1937-01-18

PRECIOUS AIETALS MARKING ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act, 1928.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932.
Mr. BENNETT:: Explain.


Mr. DUNNING:: The amendment is a minor one, affecting small companies incorporated by the provinces in relation to the deposits which they are called upon to make with the superintendent of insurance.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. NOR ALAN McL. ROGERS (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to amend the Weights and Measures Act.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Explain.


Mr. ROGERS:: It is the intention of the amendment to settle some confusion which has arisen as to the jurisdiction of a police or stipendiary magistrate to hear cases under the Weights and Measures Act. It has been deemed advisable to add to subsection (b) of section 82 the words underlined in section 1 of the bill:

The Address-Mr. McLarty
a police magistrate, a stipendiary magistrate, or any person having the power or authority of two or more justices of the peace, having jurisdiction in such district, county or place.
The amendment is in the exact words of the interpretation section of the criminal code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MILITIA PENSION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to amend the Militia Pension Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: The intention of the amendment is to withdraw section 32 of the act and enact a new section 41 so that payments of arrears shall be made in monthly instalments, the previous custom of making payments in lump sums in advance being eliminated.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE

Mr. J. K. BLAIR (Wellington North):: moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the criminal code (death penalty).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CUBAN DUTY ON SEED POTATOES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: I should like to direct a question to the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Rogers) respecting the recent duty of $10 per barrel imposed by the Cuban government upon Canadian certified seed potatoes. This duty, as the government realizes, is absolutely prohibitive and is a serious blow to the exporters of seed potatoes in the maritimes. I should like to know whether the government has made any representations to the Cuban government with the object of having the duty either removed or lowered.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce): I had not received notice of my hon. friend's intention to ask this question. I shall be glad to secure the information if possible and give it to him at the earliest opportunity.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of the speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session.
Mr. N. A. McLARTY (Essex West) moved:: That the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, to offer the humble thanks of this house to His Excellency for the gracious speech which he has been pleased to make to both houses of parliament: namely,-*
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Baron Tweedsmuir of Elsfield, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Member of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Governor General and Commander in Chief of the Dominion of Canada.
May it Please Your Excellency:
We, His Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both houses of parliament.
He said: The speech from the throne, sir, quite naturally makes reference to the advent of His Majesty to the throne of the British commonwealth of nations. May I add to these words, so expressive of our deep and abiding loyalty, a few words indicative of our good wishes to our sovereign lord King George VI and to Her gracious Majesty the Queen. May they long be spared to occupy with dignity and grace the throne of this the greatest of all commonwealths since the world began.
I feel, sir, that our thoughts with respect to the monarchy have been most aptly expressed by His Excellency, who two years ago said:
In the last two hundred years, while the throne has lost in definable powers it has gained in significance. It is not only highe'' than any other human estate but of a different kind from any other, for it is the mystical indivisible centre of national union. It is the point around which coheres the nation's sense of a continuing personality. In any deep stirring of heart, the people turn from the mechanism of government, which is their own handiwork and their servant, to that ancient abiding thing behind the government, which they feel to be a symbol of tb air best achievement and their future hope.
I should like at this time to express to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) my appreciation of the honour which he has conferred upon me in asking me to move this resolution this afternoon. I should like also to assure him and his colleagues that the good people of the constituency of



