert Weir: They should be in the mail to-day.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and reports, dated from January 1, 1934, to date, in the possession of the government, regarding the newsprint industry conference.
[Mr. Campbell.!



SHIP SUBSIDIES, BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. REID:: For a copy of all correspondence between any person, firm or company and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, during the year 1934, relative to the matter of subsidies to ships operating from Pacific coast ports of British Columbia.



L. T. BLAIS, LIMITED

Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between Louis Telesphore Blais, Limited, or M. L. T. Blais, of Quebec, and Mr. M. W. A. Found, deputy minister, and Mr. M. F. M. Gibeault. superintendent of fisheries. Quebec, since the 1st of January, 1934, to date.



MAIL CONTRACT-ST. FRANCOIS

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: For a copy of the complete file relative to the last renewal of the contract in connection with the carrying of mail between the station and the town of St. Francois, county of Montmagny.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION-CHAIRMAN

Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For a copy of all correspondence between any minister of the crown and any citizen of Canada, any corporation or organization, with respect to the recent retirement of Mr. Samuel McClay as chairman of the Vancouver Board of Harbour Commissioners, and with respect to the appointment in his stead of Reginald W. Brock of Vancouver, British Columbia.



MARKETING ACT ORDERS

Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For a return of all orders issued under the Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934: (a) by any dominion board there may have been constituted; (b) by any provincial board constituted by any of the provinces of the dominion by ancillary or concurrent legislation; (c) by any local board appointed in any province. Such orders to be specified as far as possible according to the various provinces.
CARLETON, que., wharf


Charles Marcil: For a copy of all petitions, letters, reports of engineers and other documents, regarding the proposed expenditure of $30,000 on the public wharf at Carleton, county of Bonaventure.



BLACK CAPE, QUE., WHARF

Charles Marcil: For a copy of all petitions, letters, reports of engineers and other documents, with respect to the erection of a wharf at Black Cape (Howitson's Point), county of Bonaventure.

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Woodsworth



BONAVENTURE COUNTY-WHARVES

Charles Marcil: For a copy of all petitions, letters, reports of engineers and other documents, regarding contemplated work to be done on the wharves at Bonaventure, Port Daniel East, New Carlisle and Cross Point, county of Bonaventure.



MOUNT LOUIS, QUE.J WHARF

Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of the paylists in connection with repairs to the wharf at Mount Louis during the year 1934.



EXCEL OIL COMPANY

Mr. LACROIX:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government and the Excel Oil Company, during the years 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934.



JAMES B. BARRY AND COMPANY

Édouard Lacroix: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government and James B. Barry & Company, of Oil City. U.S.A., during the years 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934.



IROQUOIS, N.B., POSTMASTER

Joseph Enoil Michaud: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports and other documents from June 1, 1932, relating to the dismissal, resignation or change of the postmaster of Iroquois, Mada-waska county, New Brunswick.



LA MALABAIE, CHARLEVOIX, QUE., LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver) for Mr. CASGRAIN):
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams. and other documents, exchanged between the Department of Marine, and all other persons, in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Napoleon Bherer, lighthouse keeper, at La Malbaie in the countv of Charlevoix, and the nomination of his successor, since the 1st of January, 1934, to date.

Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For a copy of all applications for appointments in the Bank of Canada, and a return showing all appointments made, with names of appointees, salaries paid and previous occupations in each case.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Before the question is put I am going to ask my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) if he will be good enough to refrain from moving this motion to-day until I have an opportunity of conferring with respect to it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With
pleasure.
Motion stands.



PARCEL POST, CANADA-U.S.S.R.

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the postal agreement now in force between Canada and the U.R.S.S., regarding the shipping of goods by parcel post.
He said: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it should be U.SJ3.R.
Motion as amended agreed to.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, a special committee should be set up to study and report on the best method by which the British North America Act may be amended so that while safeguarding the existing rights of racial and religious minorities and legitimate provincial claims to autonomy, the dominion government may be given adequate power to deal effectively with urgent economic problems which are essentially national in scope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on March 20, 1924, I introduced a motion urging amendments to the British North America Act. Again on May 11, 1931, I introduced a somewhat similar motion. Perhaps at this time it is hardly necessary for me to cover the ground covered on those previous occasions. Possibly the discussion which took place in 1931 might be summed up by two quotations, one from the speech by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and the other from the speech of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe)
At page 1477 of Hansard the Minister of Justice is reported as follows:
I think it would be well for this parliament if not at this session, at some subsequent session, to appoint a committee specially charged with the consideration of this question. We must prepare our case here before we call a conference, and it is a case that will require a great deal of preparation. . . . We must know in the first instance what we are prepared to agree on ourselves. Having reached that point I shall heartily favour the summoning of a conference of the provinces with the dominion authorities to see what plan can be worked out so that in the future this parliament may be able to make the necessary amendments to our constitution.
Hon. members will note that on that occasion the Minister of Justice definitely suggested the appointment of a special committee to deal with the question. I am now

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Woodsworth
following his lead and urging upon the house the appointment of such a committee. On the same day the hon. member for Quebec East made the following statement appearing at page 1479 of Hansard:
Again I say that to insist on having the consent of all the provinces to every change would be asking almost an impossibility; to ask that either British Columbia in the west or Prince Edward Island in the east should be able to block a change with which it is essential for the federal power to go ahead within the limits of its jurisdiction on certain matters, I do not think would be right; but on essential matters, such matters, for instance, as the protection of minorities, of language, of schools, as they are inserted in the British North America Act. I believe it should not be possible to make a change without the consent of all.
Notwithstanding the practical acceptance by the government of my resolution nothing definite has been done in the past four years. It is true that about the end of August of last year the Prime Minister suggested calling a conference to deal especially with this question, but that conference was finally postponed indefinitely. Despite that fact there is now greater need than ever for some amendments to the British North America Act. There is no doubt that jurisdiction disputes involve a great deal of litigation. I shall not go into that matter in detail to-day but would refer the house to my speech delivered in 1931 in which I somewhat exhaustively outlined the jurisdiction disputes which were occurring.
Further, there is a certain amount of overlapping which inevitably involves inefficiency and waste. Now that economy is being stressed it would seem that one way in which we could well economize would be in seeing that there are no unnecessary overlapping of departments. Then, the financial arrangements between the dominion and the provinces are very unsatisfactory. The provinces are called upon to undertake many new services. At the time of the drawing up of the British North America Act it was not contemplated governments would be expected to deal with many matters now being forced upon them. At the present time many social services are given which were not even remotely dreamed of at the time of confederation, and this condition places a burden upon the provinces which they are not able to continue to bear.
Further, the taxing power of the provinces is strictly limited. Hon. members know that they cannot resort to indirect taxation, and we know also that the dominion government has entered the field of income tax. For these reasons it is extremely difficult for the provinces to meet the requirements of the

new services being undertaken. I think, too, it is manifest that the wealth has been concentrated in the central provinces. I have sometimes heard representatives from Montreal or Toronto talk as if they were carrying the whole burden of the dominion. It may very well be that residents of the two central provinces, pay a large proportion of the income tax, but I would point out that the central provinces are able to draw to no very small extent upon the west. They have a mortgage, as it were, upon the west, and also to a large extent on the east. Take the banks, for example. The central offices of all the banks in Canada are located in Montreal or Toronto, and thus they can assist in paying taxes here whereas their branches out in either western Canada or eastern Canada cannot be levied upon in the same way. That same thing is true to a very large extent of a great many of our big industrial and commercial concerns. Without going into this matter at any length I would refer to some very excellent articles which appeared in the Canadian Forum of November and December last by N. MacL. Rogers.
Again I would point out that there is need for uniformity in connection with social legislation. With the program which is being introduced at the present time by the government I fancy it will be found necessary, if not to amend tJ'd British North America Act, at least to adopt other interpretations than hitherto have been invoked. But whether or not the program of the government can be put through without amending the British North America Act, there are a great many other matters which are very pressing at the present time and which would seem to be halted because of the existence of this antiquated constitution of ours. Anyone who has been present in the house during these past years must know that hardly a measure is ever brought forward looking to greater efficiency in carrying on the affairs of the dominion but what some member on this or the other side of the house will arise and flourish the British North America Act in our faces.
We need to have uniformity with regard to a great many of these social services, and here I would venture to call to my assistance no other than Premier Taschereau himself who, speaking in Montreal on December 17 last, in referring to a complaint that Quebec fruit was competing with British Columbia fruit in*the British Columbia market, said:
As a Canadian I think that the dominion from Cape Breton to British Columbia is my country.

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Woodsworth
I am glad to hear Mr. Taschereau uttering sentiments of that kind. I hope he will take the same position in regard to various types of social legislation. If we are to have anything like equality of opportunity in trade matters, surely we should have some equality in regard to the conditions under which goods are being produced. Without going into the details of the evidence before the price spreads committee I think it is manifest that if any one province is backward in its conditions of labour, that inevitably makes it very difficult for other provinces to institute reforms. It does seem to me that in recent years we have been permitting the provinces to claim rights that should never have been accorded them. When the British North America Act was drawn up the residual power, as we all know, was placed in the hands of the dominion government. I believe even under the clause dealing with the residual power the dominion government in the past could have done very much more than the former Liberal government or the Conservative government have done. In cases of emergency, the Relief Act, for instance, was brought into force, and although not as much was done for the unemployed as might have been done, there was certain relief given to the bankers and some big industrial concerns.
There is no reason whatever why the dominion government under the residual clause should not act in giving effect to treaties and conventions. Throughout the past years, without going into fine legal questions, I have again and again taken the ground that if the dominion government has the authority to sign a peace treaty, then it surely has the power to see that the provisions of that treaty are carried out, that the treaty is implemented by legislation. I am glad to note that some recent decisions of the privy council seem to give support to this view. Professor F. R. Scott, in speaking of the radio broadcasting case, says this:
The privy council held that power to enforce these treaties fell within the dominion residuary clause. This may prove to be a judgment of great importance. It seems to leave the way open for dominion control of any aspect of the internal life of Canada, so long as the matter is covered by an international agreement to which Canada is a party -
If the dominion government decides to adhere to a trade convention agreed upon by the labour office, there is a strong ground, since the radio case, for supposing that her adherence would give parliament the same power to pass implementing legislation as the radio judgment says it possesses in regard to ordinary conventions.
That statement will be found at page eight of a pamphlet entitled Social Reconstruction, by Professor Scott.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that all sections of the house will agree that the British North America Act needs amending, and that in itself is a considerable advance on the contention that prevailed a few years ago. Further I think it is fairly generally conceded that the consent of the provinces is not necessary, at least from the legal standpoint. There was a time when we were told that we could not amend the British North America Act without the consent of all the provinces, that in fact confederation was something in the nature of a treaty and that it could not be changed without the consent of all parties. I think that theory has been absolutely discarded, and we need not continue to debate it. The Prime Minister, during the debate in this house on the Relief Act, on April 13, 1934, in answer to Mr. Han-bury's question whether any amendment could be made where there was not unanimity, said at page 2163:
Two answers could be given to that question; one is the political answer and the other is the legal answer. The legal answer is that if this parliament-and that means both houses

adopts a resolution embodying a petition to the sovereign for the enactment of legislation by the parliament at Westminster amending the British North America Act, under the statute of Westminster such legislation would be enacted accordingly.
That is clear, very clear-cut indeed. Let me read the latter part of it again:
The legal answer is that if this parliament -and that means both houses-adopts a resolution embodying a petition to the sovereign for the enactment of legislation by the parliament at Westminster amending the British North Amercia Act, under the statute of Westminster such legislation would be enacted accordingly.


Mr. GAGNON:: Who said that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That was said by the Prime Minister, speaking in this house on April 13, 1934. The Prime Minister goes on:
I referred to the political argument the other day. The constitution of Canada is a compromise, and the extent to which variations of that constitution should be effected, if they impinge upon the rights of the provinces that were the original partners to the confederation pact, is a matter that would require careful consideration.
The legal point is clear: It is a matter of expediency, the desire that there should be no injustice done to any one of the parties to confederation. I take it that the leader of the opposition comes very near to that position. Only the other day, on January 21,
B.N.A. Act-Air. Woodsworth

1935, at page 67 he admitted that the British North America Act required to be amended in some particulars. He suggested that the first amendment that should be secured was the right of this country to amend its own constitution. He called attention to the fact that Canada was the only country in the British dominions that had not that right, and he said:
I believe that 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.
He is not as definite as I should like him to be and as usual he surrounds his speech with a great many safeguarding clauses. But if I read that declaration correctly, it means that he concedes the legal right of parliament to go ahead, though for the sake of expediency a first step would be to secure if possible, as he says, the consent of the provinces.
In the past the procedure has not been altogether clear. The mode of procedure was one of the matters to have been discussed at the conference that was summoned by the Prime Minister. I would point out that the constitution was once amended by the British parliament on the strength of a simple request by the Canadian government without the proposal even coming before parliament. A great many people have the idea that the British North America Act is like the law of the Medes and Persians, that it can never be changed. But we forget the very large number of amendments that have already been made in the act. Once a request which was made by the dominion parliament carried the formal endorsation of eight out of the nine provinces and was opposed by one province. On the other occasions the British parliament acted on the joint request of the Canadian House of Commons and the Senate. The precedents therefore suggest that the British parliament will enact any legislation to amend the British North America Act on the recommendation of the Canadian parliament. That I think is the position we have arrived at. We need not fear opposition from the parliament at Westminster, and if we proceed in this parliament to petition the British government I have not the slightest doubt that that government will accede to the request.


Charles Marcil: Is the hon. member able
to cite an amendment to the British North America Act, adopted at Westminster, which was objected to by any of the provinces of Canada?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The one dealing
with the British Columbia case. Apparently

then an address by both houses is sufficient. But the question may arise: Supposing the Senate were not to agree? Supposing we should pass a resolution in this huuse and the Senate refused to acquiesce? That I admit would be a rather serious situation, but I cannot conceive that for any length of time the upper chamber would be able to thwart the will of the Canadian people as represented by the elected chamber. On this point I was very happy the other day to come across a statement by Mr. Bennett, now Prime Minister. In 1915 in the House of Commons, on the occasion of the Senate declining to agree to an address for an immediate change in representation in that chamber, the present Prime Minister denounced the Senate, as will be seen by reference to page 2338 of Hansard. He referred to the upper house as an "irresponsible body which thwarted the will of democracy as expressed by this House of Commons." I submit that if the Senate should continue to thwart the will of the house, then undoubtedly the Senate would have to be overridden.
My motion is in keeping with the principle laid down in the Quebec resolution of the fathers of confederation:
That there be a general government charged with matters of common interest to the whole country and local governments for each of the provinces charged with control of local matters in their respective sections.
Now may I call attention to the terms of the resolution. The resolution is so clearly drawn and has such adequate safeguards, and moreover it is so eminently reasonable that I cannot see any reason why any section of the house should not accept it. I ask for a committee because it seems to me that it might very well be that it would help the government and perhaps promote the speedy passage of a measure of this kind if the public could be educated on the many complex questions that may arise. Here in the house we have a chance of discussing the matter, but we cannot very well call in experts who might give us some valuable advice. I have no fear of public discussion of matters of this kind. The more it is discussed the more clear it will be that some kind of amendment must come. I think I have stated the safeguards and I fancy that no one will quarrel with them:
that while safeguarding the existing rights of racial and religious minorities and legitimate provincial claims to autonomy ...
None of us is asking that any of the minorities shall suffer in any emendation of the British North America Act. Personally I would very gladly have a sort of bill of rights

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Guthrie
inserted in the very forefront of any constitution that might be drawn up, granting full religious and racial rights to minorities. I do not see where any of our friends from any one of the provinces can object to an emendation which would safeguard minorities in this way. But I would point out that we do need some means of dealing with very many of the practical problems that come before us. I would be among the very first in giving credit to the fathers of confederation for the great work they did in their day. The fact that we want to amend the instrument they drew up is no reflection on the work they did. I submit however that Canada has travelled a long distance in the past sixty-five years. Conditions are very different in this country from what they were sixty-five years ago. A whole series of social problems has arisen in that time. Canada has been linked together by its great railways, and it is intimately linked together by the radio. Companies have branches in every province and commerce flows back and forth. It is thus manifest that along many lines legislation to be effective must be dominion-wide in character. It is for this reason, in order to bring legislation up to the economic development of the time, that I would ask for an emendation of the British North America Act. If the fathers of confederation had ability enough to draw up an instrument which served their day and generation, it seems to me that we their grandchildren ought to have brains and common sense enough to amend it in such a way that it may serve the needs of the people to-day.


Charles Marcil: Before the hon. member
resumes his seat, did he understand my question or do I take it that he is not answering it? Was any amendment to the British North America Act adopted at Westminster which was objected to by any of the provinces?


James Shaver Woodsworth: There was one dealing with the British Columbia case.


Charles Marcil: What case was that?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: They added three words which did not mean anything.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There was that
case anyway.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, the motion which has
been placed in your hands by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) raises a subject which is not entirely new to this house. I grant at the outset that it is a very important subject and one quite worthy of discussion by this house or by a
special committee, the appointment of which is the object sought in this motion.
The question of amendment of the Canadian constitution involves many considerations and some serious difficulties. I am aware that even in the days when the constitution was drafted, when the original conferences took place, there was a cleavage of opinion. There was a school of thought which advocated in this country a legislative union whereby all provinces should be brought together in one parliament. There was another school of thought which advocated a federal system such as was subsequently established. It can be very ably argued and was argued very forcefully to-day that perhaps a legislative union might have enabled this parliament to solve many of the difficulties with which we are beset from time to time, because under such a system this parliament would have had full power to legislate as it saw fit for all parts of Canada. But the other view, that of a federal system, was finally adopted and an agreement or treaty was executed by the representatives of the various parts of Canada who were assembled at conferences in 1864, 1865 and 1866 providing that a federal system should be adopted in Canada upon certain specific terms. That agreement or treaty was carried into the act of parliament which we know as the British North America Act passed by the parliament at Westminster.
The question arises: How can we amend or change our constitution if we desire so to do? It is a singular fact that in the British North America Act there is no power which will permit the parliament of Canada to amend it and it is most notable that in all subsequent dominion constitutions which have been granted by the parliament of Great Britain to dominions situated in conditions similar to those in which we live, a specific power of amendment has been incorporated in the various ants. The Canadian constitution was the first constitutional act which was adopted by the parliament at Westminster in regard to colonial government, and to a large extent it became the model of all other constitutions which were subsequently granted by the Imperial parliament. It is therefore the more notable that in all subsequent constitutions, namely in those of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Irish Free State there has been included in the various constitutional acts an express power enabling these dominions to amend their own constitutions but with some limitations in regard to some of those enactments. I think it may be assumed from the fact that such a power is not included in the British North America Act that the omission did not arise through oversight

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Guthrie
but by design. It was a matter that was definitely decided; the power to amend was omitted after consideration and as a matter of agreement. The chief reason for the omission of power of amendment was to be found no doubt in a realization of the fact that Canada was a country populated very largely by two distinct races and considerably divided upon religious questions. It was for the express purpose of protecting the rights of minorities that power to amend our constitution was not granted to the parliament of Canada when the British North America Act was passed.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his interesting discussion of the subject has intimated that in his opinion the Canadian parliament should have power to amend the constitution subject to certain limitations as expressed in his resolution, and I am to a large extent in accord with the opinion which he has offered in that respect. He has pointed out that in one and perhaps in more than one instance the British parliament has passed amendments to the British North America Act upon the joint address of the House of Commons and the Senate and also in one instance simply upon the request of the government of Canada. I think it has always been admitted that in regard to mere matters of form and matters of procedure the parliament of Great Britain would in all cases pass an amendment to the British North America Act if requested so to do, upon the joint address of the Senate and the House of Commons. However, that is only a minor branch of the subject. Matters of form and matters of procedure are unimportant. In 1895 I think some doubt arose as to the power of this parliament to appoint a deputy speaker of the House of Commons. That matter was referred to the parliament of Great Britain and immediately an amendment was passed by the British parliament confirming the action taken by the parliament of Canada. That might be called merely a question of procedure, and I have no doubt that the parliament at Westminster would at all times respond in such matters to the request of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada.
But where an amendment is sought which goes to the basis of the original treaty or agreement which was made at the time of confederation, or where the fundamental principles upon which we were originally brought together, are involved, I doubt very much whether the parliament at Westminster would entertain a request of that nature based solely upon an address from the Senate and House of Commons. I know it has been argued by 
some very able men that the parliament at Westminster would grant any request for amendment made by the Senate and House of Commons irrespective of the views of the provinces. They argue that all the provinces of Canada are represented in this parliament; that all provinces may speak and vote here and that if the House of Commons and the Senate decide that an address shall be presented, such action is binding upon all the provinces through their representatives in this parliament. Personally I do not take that view of the matter. The provinces of Canada constituted by the British North America Act, are in the nature of sovereign states so far as the affairs which have been committed to them by section 92 of the British North America Act are concerned. In regard to the subjects allotted to them they are supreme and their powers are just as plenary and complete as those of this parliament in dealing with matters which have been placed under federal control.
Section 92 of the act sets forth in the first lines that the following named subjects shall be exclusively within the control of the provincial legislatures. If we sought by amendment to alter the basis of confederation, by taking from section 92 any of the subjects given exclusively to the provinces, or by interfering with any subjects exclusively placed under the jurisdiction of the dominion government, we would at once change the original agreement. Would it be fair to assume that a province which has been clothed with exclusive authority in certain matters should now calmly submit to limitation of its powers at the instance of the Senate and House of Commons. Would a province agree to any alteration in regard to its exclusive jurisdiction? I take the view that the provinces should be and must be consulted in regard to any important change in our constitutional act which affects provincial interests. I agree that some constitutional changes are necessary, but I submit that the only way of bringing them about is by agreement between the parties to the original bargain. Of course this statement does not apply to what I discussed a few minutes ago, in regard to matters of form and procedure.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I interrupt? Do I understand that the statement of the minister means that the provinces must agree, or simply that they must be consulted?


Hugh Guthrie: I think that we would have to have agreement. I do not think the parliament at Westminster would disregard the views of the provinces merely at the request of the parliament of Canada. If the provinces refused to agree upon any fundamental ques-

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Guthrie
tion which concerned their rights I doubt very much if the parliament of the United Kingdom would grant such amendment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is if one province disagreed it would be impossible for this parliament to proceed?


Hugh Guthrie: I doubt if you could succeed in an application for amendment that would modify, alter or restrict section 92 under which specific legislative jurisdiction is given to the provinces, without consent of the provinces.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Unanimous consent.


Charles Marcil: May I ask the minister if he is familiar with the case mentioned in regard to British Columbia?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, there was such a case, it related to subsidies. All the provinces agreed to the amendment save British Columbia; British Columbia insisted on some further amendment, involving a sentence or a few words, which I believe was not very serious.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Three
words.


Hugh Guthrie: In that case the act was passed with those two or three words added by way of amendment. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the trend of judicial decisions, particularly the decisions of the judicial committee of the privy council, has in recent years changed considerably. The trend has been entirely towards the enlargement of the powers of the federal government rather than towards restriction of them; notably in the two cases which were decided in 1933 or 1934, the aeronautics case and1 the radio case, cited1 by my hon. friend. Those cases raised the question of the right of the federal parliament to bind the provinces by treaties with foreign countries. In the aeronautics case it was argued that aviation was a provincial matter, at least in some aspects, and that the federal parliament had no power to legislate in respect of it. The question arose under section 132 of the British North America Act which provides that:
The parliament and government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof, as part of the British empire, towards foreign countries arising under treaties between the empire and such foreign countries.
It was held in the aeronautics case that the matter of aviation had become of such national importance that it must be placed under dominion control, and that the parliament of Canada, by accepting the international convention in regard to aeronautics, was in a position to bind the provinces under that arrangement.
The radio case was a little different. In that case we had not entered into an international convention to which the British empire was a party. The British empire was not a party to that arrangement. We had entered into a convention with the United States, Mexico, Newfoundland and I think the Irish Free State, agreeing to certain matters concerning radio. We passed an act adopting that convention. That act was challenged, chiefly by the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. The privy council in that case held that radio, like aeronautics, had become a matter of national importance and was under the jurisdiction of the federal authority. They also held that, notwithstanding that the treaty was not one made by the British empire but with foreign countries, it was still within the meaning of section 132 of the British North America Act and that Canada in adopting that treaty by statute was able to bind all the provinces to its terms. These decisions have advanced the matter considerably. I know what the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Center is in respect thereof. Lately we have grown in our national status, and in our national importance; many questions which thirty or forty years ago were not even thought of by our predecessors have now become of great practical importance in this and every other country. I think that one may say that the trend of decisions in the last eight or ten years has been decidedly in favour of some extension of dominion jurisdiction.
My hon. friend quoted a statement by the Prime Minister last session in regard to amendments of the British North America Act, in which the Prime Minister said that there uTere two ways of viewing the matter, one in its strictly legal aspect and the other in what might be called its political aspect. I think the statement of the Prime Minister in the house on that occasion was an exact statement of the situation. Legally this house would have right to pass an address, have it concurred in by the Senate and presented to the imperial parliament. But I do not look on that as a constitutional right. I do not for a moment believe that a request for amendment which interfered with the basis of confederation or with the legislative powers of the provinces would be acceded to by the parliament at Westminster, without the concurrence of the provinces.
B.N.A. Act-Mr. Guthrie

On the other hand there is the political aspect of the case. When these provinces were constituted under the British North America Act they became legal political entities. They are as completely incorporated and authorized as is the parliament of Canada, and unless we can carry their consent and approval in anj matter affecting their exclusive rights I do not think we shall have any chance of securing amendments to our constitutional act from the parliament at Westminster. That is what the Prime Minister meant by the political aspect of the question. There may be a strict legal right but the question is, is it politic, is it wise, is it a right of which we should attempt to avail ourselves. Are all the parties concerned agreeable to it? Such are the questions which would most probably be asked, notwithstanding the strict legal right which my hon. friend has pointed out. My hon. friend must realize that there is a distinction between a legal and a constitutional right.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that in my view of this motion it is necessary to enter upon any fuller discussion of the subject. I did note, however, when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke in this house on Monday last and referred to the question of the amendment of the British North America Act-I am sorry he is not here now-that he made a statement which rather shocked me. I made' a mental and also a written note of it at the time. The right hon. gentleman stated broadly that power should be granted to the parliament of Canada to amend its own constitution. However, after carefully correcting and revising his speech in Hansard, I find that he added some words of limitation. I have seen both the unrevised and the revised copies, and I find that he has added these words:
There ought to be an amendment arrived at as a result of agreement, as I believe it can be.
These words were added after the speech was made. Such is my view of the matter, namely, that an amendment should only be made as the result of an agreement where basic fundamental or important changes are contemplated. I agree that the changes in contemplation outlined by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his speech today, are basic. There is the question of the incorporation of companies; there is no doubt that there is serious conflict in that regard. There is the whole question of taxation as between the dominion and the provinces. We in this parliament practically have the right to tax anything and anybody in any manner

we like. We can impose either direct or indirect taxation, while the provinces are limited to direct taxation within the province. I know that in many of the provinces the revenues do not appear to be sufficient to enable them to carry on all their projects at the present time, and I know thait the provinces desire to secure further avenues of taxation if it is possible to secure them.
Then there are many very nice questions which arise under subsection 2 of section 91 of the British North America Act, which provides that this parliament shall have jurisdiction to regulate matters of trade and commerce. That particular section has given rise to more judicial decisions and interpretations than any other section of the acit, and perhaps to as many as all other sections combined. I am glad to say that there has been in recent times a general statement of judicial findings by the judicial committee itself which I think will greatly assist in clarifying a good many points which have hitherto been considerably involved. In the aeronautic case the lord chancellor referred to a case which was decided by the privy council in 1930, known as the Fish Canneries case, he said that the judicial committee had held an inquest in regard to a great many of the decisions of the board, and that it had been found that in the case of the attorney general for Canada against the attorney general for British Columbia, which is the Fish Canneries case, four propositions were stated which in his opinion fairly represented the law on the subject. Those propositions came before the court for decision in the case I have just mentioned, in which a statute was attacked as ultra vires under which the federal government had passed regulations providing among other things that, under certain conditions, all canneries on the Pacific coast should secure licences under the act. In the judgment, delivered in 1929, four specific propositions are laid down; they are not long, and I am going to place them on Hansard:
(1)	The legislation of the parliament of the dominion, so long as it strictly relates to subjects of legislation expressly enumerated in section 91, is of paramount authority, even though it trenches upon matters assigned to the provincial legislatures by section 92.
(2)	The general power of legislation conferred upon the parliament of the dominion by section 91 of the act in supplement of the power to legislate upon the subjects expressly enumerated must be strictly confined to such matters as are unquestionably of national interest and importance, and must not trench on any of the subjects enumerated in section 92 as within the scope of provincial legislation-

B.Nu4. Act-Mr. Lapointe
Note these words:
-unless these matters have attained such dimensions as to affect the body politic of the dominion.
In which event the federal parliament may legislate notwithstanding section 92.
(3)	It is within the competence of the dominion parliament to provide for matters which, though otherwise within the legislative competence of the provincial legislature, are necessarily incidental to effective legislation by the parliament of the dominion upon a subject of legislation expressly enumerated in section 91.
(4)	There can be a domain in which provincial and dominion legislation may overlap, in which case neither legislation will be ultra vires if the field is clear, but if the field is not clear and the two legislations meet the dominion legislation must prevail.
Such was the decision rendered in the British Columbia fish canneries case in 1929, and this decision has been expressly approved as a statement of the present law upon the subject in the aeronautics and radio cases which have been cited this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). [DOT]
I agree with my hon. friend that it is high time that some definite step was taken to ascertain if we cannot arrive at some agreement with the provinces in regard to amendments to the British North America Act. I emphasize the word "agreement" because I hold a very strong opinion that we cannot reach any satisfactory conclusion otherwise than by conference and agreement. Therefore I am quite willing to accept this motion on behalf of the government. It has been drawn with the object of safeguarding the rights of minorities in this country. So far as the government is concerned there will be no objection to this motion being adopted and submitted to a select committee of this house.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has raised a most important question, and one which is widely discussed at the present time. As he has stated the act of 1867, though not perfect, Jias been a good instrument of government, but no one will deny that we have developed beyond the rigid limitations of an act which was well adapted to the conditions prevailing sixty-five years ago. At that time there were four colonies, not very thickly populated, and the people in each lived their own lives with very little concern in regard to what was happening in the rest of the country or, for that matter, in the rest of the world.
To-day Canada is a nation, and each part of Canada influences and is influenced by what takes place in the other parts of the country. The conditions of 1867 certainly were not the conditions of to-day. Now we have a line of autonomous provinces extending from ocean to ocean, and the discoveries of science have transformed the existence of the people. Legislatures have to deal with matters which were unthought of at that time. In the early days who would have thought of radio, aviation or even social questions such as old age pensions, unemployment insurance, and workmen's compensation? The result has been that the division of powers between the federal parliament and provincial legislatures has been the cause of interminable litigations and has resulted in much confusion and uncertainty. Constantly appeals are being heard by the privy council regarding the powers of the federal and provincial authorities; sometimes those appeals are at the instance of the dominion government and sometimes at the instance of provincial governments. I may say the honours have been pretty evenly divided. I do not think the privy council has distinguished itself particularly nor has it shown great consistency in its interpretation of the spirit of the British North America Act. As a matter of fact who among the lawyers of this country does not know that when Lord Haldane was one of the powerful members of the board, perhaps the most powerful, there was a leaning towards the provinces. Since Lord Haldane is no longer there and as there are other strong members on the board the trend has been rather on the other side with the result that in later years the federal parliament has been successful. Clearly this condition is undesirable.
Those two subsections of the act which give the most cause for conflict are that part of section 91 assigning to the dominion parliament powers concerning trade and commerce and that part of section 92 giving to the provinces control over matters affecting property and civil rights. The boundary in those two matters is in most cases very hard to discover, and that is the reason there have been so many litigations with regard to the interpretation of the act.
The Lemieux act passed by this parliament in 1907 was enacted to provide that in cases of trouble or conflict between employers and employees they must resort to a conciliation tribunal and that if they do not a strike or lockout is unlawful. If there is a question national in its scope it is the question of the industrial relations between labour and

B.NA. Act-Mr. Lapointe

capital, and if there are strikes throughout the country surely the federal parliament should intervene. On the other side the argument could be urged that troubles are usually caused because of different views concerning hours of labour, contracts between employers and employees and other similar matters which come under that part of section 92 having to do with property and civil rights.
The result was that after operating for about twenty years that piece of legislation passed and enforced by this parliament was challenged in 1926, declared unconstitutional and beyond the powers of this parliament to enact. The same question arises in connection with the insurance problem. No doubt insurance is simply a contract by which a corporation may insure the life or property of the citizen, thereby affecting property and civil rights. On the other hand who will deny that insurance is a matter of national importance? Still, legislation of this parliament concerning insurance has been declared invalid by the privy council.
The two matters to which the Minister of Justice referred, namely radio and aviation, have been decided in favour of this parliament. It is a good thing such decision was made regarding radio, otherwise we might have been prevented from listening to the Prime Minister's reform speeches over the radio. So far as I am concerned that would have been a calamity. The same questions arise when we come to deal with division of revenues between the dominion and the provinces, taxation and other matters.
I believe every person who studies this matter will come to realize the importance of making some changes. What those changes should be, in what manner they should be made and the procedure to adopt before, during and after they are accepted are questions for consideration. I am not one who believes that the constitution, and for that matter the Canadian constitution, is an ark of the covenant which no one may touch or even look at without being guilty of a crime or subject to penalty. In my view the constitution should be adaptable to the changing conditions of a country. I believe no constitutive body, no national assembly meeting for the purpose of establishing a constitution, has any right to prevent future modification of the organism they are creating. I do not believe they have the right to deprive future generations of the competence they themselves have used. If a constitution cannot be changed it is my view that inevitably the change will take place when there is a sufficient trend of 
public opinion, or a great majority in favour of a change. If those changes do not come along the legal and constitutional lines prescribed by law or by the constitution I am afraid they will come because the will of the people ultimately will always prevail. There must be difficulty; there must be ways adopted and fixed which make it very difficult to change the constitution. To make it utterly impossible, I submit, would not be in the interests of the people of the country which is subjected to that constitution.
As far as Canada is concerned let me say that what has been stated is true; I do not know whether it has been stated to-day but I read in Hansard that it was stated last week that Canada is the only dominion in the British commonwealth which does not possess the right to amend its own constitution. Moreover, it is the only federal state in the whole world which has not the power to change its own constitution. The United States, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, the Argentine Republic, Australia, Switzerland-all these are federal countries and each of them has a constitution which provides for the way it shall be amended when the necessity arises.
But so far as Canada is concerned, as it is to-day the British North America Act is a statute of the imperial parliament, and there is no mode of amending it prescribed in the act, which means that to amend it another statute is required. There is no room, there is no established practice as to the way in which such an amendment shall be brought about.
Have the provinces the right to be consulted. This is a question that is being discussed. The provinces have been consulted in some cases, but in most cases they have not been. In 1907 when the case of the new allocation of subsidies to provinces was settled, my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) says that the imperial parliament passed the necessary amendment at that time in spite of the objection of British Columbia. Well, the amendment inserted then did not meet at all the views or wishes of British Columbia. It merely added three words, and did not mean anything. They said in Great Britain at that time that although they were not taking into consideration the objections of Sir Richard McBride, then premier of British Columbia, it did not mean they would always accept the views of the dominion against the provinces if they were not in accord in the future.
However, everybody will agree that the system is uncertain, is vague, is indefinite, and

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Lapointe
is most unsatisfactory. I personally believe that Canada, like all the other autonomous countries in the world, should have the right to amend its own constitution. I believe that an agreement to that effect between all the parties to confederation is not only desirable but possible. I believe that we should take into consideration the various methods of amending as they exist in the constitutions of all the other federal powers and ascertain which would be more adaptable to our own conditions, with the changes which would be necessary to meet our own conditions. Our constitution must be a living instrument capable of being adapted to our national growth, and it is being faithful to the work of Macdonald and Cartier, and the other fathers of confederation to continue their work and see that it receives its full expansion.
Of course, this will be, and I hope my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre will agree with me, a most delicate task. It is not so easy as all that. First, what changes should be made in the constitution? Some are desirable, but there are two schools of thought in this country as to that. There are those who are in favour of the strongest concentration or centralized power possible, and who would favour giving to the central power most of the authority which is now subject to provincial jurisdiction. There is another school which believes that there are many matters as to which the will, the customs and the mentality of the different sections of the country in the various provinces should be considered first. For instance, reading the resolution of my hon. friend I see that he mentions only the desirability of giving the dominion government adequate power to deal effectively with urgent economic problems, and so forth. I would like him to have added-and to give to the provinces in their sphere that undoubted authority and jurisdiction which they do not seem to have at the present time. There are many fields in which there is overlapping. In some of these fields it would be better that the authority should be given to the dominion parliament, but do not ask that everything should go to the dominion parliament, as is rather suggested in this resolution. I believe that the powers should be clearly defined and determined, but not necessarily that most of the authority should be given to the central power and less to the provinces. In some fields I believe that the powers of the provinces should be stronger, but this should be determined by making the act clearer and giving it better phraseology.
92582-15*
We must not forget, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has said, the spirit of the agreement in whatever change takes place. When confederation took place the country was on the verge of civil strife. During the two years which preceded the Quebec conference there had been four successive changes of government. The public men of that time all agreed that they had to get together in order to try to save the country and make it a unit by giving to a central government, authority on all things which were national in their scope, and leaving to the provinces authority on things which should rather be dealt with by the local authorities. The provinces agreed to relinquish some of their powers at the time in favour of the central authority. But no one must forget that after all they did exist before the dominion government existed. These colonies were separate colonies, and they got together. They agreed to relinquish some of their powers, but on the condition that they should be left other powers and that the federal government should never have the right nor the power to interfere within their sphere of jurisdiction. There is another thing I wish to emphasize, and that is that the British North America Act is not only the constitution of this dominion; it is not only the charter of the dominion parliament or of the dominion government; it is just as much a charter of the provinces. It is their constitution as well; it is the law under which they have an existence. My hon. friend said they were a political entity. They are even a legal entity, and I must say that I do not agree with the Prime Minister or with the Minister of Justice when he said that legally this parliament could have the right to change the constitution, the British North America Act, when it comes to matters which are certainly provincial in their scope. I do not agree with that.


Hugh Guthrie: I said there was a legal
and a constitutional right; they are very different.