The Address-Mr. McLarty
Essex West, which I have the honour to represent, regard it as a definite recognition of the ' importance of that industrial portion of Canada.
This is the second occasion on which we have been honoured by an address from His Excellency. At the time of the last address he had been but recently appointed. We knew him, but we knew him much in the same way as he was known wherever the English language is spoken. Since that time he has visited most parts of Canada and has become acquainted with our people. His intellectual curiosity in every activity that comes within its sweep, is, in the height and swiftness of its quality, peculiarly his own. It has already applied itself to the sympathetic understanding of the problems and possibilities of nearly every one of the varied expressions of Canadian effort between the two great seas. It might be fairly said that Peter now knows the lobster industry; John S. Blenkiron could now operate a mine; Andrew Amos could drive a harvester; Dick Hannay could now ride the logs down the river, trap a wolf, put out a forest fire or run a paper mill; and Jacqueline Armine, with her staunch understanding and her reassuring smile, could help any troubled Canadian Adam to see his way through.
I believe I but express the unanimous opinion of this house when I say that the closer that acquaintanceship has become the more His Excellency and his gracious lady have risen in the esteem of the people of Canada.
I deem it a very special privilege to have the opportunity of being the first to welcome back to this country the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett). It is a matter of congratulation not to him alone, or to this house alone, but to Canada, that he returns with his health fully restored and his accustomed force and vigour unabated. Since His Excellency prorogued this house last June the right hon. gentleman has, shall I say, surrounded the globe.
I believe it might 'be fairly said of him, as it was once said of the great Ulysses:
Much have I seen and known, cities of men, Manners, climates, councils, governments: Myself not least but honoured of them all.
May I suggest, sir, that it is a matter for gratification, in which the right hon. gentleman will share, that under the influence and direction of a wise and benign government Canada is rapidly returning to prosperity.
In moving this resolution this afternoon I feel that I have a simpler and more congenial as well as an easier task than fell to the lot 
of those who have moved similar motions for some years past. I am inclined to think that when they referred to the progress and prosperity of the country they must have felt that they were discussing something hoped for but unseen. There is ample evidence on all sides to-day that we are emerging from the forest of depression. It would be unfair to suggest that the pathway is not obstructed by some entangling underbrush, but at least we have left the forest behind us.
The fact of this returning prosperity is evidenced everywhere. The prices of our primary products are constantly and consistently rising; the basic industry of agriculture, apart from those exigencies of nature which neither man nor government can control, is in a better position to be operated profitably than at any time during the last six years. The pulp and paper industry is producing at an unprecedented rate, and while the price of that commodity has not responded to the general upturn in demand, that can be expected within a reasonable time. The fishing industry is enjoying a better year than it has had for some time. The lumbering industry is pulsating with new life. The mining industry has in the last year contributed more to our national wealth than in any other year in our history. The manufacturing industry, the largest single contributor to our national wealth, contributed last, year over $1,400,000,000. the largest since 1929.
And, sir, I believe that the stimulation of our international trade has been the greatest contributory factor in this general uptrend of economic conditions. No matter how critical anyone may be of this government, he will at least admit that they have gone about the business of stimulating that trade with great enthusiasm and high ability. Since their coming into office they have concluded the trade agreement with the United States, they have concluded an agreement with Japan, they have completed a temporary agreement with Germany, they have secured a cancellation of the Soviet order of 1931 prohibiting imports from this country and the chartering of Canadian vessels. It was announced in the speech from the throne that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is now in active negotiations with our sister commonwealths of New Zealand and Australia, and I believe it will be welcome news to this house that negotiations have reached a point where the definite principles underlying the trade agreement with the United Kingdom have been settled and the agreement will be laid before us for consideration before the present session is concluded.

The Address-Mr. McLarty
I believe it is no exaggeration to say that never before in the 'history of Canada has there been such an intensive and well directed drive for the stimulation of our international trade as that made since this government took office.
What has been the result? The figures are so well known to members of this house that I hesitate to repeat them. But briefly, in the first eleven months of 1936 our imports grew from $511,000,000 to $582,000,000, an increase of 13-8 per cent. In the same period our exports grew from $759,000,000 to $928,000,000, an increase of 22-3 per cent, and the highest since 1929.
Now, sir, we shall be reminded that there has been a general upturn in world economic conditions and international trade, and that independently of and apart from anything this government might have done there would inevitably have been an improvement in our trade. There is some point in that argument. But would it not be equally reasonable to suggest that the realization of other countries as well that prosperity can best be brought about, not by damming up, but by opening the channels of trade, had something to do with that general economic upturn?
And, sir, the matter is not so easily disposed of by simply attributing it to a general economic uptrend. It will not be assumed that any international trade treaty will in one year, much less one month, do all the good that its proponents may claim or all the harm that its opponents may prophesy.
But Canada has two agreements which have now been in operation slightly over a year. At the last session of parliament it was announced that an amicable agreement had been arrived at with Japan. At the time it was suggested that the Canadian market would be flooded with Japanese goods. But what has happened? Our exports to Japan have increased by 33 per cent, and in addition our favourable trade balance with Japan has increased from $10,470,000 in 1935 to $13,990,000 in 1936.
The situation in regard to the Canada-United States trade agreement cannot be analyzed quite so simply. In a general way the articles which we export to the United States may be divided into four classes:	(1) items not
affected by the agreement; (2) items bound free of duty; (3) items bound at a low rate of duty; (4) items subject to the reduction provided in the agreement. To those who suggest that the action of governments has little influence on trade, that as the wind bloweth where it listeth, so trade floweth where it listeth, an analysis of the figures in those four classes is illuminating.
31111-2J
Dealing with each class separately, our exports of items not affected by the agreement increased by only 1-2 per cent. Our exports of items bound free of duty increased by 18-3 per cent. Our exports of items bound at a low rate of duty increased 21-9 per cent, and our exports of items subject to reduction in the rate of duty increased 62-3 per cent. Bearing in mind the wide relative variation in our exports as between articles not affected by the agreement and those on which the reduction was secured, can anyone suggest that the results of that agreement during its first year of operation have not been beneficent?
Then there is another matter arising out of the agreement with the United States. The house will remember that one of the terms of the agreement provided that under certain definite regulations tourists visiting one country from another would be permitted to bring back $100 worth of goods free of duty. At that time apprehension was felt that our imports under this item would be so substantial that, especially at border points, they might be ruinous to the retail trade. In my own constituency, separated as it is from the United States by only a narrow river, and with splendid transriver facilities, that apprehension was necessarily present. But it has been found so far that the fear of harm which might result was greatly exaggerated. And when it is remembered that in the last year 2,700,000 tourists crossed into Canada at the port of Windsor alone, any loss that may have been sustained has I suggest been amply recouped by the increase in the tourist trade.
But, sir, there are two features of our economic uptrend that give cause for apprehension. The first is the condition of the building and construction industry. While there was a slight uptrend in that industry last year, namely three per cent, the amount of that increase is inconsiderable when we remember the severe and precipitous decline which that industry had sustained. It is remarkable that with the general upturn in all our major industries the building and construction industry alone has remained quiescent, like a painted ship upon a painted ocean.
There is another fact that must be clearly faced. While industry has been definitely improving, and while employment is definitely on the increase, the reduction in the number of unemployed and the number on relief has not been anything like proportionate. It is easy to explain this in a casual way by suggesting that a certain proportion of the unemployed are unemployable, or that a certain number come to an employable age
7'he Address-Mr. McLarty