Ernest Lapointe: Neither legally nor constitutionally could you pass an act providing that property and civil rights belong to the jurisdiction of this parliament. I do not think that can be done, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister to the contrary notwithstanding. And apart from the question concerning minorities there are many other questions which are strictly within the sphere of provincial jurisdiction and should not be taken away from the provinces without agreement with them.
Thirdly, within the limit of its jurisdiction, a provincial legislature is just as autonomous,

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Lapointe
just, as sovereign in the matters on which it has authority to legislate as this parliament is. There is no difference at all in that right of the provincial legislatures and of the dominion parliament. Why, even the statute of Westminster, adopted three years ago, gives this parliament full powers of government; even if the legislation of this parliament comes into conflict with some imperial legislation, it is our legislation that prevails. There is no limitation to the powers of this parliament to enact legislation, even though it is contrary to an imperial statute. Sub-section 2 of section 7 of the Westminster act says:
The provisions of section 2 of this act shall extend to laws made by any of the provinces of Canada and to the powers of the legislatures of such provinces.
This means that tile imperial parliament cannot invalidate a statute of a provincial legislature of Canada legislating within the sphere of its authority. The provincial legislatures are just as autonomous within their jurisdiction as the dominion parliament is.
Now there has been at various times a discussion as to whether the Act of Conledera-tion is a treaty or a pact, and I do not wish to enter into that discussion now. Whether it is a treaty-and it was called such by Sir John Macdonald, by Cartier, by D'Arcy McGee and later on by Sir Robert Borden and Sir Wilfrid Laurier-whether the supporters of the school of thought which now claims that it was not legally a treaty or a pact are right or wrong, I do not wish to discuss. At any rate everyone will agree that it was an understanding, an agreement as between various legislative bodies in North America and that nothing should be done which changes the terms of that agreement without a new understanding, a new consultation, a new conference and, I would add, a new agreement.
I think that a conference with the provinces is a necessary preliminary step to any change which might be made-and, mind you, I am in favour of a change being made. 1 will make this statement now, and I pray you, Mr. Speaker, to believe that it is not my wish to inject anything political into the discussion; I would say the same if the men with whom I sit were on the other side. I do not think that it would be for a dying parliament, just before a general election, to change the constitution of Canada. This question, I think, should be taken up and dealt with by a parliament, a government which is fresh from the people, which has a clear mandate, whatever that government might be. And the same with the provinces.

I think we shall have in the very near future a situation in which almost all the legislatures of Canada will be new. There have been many elections recently, there are new legislatures in most of the provinces, there will be three new provincial elections probably this year, and there will be a federal election. I submit therefore that the time for taking up a question like this would be rather when these legislatures, ours like the others, have a fresh mandate from the people.
I hope that this question will be discussed without any political intent or interest or meaning from whatever side. It would be a disaster if the constitution of Canada, if anything concerning the constitution should become a bone of contention between political parties. I see occasionally suggestions of a national government or a union government being formed for the purpose of settling the railway question or methods of taxation. Well, sir, all these questions are merely questions of administration, and any government can settle them if it has the courage and the strength to do so. If a national government were required -and I am not in favour of it-it would be on a question like this; and I am surprised that those who advocate such a body do not give this as a justification for it. But what I would suggest is this. The conference, as there will have to be one to settle the whole question, instead of being a conference of governments, as the other dominion-provincial conferences have been, ought to be more national in scope, just because it is essential that there should not be any division between parties in this matter. I would suggest that the delegates from the dominion to this convention should be selected as our committees are in the house and should include representatives of all parties in the House of Commons. I would suggest also that the representatives of the legislatures which will meet with the dominion body in order to discuss this most important question ought also to be selected from amongst the various parties in the different legislatures. That would be a really national conference and would eliminate many of the possible troubles and causes of friction which would be very dangerous in this matter.
But hon. members may ask me: What would you suggest as a practical method of amending the constitution? This is what I have already suggested both in this parliament and outside it: when we speak of Canada, we mean Canada as including not only the dominion parliament but the nine provinces as well, and I am in favour of Canada having the right to amend its own constitution; but I would suggest that when an amendment is proposed by this parliament, the change should

B.N.A. Act-Mr. Lachkovich
have to be agreed upon by a majority of two-thirds of the members of the house and the members of the Senate and this change should be submitted to the various provincial legislatures for their approval. On ordinary questions, questions of finance, railways, communication and matters like that, I do not think unanimity ought to be required. It would be an absurdity that one province might on a purely fiscal or financial question, a matter of taxation, prevent the will of the immense majority of the people of Canada from prevailing. A clear majority or a majority of two-thirds of the legislatures might be required on most matters. But on questions of vital importance to some sections of Canada, questions of protection of minorities, the question of school or language, unanimity should be required and I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has already stated that that is his wish in the matter. That would be the suggestion I would make to a convention representing the dominion and the provinces for discussion. I do not think it is perfect ; it could be improved, but as a subject of discussion it is what I personally would be willing to submit.	_
So far as the resolution of my hon. friend is concerned, of course I have no objection to its being submitted to a committee, but witn that reservation again that it is a little queer that one party to the agreement should study the methods of changing the agreement by itself without inviting the other parties to participate in the discussion.


Hugh Guthrie: The committee will do that, I suppose.


Ernest Lapointe: That is the only reservation I would make.


Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I am more interested
in the humanity than in the legality of the constitution. Both the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) have spoken of the constitution from the legal aspect. The Minister of Justice said that the constitution of Canada has not within itself the means of amending it. Well, some poet many centuries ago had this to say:
The moving finger writes; and having writ, Moves on; nor all your piety nor wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a line Nor all your tears wash out a word of it.
If that is so, I suppose those hon. members who have tears to shed should prepare to shed them now, because according to the words of the Minister of Justice we, deprived of the ability to amend our own constitution, will not be able to amend it in the near
future. There is a possibility in the same manner as we might tighten the hoops on a barrel so that the barrel might burst, the hoops of the constitution might become so tight on the Canadian people that something in this country might burst. The people have a way of acting like that on occasions.
There is no question of doubt in my mind that this move for constitutional revision is due to the last five years of depression and also to the new philosophy that is at present arising in Canada. The government has launched upon a new political philosophy, claiming that the old order is gone and that we must substitute a new order therefor. Personally I do not feel that we can launch or bring about a ne\v order in Canada until our constitution is changed, because if we try to inaugurate this new order we shall find that so far as the provinces and the dominion are concerned, impediments and obstacles will be placed in the way of constitutional change so as to render it absolutely impossible to make any change in the constitution. Therefore I hold that unless we do change the constitution materially, we shall not be able to inaugurate this new older about which so much is being said, not only in this corner of the house but amongst hon. gentlemen opposite. The people throughout the country ten years ago were not interested in constitutional changes; all they were interested in was a job, and having a job few of them were interested in the constitution at all. It was not until 1929 when the depression and the crisis began that the people at large commenced to think seriously about the constitution by which this country is governed. We have been told in the schools about the infallibility and immutability of the constitution and speakers at various picnics have told us about the supreme wisdom of the fathers of confederation. But people are beginning to doubt that supreme wisdom and at the present time it is very difficult to get a speaker at those picnics and other festive occasions to speak so eulogistically of the men who drafted our constitution. The constitution was a product of the economic philosophy of the times; the laissez-faire philosophy, then in its hey-day. But times have changed since 1867; we now have a new economic philosophy which is held not only by this group and others in the house and throughout the country but to which even the Prime Minister has become a convert. It has been said that we would meet with difficulties in regard to provincial jurisdiction. I have in my hand a report of the case of Snyder v



'230 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
B.NA. Act-Mr. Luchkovich
Toronto Electric Commissioners, in which the province denied the validity of dominion legislation providing for compulsory investigation of labour disputes in public utilities, and it was discovered that the dominion had not the power to implement the signatures of its representatives to the international convention for the eight-hour day.
Suggestions have been asked for. Take the matter of social services, regulation of wages and hours of labour; why can this not be under the control of the federal authorities rather than have the situation that exists today in which we are faced with provincial impediments at every step? I asked an unemployed man the other day what he thought about these attacks on the constitution and on liberty, and this is what he said: So far as those sections of the constitution that are absolutely necessary to safeguard certain necessary rights in this country are concerned the constitution should be upheld, but if it is being used merely as a cloak for some ulterior motive or to prevent essential legislation then I say the constitution should be radically changed. Can you imagine any leader in this country haranguing a crowd of unemployed men and women about the benefits of liberty and the constitution and the dangers of losing both when all the while they are thinking about the condition in which they now find themselves of misery and demoralizing idleness and starvation in the midst of plenty? These are the things about which people are thinking at the present time. They feel that they have been circumscribed by a sort of economic straight-jacket from which they are finding it very hard to extricate themselves.
I have said that the constitution as drafted in 1867 is a reflection of the economic thought of the times. The constitution in 1935 should be a reflection of the economic conditions that now exist. If we are to launch this new order, call it government intervention if you wilf I do not think it has much chance of success unless the constitution is radically amended to suit the new order. Let the constitution fit the times and the needs of the people rather than have the people fit arbitrarily into the constitution.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King:
That, in the opinion of this house, the Prime Minister should refrain from recommending to His Majesty the King the conferring of any grade of the peerage or of any order of baronetcy or of knighthood upon any of His Majesty's subjects resident in Canada.
Ernest Lapointe: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has asked me to ask that this motion should stand, because he does not want to delay the discussion of social reform.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Smith, Cumberland):: Number 18 stands.



PACIFIC COAST SHIPPING


Thomas Reid: Whereas great numbers of Canadian seamen on the Pacific coast of British Columbia are out of employment and in many cases destitute;
And whereas, owners of ships and vessels of Canadian registry on the Pacific coast of British Columbia give employment in large measure to seamen, cooks and engineers of oriental origin;
And whereas, other countries give greater consideration to the employment of their own nationals on ships and vessels belonging to their own country;
And whereas, the Canadian government grant large sums of money to the owners of ships and vessefls by way of subsidies;
And whereas, it is desirable that every encouragement be given for the employment of officers, seamen, cooks and engineers of white Canadian citizenship in preference to those of oriental origin on all Canadian owned and registered ships and vessels;
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, the government take such steps as will provide for employment of greater numbers of white Canadian citizens on all ships and vessels of Canadian ownership and registry, the owners of which receive grants of money from the public treasury of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset that this is not the first time I have spoken on this matter in the house, but it is the first time that I have introduced it by way of a resolution. It is unnecessary to elaborate the meaning of the resolution as I think the wording sets out the gist of the matter fairly well.
I would like first to speak of the subsidies paid by the government of this country to the various steamships operating on the Pacific coast, and in passing to mention the total subsidies paid to all shipping by Canada. In the year 1930 the mail subsidies paid to ships operating on the Pacific amounted to $227,080. The figures I am giving are taken from the main estimates. In 1934 the subsidies paid to steamships on the Pacific had risen to almost a million dollars, to be exact, $990,800. In the estimates brought down the other day for 1935-36 the total for the Pacific ocean is $1,180,800. I ask the house to note the great increase in these estimates during

Pacific Coast Shipping
the past four or five years. I realize that a private company or an individual in business for himself is free to engage whomever he likes, and it might be going too far for this parliament or government to restrict that individual or company as to whom he should hire. But I claim that when this parliament and the country is granting to steamship companies such large sums, amounting in the aggregate to nearly two million dollars, we should take notice of whom these companies employ. I shall endeavour to prove that the lack of some supervision in this matter is working a severe hardship on our own white Canadian seamen.
As to the numbers employed on steamships operating on the Pacific may I give the latest figures? This information was provided on January 12, of this year. The figures show that orientals engaged numbered 2,590. The number of white Canadian seamen idle in the province of British Columbia, according to up to date figures, is roughly 2.050. A careful survey was made of the unemployment camps in order to secure the occupations of the men there employed, and it was discovered that some 400 of these men had been seamen. In the city of Victoria 550 seamen were idle; 900 were idle in New Westminster and Vancouver, making a total of 2.050. To be complete, of course, that figure has to include the 200 seamen working on part time.
I am sorry to have to discuss this resolution in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, because these subsidies are under his department. When I discussed the matter last year the then Minister of Trade and Commerce used the argument that the orientals engaged on board these steamers operating from the Pacific coast were British subjects. I should like to point out that after careful investigation it will be found that such a statement is very far from the fact. The orientals engaged on these steamers are engaged chiefly from Hongkong and from Canton, and I have before me some information as to the conditions existing in Hongkong, taken from the Encyclopedia Britan-nica. I am going to quote some of these conditions, because they are very pertinent to the matter under discussion in view of the statement made last year. Hongkong is a depot for an incessant flow of Chinese emigration and immigration, especially in connection with the Straits Settlements. In 1931 there were 100,869 emigrants and 283,890 immigrants. The total population of Hongkong in that same year was 840,473, and of these only some 19,000 were classified as non-Chinese.
Immigrants from the Canton delta account for 76 per cent of the total population of Hongkong. The colony is governed by a legislative council consisting of the governor, nine official members and six unofficial members. Eight of these members are nominated by the crown, of whom three are Chinese. The police force consists of approximately 2,110 men. The Chinese section has a system of watchmen, who are paid by the Chinese inhabitants.
One of my reasons for stating these facts, Mr. Speaker, is in order to bring before the house these conditions in an endeavour to prove that it is impossible for anyone to say definitely as to the nationality of these men, apart from the fact that they are hired through Hongkong. The total number of pupils in the public schools in 1931 was 68.500. Of these one-third were in schools in which English was the medium of instruction, while two-thirds were in the vernacular schools, in which Chinese is taught. The five schools for children of British parentage have an average attendance of only 423. Hongkong, being the principal source of distribution in the far east, with a huge floating population and a constant influx from the mainland not only by steam vessels but by local junks as well, it would appear to be no easy matter to keep a real check on the movements of the Chinese in that city. As to the number of those who have become British citizens there is no record available, and such information could be obtained only from the secretary of Chinese affairs. There is no system in vogue by which it would be possible to tell whether or not large numbers of Chinese in Hongkong have become naturalized, unless after a very careful inquiry and close check. I believe the city is divided into two sections, European and Chinese, with a wire fence between which is guarded by Chinese policemen. It is no trouble at all for the Chinese to pass through the European section into the Chinese section or vice-versa, and it is from this section that seamen are engaged on the steamships plying from Pacific ports.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, an investigation was conducted by the Seamen's Association of Vancouver, and they have evidence to prove that the majority of the Chinese on these ships operating from the Pacific coast claim to come from Canton. Here is how they are engaged. On each ship they have a number one boy who is paid S15 per month. Seamen are recruited at Canton by a shore agency which is operated by another agency in Hongkong. When engaged they are directed to the number one boy on the ship, who arranges as to their pay, and so on. This
Pacific Coast Shipping


Mr. MANION:: There is no difficulty in knowing it. I shall give the information at any time. It was sold by the Canadian National Steamships, and if the hon. member will put his question on the order paper I shall give him the figures as soon as I can get them.


Thomas Reid: I shall be glad to have the figures for those ships. It would also be very interesting to know just what that company paid the Japanese firm for the use of a boat on a trip for which they received $4,950 of good Canadian money from this
government. It would be interesting to know that part of the question, too.
I was informed upon fairly good authority that these subsidized lines were charging more for the hauling of lumber than were other steamship companies operating on the Pacific coast, but I learned that after an appeal to the minister the rates were reduced. I was startled to receive that information because it is presumed that the subsidies were given to enable our steamship companies to compete with Japanese, Italian or Chinese lines. I learn however on good authority that better rates could have been obtained from lines which were not subsidized, and I believe it is about time a commission was appointed to investigate the whole matter.


Robert James Manion: To which minister is the hon. member referring when he states that there was an appeal to the minister?


Thomas Reid: I am referring to the former Minister of Trade and Commerce. That is one of the reasons I have placed on the order paper a request for all letters and telegrams passing between the then Minister of Trade and Commerce and some of the steamship companies. I am interested enough to want to know if some of the information I have received is true, because it was given me on first class authority from one engaged in the lumber trade. He told me that the steamship company in question reduced their freight rate immediately they learned he was appealing to the government. Formerly however they had been charging a higher rate, despite the fact that there was a subsidy in existence which was supposed to enable them to compete with Japanese, Chinese and other lines.
I have before me a list showing the nationality of employees on some ships, and these figures indicate that while on the Canadian Pacific steamer Empress of Canada 500 orientals are employed, there are only a very few white men. I am not advocating that the whole crew should be one hundred per cent Canadian because I realize there may be Chinese going back and forth who would have to be looked after. But when you find on the biggest liners 500 orientals and only a handful of white seamen, a few key men only, I wonder sometimes what would happen if a catastrophe by storm or fire occurs and the passengers have to look to the five hundred of the Chinese crew for their safety at sea. Are the lives of our people as safe as they should be under those circumstances? I doubt it very much.
There are 495 orientals on the Empress of Japan, 500 on the Empress of Russia, and 500 on the Empress of Asia. In addition, on the
Pacific Coast Shipping

coastwise vessels which are receiving subsidies from this government there are approximately 107 orientals carried. With regard to the Union Steamships Limited, which receives subsidies from this government, 90 orientals are employed on their ships, and then I find that our own Canadian National ships, which surely anyone would expect would be free from anything like this, carry approximately 20 orientals. I can go through the whole list and find the same thing. The British-Canadian Steamship Company, which is receiving a subsidy from this government, employ also a great many orientals on their ships. They employ 300 orientals, Mr. Speaker, although they told the seamen's associations that they would endeavour to engage as many white men as possible. Well, apparently they are still endeavouring because that change has not come about yet. And they are employing these 300 orientals to the detriment of our own white Canadian seamen.
We have a motto in front of this building, "The wholesome sea is at her gates, her gates both east and west," but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is not very wholesome around those ships anyway, and it never will be wholesome as long as we neglect our own and engage orientals and so allow our own white seamen to walk the streets idle.
It is surely not an unfair request to ask the government that steps be taken to see that a greater proportion of our white Canadian seamen are employed on these ships, epseciallv when we are handing out almost $2,000,000 for subsidies to these shipping companies. The Prime Minister has spoken about changes in the present system. Well, I hope that this is one of the changes that he is going to bring about for the benefit of our own citizens on the Pacific coast.
Canada has entirely neglected her seamen. In passing, Mr. Speaker, may I also make this request, although it is perhaps not exactly *within the scope of the resolution before the house, that more note be taken of the idle shipyards that we have in this country. We talked the other day in this house of a budding program, of the building and renovating of houses, of which I approve; but did we bear anything said about more work for our Canadian shipyards? Yet this was the country to build the first steamship that crossed the Atlantic. To-day our shipyards are lying idle from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and nothing is being done to provide them with work. No suggestion is made that some encouragement be given to these yards, to build our own ships, to keep our own artisans at work. This

country over three thousand miles in extent is bounded on three sides by the sea, and yet shipbuilding is the one industry that is entirely neglected, and not only is it neglected, but no notice at all is taken of the matter of engaging white seamen on ships. I am appealing to the house and asking the government in this resolution to take steps to see that more white Canadian seamen be employed. As I have pointed out, it is not an unfair request. It is a request that I believe everyone in this house can and should support. The resolution does not ask the government to pass a law telling every steamship company that it must at once hire white Canadian seamen but it does request the government, in the case of those steamship companies that are receiving subsidies from the people of this country, to see that greater consideration is given to the matter of employing more white Canadian seamen.
Some of these lines that are receiving subsidies from this government are very cute too. They operate in Canada and receive their subsidies from this government but have their ships registered in London, and what do they do when they want engineers and mates? Do they employ the men in Vancouver and New Westminster who are just as competent as any they bring out? No, they bring out these men from London, England, or even from Scotland.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Reid: The engineers would likely
come from Scotland anyway. I am not objecting to these men coming out but I do object to these ships which are subsidizing, and which are making a living from this country, bringing out these men when we have just as competent men here in this country. Our first consideration should be for our own. If we have no men here who can fill these positions, it is all right to go to the old land and bring out these men. Only last year they even brought out a policeman. Just think of it; they could not find in Vancouver or New Westminster a man who could act as policeman, and they had to bring a man all the way from London.
Do these companies give any consideration to Canadians when they are employing ships' musicians? Are the musicians around Vancouver and New Westminster engaged on these ships? No, the bands on board these ships are hired from the Philippine islands. These companies will go anywhere so long as they can get men cheap enough. They will get cheap seamen in China and cheap musi-

Pacific Coast Shipping
cians in the Philippine islands, and put them on board these boats while our own men are walking the streets.
I do not think I need to elaborate further on my resolution. It is before the house and I am asking the house and the government to accept it. I ask the government to take steps to see that more of our white Canadian seamen are employed on these subsidized ships.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in support of the resolution that has been proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). In fact I will go further than he has gone and propose what in my opinion are the appropriate steps to be taken by this government to bring about the conditions that he has in mind, namely, the employment of more white seamen on ships of Canadian ownership or of Canadian registry.
Listening to the hon. member for New Westminster in his scathing indictment of the way in which these private employers, these private' capitalists, employ their help buying it in the cheapest market, I wondered why he was sitting with a party that upholds that particular system, and trying to ease the sores of capitalist exploitation by spreading a little salve over them. Last session or the session before, when these subsidies were up for consideration, I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce if, where the government was granting subsidies to ships, they would consider inserting a fair wage clause in the contract as a condition of granting the subsidy, just as we have it inserted in other government contracts, and the minister of that day said that he would take the matter under consideration. However, I have not heard anything further about it.
I am not particularly concerned as to who is employed on the ships, but I am concerned as to the conditions under which they work. Moreover, I am quite satisfied that white seamen, particularly of the race to which the hon. member for New Westminster and myself belong, would surely get the preference, and certainly from the Canadian Pacific because they have a good eye for business, if a minimum wage was in effect. There should be a fair wage clause or a minimum wage established for sailors and other people employed on these ships. I believe that that is the means whereby we can meet the situation. We should see to it that wherever the dominion government provides a subsidy-I would even go further than that and say that wherever there are ships coming to the
ports of this country over which the dominion has any control whatsoever, there should be minimum wage regulations covering the employment of the seamen engaged in any capacity whatever on board those ships, and with that proviso or extension I support the resolution proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). '


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I add a word in support of the principle here laid down. I take some exception to one of the whereas clauses, the idea that every encouragement be given to the employment of officers, seamen, cooks and engineers of white Canadian citizenship in preference to those of oriental origin. I do not like it worded just in that form, with the implication that we should exclude those of oriental origin, but I do think that the employment of more of our own Canadian people, residents of Canada, is highly desirable. I think we all agree that the reason so many orientals are employed is simply the fact that they can be secured at a cheaper rate, and I have all along taken the view that the way to exclude orientals or people of low standards was by erecting a high minimum wage barrier.
Many years ago Mr. Paul U. Kellogg said that such a barrier would constitute a sort of immigration tariff, and I think it would. I have said before, and I have been severely criticized for saying it, that in my opinion people resident in this country, and especially people who have been born here, whether oriental or not, should have fair treatment. But I do insist very strongly that our steamship companies which are receiving subsidies aught not to be able to go to Japan and ZJhina to get cheap labour, to the detriment of jur own Canadian citizens.
A few months ago I happened to be travelling on both Japanese and Canadian liners on the Pacific, and I noticed that the Japanese employed almost exclusively their own nationals whereas the Canadian Pacific employed a very large proportion of Chinese. There seems to be no reason whatever for such a condition. Further than that I am informed that very frequently when repairs are needed on these boats travelling between Vancouver and the orient the repairs are postponed until the boats reach the orient. Sometimes the repair materials are taken on board at Vancouver and carried over and Chinese workmen do the job in Shanghai. Some provision should be inserted to prevent a practice of that sort, which is one means whereby our own Canadian workmen are done out of jobs.
Pacific Coast Shipping

Having stated my position, and rather taking exception to one of the whereas clauses, I can very heartily vote for the proposal put forward by the hon. member.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up much of the time of the house on this question. I have listened to the debate thus far and I have listened particularly to the presentation of the case by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). The principle which he expounded is one with which I think the whole house will agree inasmuch as every hon. member I presume desires that Canadian labour so far as possible should be given the preference on all work done in or connected with this country either by subsidy or otherwise. At the same time the question is not quite so simple as merely the expounding of a principle. There are complications to it, complications in regard to labour itself, transportation, competition for example. My hon. friend, merely to mention one difficulty, stated that Japanese seamen are the lowest paid in the world, yet on the Pacific coast it is quite obvious that Japanese ships are the ones which compete with the very ships about which my hon. friend has spoken. I am simply elucidating the case; I do not want it to be understood that I am opposing the resolution or the principle behind it. I am merely pointing out the complications, and other complications exist such as national and international questions dealing with shipping, which questions cannot to my mind be decided by the House of Commons any more than other questions such as freight rates in the country or matters of that kind can be decided by this house. Therefore, while I am not arguing against or opposing the resolution, I do suggest to my hon. friend with the best intentions in the world that we should submit this to a committee of the house, the committee on industrial relations, with the object of hearing ail sides of the question. I have had submitted to me since my hon. friend put the resolution on the order paper, and I assume other hon. members on both sides, perhaps on all sides, have had submitted to them arguments against the resolution by some of the shipping companies, pointing out why, to their minds at least, they cannot carry out, in any case in toto, the proposal submitted by my hon. friend. I think it would be only fair in dealing with a question of this kind to give those companies an nppor-

tunity to appear before a committee of the House of Commons and to submit their side of the question. Therefore, without delaying the matter at all, I should like to move in amendment:
That all the words after "that" in the last paragraph be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "the resolution be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations."
The effect of the amendment is merely to submit the matter to the standing committee on industrial relations, to let all parties appear before that committee and to let it make its report to the House of Commons.


Mr. NEILL:: For investigation and report.


Robert James Manion: That is obvious.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I want to congratulate the hon.
member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) for presenting a forceful and cogent case to the house this afternoon in regard to this very important matter. I also wish to congratulate the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), who this year is speaking in regard to this subject, for meeting my hon. friend at least half way in his request. I have not so far consulted my colleagues, but to my way of thinking the minister is eminently fair. We on the Pacific coast consider this a sincere and earnest grievance and such is the feeling of all the people of British Columbia. We want to give our white seamen a chance, and a veiy important principle is at stake, that is, when a government subsidy is given to a shipping corporation we feel that our white seamen should be given a preference over any others. If the minister means that this committee will make a report to the house at the present session, I shall be prepared with the concurrence of my colleagues to accept the minister's amendment. Such a procedure on the part of the government will be welcome news to our people in British Columbia and to the hundreds of white seamen who at the present time are unemployed at New Westminster and other ports of British Columbia. So far as I am concerned, I am glad to accept the minister's amendment.


Thomas Reid: I join with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) in saying we are very-glad that the minister and the government are meeting us half way. I would have just this request to make to them, that in the matter of a committee the appearance of the shipping interest is very easily brought about, but while there are in this chamber able champions of the interests of the seamen; on the other hand on account of expense it



193J

[Stage Direction]
Farm Mortgages
ivould be very difficult for seamen to appear before the committee. They would be willing to come, but that difficulty might arise.
Robert James Manion: That matter will be in the hands of the committee.


Thomas Reid: With that, I am very glad the
government has seen fit to meet us half way.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the minister allow the
words " for investigation and report " to be added to his amendment? It is no use to refer the matter to the committee unless they report.


Robert James Manion: I think that is understood in any reference to a committee. That is entirely in the hands of the committee. That is certainly my intention, but I do not think it is necessary to add the words to the amendment.
Motion as amended agreed to.



FARM MORTGAGES


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the Canadian Farm Loan Act, and the Canadian Farm Loan Amendment Act, 1934, should be so amended as to make the rate charged on farm loan mortgages four per cent per annum instead of the rate now charged.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
Under government notices of motion there is a notice of motion by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) raising practically the same question that is raised in this motion. According to a decision of the house made, I think, last session or the session before, such a motion cannot be moved when a government notice of motion dealing with the same matter is standing on the order paper. This is a rule of the house; I have forgotten the number.


Ernest Lapointe: Which was on the order paper first?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think that
matters.


Mr. VENIOT:: It may be a rule of the
British house; it is not one of this house.


Hugh Guthrie: I think it is a rule of this house. I refer to a ruling in regard to a resolution proposed in the session of 1932-33 by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Although the hon. member's proposed resolution was on the order paper dated November 9, 1932, Mr. Robertson's bill on the same subject dated November 10, was
given precedence, a bill always having precedence over a motion, to prevent the opposition from defeating legislation by anticipation. The quotation is from Campion, page 152. The question whether it is a resolution or a bill is of no account; the resolution is the foundation of a government bill on the subject. It is on that point I raise the question of order.


John Campbell Elliott: In this case the fact is
that the motion which I now desire to move was on the order paper some days before the house met. The other resolution I think appeared only for the first time yesterday. That is material in considering a case of this kind.
So far as the precedent quoted by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) is concerned, I submit it hias no application to the present situation. I think that decision went quite as far as it should have gone; however, it is on the records of the house. The point there was that while a bill was on the order paper dealing with a certain subject no resolution dealing with the same subject could be proceeded with. That is a very different thing from a resolution such as that which now appears on the order paper at the instance of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). There may be nothing in the bill when it is introduced following the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance bearing at all on the subject of the resolution which I am proposing. Mine is a definite motion; let me read it:
That, in the opinion of this house, the Canadian Farm Loan Act, and the Canadian Farm Loan Amendment Act, 1934, should be so amended as to make the rate charged on farm loan mortgages four per cent per annum instead of the rate now charged.
There is nothing whatever in the notice of the resolution of the Minister of Finance to indicate that that question is to be dealt with. There is a suggestion that something will be said about it. A bill is the only precedent Your Honour has, and ordinarily priority is given to the resolution that appears on the order paper first. For both these reasons or either of them this motion is in order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the
point of order raised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) I submit with deference that the precedent of 1933 does not rule. What happened then was that a bill was called on the orders of the day before the resolution standing in the name of the hon. member for Quebec South. This case is different. The motion of my hon. friend has been actually called and is now before the house. The
Farm Mortgages

mere fact that the government has a resolution on the order paper, put there yesterday, does not affect the validity of the motion of my hon. friend. According to the orders of the day the resolution of a private member must have precedence over the government's motion. Otherwise the effect would be that any government, by looking over private members' resolutions on the order paper, could immediately give notice of a motion and make it impossible fo.r a private member to move any motion. That to my mind is an utter absurdity. If we had had a government resolution called preceding that of my hon. friend, the point of order I think would be well taken. If we had a bill on the order paper preceding that of my hon. friend, the point would be well taken. But here is a resolution properly called, and the mere fact that there is a notice of motion by the Minister of Finance cannot affect the validity of the resolution moved by the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott).


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I anticipated before the
house rose at six o'clock that some question might be raised as to the calling of the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott), so I took the opportunity during recess of looking up one or two authorities. I must confess that the matter is not without some doubt. At the same time the authorities are fairly clear to the effect that the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for West Middlesex is out of order under the anticipation rule. I should first like to quote from Campion, Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons, page 152, under the heading Anticipation in Debate. Before referring to the paragraph which I shall quote, let me say that I do not think there can be any question of doubt as to the similarity of material in the two motions, that standing in the name of Mr. Elliott, and the one which subsequently appears on the order paper. To quote from Campion:
The anticipation rule, which forbids discussion on a matter standing on the paper being forestalled, is dependent on the same principle as that which forbids the same question being twice raised in the same session. In applying the anticipation rule preference is given to the discussion-
And I think emphasis might be placed on the following words:
-which lead's to the most effective result.
To continue:
And this has established a descending scale of values for discussions-bills, motions, amendments, etc. Thus a bill or other order of the day must not be anticipated by (or more shortly
IMr. I. A. Mackenzie.]
blocks) discussion of a motion, amendment, or subject raised on another motion, such as that for the adjournment of the house. A motion standing on the paper for leave to bring in a bill blocks discussion of a motion (except for the presentation of a bill), amendments, etc. Any substantive motion standing on the paper blocks the discussion of an amendment, etc. An amendment on the paper blocks the raising of its subject in debate.
Frankly, one question rather worried me, as to what "bill" meant in Campion. In order to follow that up somewhat I find a precedent in May to this effect-see 341 House Debates, 35-762:
The fact that a bill has not been printed does not withdraw it from the operation of this rule.
The Speaker's ruling on that occasion was as follows:
The hon. member cannot move the amendment which stands in his name because it raises a discussion of a bill of which notice has already been given by the government.
I take it that the item appearing on the order paper under the head of Government Notices of Motions, standing in the name of the Minister of Finance, is tantamount to a notice such as is referred to in the authority which I have just given. I take it that the word "bill" in Campion is used in the widest sense, embracing the various steps through which a bill must pass before it is finally approved by this house. The first step taken in connection with the bill under consideration is the step set out on the order paper. With the very greatest deference to the opinions which have been expressed to the contrary, I rule that the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for West Middlesex is out of order.


John Campbell Elliott: Your honour, I regret
that you have come to that decision, but I see that you have arrived at it after having given the matter careful consideration. While I cannot say that I agree with your ruling, I bow to it and do not desire to appeal from it.



TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES


William Duff: That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that the government of Canada reopen negotiations with the government of the United States of America with a view of bringing about a satisfactory reciprocal trade agreement between Canada and the United States, whereby the natural products of Canada, that is, the products of the sea, the farm, the mines and the forests, and including fish, lumber,

C.NJt.-Capital Structure
wheat, cattle, etc., should have free entry into the United States in exchange for the admission of certain goods from the United States of America, which in the interests of both countries may be admitted into Canada, free from customs tariffs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, with your consent and the consent of the house, for reasons which I need not explain at the moment, I should like this resolution to stand. Having regard to what has happened in the last few days, with the president of the United States signifying his willingness to discuss with the government of this country a reciprocal trade agreement, perhaps under the circumstances the house will agree that it might be better not to proceed with the resolution at this time. I am also anxious that we should proceed with the other business which we are told is to come before the house, and for these reasons I ask your honour to allow this resolution to stand.
Motion stands.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North) moved:: Whereas, the attention of this house has been drawn by the royal commission to inquire into railways and transportation in Canada to the urgent necessity which exists for an early consideration of the capital structure of the Canadian railways (section 84-87 of that report):
And whereas, that commission recognized that a very substantial part pf the money invested in the railways comprised within the Canadian National Railway system must be regarded as lost, and that its capital liabilities should be heavily written down, although the said royal commission did not deem the time opportune when making the said report to deal with this important matter, but suggested that the same receive early consideration by the board of trustees;
And whereas, a board of trustees has been appointed by the government;
Therefore be it resolved, that in the opinion of this house, it is of vital importance that the attention of the board of trustees of the Canadian National Railways be directed to this matter, and that this house deems it highly desirable that the said board of trustees shall consider this question and report thereon with the least possible delay as being of vital and primary importance in the interests of all concerned.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this resolution speaks for itself. I introduced this question during the session of 1934; there was very little debate and eventually it died on the order paper. This year I should like to have this matter discussed by hon. members generally. Every year we have this matter of the deficit of the Canadian National Railways thrown
up to us, and it is not fair. It is not fair to the people of Canada or to the employees of the system. The money has been lost; the capital assets should be written down. You could easily write off perhaps a billion dollars, and charge it to profit and loss where it belongs. If you did that even to-day the Canadian National Railways would be able to carry its load.
We have a similar case in British Columbia; we have a little railroad with which most hon. members are familiar. I refer to the Pacific Great Eastern railway. To-day the capital structure of that railway is 874,000,000. I have been over every foot of the line; I know the country well, and I estimate the replacement value at possibly 820,000,000. Why should the capital be continued at 874,000,000 when it is worth only 820,000,000, or 825,000,000? If that were written down even that road would pay its way. So I say that in all fairness to the people of Canada, to the shippers, to the employees and to everyone else, this question should be considered very seriously.
This is a big question. Our railways represent the greatest financial problem we must face to-day, and I plead with hon. members of the house to discuss the matter. Let us hear from other hon. members. This is a reasonable business proposition. I am not introducing the matter from any political motive; I am doing so in fairness to the Canadian National Railways.
I need not take up the time of the house at any greater length, but I should like hon. members to pay some attention to and consider this matter for a short time. I may be all wrong in my views; if I am I should like to have it pointed out to me. I still say, however, that if the capital were written down a billion dollars or more there would be no deficit on the Canadian National. I am speaking of the railways, not of the hotels or steamship lines. I plead earnestly with hon. members to say whether I am right or wrong in my argument.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I have read this resolution a number of times with some care, and without meaning any disrespect to my hon. friend I do not see that it is of any practical use whatever. There seems to be so much misinformation in regard to this whole question. If I understood my hon. friend aright he suggested that if we recapitalized the Canadian National railways, writing down the capital by a thousand million dollars, in some way or other we might avoid the yearly deficit.
C.N'.R.-Capital Structure


Albert Edward Munn: Set up the capital structure to measure up with your assets.


Robert James Manion: If we set up the capital structure of the Canadian National Railways to-day so as to measure up to our earnings we would not only have to wipe out a thousand million dollars-


Albert Edward Munn: I did not say that; I said your assets.