each year. That is quite true, but that is not an ephemeral condition; it is continuous, and must be faced as a definite fact in our economic life.
And, sir, it is to the solution of these two questions that the national employment commission, appointed last May, has been directing its efforts and its energy.
In his address His Excellency refers to the work which has been undertaken as the result of the appointment of that commission. While the powers of that body are advisory it has obviously become an arm of the government in dealing with the most serious difficulty that still faces the government, that of employment. The personnel of the commission was announced last May, less than eight months ago. It was representative not only of the various geographical areas of Canada but also of the different branches of our industry. I believe the members were wisely and well chosen. It would be invidious to mention names, I know, but I would like to congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) upon securing the services of Mr. Arthur B. Purvis as chairman of that commission.
In ability and energy Mr. Purvis is unsurpassed in Canada. The sincerity of his purpose is testified to by the fact that, at his own request, his salary was fixed at SI per year. The company of which he is head I believe has come as close as, if not closer than, any other company in Canada in reaching that goal of making labour and capital co-partners in a common enterprise.
The commission, sir, has already recommended the farm employment plan, and the speech from the throne forecasts that another plan will be presented shortly which, with the cooperation of the provinces, will provide for the establishment of unemployed young people. It has been studying and in due course doubtless will make representations in connection with a long range program calculated to obviate the recurrence of the conditions which we have experienced in the last few years.
As an immediate aid to the building industry it has recommended-and the government has accepted its recommendation-the home improvement plan. That plan, as every member of this house knows, provides that to the extent of S50.000.000 the government will guarantee the lending institutions against loss, to the extent of 15 per cent, where the loans are made for the purpose of enabling the repair, improvement and rehabilitation of homes. It is directed primarily to putting
[Mr. McLarty.l
men back to work and to assisting the building trades.
The recommendation of the commission to the government probably was preceded by an investigation as to how a somewhat similar plan, adopted in the United States, had operated. To those who think that a very small stimulus would result from this measure, the results secured in the republic to the south are illuminating. There in June of 1934 President Roosevelt signed what is known as part 1 of the Federal Housing Act, providing for loans for purposes similar to those contemplated under the home improvement plan. In the United States that plan became operative about October of the same year. Up to the end of last month loans had been made under that plan in the United States to the number of 1,326,000, to an aggregate amount in excess of 8500,000,000. But, sir, that does not tell the whole story, for there were people who papered and painted and modernized and improved their homes for no other reason than that their neighbours were doing the same thing. The estimate made by the bankers' association of the United States, as to the private investment in repairs, improvements and rehabilitation of homes, was an additional amount of $1,750,000,000.
There were three very definite results of the experiment in the United States. I have referred first to the stimulation given private investment which makes the plan much wider and more effective than the mere announcement of loans totalling $50,000,000 would indicate. The ratio of stimulation in the United States is estimated at three and a half to one.
Another feature is the large percentage of money which finds its way to labour. The estimate of competent American authorities has been that eighty-five per cent of the money so spent finds its way to labour.
The third point, sir, is that it is continuous in its operation. It is not a plan that operates for only a month, six months or a year. May I quote from the bulletin of the federal housing administration, issued in July last, which sums up this idea in the following language:
Gradually developing from the influence of economic improvement it intensifies and sustains the improvement that caused it.
It can be readily seen, sir, that if the plan operates in Canada as well as it has operated in the United States, bearing in mind also the fact that we enjoy a much lower discount rate under this plan than they have in the United States, it will give a definite and effective stimulus to the building industry.

The Address-Mr. Veniot
The commission was kind, enough to recommend, and the government was good enough to accept the recommendation, that in the first instance this plan should be put into operation in Essex county. That was appreciated, sir, not only by the members from Essex county but by all those who saw in that gesture definite evidence of the government's desire to help the progress and prosperity of that important part of Canada.
Behind it all is this thought, that added confidence is given by the fact that the government has expressed its willingness to guarantee, even to a limited amount, loans for the purpose of repairing and modernizing the homes of its citizens. After all, sir, one of the primary functions of government is to promote the morale of the people.
There is one other matter mentioned in the speech from the throne which, because of its high humanitarian aspects, I believe will receive the unanimous approval not only of this house but of all the citizens of this country. I refer, sir, to the promised legislation to provide for pensions for the blind at a lower age than seventy years.
I have referred with pride to distinguished men in high places who, by doing their duty well, have helped this country through. May I, from my place here and at this time, pay my highest tribute to the undaunted spirit of the people of Canada, which is triumphing over all resistance-the hundreds of instances of industries carrying on for years at a loss to maintain their employees so that eventually all might survive; the thousands upon thousands of employees who divided their working hours with others and who, when their earnings were down, took barely a living wage so that things might carry on: the all too many tragic thousands who earnestly sought and are still earnestly seeking the opportunity to labour and to earn-I trust their seeking will be over long before the term of this parliament is run; the myriads of persons on the land who, at shrunken prices and with failing yields, in the face of drought and disaster, re-sowed their fields each spring and each spring looked hopefully once more to the skies to send the rain, all with a fortitude quite unsurpassed in any land in times of peace.
It is this stoutness of the heart, this determined integrity of the mind, this "ils ne passeront pas" of the soul, that will conquer all.
The rains may beat us and the great mists blind us,
The lightning rend the pine tree on the hill;
Yet are we strong and yet shall the morning find us
Children of tempest, all unshaken still.


Mr. J. C. VENIOT (Gloucester) (Translation) :: The house will doubtless understand
the emotion I feel in undertaking the task I have had the honour of being entrusted with. Indeed, I could not but be deeply moved by the recollections of mingled joy and sadness evoked by the words of praise uttered Friday last by the right hon. the Prime Minister and many other hon. colleagues in speaking of the man who was at once my predecessor my father and my closest friend. For these kind and touching words of praise and sympathy I am profoundly grateful. I also thank from the bottom of my heart my honourable colleagues for the most cordial reception extended to me from all sides, without distinction of political parties.
The house will readily understand the delicate position of a member who, after listening to the funeral oration of his distinguished predecessor, is, two days later, called upon to speak for the first time in this parliament the threshold of which he has crossed by passing the tomb of his father, and who every day realizes more and more how serious an undertaking it is to try to replace the man who has just been so highly praised.
I am conscious that I shall never be blessed with the great mental capacity, the experience or the political judgment of the late member for Gloucester, but I shall at least have in common with him my devotion to the service of my country and my fidelity to the party he has so well served for half a century.
It was no doubt in order to pay a last tribute to the man for whom we mourn together that I was chosen to second the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It was also to pay homage to the electors of the county of Gloucester who, ever since the election of my venerable friend Senator Onesi-phore Turgeon, have for thirty-six years, without interruption, sent Liberal representatives to the parliament of Canada and who, I hope, will long continue this fine tradition. But it was likewise to do honour to the 200,000 Acadians of the maritime provinces who bear living testimony to the tenacity and: vitality of our race, and of which 137,000 are residents of New Brunswick, forming one-third of its population, with 34,000 in my own beautiful county of Gloucester.
I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to delay by a long speech the more important business of the house. Too frequently have I heard deplored, and with some right, I think, the useless prolonging of certain debates, such as the one we listened to Friday afternoon on the oath of allegiance to the King, to allow myself to fall into the same error at this time when a short session is desired. Indeed it is the
The Address-Mr. Veniot