Mr. VBNIOT:: The physical value.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps I might finish my sentence. If we set up the assets of the Canadian National railways in such a way as to be proportionate at all with the earnings today we would have to wipe out a thousand million dollars owing to the government, plus another four hundred million dollars carried on the books of the company as owing to the government, plus practically the whole of the
SI,255,000,000 owing to the public investors of the country. It is true that there was a time, in 1928, the peak year, when the Canadian National Railways did earn sufficient to pay the interest of that day. During that year, when world business was booming, the Canadian National did a gross business of $304,000,000, and the net, in other words the profit available for interest amounted to $44,000,000. In other words the sum of $44,000,000 could go towards the payment of interest, and as the interest in 1928 amounted to $41,000,000, in that year the Canadian National railways bad a profit, over and above the payment of interest, of $3,000,000. That and one other year, namely 1926, were the only two years in which the Canadian National Railways earned sufficient to pay the interest in the corresponding year. But it must be pointed out that while in 1928 the Canadian National system earned sufficient to pay the interest at that day, which was $41,000,000, it was vastly too little-if I may use what may appear to be a contradiction in terms- to have paid the interest of to-day, because the interest of to-day owing to the public- and this has nothing to do with the interest owing to the government-instead of being $41,000,000 as it was in 1928 is in fact $57,000,000. So it is obvious that even if the Canadian National Railways had obtained in 1934 the volume of business it had in 1928, or if it had the same net earnings, or the same amount to apply on interest, it would still be $16,000,000 short of paying the interest.
I point that out first so that hon. members may understand the situation. I am not arguing against the trustees dealing with this matter, but there has been so much misinformation and misunderstanding concerning
 -
the whole problem that I shall endeavour during a few moments this evening to explain the situation as clearly as I can. I do this more for the public than for the house because I am quite sure every hon. member understands the situation thoroughly. However there is a great deal of misunderstanding outside this chamber. For instance quite recently I received a letter from a gentleman suggesting that if we would cut the interest on Canadian National Railway bonds owing to the public from six per cent to a reasonable figure we would save an amount sufficient to pay the deficit on the railway system. Well, his first mistake is that the average interest is not six per cent; in 1934 it was exactly 4i per cent. He was wrong from that angle. Again and again I see the statement in letters appearing in the newspapers, and sometimes in editorial comments, that if we would recapitalize the Canadian National system by wiping out the government debt we would be putting the Canadian National in a position to carry itself. I repeat that we would have to wipe out the whole government debt, and then we would not get the desired result because the government debt has been accumulating for years. Never in all the years the Canadian National Railways have been in existence has one cent of that government debt been paid off or one cent of the interest on the government debt been paid to the government by the railways. So that even if we wiped out the whole $1,490,000,000, the amount which the Canadian National bocks show as owing by the railways to the government.-I repeat, if we wiped out that sum, amounting to nearly a billion and a half dollars, and if we eliminated it for all time from the books of the Canadian National Railways, it would have no effect whatsoever upon those railways as a going concern. We would still have exactly the same amount of interest to pay to the public who have invested their money-millions of dollars of it -in the bonds of the Canadian National Railways.
In other words there are two debts owing by the Canadian National Railways. First there is the debt about which I have been speaking, namely the one owing to the government and amounting to $1,490,000,000 including interest and other charges. May I say that it is debatable whether or not some of those charges should be charged against the railways, but the fact is they do appear on the books of the company. We must remember that more than half of the $1,490,000,000 owing to the government went into the building of the Canadian National railways as they

C.NJI.-Capital Structure
stand to-day. For example, it went into the building of the Intercolonial railway; it went into the building of the Prince Edward Island railway; it went into the building of the National Transcontinental railway, and it went into additions and betterments of various other branches which the Canadian National system took over at various times throughout the years under different governments. That is the debt upon which, as I have said, nothing has ever been returned to the government either in capital expenditure or in interest. So that has never been anything but a bookkeeping charge against the Canadian National Railway. To-day the interest upon the debt upon which interest is charged amounts to something over $30,000,000 per annum, but it is only a bookkeeping entry and it has never been paid. I want that clearly understood.


Mr. HANBURY:: But it is very often quoted.


Robert James Manion: Yes, it is often quoted, but I doubt if the quoting does any particular damage to the railway.


Wilfred Hanbury: It does not do any good.


Robert James Manion: It does not do any good, but it is true. I do not know that there can be any advantage in hiding an absolute truth, and I do not think the Canadian National system would be better off from having hidden something from the people of the country.
May I interject that to-day the railways are to my mind efficiently and economically handled, and I do not think they would be any more efficiently and economically handled if that figure were wiped off the books of the company. I do not think that feature has ever made an atom of difference in the handling of the railways either in the past or in the present. It is merely a bookkeeping entry and keeps the picture straight, so far as that figure of $1,490,000,000 is concerned. Some of the charges I think might well be wiped out without doing any damage; anybody will know that some of the charges should not be considered.
The other debt-and this is the debt which counts-is the long term debt owing to the public amounting to $1,255,000,000. That amount is owing to the bondholders in England, the United States and Canada. A large proportion of the bonds, probably from seventy-five to eighty-five per cent, are guaranteed by the people of this dominion, and the only way by which the $57,000,000 of interest upon those bonds can be lowered is by refunding, as is being done from time to 92582-16
time, or by repudiation. The government of Canada is the guarantor of those bonds, and in addition the bonds are a mortgage upon the lines of railway in the Canadian National system. That is really the only debt which counts, namely the debt owing to the investing bondholders. I should like to have that point clear, and, as I have stated, I make it for people outside this chamber rather than hon. members. By no method of bookkeeping could any part of that $57,000,000 of interest, the part which makes the real deficit, be wiped out, except by absorption into the consolidated debt of the Dominion of Canada. That is the only way it could be done. In other words to have an effect to the extent of one cent upon the Canadian National railways one would not only have to wipe out the first debt which I have mentioned, the government debt, and absorb it as most of it has already been absorbed into the national debt of Canada, but in addition one would have to wipe out part of the debt of $1,255,000,000 which is owing to the bondholders in various parts of the world.


Albert Edward Munn: What objection would you have to that?


Robert James Manion: I do not know that I have any particular objection, but I shall give reasons why I think the hon. member's resolution is at least to some degree hasty. I do not use that term offensively, but if the hon. member will permit I will endeavour to explain what I mean. I am endeavouring simply to make clear in the public mind the financial position of the railways.
At this point may I emphasize another fact. Sometimes the statement is made by hon. members and sometimes by the public generally that if we could wipe out or recapitalize the Canadian National Railways-and I must observe that what is meant by recapitalization is not clear-we could improve the situation of the employees, the shippers and the federal situation generally. I think hon. members will understand that those points are not really affected by the bookkeeping entry which has existed for years. We must remember that after all we should have a set-up before the minds of the Canadian people concerning the cost of railways in general and the Canadian National Railways in particular. There is no reason why we should hide the facts. If we did hide the facts there would be the disadvantage that once again we would have the probability of all governments, if you like, and all parties forgetting the errors of the past and encouraging greater expenditures of one kind and another. There is this to remember, that in that government debt there are entries which to my

C.N.R.-Capital Structure

mind will ultimately have to be wiped out and so far as that goes I agree with my hon. friend. For example, the Intercolonial railway was not built as a financial proposition at all; it was built for national and intra-empire reasons. It was built for the sake of rounding out confederation, linking up Halifax and the east with central Canada, and therefore something must be charged up to the country generally of that cost of the Intercolonial railway which is included in the debt owing to the government. Then there was the transcontinental railway and various branch lines that were built. Some of them were built for colonization purposes, some to assist settlers in various parts of Canada, just as my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) urges at the present time that we should build an outlet from the Peace River section to the coast, even if it did not pay its way, in order to serve the people who are living in that very fine but rather far-off section of Canada.
Then again we bought various railway lines which became a charge upon the Canadian National Railway and, through the Canadian National Railway upon the Dominion of Canada. The purchase of some of these lines was certainly brought about by political and public pressure. Certain sections of the country, in fact nearly all sections that had small railway lines, pressed sufficiently hard to get the government or the Canadian National to absorb those lines into the Canadian National system, and so far as public pressure and political pressure was responsible for that result and thereby laid a charge on the Canadian National Railway just so far should a certain amount of that cost ultimately be absorbed into the public debt of Canada. I am giving my own viewpoint at the moment.
In conclusion, I would point out that according to the report of the Duff commission what my hon. friend seeks by his resolution has already been carried out because the Duff commission in their report, speaking of the financial set-up, said:
This question as well as that previously referred to, dealing with the present involved financial structure of the Canadian National system, should, in the opinion of the commission, have the early attention of the board of trustees, which it is recommended should be entrusted with the control and management of ihe system.
Therefore since the board of trustees was appointed just a little over a year ago it is obvious, if they are carrying out their duties, and I presume they are, that they are studying this question, and as soon as they feel capable of submitting a report upon it through the railway committee to the House of Commons

they will submit that report. I do not think anything is being lost by waiting or that anything is to be gained by haste in this matter. I believe we might well allow the board of trustees as at present constituted to study the whole question thoroughly and submit their report, as soon as they have come to a conclusion upon the matter, and then the House of Commons will be able to deal with the whole question.
In the meantime I suggest to my hon. friend that having brought this question before the House of Commons, and having submitted his reasons for thinking that a little greater haste should be made by the board of trustees than is being made, he might be willing to withdraw his resolution because to my mind there is nothing to be gained by passing it, and on the other hand I think there is something to be gained by allowing the board of trustees, who have many important questions to deal with to take their time in studying what my hon. friend calls this very vital question and making their submissions upon it. I would therefore again suggest to him that he withdraw his resolution after whatever discussion may take place upon it in the house, and I assure him that the resolution will be drawn to the attention of the board of trustees who, I have no doubt, will in the near future make a report on the question to the House of Commons.


Albert Edward Munn: Might I ask if the board of
trustees are now considering the advisability of cutting down the capital structure? Does the minister know that for a fact?


Robert James Manion: Although I have no direct information regarding it, I have no doubt they are. They were asked by the Duff commission, under whose report they were really appointed, to give their earliest possible attention to the subject, and I have no doubt that they have been giving it a good deal of attention. If my hon. friend, who is on the special railway committee, will permit me to remind him, the auditors last year in their report made a number of suggestions, but that auditors' report was not included in the report of the board of trustees. But the board of trustees will be making a report in the near future when the special committee on railways and shipping meets. Some reports have already been requested of them, and it is quite possible that at that time they may be submitting some suggestions on this question.


Wilfred Hanbury: Mr. Speaker, with most of what
the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) has

C.NJR.-Capital Structure
submitted to the house I can express myself in agreement because everything he has said has been a reason why this rewriting of the financial structure or revaluation should be carried out.
The minister gave as his only reason why we should not act on this resolution at the present time the fact that instructions were given to the board of trustees by the report of the Duff commission that they should investigate this question and make a recommendation to parliament. But I would suggest to the minister that he note the particular terms of the resolution, which asks "that the attention of the board of trustees of the Canadian National Railways be directed to this matter." That is what the resolution of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Munn) asks, that this house should draw the attention of the board of trustees of the Canadian National Railways to the matter. That has already been suggested by the Duff commission. The hon. member for Vancouver North thinks it is a matter of vital importance. I agree with him in that respect, and by his remarks to-night the minister shows that he also agrees with him in that respect.
The minister has pointed to the fictitious valuation of the Canadian National Railways as carried on the books of the railway company. That fictitious valuation lends itself day after day throughout Canada to misrepresentation either by those who are opposed to the public owmership of the railway or by those who are anxious to show that the Canadian National Railway is doing worse than it is actually doing, or that the Canadian Pacific Railway is suffering under a great handicap by virtue of the competition of this publicly owned railway. All of these things may be true, but I suggest that the railway has an actual value. It is probably not the value of what we owe outside, not the value of the bonded indebtedness, of what is owing to the Canadian people; it is probably more than that; it may be less, but it has an actual value of some kind, and that valuation cannot be based on its earnings as the minister suggested might possibly be done. If the industries of Canada were to have their valuation based on their earnings to-day there would be very little value in many of them. For that reason I suggest seriously to the minister that he do not ask the hon. member for Vancouver North to withdraw his resolution. We are asking the board of trustees, as trustees for the Canadian people, to place the property on a 92582-164
proper valuation, so that we can accurately visualize what is taking place year by year, instead of maintaining a valuation w'hich we all know to be fictitious. We can get no exact information so long as we maintain this fictitious valuation and so long as we are told that the deficits of hundreds of millions are bookkeeping entries. Let us get away from these bookkeeping entries and get down to business.


Robert James Manion: Might I just ask the hon.
gentleman, in view of his statement in regard to not basing the valuation of industries in Canada upon their earning capacity to-day, upon what he would base anything like a just valuation of the Canadian National Railways under present world conditions? That is one of my chief reasons at the present time for submitting that we could not come to a sensible conclusion, and I do not believe that, under present business conditions, the board of trustees could reach such a conclusion on the matter.


Wilfred Hanbury: I fully appreciate the
representation just made by the minister; it would be a very difficult thing to do. But if it were not difficult this resolution would not be necessary. We have a board of experts who are quite capable of considering all the features which the minister has pointed out, and we are asking them to place the business on a sound basis on which we as shareholders can judge it. We are told year after year that we are millions upon millions behind, but we do not know wdiat it means because the bookkeeping is erroneous. Let us therefore get down to sound bookkeeping. I again suggest to the minister that he do not ask the hon. member to withdraw the resolution but rather allow it to pass so that we may get down to a sound basis.


Peter John Veniot: I wish
to say a few words on the subject, but before I do so I should like the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) to answer a question based on the remarks he has just made. Do I understand that the acquisition of the Canadian Northern and branch lines and the Grand Trunk, those lines taken over to prevent them from going into bankruptcy, involved the guaranteeing of bonds by the Canadian government for the Canadian National Railways? Did the Canadian government guarantee bonds to the public in the taking over of these lines?


Robert James Manion: Take the Grank Trunk for instance. Certain of the securities were acceptable; others were submitted to arbitration and were held to have no value. The
C.NJi.-Capital Structure

ones to which a value was attached were accepted by the government of the day and the interest guaranteed in perpetuity. Those are a charge on the government and the railway.


Peter John Veniot: As I understand the situation, many of the provinces, especially in the west, having guaranteed certain bonds in connection with the Canadian National and other lines taken over, those guarantees were accepted by the federal authority.


Robert James Manion: Most of them have been
absorbed by the federal authority.


Peter John Veniot: Therefore those are outstanding debts due to the public.


Robert James Manion: A great many of them,
yes.


Peter John Veniot: Well, those are the kind of debts in connection with which a recapitalization of the Canadian National Railways is sought.


Robert James Manion: But those are the ones
upon which the railway is charged interest, which the government is paying.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, but I claim that the
railways should not be charged interest at all on these advances, because the government of this country, in the interests of Canada as a whole, and to save the credit of the country, took over the railways during the war when they were going into bankruptcy. The government having done that, this should not be a charge against the Canadian National Railways as constituted to-day. That is the point I make, and it is one of the reasons why, I submit, recapitalization should be looked into by the board of trustees or by the railway commission. I submit therefore that this motion is perfectly in order when it asks that the matter be now considered by the board of trustees.


Robert James Manion: It is being considered.


Peter John Veniot: I doubt it, and I think the minister himself has his doubts.


Robert James Manion: I have doubts as to when they will make their report.


Peter John Veniot: If this motion were accepted I think it would hasten the report.
There is another point in connection with the minister's statement which I would discuss for a moment. He said that the cost of the Intercolonial railway is included in the debt due by the Canadian National Railways to the government of Canada. Well, this is news to me and I know it will be news to every hon. member from the maritime prov-

inces who knows anything about the terms and
agreements under which those provinces came into confederation.


Robert James Manion: It appears in every annual report and has been in the Canadian National balance sheet as long as I can remember, in the eighteen years that I have been in the House of Commons.


Peter John Veniot: I hardly think the Canadian National Railways has existed that length of time. At any rate it is news to me, and had I been aware of it before, I would certainly have raised the objection which I am going to state now.


Robert James Manion: There is no interest charged upon it.


Peter John Veniot: I know. But the old Intercolonial railway was built as a bond of confederation and no charge was to be held against it in the operation of that railway as a freight or passenger carrier. And to be told at this late date that it is charged on the books of the government against the Canadian National Railways is certainly news. I should like to know when it was transferred from a non-chargeable asset, if I may use that term, to a chargeable asset. We came into confederation under an agreement, and one of tlie conditions of that agreement was the construction of the old Intercolonial railway from Levis to Halifax, in order to give the provinces of Quebec and Ontario an outlet to the Atlantic coast. Under that agreement of confederation there was no right to charge that amount against the physical value or the operation of the Intercolonial railway, and to-day, when the maritime provinces are looking, as they have looked in the past, for tvhat are called better terms, if I am to take at its face value what the minister says, we are to be met with this charge, "We obtained this road, involving so much money for the construction of a railway that we did not seek."


Robert James Manion: I will read for the information of the hon. gentleman the clause that appeared in the annual report of the Canadian National Railway system during all the years that he was a member of the government:
Dominion of Canada expenditures for Canadian government railways:
Road and equipment included in system investment account, $387,606,701.71.
That was part of the bookkeeping of the Canadian National Railways during all the nine years that my hon. friend was a member of the government.

C.N.R.-Capital Structure


Peter John Veniot: That does not make it any better.


Robert James Manion: I will admit that.


Peter John Veniot: It was made a charge in that way in 1912 under the Conservative government of the day by the then Minister of Railways, Mr. Cochrane.


Robert James Manion: The Canadian National Railways did not exist then.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say it was made a charge against the Canadian National Railways but against the old Intercolonial railway as a debt due to the federal government.


Robert James Manion: It has been in the books of the government ever since the Intercolonial was built.


Peter John Veniot: No, it has not.


Robert James Manion: I say it has.


Peter John Veniot: Not as a direct charge against the Intercolonial railway; it has not been a charge in the way the minister says. Now I wish to protest, if it is not too late, even if I appear to have been derelict in my duty in the past, when a minister of the crown, and even if it appears that the Duncan commission did not discover that item to be a charge in the way suggested-I wish to protest, I say, when the maritimes are now laying their case before a royal commission appointed by this government, against any charge being made against the Intercolonial railway by the federal government as a debt due to the federal government for the construction of that road. We came into confederation at the call and the request of Ontario and Quebec. We were doing very well by ourselves before we came into confederation-and I am not opposed to confederation, as I said once before. No matter what we think it may have brought us, I for one am still a warm supporter of confederation. But let me say to the house and to the Minister of Railways that long before Ontario and Quebec knew what railway construction-was, we in the maritimes were building railways for our own business; and under the terms of confederation we handed over those railways to the federal government to help Ontario and Quebec. They told us at that time that they had no Atlantic outlet; that they were at the behest of the United States lines; that the United States lines had a monopoly and that they had to transfer their freight from the old country to the United States railroads. In order to show their loyalty to the old country they appealed to our loyalty to come into a confederation
and if we did so they would guarantee construction of the Intercolonial railway from Levis down to Halifax, taking in at that time what they called the old eastern extension and other roads running from Shediac to Saint John, from Saint John to Moncton, from Truro to Halifax and, although I may be in error in this, from Truro to Pictou Landing. That being the case, why should we to-day stand for having the cost of that road charged up against the Intercolonial railway as a debt to the dominion government?


Robert James Manion: Would my hon. friend permit me? I know he is endeavouring to clear up the issue as I endeavoured to do, although if my hon. friends had permitted me to speak last as I had intended, I would have dealt more fully with some of the statements. Does he not consider it fair, when the Intercolonial was handed over to the Canadian National Railways, that it should be entered up as part of their assets and naturally as a charge against the Canadian National Railways to whom the original government railways were handed as a going concern.


Peter John Veniot: The Intercolonial was never handed over to the Canadian National.


Robert James Manion: For operation.


Peter John Veniot: It never was. The Intercolonial is not to-day a part or parcel of the national railways.


Robert James Manion: It is operated by them.