wish of the government and, I venture to say, of the entire deputation, as well as of the Canadian people, to have the session end in time to permit our delegates to take part as they should in the grandiose ceremonies that will attend the coronation of our new sovereign.
The Canadian people join the British Empire in rejoicing at the happy solution of the recent constitutional crisis which ended in the accession to the throne of England of His Majesty George VI. Calm and dignified, fortunate in his family life both as a husband and as the father of charming princesses, he brings to the monarchy the security and dignity that marked the reign of the beloved king George V. Therefore, the Canadian people hasten to express to the new king their loyalty and profound respect. And the British Empire, disturbed by the uncertainty of the first days of December last, continues its march through the centuries with its customary impassibility and proud demeanour, as if nothing had happened.
Mr. Speaker, I have not sufficient knowledge of international affairs or of diplomacy to appreciate at its true value the remarkable speech delivered before the League of Nations last autumn by the right honourable the Prime Minister, but I well remember the anxiety shown in many parts of Canada regarding the attitude to be taken by the Canadian delegation at Geneva on the question of the participation or abstention of Canada in the event of war. The proud declaration of the Prime Minister on this occasion, proclaiming the complete independence of Canada in the event of war, even should England be involved, and his definite statement that Canada would never declare war without the formal consent of the federal parliament have reassured all true Canadians.
However great the admiration, the confidence and the sympathy we owe to England, the duty of every citizen of Canada, of whatever racial extraction, is to show himself a true Canadian by seeking first to protect the honour, the liberty, the peace and the future of Canada. By so doing, we will not be abandoning British ideals nor prejudicing the cause of England. And the manner in which our prime minister cleared up the question of Canada's sovereignty, to the satisfaction of all Canadians worthy of the name, revealed him as an enlightened leader and a statesman of the first rank.
Among all the nations of the world, Canada has made the greatest economic progress during the last twelve months. Its volume of trade has passed the billion dollar mark for the first time since 1929, and Canada holds
[Mr. Veniot.1
fourth place among the exporting countries of the world. With the exception of the drought areas, every part of Canada shows an improved situation. Economists and financial commentators and especially the presidents of our banking institutions, in their annual reports, are practically unanimous in stating that this rapid improvement is largely due to the wise policies of the present government, which advocates moderate tariffs in order to promote trade with all the nations of the world. The last commercial agreement concluded with the United States has given most excellent results and is held largely responsible for the enormous business improvement registered in 1936, the figures of which are known to all. These results demonstrate once more the superiority of the tariff policies of the Liberal party and the ill effects of the policies of extreme protection that have always characterized Conservative administrations in Canada as well as in other countries.
In his address, delivered last week, to the shareholders of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, Sir John Aird made some observations that are of interest to this house. He said: "I urge world-wide tariff revision" and he added: "This country should be thankful for a partial return to less restricted trade and exchange policies. I shall not qualify my former expressions against trade restrictions because of their depressing effect upon business. But now I urge world-wide tariff revision for two other reasons, namely, to protect the consuming masses against possible sharp increases in living costs, and to prevent the large governmental expenditures still necessary for public relief from mounting so high as to nullify efforts to achieve budgetary balance."
No one, I venture to say, will accuse Sir John Aird of being a pillar of the Liberal party or of being unduly inclined to praise the present administration.
The economic prosperity of Canada fundamentally depends upon the extent of our foreign trade. With a population of only ten million spread over half a continent, we are incapable of absorbing, ourselves alone, all our natural products and the products of our manufactures. We need outside markets, especially in the United States, who are our natural customers. High tariff barriers tend to stifle our commercial expansion. Every page of th'e commercial history of America shows that every excessive raise in the tariff, on either side of the international boundary, has caused us economic embarrassment and often disaster. Striking examples of this are found in the Fordney-McCumber and Hawley-Smoot tariffs, as well as the economic nationalism practised by the last administra-

The Address-Mr. Veniot
tion. With the exception of the period of the great war. Canada's business barometer has always pointed upward during Liberal administrations and downward under Conservative governments. One of the best illustrations of this fact is to be found in the operations of all the Canadian railways since confederation. Car-loadings do not lie. A former official of the Intercolonial Railway, who has been observing them over the last sixty years, has noted that their curve has always moved in a contrary direction to tariffs, being high under Liberal administrations, with low or moderate tariffs, and low when tariffs are high.
The voters of Canada understood this quite well in 1935 when they gave to the Right Hon. Mackenzie King an unprecedented mandate to bring back prosperity to the country.
Our volume of trade with overseas countries, while not as great as with the United States, is most gratifying. Our treaty with Japan continues to be beneficial to Canada and the government, in spite of the dire prophecies uttered last year by the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), still exists and has so far escaped the humiliation to which it was said to be doomed. On the contrary, this humiliation fell upon our textile industry whose voracity at the expense of the Canadian people was fully established. The definitive conclusion of the trade agreement mentioned in the speech from the throne, the approval of the treaty with Germany, the negotiations actually in progress with Australia and several other countries, promise well for the coming fiscal year.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we look forward to this new year with so much confidence; that is why the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) foresees for the near future not only a balanced budget, but a series of ample surpluses, as in the prosperous years from 1921 to 1929.
(Text) I have so many friends, Mr. Speaker, from coast to coast, especially in my own native province, friends both in and out of the medical profession, who speak the language of Shakespeare, that I consider I should be remiss in my duties of friendship and esteem were I not to say at least a few words in the language through which these friendships were born and nurtured. May I avail myself of this opportunity of conveying my deepest gratitude to hon. members of this house, without distinction of party affiliations, for the many kind words they have said with reference to my late father. I am particularly indebted1 to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and members of his
cabinet for the many kindnesses to my father during his last illness and for the honour paid to him by their presence at his obsequies in July last. The county of Gloucester will long remember the visit of the Prime Minister and his colleagues for the purpose of accompanying to his last resting place a man who had served the interests of the county for half a century.
I cannot abstain from paying a special tribute to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) for his touching mark of esteem in a personal letter he wrote to my late sire two weeks before he passed to the great beyond, and for the personal references to him made later in public addresses. All this shows the estimable humaneness of the man who is the distinguished leader of a great party. These written and spoken words of a political opponent glorify the membership of this House of Commons, and so long as such amenities of good fellowship exist among its legislators, the Dominion of Canada need never fear for its future destiny.
The hon. member for Essex West (Mr. McLarty) has covered so well the ground upon which rests the speech from the throne that there remains very little for me to add to complete the picture. However, there is one matter about which I should like to make a few remarks; I refer to the question of unemployment and direct relief.
While the government is to be congratulated on the excellent work which has been done by the national employment commission since its inception, nevertheless, in spite of a marked improvement in economic conditions throughout the whole country, unemployment continues to be Canada's major problem. We must ask ourselves the reason for this surprising paradox of unemployment in the face of such rapid economic progress. No matter how laudable wa3 the intention of those who initiated direct relief as a means of helping the unemployed on this continent in 1930, direct relief is to-day considered by the leaders of thought in Canada, and especially in New Brunswick, where we are making use of every endeavour to bring direct relief to an end, as one of the greatest economic and psychological fallacies of the century. It may have had its place, as a strictly temporary emergency measure, at the beginning of the depression period, when so many thousands of our people were thrown suddenly out of employment, but its continuation as a state-supported form of charity, as the subsidizing of idleness, without asking any return in the shape of human endeavour, is sapping the morals, the vitality and the finances of
The Address-Mr. Veniot

the country, because of the destructive principle that it fosters in supporting idleness, whether forced or voluntary, as opposed to the natural law of compensation, of work and production.
Mind in action through creative, constructive thinking, is the greatest force in the world. Work, production, whether in the intellectual or material field, is mind's greatest manifestation, the basic principle of all human success and economic progress, one of the fundamental laws of the universe; and idleness, whether voluntary or forced, is the bane of humanity and the ruin of economic structure. The man who thinks in terms of work or production forges ahead; he who thinks in terms of idleness stagnates, rusts and deteriorates.
Horace Greeley aptly said:
The darkest hour in any man's life is when he sits down to plan how to get money without earning it.
Commenting on this statement, the editor of one of America's largest magazines adds:
And the darkest hour in the life of any government is when it plans to pay him on these terms. The curse of the dole laid the ancient Roman empire in ruins. The dole then, as to-day, was a soporific that prolonged the disease instead of curing it. The dole then, as now, was never expected to lift a man out of the dole class, but rather to maintain him in a state of permanent pauperism.
In 1930 the British and the Canadian medical associations held a joint convention at Winnipeg. Lord Dawson, the king's physician, and one of our distinguished guests, was asked his opinion on the dole in England as a relief measure for unemployment. He expressed himself as follows:
The dole was the greatest calamity that hit England since the world war. It made of our labourers liars, perjurers, thieves and lazy men, from which state of demoralization it will take England a generation to recover.
It was the consideration and recognition of the basic principles just mentioned that prompted my home town of Bathurst in 1933 to discontinue direct relief or the dole as a means of taking care of its so-called unemployed; and the government of New Brunswick at the present time, inspired by its leader, Premier Dysart, and members of the cabinet, is putting forth all its efforts to Suppress direct relief and the dole as rapidly as possible. I said "so-called" unemployed a minute ago; for we in Bathurst discovered that direct relief was being made a racket, and that fully ninety per cent of those who were asking for assistance were not entitled to it, twelve hundred out of a population of 3,360 of our people being on direct relief. On the 
first of May of that year we voted out direct relief and adopted the slogan "no work, no bread" from the town of Bathurst; [DOT] if any unemployed asking for assistance refused to work, we refused to give him bread at the expense of the taxpayer. We separated ourselves from both provincial and federal governments as far as direct relief funds were concerned. In order to overcome the objection to using direct relief funds for the payment of wages, we carried on by ourselves, out of our own resources, giving our people work such as shovelling snow, hauling gravel -anything so long as we made them work, paying them twenty cents an hour for ten hours a day five or six days a week. Our relief problem ceased overnight, so to speak. We saved ten thousand dollars a year for the town of Bathurst, and an equal sum for each of the provincial and federal governments. Our insistence on some return, some personal effort, some show of good will from all who asked for assistance, instead of allowing them to wallow in idleness, soon reduced our municipal relief load to the near zero mark, because the unemployed man was forced to reason the matter out for himself in this way: "If the town forces me to work forty odd hours a week anyway, I might as well work on my own hook and do better for myself." Henceforth our men found ways and means of standing on their own feet and becoming self-supporting. Since that time, we have not had a single man on relief. We have only the ordinary indigents, the maimed and sick that we always have had and always will have with us.
I do not mean to imply that every municipality in Canada can achieve the same results with the same methods, but I do contend-and there is no getting away from this psychological fact-that to-day, with the dole in existence, you cannot get the ordinary labourer to look for work, let alone do an honest day's work, so long as he knows that the dole dangles in front of his nose, so long as he can get his sustenance by the mere extending of his hand. If our governing bodies expect to pull out of this morass of unemployment, our only hope lies in getting people back to work consciousness, compelling them to give some personal return for the assistance they receive, by cutting out this panhandling, this racketeering, this subsidizing of idleness, this sponging on the public treasury, on which so many persons Have existed dishonestly for the last five or six years.
Hon. members of this house know that in every district where direct relief exists there are vultures preying on the misery of the people; there are owners or managers of