Peter John Veniot: Only for administrative purposes. In 1919 an order in council was passed in which it was stated that the directors of the Canadian National Railways as then organized would be the administrators of the old Intercolonial railway. The accounts of the old Intercolonial railway, if not from Montreal down through Levis and on to Halifax, at least from Levis before the Drummond road was taken in as an extension of the old Intercolonial-at least from Levis to Halifax, Sydney and New Glasgow-are kept separate and apart; they are not in the general accounts of the Canadian National Railways at all. That is the reason why in the question I put on the order paper I asked for information so that I and other members from the maritimes might be in a position to burl back into their faces the statement of those who say that the Intercolonial has been a sinkhole in the past. I wish to have that information and I am told that it will be brought down, not by the ordinary method but by a return. When shall I get that return
C.NJt.-Capital Structure

in order to defend the position of the old Intercolonial? I wish to hurl back their statement into the faces of those, especially from Ontario, who say, for the purpose of effecting an amalgamation of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, that the Intercolonial has been a sinkhole. I want to show by this information that the Intercolonial had surplus upon surplus year after year. In some years there were deficits. I remember that when the old Intercolonial railway was the most prosperous, freight rates were the lowest. It was not until 1912 that the agreement under which we came into confederation was departed from when, the late Hon. Frank Cochrane, then Minister of Railways, increased the freights on the old Intercolonial railway to make them correspond with all the freight rates west of Montreal. After the Grand Trunk Pacific passed down through the province, it is true that freight from the northern section was in many cases diverted from the old Intercolonial railway and in that way deficits did occur. If hon. members will examine the record of what is known as the Atlantic region of the present Canadian National railway system, what will they find? They will find that within the last two years, whatever increase there has been in carloadings the greater majority has been over the Atlantic region of the Canadian National, which is the old Intercolonial. To think we, down in the maritimes, have to stand the brunt of the arguments advanced by members from the two old provinces that dragged us into confederation, when they say that we gave Canada a railroad that is nothing but a sinkhole!
Let me draw the attention of the house to the further fact that the old Intercolonial railway is 225 or 250 miles longer to-day than was anticipated when the fathers of confederation asked the maritimes to come into this association. It was not the will of the maritime provinces that brought about the difference in length of that railway. We were forced to go down by the northern route instead of down the valley of Saint John and across close to the northern section of the state of Maine. The imperial government interfered and for the sake of military strategy they said to the confederation at that time, that is, Ontario, Quebec and the two maritime provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick: We desire that this line shall be built such and such a distance from the United States border in case of trouble with the United States so that our railroad will be safeguarded by distance. The imperial government, in order to induce us to do this, paid a con-

tribution of I forget how many million pounds to aid in the construction of the old Intercolonial railway. It is a wonder to me that those who are instrumental in making that charge an amount due to the government by the old Intercolonial railway did not make that payment or contribution of the home government a charge against the Intercolonial as well. Indeed, that may have been done; I am not too sure that it has not. It may be worth while looking into the matter before we get through with this question.
A great deal more could be said in connection with this railway matter but I am going to defer any more remarks I have to make until I have received the information for which I have asked.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	This is indeed one of the least
contentious motions that has ever been submitted to the House of Commons. The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Munn) does not ask the house to define or state any policy; he only expresses the wish that the house submit a certain matter to the trustees of the Canadian National Railways; that is all we find in this resolution. The first paragraph contains a statement of fact. It reads thus:
Whereas, the attention of this house has been drawn by the royal commission to inquire into railways and transportation in Canada to the urgent necessity which exists for an early consideration of the capital structure of the Canadian railways (section 84-87 of that report):
This nobody can deny. It is a statement of fact, and that fact is admitted.
And whereas, that commission recognized that a very substantial part of the money invested in the railways comprised within the Canadian National railway system must be regarded as lost, and that its capital liabilities should be heavily written down, although the said royal commission did not deem the time opportune when making the said report to deal with this important matter, but suggested that the same receive early consideration by the board of trustees;
That also was expressed by the royal commission. The royal commission did a certain work, but that work was not complete, especially in regard to labour. If I am not mistaken there was only one paragraph of that report which related to the relations between labour and the company. It was most incomplete. But as the commissioners could not complete their work they directed the attention of the House of Commons to the very fact mentioned in this paragraph. By bringing the matter to the attention of the house the hon. member for Vancouver North
JANUARY 28, 193a	247
C.N.R.-Capital Structure
tries to have the commission's work completed by the trustees who are now in charge of the railway's business.
The third paragraph is:
And whereas, a board of trustees has been appointed by the government;
This is also a statement of fact which cannot be denied. Then the conclusion is:
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, it is of vital importance that the attention of the board of trustees of the Canadian National Railways be directed to this matter, and that this house deems it highly desirable that the said board of trustees shall consider this question and report thereon with the least possible delay as being of vital and primary importance in the interests of all concerned.
In this house we have to be informed of facts. It is impossible for any member of parliament to read all the bluebooks thoroughly. We have officials in various spheres who are supposed to do that. For this railway system there are three trustees, who have been honoured with the confidence of the crown and about whom I have nothing to say at present, except that I have got in touch with Mr. Labelle and I was well satisfied with the way I was answered when I wrote to him. What we need here in the House of Commons is full information about the basic facts, then we may draw our own conclusions. A moment ago there was a little discussion between the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot). They were approaching the matter from different points of view and were not agreeing about the facts. One or other of them is right, but I cannot say which. It is most important to have the facts brought before us from the trustees, and it is most important that their attention should be .brought to the matter in order that they, with the experience that they have acquired in that business by dealing with it for a few years, should make that study for us. They would draw their conclusions, but at the same time we should have the facts upon which those conclusions were based, and this house would have opportunity afterwards to form its own judgment on the matter.
The hon. member for Vancouver North is not now asking the government to change its policy in regard to the Canadian National Railways. Often the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) himself has said that Canada has reached the limit of her credit. It has been stated here in Ottawa and elsewhere. We have to know everything about the capital structure of the Canadian National Railways.
I shall not repeat what has been said by other members, but it is most important for us to have a report about that matter at the earliest date possible. In what has been said by the Minister of Railways there is nothing in opposition to this resolution. He cannot say anything against it. The government would not be compromised by accepting it. It would not change the policy of the government at all. It is just asking for a report by the persons best qualified to study the whole matter and to report to us. After that report reaches us the government will be able to state their policy in the matter, when they have full information. That is why I congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver North upon having brought this resolution before the house.
There are some complaints about the Canadian National Railways being unable to meet their liabilities. Some of the interest is on bonds held by the government. The government knows very well that it will take a very long time to pay them. On the other hand the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues often speak about the inability of the Canadian National Railways to meet their liabilities just on account of the interest that is due to the government on those bonds. Therefore I do not see how any member of this house should object to getting good, reliable information on a matter of such vital interest.


Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: I oppose the resolution for one reason; that it is calculated to make us forget how foolish we have been in years past. That I think is something we should not forget. Neither do I think we should do anything that would tend to that end.
As far as the remarks of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) are concerned, to a very large extent I am in sympathy with the position he takes. There is no question that the mileage of the Intercolonial was needlessly increased by at least three hundred to four hundred miles simply from a military point of view, at the instance of the British government of that day. It is a mistake to suppose that all the branch lines in the maritime provinces were unprofitable. For instance one branch line taken over was in my own county of Pictou. It was some twelve and a half miles long. That road always paid a small return on the capital; it paid the larger amount during the summer months, while in most winters there was a slight loss due to difference in traffic. And there were other roads in the maritime provinces that were earning money.
C.NJI.-Capital Structure

It is not my intention to discuss this matter at any length, but I repeat that I am opposed to the resolution simply for the reason that I think it is a mistake to do anything to remove from our minds and memories the colossal mistakes we made in this country in regard to railway construction. That loaded us with a debt that neither our children nor our grandchildren will see wiped out. There is no way to wipe it out; we have to pay the interest, and no matter of bookkeeping is going to alter that unfortunate fact. A good many of us would like to forget some other mistakes we made in the last four or five years. It would not help us one iota if we could erase from memory's pages many of the mistakes we made in 1928 and 1929. It is well that we should remember them and profit by them, and the same thought applies to the question of the capitalization of the Canadian National railways.


Albert Edward Munn: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would direct attention to the fact that the reply of the mover of the resolution will close the debate. If any other hon. member desires to speak to the motion he should do so now.


Albert Edward Munn: 
Robert James Manion: I simply say it is not
necessary, because the matter is being dealt with and the trustees will report when they find themselves capable of reporting.


Albert Edward Munn: Then with the assurance of
the Minister of Railways that the matter

will be or is being considered, and that if possible it will be reported on at this session-


Robert James Manion: I cannot assure my hon.
friend of that, but I can assure him that it is being considered. I cannot say when they will report, but I shall gladly ask, and give the information to my hon. friend.


Albert Edward Munn: Then with that assurance I
ask that the motion be withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.



SUPPLY-REFORM MEASURES AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE FOR COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, no doubt your honour will remember that when the debate on the address took place I offered cooperation with the government on the part of the official opposition in connection with the consideration of all measures having to do with the pressing question of unemployment, as well as those measures of social and industrial reform which we were advised would be the main concern of this parliament at its present session, but I pointed out that as the time of this parliament might be distinctly limited, since the government had it within its power at any moment to bring on a general election before measures of industrial and social reform were properly considered, it would be advisable that those measures should be brought down at the earliest possible moment, and that the time of parliament should not meanwhile be devoted to less important business.
In order that the government might have every opportunity to bring down its legislation at an early date and in as complete a form as possible I said that I would ask hon. members on this side to refrain from participating in the debate on the address, and would seek to have the speeches of the opposition confined to the speech which might be made by myself. Hon. members on this side acted in accordance with that suggestion, and to a certain extent hon. members in other parts of the house restricted the number of their speeches. There were a few speeches by hon. members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, speeches by the independent members, and a few from the government side. Debate on the address was thus brought to a speedy conclusion, and I believe all hon

Reform Measures-Mr. Mackenzie King
members then hoped and thought the way was clear for the consideration, or at least the introduction, of some of the measures of social and industrial reform which we have been called to consider.
I made a further suggestion respecting private members' motions to the effect that with the consent of the house we might forego the consideration of such measures at the present time and if need be consider them later. I was careful to point out that no hon. member should be deprived of his right to speak on any motion he might have on the order paper. I suggested such an arrangement would have to have unanimous consent, and I believe it would have received such consent had not the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) indicated that he did not purpose changing the order of procedure and would not put any motion of the kind. For that reason we have had to consider private members' motions. However hon. members on this side of the house have adopted a self-denying ordinance and have foregone any lengthy discussion or all discussion of the motions appearing in the names of hon. members of the opposition. We have been content to allow other hon. members to indicate their points of view and to indicate ours simply by taking such action as might be necessary to indicate our support or disapproval.
The house has now gone completely through private members' motions. Every number on the order paper has been called and several of the motions have been discussed. A few have been passed by deliberately in order to give the government an opportunity to bring on its measures of social reform. For example I would point to the motion respecting titles standing in my name. I attach a good deal of importance to the discussion of that subject but I have felt that if the motion came before the house a somewhat lengthy debate might be created, that a considerable amount of time might be necessary for discussion and, as a consequence, in case I might be absent when it was called, I asked the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) to inform the chair of my desire to have it stand for the present in order that the house might proceed more quickly with those measures about which the people of the country are very greatly concerned. That was done.
My third suggestion was that if we could proceed with the program of social and industrial reform, with the measures concerning social insurance and with the reform of the capitalistic system I would undertake, so far as supply was concerned, to state on behalf of the opposition that we would have little difficulty in reaching an agreement with the government regarding the voting of supply at a later time. I am now again prepared to give that undertaking. I have looked through the estimates, and with the exception of some of the items in the different departments I think we could agree to their passage. We may find it necessary to discuss some votes where salaries have been considerably increased, but other than that I believe we could agree to pass the civil supply very quickly, once we have had before us all the social and industrial reform measures. As hon. members are aware however, once the house resolves itself into committee of supply, debate may be protracted to any length; supply may be brought up day after day, and we may be kept here doing little more than considering supply one day after another. That is a means governments sometimes take to fill in time when they are not ready with more important legislation.
We have been told by the Prime Minister that the social reform legislation is so allimportant that no time must be lost. He has said we must proceed with it with haste. Not only have we been told that but the people of Canada were told the same thing over the radio before parliament assembled. They were told that in part at least they would see the program outlined in the speech from the throne and that the government would go on with the work immediately. In these circumstances-


Hugh Guthrie: Where was the word "immediately" used?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member has asked when the word "immediately" was used. If he wishes to quibble over a word I shall withdraw the word "immediately" altogether. I will give him the Prime Minister's own words. I believe he did not use the word "immediately" but he did use the word "now," and the expression "as quickly as possible." Further he used the expression "go on without delay," the further expression "speed and determination," and the expression "not any other time, but right now." If I used the word "immediately" as comprehending the lot or synonomous with each I hope exception will not be taken.
When a week ago to-day the Prime Minister introduced the resolution standing on the order paper respecting social insurance he said he was doing so so that "to-morrow" the resolution might be considered.


Hugh Guthrie: That is a form.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but the word "to-morrow" means that the matter may be discussed at the earliest possible moment

Reform Measures[DOT]-Mr. Mackenzie King
in the order of procedure in which it appears on the order paper. For that reason I do not think I am far wrong when I state the impression left upon the house and country *was that these measures were all-important and would be proceeded with at once.
May I draw your attention to a further fact, Mr. Speaker. Not only did I point out that the measures for social reform and reform of the capitalistic system might be all-important, but I pointed out these were matters relating to the future and that important as they might be they should not be so placed as to sidetrack the immediate consideration of the problem of unemployment as we have it today, and the suffering to which as a consequence many people are being subjected. I did that because at every session of this parliament the discussion of the important question of unemployment has been left either to the very end of the session or until a moment immediately preceding an adjournment, such as the Easter recess. Never have we been able to get the government to permit discussion of supply of the Department of Labour or of a discussion of unemployment relief measures until a time approaching the very end of the session when hon. members had little or no opportunity for discussion. I do not think if we are able to avoid it we should permit that sort of thing to happen again. We should not allow the government to take up the time of this house from day to day in a discussion as to what supply the government is to get when at the same time all-important questions concerning the present difficulties of our people remain untouched. In the circumstances I believe we should ask that the all-important measures be proceeded with immediately.
May I draw the attention of the house to the fact that notwithstanding the offers of cooperation to expedite the introduction of reform measures the time of the house up to the present has been consumed by a consideration of measures other than those of the class I have mentioned. We have given first and second readings to an act to amend the Interpretation Act, an act to amend the Representation Act, an act to amend the criminal code and an act to amend the Pension Act. We have reached the second reading of Bill No. 2. an act to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act, and have reached the same stage on Bill No. 7, an act to amend and consolidate the acts relating to patents of invention. We have reached the committee of the whole with respect to one or two resolutions that appear on the order paper. None of these things are part of the all-important program of social and industrial reform.
[Mr. Mackenzie King.}


Robert James Manion: They are part of public
business.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are part of public business, but may I tell the Minister of Railways that this house was called for the purpose of considering above all else these questions of social and industrial reform?


Robert James Manion: So it will.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So it will, but, if it is within the power of some hon. members to have it so, it will do so at the earliest possible date, and not at the last moment.
Now may I make one point very clear, because I think it is just as well the public should understand what apparently the government has in mind, and what remarks such as those we have just heard from the other side of the house would indicate to be the case. The Prime Minister in his first broadcast over the radio on January 2, after intimating that he was going to outline to parliament the various measures of reform that were essential said, addressing the public:
I will then invite your considered opinion as to whether reform is in fact necessary.
Now this means after the session is all over. Do not forget that, Mr. Speaker. There is no undertaking that any of these measures are to be put into force before a general election. According to the Prime Minister's own statement to the public this house is to be kept going until, to appearances at all events, he can get this legislation on the statute books, and then there is to be a general election:
I will then invite your considered opinion as to whether reform is in fact necessary, and as to whether my program of reform is wise. If you say yes, then I will not rest until I have put it into operation.
It is quite easy to see what is in the Prime Minister's mind-a program of social reform to be put on the statutes, but none of it put into force. Then when we have a general election, the electorate is to be told: If you want this program of social reform you must support me. But even if they do support him the Prime Minister has not promised even then that he will put the program into force, because he says:
If you say yes, then I will not rest until I have put it into operation.


Jean-François Pouliot: He will perish in the
attempt.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
kind of thing he said all through the last election with respect to what he was going

Reform Measures-Mr. Mackenzie King
to do-that he would see these things were done, that he would not rest. We all agree he will not rest; he never will rest; but that does not mean that as a consequence any or all of these measures will ever be put into operation. I do not think the public should be humbugged with regard to any of this legislation, and so far as it is within the power of hon. gentlemen on this side to see that the situation is properly understood, we shall endeavour to see that the program of legislation is brought down, that it is stated in full, that it is carefully considered, and also that the conditions on which it is being proposed are understood by the public.
May 1 point out further, Mr. Speaker, that nothing could afford a stronger reason for not proceeding with consideration of supply until we have these measures before us than the Prime Minister's own declarations over the radio. I am going to read a few of these to hon. gentlemen, and I shall leave them and the country to consider whether we are not right in the circumstances in asking that these measures of reform should receive precedence over the less important business of the house, the kind of business my hon. friend the Minister of Railways has just referred to, such bills as those we have up to the present been considering, whether we should not instead give precedence to these allimportant measures of reform.
May I point out that these measures, if they are to be what we are told they are to be, are likely to be very, very far-reaching? This house will have to consider these measures very carefully. The Prime Minister tells us that one of them relating to unemployment insurance the government has been considering for over a year past. Well, the government may have been considering it that long, but all hon. members who are not of the cabinet have not had a chance to consider it at all, and we shall want a little time after the bill is brought down to consider its merits and to understand its implications.
It is altogether probable that these measures will involve careful consideration of vexatious questions of jurisdiction. How these difficulties may be most effectively met will have to be a subject of careful consideration. It is also probable that they will involve a very large expenditure of public money. Now where is this public money to come from? How it is to be raised will be an all-important question which the public will wish to have answered before it will be prepared to support or condemn any legislation. We have heard over and over again from the Prime
Minister himself the statement that if Canada's credit goes, everything is gone. We have also heard the statement that we cannot have social legislation given effect to to any appreciable extent on borrowed money, that the revenues of the country will have to be sufficient to meet its demands. Well up to the present ever since the present administration assumed office we have done little . but add to our public debt very, very considerably every year. We have increased taxation every year, and if these social measures are to be enacted and enforced the country will wish to know whether they are to be put in force on borrowed money or whether the money for them is to come out of increased taxation-at all events where the money is to come from which is to enable them to be effective.
These are matters that cannot be settled in a day or two, and we shall wish to have them very fully discussed here.
I want to make the position perfectly clear. We do not intend if we can avoid it, those of us who sit on this side of the house, to be put in the position of being dallied along from day to day, and week to week, with regard to these alleged measures of reform, only to find ourselves a month or two months hence without any real discussion of the measures, some of them not even then perhaps brought down, faced with a general election suddenly sprung on the country by the Prime Minister on the score that he has been meeting with nothing but opposition to the measures he has brought down. We do not intend to be put in that position. We intend to offer all we can in the way of helpful cooperation to measures that deserve the support of all parties in this house, but we must reserve to ourselves the right, which hon. members of every party should consider an obligation, to have every one of these measures before us in plenty of time to consider its provisions upon their merits and to give a straightforward and unbiased opinion with respect to each.
Having said this much, let me now read from what the Prime Minister said over the radio, because the Prime Minister's own words constitute one of the main reasons why I propose to move an amendment at the conclusion of my remarks, which I hope the house will deem it advisable to support.
Here is what the Prime Minister said in his second radio speech on January 4:
Now that the time has come to carry through a policy of reform, does any earnest-minded person say we should delay?
Well, we are all earnest-minded here, and we say there should be no delay. We agree
252	COMMONS
Reform, Measures-Mr. Mackenzie King
with the Prime Minister that these measures should be ready now, and we are prepared to consider them immediately. Next the Prime Minister said:
Now that we have achieved' some measure of control over economic conditions and can operate without fear of imminent disaster, we are going to do away as quickly as possible with emergency relief measures and put in a permanent system of sound and scientific insurance against unemployment.
When a Prime Minister tells the public even before parliament meets, that the government is going to do away as quickly as possible with emergency relief measures I say that the time for us to consider what is going to take their place is right now, not after we have been in supply a couple of weeks or a couple of months, or after a general election, but immediately. That is the most important problem; what is to take the place of relief measures, we want to know what the government's policies are with respect to unemployment relief and finding work for the unemployed. We want to know that as it relates to this year, the present time, and as it affects people throughout this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The Prime Minister says:
We are going to put in a permanent system of sound and scientific insurance against unemployment.
How long is it going to take that system; to get into operation? May I ask this question. How much help is a contributory system of unemployment insurance going to be to the man who has no employment at all and nothing to contribute? These are the people who have to be considered first of all, the people who have no work at all. This is insurance against unemployment in years to come; but what the country has needed during the last five years has been some method of providing work and relief, and we have not had any consistent policy on these two matters since the present government came into office.
Then take radio address, No. 3, delivered on January 7, here is an extract:
My friends, I have declared for reform. Now that the time for action has come, delay is hazardous. A machine which is out of adjustment must be repaired or it will cease to operate. We have decided that permanent prosperity waits upon reform measures.
Now, can we afford to delay reform measures when the Prime Minister tells us that permanent prosperity waits upon them? Can we afford to delay the consideration of these measures when the Prime Minister says that, now that the time for action has come, delay is hazardous? We are prepared

to take him at his word and to consider these measures as soon as the government brings them down. In the same speech the Prime Minister also said:
I say we must go quickly forward with our reform measures.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: An hon. member on the other side says "hear, hear." Well then, come on with them; we have not had any of the reform measures yet. This house was called together a week ago last Thursday and we are now in the third week of the session, but we have not had so far any of the reform .measures though the Prime Minister says that we should go quickly forward with them. I am only taking him at his word. What is another statement he made?
When some of you ask me, as you may: "why all this haste?" I say that, as a matter of fact, there is no haste at all, either in thought or action. There is urgency, but that is another matter. This is the right time for reform. We are now ready for it. We have been preparing for it.
So when the Minister of Justice asks me why I use the word "immediately", when the Minister of Railways asks, to all intents and purposes, why the haste, seeing that we have other public business on the order paper, I reply in the words of the Prime Minister:
There is urgency, but that is another matter. This is the right time for reform. We are now ready for it. We have been preparing for it.
Take radio address No. 4, delivered on January 9:
I have outlined our general policy of reform, and have indicated some of the measures in it which will be undertaken without delay.
That is all we are asking. This House has taken up all private members' resolutions, or at any rate, all have been called and most of them discussed, and we have concluded the debate on the address, so that we come now inevitably again to government measures, which of course have been called earlier than this. But the government is now again calling a government order and we ask hon. gentlemen opposite to call those measures which the Prime Minister says are all important and not to call supply at this stage, since that may mean only a method of postponing the discussion of more important questions. Further on, the same evening, the Prime Minister said:
We must go forward with our reform program, with speed and determination.
If this language means anything it means that we should not be losing time, allowing one week to pass, and another, and a third

Reform Measures-Mr. Guthrie
week to come without touching a single measure of reform. That is neither speed nor determination. On the same evening the Prime Minister said:
In my judgment, as I have said, we can expect little more progress without reform. On the contrary, there is a danger that we may go back and go back quickly, if we do not act decisively.
Surely in these circumstances no exception should be taken to a motion which proposes that all-important social reforms should be given precedence over other matters so that we may go forward and act decisively.