The Address-Mr. Bennett
business institutions fostering the direct relief idea because they have waxed fat on it, because they tripled or substantially increased their annual cash receipts. These men are no better than brigands, who must be fought in every possible way, but chiefly by the endeavour to promote the principle of "work for living," by the preaching of the gospel of " work for bread and sustenance," regardless of the source from which the work is obtained.
It is towards this goal, no doubt, that the national employment commission is directing its best effort. It has already accomplished very much through its home improvement plan, through its farm employment plan, through its classification of the unemployed into various categories. But there remains one final step to take, and that is to abolish the greatest enemy of true labour by suppressing as far as possible direct relief, state supported charity, the subsidizing of idleness, and to replace it by instilling into the minds of our people work consciousness instead of dole consciousness. This we must do before we can correct the astonishing paradox of prosperity almost equal to that of 1929 running parallel with unemployment of still alarming proportions.
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, it affords me great pleasure to second the motion of my hon. colleague from Essex West (Mr. McLarty) for an address in reply to the speech from the throne.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not difficult to discharge the formal duty that devolves upon one holding my position, namely, to congratulate the mover (Mr. McLarty) and the seconder (Mr. Veniot) of the address which, Mr. Speaker, it is proposed shall be presented to His Excellency. The speech of the hon. member for West Essex (Mr. McLarty) does him infinite credit, and to me it is a matter of some satisfaction to know that he was at one time a member of the profession in the province in which we both resided. The relations between himself and all other members practising there were friendly, as one would expect, and he carried on the practice of his profession on the very high level which one might anticipate from the speech to which we have listened to-day. I thank him for his kindly references to myself and join with, I am sure, every member of this house in congratulating the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) upon the speech which he has just delivered. It indicates a mind that is carefully considering the great problems that surround us, the solution of which we have not yet learned nor yet found. It was a
speech which we should expect from one who has so long been engaged in the practice of the healing art. I too have some pride in the hon. gentleman's speech inasmuch as we are natives of the same province; there is a saying among those who are sometimes not able adequately to judge, that if anyone is from New Brunswick or from Dalhousie university he has a warm place in my heart.
The speech from the throne apparently does not contemplate a lengthy session. The duties that devolve upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in connection with the coronation and the imperial conference are such that, I take it, he is anxious, while doing full justice to every demand that may be made upon him and his government by the country, to be able at the same time to discharge the very serious and onerous responsibilities that rest upon him by virtue of his position; and so far as we may be able to do so, we will endeavour to expedite the business of this house in order that the first minister, who will represent, on the occasions to which I refer, not a party but the whole of Canada, may be relieved of worry as to whether he will be able to attend, and, through prompri and efficient dispatch of business, may be abl * to represent us at that time.
It is fitting that the speech from the throne should in its very first paragraph direct attention to the changes that have taken place during the last few weeks. I am sure that the speech from the throne adequately expresses the views of every Canadian with respect to the deep concern with which we learned that Edward VIII had renounced the throne of his fathers. It will serve no good purpose to discuss that matter now. I can only read the words of His Majesty King George VI in his New Year's message:
In succeeding to the throne I follow a father who had won for himself an abiding place in the hearts of his peoples, and a brother whose brilliant qualities gave promise of another historic reign. His reign was cut short in circumstances upon which, from their very sadness, none of us would wish to dwell.
I think, however, that if one were to ask me what words that I have read during these weeks more nearly express what I conceive to be the attitude of the late king toward the the problems with which he had to deal, those words would be found in this quotation from Othello:
I have done the state some service, and they know't;