Jean-François Pouliot: He has the speed of
Balaam's ass.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me next
refer to radio address No. 5, delivered on January 11, 1935. The Prime Minister in that speech made the following statement:
You know that my whole program is by no means complete. The first stage has been well begun. The second stage we will immediately initiate.
May I ask the Minister of Justice to listen to this. He asked me a moment ago why I used the word "immediately," and I gave him many synonyms and equivalents in the Prime Minister's language. But the Prime Minister himself used that very word. It was the second stage that was to contain the program set forth in the speech from the throne. The first stage was comprised in those other measures that were	referred	to	as	having
already contributed towards recovery.
Now I come to	the last	of	the	broadcasts from Ottawa, which was on the night of January 15, two days before parliament assembled. It was	reported	in	the	morning papers the day before parliament met, and in this ' broadcast the Prime Minister speaks about what	will be	in	the	speech
from the throne, and the reason it will be there. And what does he say?
When the speech from the throne is read Thursday, you will find that we are taking steps to deal with these problems not next year but right now. We cannot accomplish everything at a single thrust but we can start, and we start now.
Well, that being the Prime Minister's wish in the matter, and those of us in the opposition desiring to cooperate with the government in these matters of social reform, I move, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver) :
That all the words in the motion after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This house is of the opinion that the immediate consideration of present conditions of unemployment and the introduction of measures
of social and industrial reform should not be delayed or postponed by a consideration of supply in advance of the consideration of government policies with respect to unemployment and the introduction of measures with respect to social and industrial reform."
In moving that amendment, may I repeat what I said at the outset, that at any time, once we have these measures before us and an opportunity given to consider them, if they are brought down promptly, we shall be prepared to have a group of hon. members on this side sit down with a group of hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to supply, to work out some means whereby the discussion of supply may be considerably limited, and the government in no way embarrassed in getting what is absolutely necessary.


Hugh Guthrie: I can only say that I think my
right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) exhibits too much concern in regard to the conduct of business in the House of Commons during the present session. I am inclined to think that he imagines, for some reason or other, that during the present session he is leading the house, but it was made abundantly clear to him by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) a few days ago that the Prime Minister is still leading the House of Commons and proposes to direct the business of this chamber. What is the actual situation? The house undertook the transaction of business one week ago to-day, and to allay any fears on the part of the leader of the opposition I think I can state to him that perhaps the most important, or one of the most important, of the reform measures which have been announced in the speech from the throne will be under discussion in this chamber tomorrow. This is the first time in a long experience in this parliament that I have known an important government measure to be brought down within the first seven or eight days of the session.
Let me point out another matter to my right hon. friend. If any time has been wasted in this house during the past six days of its sitting it has not been wasted by members upon the government side.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
about the flag debate?


Hugh Guthrie: It is all very well for my
right hon. friend to enumerate five or six bills as he did in his speech to-night, and to announce that all those bills have been given a second reading during the past week. The time of the house consumed in connection

Reform Measures-Mr. Guthrie
with all those bills was in the neighbourhood of half an hour, and my right hon. friend himself consumed more than five times that amount of time in a single speech in this chamber last week. If there has been any blocking, if there has been any delay, it is not attributable in any way to the government or to anything members of the government or members on this side of the house have done. There has been no delay; there has been no loss of time, but there has been every expedition on the part of the government to get the business of parliament under way.
I may have been misled during the course of the afternoon but I certainly was informed by one of my colleagues that it was prearranged that we should go into supply tonight for the purpose of opening two or three departments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Who made the arrangement?


Hugh Guthrie: I am stating the information that was given to me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Speaking for
the opposition I say that no arrangement of the kind was ever made or mentioned.


Hugh Guthrie: I may have been misled,
but I was certainly informed that by arrangement we would go into supply to-night for the purpose of opening two or three departments in order that later on in the week or later on in the session the house might at all times have business to occupy it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think the hon. member ought to leave any such implication. I think he ought to ask his colleague where he got his information.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: There was no arrangement.


Hugh Guthrie: My colleague is not in
the house at present but I shall ask him. I accept my right hon. friend's denial. I perhaps have been misled but certainly that was my understanding of the situation.
Let me point this out also: My right hon. friend is well aware that this particular bill to which he referred, which is the unemployment insurance bill, is a difficult and complicated measure. He says that as soon as it is introduced the opposition will have to ask for time to consider it. That is reasonable. We were preparing so that in the meantime when the opposition were examining and considering the bill, this house would have something to occupy its time. It was for that particular reason the motion to go into supply 
was launched to-night, in order that we might be able to consider estimates during any interval which my right hon. friend might require to study the measure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us get the measure first.


Hugh Guthrie: The resolution was placed promptly on the order paper, and unless something unforeseen happens, will be debated in the house to-morrow and the bill will be introduced to-morrow. I have rather gained the impression from the speech which was delivered in the house to-night that my right hon. friend is going through a period of preliminary training for one of the addresses which he is going to make over the radio later on. His speech sounded to me very much as a sort of preparation for something of the kind and did not have what one might call a genuine ring. He knows he cannot make out any case charging the government with delay at this early date in the session. The facts are entirely against him. When this bill is brought down others of a similar nature will follow it in due course and I suppose when they are introduced time will have to be allowed to the opposition for their consideration. In the meantime what business is there to occupy the house? Why not proceed in the usual way with the business of parliament? My right hon. friend may depend upon it that every measure forecast in the speech from the throne, every measure forecast in the radio addresses to which he has referred, will be promptly laid before parliament, and. I can assure my right hon. friend, will be enacted into law by this parliament at this session despite criticisms and despite objections. Why, when we looked in the paper this morning we found that my right hon. friend's chief lieutenant in Ontario, the premier of that province, had already condemned our whole program as unconstitutional and had raised many and various objections to it, I assume that he did so under instruction and I perhaps may assume also that such is going to be the course of my right hon. friend and his party in this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I rise to a point of order. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has made more than an insinuation; he has made a direct charge. May I say to him that I have had no communication whatever with the premier of Ontario with respect to any legislation of this parliament this year or any year.


Hugh Guthrie: I am very glad to have that assurance, and I certainly will accept it

Reform. Measures-Mr. Guthrie
at one hundred per cent. But let me tell my right hon. friend that the premier of Ontario, who was one of his bosom friends and one of his bosom supporters in this house, who according to newspaper reports had been called into conference with him in this city before he became premier and since, certainly on Saturday last made very definite pronouncements against all the reform measures which the Prime Minister proposed to introduce. He even threatened the people of this country with a tour by himself and his lieutenants from the Atlantic to the Pacific in opposition to these reform measures.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend knows all these measures have been broadcast during this year. I have not even seen or written to the premier of Ontario this year.


Hugh Guthrie: I think it would be better if my right hon. friend would get up and repudiate the position taken by the premier of Ontario, but what I fear is that that gentleman has sounded the keynote of opposition to all these reform measures, not only in Ontario where he spoke but in the House of Commons from the opposition benches. I am not going to be critical about the use of the word "immediate." I think my right hon. friend knows why I interjected that word when I did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, because it is a substitution for "to-morrow."


Hugh Guthrie: I think he knows it had reference to a certain change which he made in Hansard last week.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, the Prime Minister spoke to me of a change in Hansard when he said I had used the word "immediate" and was putting words into his mouth. The word the Prime Minister used when he was introducing the resolution was that "to-morrow" he would introduce a certain resolution. When I read Hansard, that word "to-morrow" was changed to "immediate," because the word "tomorrow" was used a week ago and "immediate" was the word necessary to give the sense required at that time. It was a perfectly legitimate change.


Hugh Guthrie: It was in reference to making that change in Hansard, putting words he had never used into the Prime Minister's mouth, that I objected to the word "immediate."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister is referring to something the Prime Minister spoke to me about in confidence, he said,
when I explained the change and he understood it quite well. I am glad my hon. friend has come out with what he said.


Hugh Guthrie: The Prime Minister has not discussed with me anything he has discussed with my right hon. friend. The matter came to my notice in another way; but that was the reason for the interjection of the word "immediate." The Prime Minister has stated time and again in his broadcast speeches that he is going to lose no time, that he is going to act quickly. To-morrow he will introduce one of the main measures in the house. We have only had one week of actual business sessions; we started a week ago to-day. If that is not prompt enough for anyone I do not know what promptitude is in parliamentary action. No government I ever heard of has brought down measures as promptly as that. This measure will be followed from day to day or every few days by other measures in the reform program. No one in this chamber or out of it will have any cause to complain of delay in regard to these matters. The object and intention of the government is to press these measures with all haste. There will be expedition, not delay. We realize that these measures will probably require much consideration and discussion. But the bills will be offered to the house just as rapidly as it is possible to prepare and submit them. The unemployment insurance bill will be introduced to-morrow. I think probably as far as this side of the house is concerned we shall be prepared to go right on with it, but I am sure that will not suit the convenience of hon. members opposite. Well, what shall we go on with in the meantime unless you proceed with supply and let us consider supply from day to day when not otherwise occupied? The object in moving this motion to-night was merely to have some work on hand in case we are asked to delay consideration of these bills when they come down. But I repeat that up to the present moment there has not been a moment's delay. The work of the house has progressed according to the order paper as it progresses every session, perhaps more speedily than usual. If time has been wasted in the house it has not been by members on this side. If there has been obstruction it has not come from this side of the house.


Mr. McINTOSH:: There has been no obstruction.


Hugh Guthrie: And if there are any
measures that have been passed or considered that are in any way objectionable I do not
256	COMMONS
Reform Measures-Mr. Woodsworth
know of them. We have acted regularly according to the rules and traditions of parliament, and we shall speed up all our reform measures and pass them with all the dispatch that this house will permit. Therefore I say that I think the criticism by the leader of the opposition to-night is entirely unfounded.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some of us who do not
belong to either of the major parties in this house find ourselves in somewhat of a predicament when a motion of this kind is offered. I think we are just as anxious as anyone to have the business of the house speeded up. I think no one will accuse us of doing anything to prevent the earliest possible consideration of such questions as unemployment and social and industrial reform. I know that I personally want those measures brought in at the earliest possible moment. We have been trying to say that for the last four yeara. I think that the government have been very dilatory indeed in that they have left these measures until the last session of this parliament, but as far as this session is concerned I do not think anyone can say that the government have been slow in bringing down these measures. Due partly to the fact that a good many on this side have refused to take part in the debate on the address we are ready now to go on with them. Now we have a definite assurance from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), representing the government, that this important measure of unemployment insurance will be brought down to-morrow, and that the other measures will be brought down in quick succession; that there will be no delay whatever. Under these circumstances I cannot very well vote in favour of the amendment. Personally I do not like opening up a number of departments, for the reason that in the past very frequently when a number of departments have been opened up we have found that our opportunity to raise questions on going into supply has been curtailed, and further, very frequently the government has passed rapidly from one department to another. That may have been convenient for the government, but it has not been convenient for all the members of the house. In practice most of us find it impossible to attend throughout every session when estimates are being put through. It seems to me there ought to be the fullest information given as to when the estimates of any particular department will be brought down, so that we shall not be absent when some estimate in which we are particularly interested is up for discussion. The number of departments opened at one time ought to

be very limited. But it does not seem to me an unreasonable proposal that the minister should open up a department or two to-night so that business could be carried on.
I know it is quite possible that if some of us vote against this amendment we may be accused of lacking interest in bringing in reforms; that kind of party trick has often been played. We may I think face that risk in view of the very definite assurances that have been given us by the Minister of Justice to-night.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel like sitting quietly here while the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) endeavours to impress upon this house the great desire he has at this late time, after four and a half years of opposition, to put into effect reforms which he never proposed, which were proposed by the leader of the government (Mr. Bennett), but which the leader of the opposition now finds so important for this country that he thinks the ordinary business of our nation that every parliament deals with when it meets should be neglected, and we rush forward with every item of legislation which the government has to propose in order to give him a greater chance to criticize and oppose it.
Since this house first met we have had six business days. It is true there was the first Thursday, which was not a business day, and then on Friday there were the obituaries. But last week there were five days and to-day makes the sixth. Yet the right hon. leader of the opposition has the temerity to tell this house and the country that the Prime Minister delays bringing down his reform measures which he and every one except the right hon. gentleman knows to be necessary if this country is to survive and if the capitalistic system, in which I believe, and in which I think the right hon. leader of the opposition and indeed the majority of the people of this country believe, is to survive. The right hon. gentleman, not only to-day but during his speech on the address, has emphasized that his one object is to cooperate in these measures that the Prime Minister has proposed. He has said over and over again: Bring down these measures so that we can cooperate with the Prime Minister and the government in putting them through. But it is quite obvious to any observant person in this house and out of it that it is not his desire to cooperate, but that the desire of the right hon. gentleman is to embarrass. That is his whole object. And the right hon. gentleman knows it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is not fair.

Reform Measures-Mr. Mavion


Robert James Manion: The trouble with the right hon. gentleman is that he has been scooped by the Prime Minister. For four and a half years the right hon. gentleman led the opposition and during that time neither he nor his party made one constructive proposal. They opposed everything the government proposed; they criticized at all times; they found fault with every piece of legislation that was brought in. They opposed the marketing bill.


Peter John Veniot: We did not.


Robert James Manion: They opposed the marketing bill when it was brought in. Half the party over there are on record as being opposed to the empire trade agreements, which opposition the right hon. gentleman is now trying to get out from underneath. They opposed practically everything the government brought into the house, but now, when the right hon. leader of the government has had the vision and courage to see that there must be corrections made to remedy the defects of the so called1 capitalistic system and to bring forward those corrections and propose them to the people of this country, the right hon. leader of the opposition, who had hoped to float into power on a tide of discontent and unrest, finds that he is scooped, and he has not been able to restrain his temper since he came into the house this session.
My right hon. friend now says that these reforms are all important, that we must put them through because the country needs them, and that the opposition wants to help get them through. These reforms, which he now finds so all-important, are the reforms which he never mentioned during the last four and a half years. I cannot say, of course, what he intends to do when the election comes around, but I do know that about a month ago the right hon. gentleman and his party had a conference here in this city. They met right in the city of Ottawa; they were here for two days; they had representatives from all over the country. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) was here; I think the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) was here. There were representatives from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and what was the result?


An hon. MEMBER:: A mouse.


Robert James Manion: Yes, the mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse, or two mice in fact. The first mouse was a speech by the right hon. gentleman on world peace-of all subjects, as though there was anyone in God's green world except perhaps a few people in central Europe who wanted anything but 92582-17
world peace. At any rate the right hon. gentleman made a speech on world peace, and then they brought in a resolution condemning and abusing the government and demanding an immediate election, in mid-winter. That was the result of a two day conference here in the city of Ottawa, held about a month ago. Now, however, the right hon. gentleman says these are the all important measures; bring them forward and let us clean them up.
As it happened I have kept a few extracts which I happened to see in some of the newspapers during the last few weeks, since the right hon. Prime Minister submitted his program to the country. From those records let us see what some of the right hon. gentleman's lieutenants thought of these all important measures. Perhaps it would be a good thing to remind the right hon. gentleman and his friends of just what has been said. I have quotations here from speeches by a number of provincial members, but I need not read them. The first quotation I should like to give, perhaps because I like the hon. gentleman best, is by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power).


Mr. POWER:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: Here is what he had to say:
Major Power of Quebec assails "Bennett's buncombe and humbug."
That is what he considered it to be. He thought the unemployment relief measures, the measures having to do with the limiting of hours of labour and minimum wages, and all the other reform measures proposed by the right hon. Prime Minister, were "Bennett's buncombe and humbug," yet the right hon. leader of the opposition stands up to-night and says let us get on with these important measures, so which are we to believe?
The next hon. member I should like to quote, and another whom I like very much also, is the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). That hon. gentleman is usually very careful in what he says; he is a very able supporter, perhaps the ablest on the other side, of the party which supports laissez-faire.


An hon. MEMBER:: He writes books too.


Robert James Manion: Yes, and very interesting
books; I read the last two and enjoyed them very much. He says Mr. Bennett's speeches are a very ordinary election appeal. Again these are the measures which the right hon. leader of the opposition says are so allimportant. The hon. member for Ontario calls this program a very ordinary election

258	COMMONS
Reform Measures-Mr. Manion
appeal, while his right hon. leader says for God's sake let us get them brought down, let us get at them and put them through, because the country needs them.
Then my genial friend from Vancouver Centre stopped off at every place across the continent to make a speech. He was not satisfied to condemn the Prime Minister and all his words and works out in Vancouver; he got off even in my own city to make a speech. Every time he passes through he honours me by stopping off in Fort William; he likes me so much that he wants to help elect me. I am sure he has been helping me; I know he thinks I am going to be elected, because he told me so. I hope I may be forgiven for quoting him, but he told me so, and I do not know any better proof that I am reasonably sure of election.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps the hon. member
introduced him to Miss Lizzie Fair.


Robert James Manion: No, he was not the
gentleman. The hon. member got off at Fort William and called Mr. Bennett's proposal "a new deal or a new steal." That was what he termed it; that was his opinion. Even the youngest member of the house, the hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulock) jumped into the limelight and put himself on record as condemning not only the Prime Minister but also his own leader, because his own leader says to-night, as he said on Friday and last Monday and every time he was on his feet, almost with tears in his eyes and with an appeal to this house, "For heaven's sake let us get on with these measures. The country needs them. We are anxious to shove aside all the rest of the business of the house in order to get on with them." But the hon. member for North York says:
"Confederation threatened by Bennett," states Mulock. Condemns Prime Minister for his audacity and impudence.
The hon. member condemns the Prime Minister, forsooth. I am afraid the people of this country will have to decide which is showing the audacity and impudence. According to the report I have, during this speech at Aurora the hon. member said:
Premier Bennett's policies will "break up confederation because his ambition is to set up a dictatorship," charged Colonel W. P. Mulock, M.P. for North York riding at a meeting of prominent Liberals at his farm here last night. "He thought he was the second Barnum-"
He is speaking of Mr. Bennett.
"-but he is going to be mistaken."


Mr. MULOCK:: In regard to the statement made by the minister-


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Is the hon. member rising
to a point of order?


William Pate Mulock: Yes. I should like to
correct the minister. I have no doubt that he is reading the quotation correctly, but I did not make that statement.


Robert James Manion: Then my hon. friend will
have to correct the Toronto Daily Star, from which I am quoting.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
should accept the word of the hon. member.


Robert James Manion: Of course I accept my
hon. friend's statement, but I have quoted the Toronto Star, and that same newspaper quotes him a little further. He can correct this also if he wishes to do so. He said:
"Let us go out and save these liberties for which our forefathers gave their lives. Fight to make this country what Laurier and Mackenzie King made it."
The hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier) also made a speech, in which he said:
It certainly looks as though Mr. Bennett was preparing for the role of dictator.
Yet his leader says that these measures are so important that he wants to put them through without delay, so he cannot believe in this dictator business.
I could go on indefinitely, but I will quote only one other hon. member. These quotations are rather good; they may help my hon. friends in their campaign when the time comes. I have one quotation from Mr. Roebuck of the Ontario government, but I do not wish to read it; his was worst of all. Then even the senators got into it, because we find Senator Graham, my dear old friend George Graham, making statements. The following is an article which appeared in the press:
Asked what significance he attached to Mr. Bennett's failure to extend the attack to include the C.C.F., Mr. Graham believed Mr. Bennett hoped to attract the support of that body to himself, as he appeared to be adopting some of their platforms ... his program as far as one can understand, is in head-on collision with his former policies which, at the present time, are still adhered to by the Conservative party.
So even he found fault. I shall now quote some observations by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser) and then I shall stop quoting. I could go down the list of those who spoke, but I shall not take the time. The hon. member for Northumberland said:

Reform. Measures-Mr. Manion
Mr. Bennett's utterances are more fantastic than anything that ever came out of the Arabian Nights.
I should like hon. members on this side of the house to remember what the opinion of the Liberal party as constituted in this house is concerning proposals for reform. That is worth while remembering, and yet in spite of his lieutenants the right hon. gentleman says, "We must deal at once with these matters and put them on the statute books"- on the statute books, not in his book, "We must get them forward and have them in a position to carry them out."
I accept the right hon. gentleman's attitude, namely that these are very fine measures. I can draw only that conclusion, if I believe in his sincerity at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think my hon. friend has quite understood what I have said. He keeps saying that I have said these measures are excellent. I have been quoting the Prime Minister's statement that they are so necessary. What I have wanted is that we may see the measures which are so important, and if they deserve support they will get it. I cannot speak of the measures until I see them.


Robert James Manion: The right hon. gentleman has been taking the stand that we should bring them down hurriedly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So we can see them.


Robert James Manion: Now he states the reason he has made statements is because he has been quoting the Prime Minister. He is not always so reasonable in taking the Prime Minister's word for things of that kind. He must have some use for them. If the right hon. gentleman does not think these measures are going to be of any use to the Dominion of Canada why is he in such a rush? Why is he trying to embarrass the government even to the extent of blocking supply, and offering an amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply so that the work of that committee may be delayed? Why has he objected to every little bill that has been introduced? Three or four of them were reported one afternoon, and they were passed in much less time than he took while speaking on the address in reply. Yet he keeps pushing things along. Now he wishes to withdraw from his position and apparently stands with the chap who said, "I am their leader; I must follow them." He has heard some of his followers and therefore he is going to follow them instead of precede them.
I say that the Prime Minister has shown vision and courage in bringing forward these 92582-174
reform measures, a vision and courage which' everybody, with the exception apparently of the leader of the opposition and some of his-colleagues, has recognized. At one time I did accept the right hon. gentleman's sincerity in his attempt to have the measures brought forward, but now it would seem he is trying even to back up from that. Therefore I do not know now whether I can accept his sincerity in the attitude he has taken in the house. I must state that, so far as I can see, his endeavours to hasten the measures of reform are not for the purpose of hastening reform but for the purpose of embarrassing the government. He is doing it for the purpose of killing time. The right hon. gentleman and his followers for the past four years have done nothing in this house but offer criticism during the most terrible crisis the world has ever gone through. In all those four years he has offered nothing by way of constructive suggestion. It is true that he has said on one occasion he suggested an interprovincial conference. Let me tell him we had three or four interprovincial conferences, and in most of them the provincial representatives went away agreeing unanimously with the policy of this government. So far as I can remember, and I speak in all sincerity, I know of no constructive suggestion the right hon. gentleman has offered in those four .years. In that time he and his party in this chamber have been just as useful to the country-and no more useful-than the drought in Saskatchewan.
I do not wish to take further time of the house, but I should like to say that the Prime Minister has not only recognized the need for reform, but in the four years in which he and his government have held office they have brought this country through the crisis in better condition than any country in the world. To that statement I make no exception. Not only Canada, but the rest of the world is going forward on the road to progress and prosperity, and the successful issue so far as Canada is concerned is due to the efforts of the Prime Minister. Now he is going to crown his work of four and a half years by these reform measures. I submit again to the right hon. leader of the opposition if he is the sincere friend of the country he says he is-and I wish to accept his statement, because I do not question any man's loyalty- if he is so sincere he will give the Prime Minister proper time; he will not endeavour to embarrass the government instead of attempting to assist it.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: Mr. Speaker, it is always a great
pleasure to listen to an address by the Min-
260	COMMONS
Reform Measures-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
ister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). Hon. members enjoy listening to him. He has the real Irish spirit, and on this occasion the hon. member has excelled himself. If ever there was a party which has swallowed itself, body, bones and breeches, certainly the Conservative party has done it on this occasion. They have not left a thing. They have even tried to steal the policies of my good friends sitting in the comer of the chamber.


Robert James Manion: We couldn't steal yours
because you didn't have any.


Charles A. Stewart: I say to the hon. member that that is exactly what he is trying to do. The Conservative party is trying to do that, and it is caught in the act. For four long years we have been trying to defend the people of Canada against the present administration. When the hon. member excites himself into one of his tirades I am reminded of the story of the Irishman who got drunk in New York. Being an Irishman the minister will appreciate this story; as it is against my own church and in favour of his I do not think he should object. Having spent the night in debauchery the Irishman decided the proper thing to do would be to go to church, and with that in mind he went to the little church around the corner. As there was a verger in the church the Irishman said to him. " When is mass about to begin ?" " Why," the verger replied ; " my dear friend, you are in the wrong place; this is not your church; it is an Anglican church." The Irishman looked around the walls and in one comer he saw a picture of our Saviour, and asked, " Is that not a picture of our Saviour up there in that niche?" The reply was in the affirmative. " Is that not a picture of the Mother in that niche?" The reply was again in the affirmative. "Is that not St. Peter over there?" "Yes it is." "Well then," said the Irishman, " since when did them folks become Protestants?" The change of heart my hon. friend has undergone in these four years is I believe described by that story, and in telling it I have had no desire to be profane. We have not heard the new policies yet, and that is why we have shown some anxiety. A few days ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) told us that the most important piece of legislation, which had on a former occasion been mentioned by the party in the comer of the chamber, was prepared as early as last March. Why was it not brought down? Why could it not have been brought down? As usual, did the right hon. gentleman want to do his stall-
[Mr. C. A. Stewart.!
ing trick? They want to delay. They need delay; the Lord knows they are going to need a lot of delay before they pass this legislation, because so far as I can discover it merely amounts to some amendments to Liberal policies of 1921.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, I
shall be glad to see it when it comes down. I will go as far as to state that I will support anything which is in conformity with Liberal policies. Neither my hon. friend nor his leader has any right to go around this country and say that this party or my leader opposed the marketing act.


Robert James Manion: The only member opposite who supported it was the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell).


Charles A. Stewart: It does not make any difference what my hon. friend from Melville said. Time and again during the discussion of the marketing act it was made perfectly clear that we on this side of the house stood for cooperative marketing, but did we stand for the iniquitous provisions set out in that act? No, we did not, and we do not stand for them to-day. Did we stand for a board being set up in British Columbia with power to say, "You shall not ship Alberta butter into British Columbia?" No, we did not, and we do not stand for it to-day. We might just as well face this thing squarely. We are not going to be put in the position of having it said that we opposed the principle of the marketing act. We are not going to have that said either by the leader of the party opposite or by any hon. gentleman opposite. But we did oppose the provisions of that act.


Robert James Manion: You opposed everything.


Charles A. Stewart: And we are prepared to oppose them again, because we opposed them in the interests of the people of this country.
Let me say to my hon. friends on the other side of the house that never in the history of Canada has there been a period of four years in which more damage was done than in the four years they have been in power. More men have lost their homes, not only in the urban centres but in the rural parts of Canada, and they are losing their homes to-day.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: And a million people on relief.


Charles A. Stewart: And they are losing their homes on account of the policies of this government.

Reform Measures-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles A. Stewart: Go out on
the prairies and see the procession taking place off the farms daily. In my own city of Edmonton hundreds of people have lost their homes through taxation and their inability to pay as they were unable to secure work. I am told on fairly good authority that over fifty per cent of the land of that city belongs to the municipality to-day. And then hon. gentlemen opposite get up and say that they are the authors of everything that saved the situation in Canada, and that Canada came out of the depression better than any other country. If that is true, and I question it, the people of Canada came out better because of their innate ability to withstand the legislation that this government offered.
Hon. gentlemen opposite get up and criticize my leader and accuse him of a policy of laissez-faire. The leader of the government the other day said that my leader did not know which side of the fence he was on. Lord knows I would like to know which side of the fence the Prime Minister is on. Nobody has jumped the fence quicker than he has done. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite to read his Christmas address to the people of Canada, and then to read his New Year's speech, and then his radio broadcasts. Just compare them, and then let us see if any hon. gentleman opposite will stand in his place and accuse anyone on this side of inconsistency. I cannot think of words sufficiently strong, Mr. Speaker, to do justice to the occasion.
My hon. friend the Minister of Railways gets up to-night and proceeds in his usual form to lecture the opposition for their tactics. Does he remember when he sat over here, and his good friend the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens)?


Robert James Manion: I have forgotten that.


Charles A. Stewart: I sat on the government side of the house when my hon. friend the present Minister of Railways sat over here. Does he remember 1930?


Robert James Manion: Sure I do.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I know he remembers, and then his right-about-face. He was following then the tactics of an opposition that are doing nothing more or less, and no one did that half as strongly as he and his leader did when they were sitting over here. Our business as an opposition is to scrutinize every piece of legislation that is brought down.
We have had broadcast announcements by the Prime Minister, not once but five times, about the legislation that is all ready, that is
going to reform the whole country, and God knows it needs it. In 1930 we had 117,000 unemployed, according to the statement issued by hon. gentlemen opposite, who were then in opposition, and to-day we have well over one million. '


Robert James Manion: Nothing of the sort.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Charles A. Stewart: To-day wes have one million on relief.


Robert James Manion: That is different.


Charles A. Stewart: Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about there being only 400,000 unemployed to-day. I venture to say to hon. gentlemen opposite, and I am sure I am supported by some of their own friends, that there are twice four hundred thousand unemployed.


Robert James Manion: That is exaggerating.


Charles A. Stewart: They have just discovered that the young men coming out of the universities have to have a job. These young men have been out of jobs for four years, as hon. gentlemen know.
Then look at the speeches which the Prime Minister himself has made in previous sessions in favour of sound money and in defence of tariffs. We were told in those days to tighten our belts. That is all the satisfaction the people of this country got out of the situation up until a short while ago, and not until my good friend the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce started his crusade was there any change of heart among hon. gentlemen opposite. He was the first one to see the light-and all credit to him for having seen it-and what happened to him? He is no longer in the government giving advice; but suddenly the government discovered that his program was going to be very acceptable to the people of this country and they thought it about time to make a right-about-face.
Now bring on your legislation. Let us have a look at it. You do not need to pass estimates. You do not require money until the thirty-first of March. But no. You have to admit now, after all this ballyhoo about reform measures-I know no better word, Mr. Speaker-that you do not yet know what you are going to do about this reform legislation. That is the plain, honest fact of the case. You do not know what you are going to introduce, except for the one measure that was prepared in March a year ago; and I am not stretching my imagination very much when I say that. We as an opposition are
262	COMMONS
Reform Measures-Mr. McPhee
entitled to know what you propose to introduce. We are entitled to know what you are going to do about it.
We realize the serious situation in this country to-day. I suppose I shall be accused of maligning Canada when I say that I for one believe that Canada is on the verge of bankruptcy. And what have hon. gentlemen opposite done? They have added to the public debt in every direction in the last four years. I say that advisedly, and if they do not change their tactics and stop adding to the public debt of this country we will be bankrupt. I am not saying anything more, Mr. Speaker, than was said by hon. gentlemen opposite in 1930 when they were sitting over here. I have taken the trouble to examine the situation, and I am going to say something more when the opportunity offers, with respect to the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite in 1930.
Here they are trembling on the brink of an election, fearful of the electorate.


Robert James Manion: Not trembling.


Mr. STEW  ART@Edmonton: And you have a right to be afraid of the people. We were promised an early election but the latest reports are that the water does not look so good since the session started. Let me say to hon. gentlemen opposite: You are the government, and it is your responsibility to bring down the legislation. It is our responsibility to examine it, to criticize it where necessary and to agree to it when we believe it will help out the situation that is so serious in this country at the present time. I support my leader in everything he said to-night and I shall support him later on in connection with this matter.
I say to hon. gentlemen opposite: Bring *on your legislation and let us examine it. The only defence we have, the only weapon we can use, is to refuse you supply until we know what your program is, and1 that we propose to do.
Mr. GEORGE W. McPHEE (Yorkton): Mr. Speaker, with the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) I agree. I happen to have sat on the other side of the house for nine years, and I well recall my red-blooded Irish Canadian friend on the other side of the house obstructing, when he was sitting over here, every bit of legislation that was 'brought down by tire government headed by the present right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King).
My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) to-night boasts that the legislation foreshadowed in the Prime Minister's (Mr. C. A. Stewart.]
fireside chats will be brought down immediately. He said the same thing in 1930, because I recall that in that year the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) made the statement in Winnipeg that in three days his leader would end unemployment if he were returned to power.


Hugh Guthrie: No; you never heard
that, and it never was said.


Mr. McPHEE:: His right hon. leader was
a little more definite than that. He said, speaking at the same place in June, 1930: " I propose, if elected to power, to call a session of parliament"-one of the two promises he kept-" immediately after July 28, and to introduce national undertakings which will give work to our workmen. I propose to have immediately enacted such measures as will do away with the bogy of unemployment." That was in 1930. I was in Sherbrooke a year ago addressing a meeting there, and I was told by the labouring people of that city that the present leader of the government went there in 1930, a few days before the election, and made an address. In that beautiful city of 25,000 people he spoke as dramatically as he did when he delivered his fireside chats a week ago. They described to me the manner in which he walked out to the edge of the platform at three o'clock in the afternoon and said: "I know what is wrong with the good city of Sherbrooke. These factories, fifty of them built by the industry of its people, are not going full time. Men are being laid off. Put me in office and there will be work and work aplenty for every able-bodied man in Sherbrooke." What was the situation there when I addressed that meeting? There were 2,500 men in that city attending the soup kitchen.
The Minister of Railways boasts about the contrast between Liberal and Conservative governments in their attitude toward labour. Let me give him this illustration. In 1928 when the Liberal government reduced the duty on automobiles from 35 to 20 per cent, a reduction which was fought tooth and nail by the Minister of Railways and everyone on that side, 4,000 workmen from Oshawa came to this city. Those hon. members who were here at the time will remember what happened. They filled two blocks in front of these parliament buildings, and they carried banners. These banners indicated that they were returned men: "We fought for Canada and we want to make Canada our home." They thought that after this reduction went into effect they would lose their employment and would have to go elsewhere

Health Policy-Mr. Spencer
for work. What did my right hon. leader do? I want this house and the country to contrast the record of these two men, the present leader of the government and the present leader of the opposition. My leader on that occasion, in conjunction with the late Mr. Robb, then Minister of Finance, hired the largest theatre in the city, the Capitol theatre to which they requested that labour group to retire in orderly fashion. The men did so and they were addressed both by Mr. Robb and by the then leader of the government, the present leader of the opposition. I can hear Mr. Robb telling them, "Go back home, men. They will not close your factories. As a result of the reduction the factories will be working overtime and you will have more work." The men went back and the factories tvent on That is liberalism.


Mr. MORAND:: It was never put into effect.


George Washington McPhee: Contrast that with what has taken place in the last four years. What happened when farmers from the good old province of Ontario came here and assembled in the exhibition building? Neither the leader of the government nor any member of his government, nor anyone on his behalf, went to address those men. That is the way they treat the labouring people of this country-and after all farmers are labouring people. It reminds me of the late Sir Sam Hughes, a Conservative, and his attitude to a delegation of a thousand farmers from western Canada. He had the effrontery to describe these men as "this gang of leaders"- men whose wives were at home wearing long boots cleaning out stables and doing other laborious work while the men were down here pleading for lower tariffs on their necessities. Take the labour delegation that came to the House of Commons three years ago. The Prime Minister had promised "Come unto me all ye that labour and I will give you work" and they came to this city and assembled on Wellington street, a thousand strong. What happened? They were not even allowed to pass the gates. Far from being invited to go to a theatre where they could be seated comfortably they were not allowed to enter these grounds. Instead they were met by armed men. That is the contrast between liberalism and conservativ-ism so far as their respective relations with labour are concerned.
And now we have this spectacle of the Prime Minister of this country having promised eveiything under heaven four years ago, having all his life "insistently fought
for the capitalistic system, having profited as no other professional man in this country has profited as a result of that system-we find him now, not as Saul on the road to Damascus but as Richard Bedford on the road to his defeat, denouncing the very thing from which he has profited the most of any person in the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the business to-morrow?


Hugh Guthrie: I assume that this dilatory motion will proceed until it is disposed of.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point
out that the government can arrange the order itself. If the government cares to introduce its legislation immediately it may have its effect on this motion.


Hugh Guthrie: This dilatory motion may have to be disposed of; otherwise we will go on with government orders, taking up the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister in regard to unemployment insurance, and there is another resolution to follow.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, January 29, 1935