No more of that.-I pray you, in your letters,
When you shall these unlucky deeds relate,
Speak of me as I am; nothing extenuate,
Nor set down aught in malice: then must you speak
Of one that lov'd not wisely, but too well.
77*e Address-Mr. Bennett

Our duties as subjects of His Majesty the new king cannot, I conceive, be more clearly expressed than in the language which His Majesty used both on the occasion of his accession to the throne and in his New Year's address. In acceding to the throne he said:
I meet you to-day in circumstances which are without parallel in the history of our country. Now that the duties of sovereignty have fallen to me I declare to you my adherence to the strict principles of constitutional government and my resolve to work before all else for the welfare of the British commonwealth of nations.
With my wife as helpmeet by my side I take up the heavy task which lies before me. In it I look for all the support of all my peoples.
But more significant are the words used in his New Year's message:
Throughout my life it will be my constant endeavour to strengthen the foundations of mutual trust and affection, on which relations between the sovereign and people of the British Empire so happily rest. I ask your help toward the fulfilment of this purpose, and I know that I do not ask in vain. . . . My wife and I dedicate ourselves for all time to your service and we pray that God may give us guidance and strength to follow the path that lies before us.
Mr. Speaker, is it too much to say that each of us as a Canadian, each citizen of this vast empire, in whatever part he may find himself, should dedicate himself to the service of his country even as the king and queen have dedicated themselves for all time to the service of their peoples. With that I leave the subject, for I am conscious that there must be and will be an earnest desire and effort on the part of all to render to the state, in these troublesome times, such service as will accord with the declaration of His Majesty.
I cannot, however, permit this matter to pass without making at least one observation that arises out of certain discussions which have takfen place, both in and out of this house. Respectfully I suggest that the statute dealing with the succession has not been altered. 1 have no hesitation in saying that had I occupied the position which the Prime Minister now occupies I should have taken exactly the course he took in dealing with the problem which he had to meet.
I think it might be well to look at the language of the statute before we conclude too hastily that there has been any change in the law affecting the succession. The statute is short, and in order that there may be no misapprehension as to the position which I suggest is the sound one I may perhaps read it:
Whereas His Majesty by his royal message of the 10th day of December in this present year has been pleased to declare that he is irrevocably determined to renounce the throne for himself and his descendants and has for

that purpose executed the instrument of abdication set out in the schedule to this act and has signified his desire that effect thereto should be given immediately.
And whereas, following upon the communication to his dominions of His Majesty's 3aid declaration and desire, the Dominion of Canada, pursuant to the provisions of section four of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, has requested and consented to the enactment of this act, ami the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand and the Union of South Africa have assented to (the enactment of this act).
Be it therefore enacted by the king's most excellent majesty by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons in this present parliament assembled and by the authority of the same as follows:-
1.(1) Immediately upon the royal assent being signified to this act, the instrument of abdication executed by His present Majesty on the 10th day of December, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-six, set out in the schedule to this act, shall have effect and thereupon His Majesty shall cease to be king and there shall be a demise of the crown

This is the part to which attention should be directed:
-and accordingly a member of the royal family next in succession to the throne shall succeed thereto and to all the rights, privileges and dignities thereunto belonging.
(2) His Majesty, his issue, if any, and descendants of that issue, shall not, after His Majesty's abdication, have any right title or interest to or in the succession to the throne, and section one of the act of settlement shall be construed accordingly.
Not modified, but construed.
(3)	The Royal Marriages Act of 1772 shall not apply to His Majesty after his abdication nor to the issue, if any, of His Majesty or descendants of that issue.
Now, having read that statute, I think it is only necessary to direct the attention of the house to the fact that it constituted an acceptance of the resignation of office by His Majesty the late king. We call it in technical parlance his abdication, but we had no precedent for abdications and as to the implications of them, and the statute, in order that there might be no doubt in the matter declared that there was a demise of the crown. The king was dead.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Hear,
hear; that is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The king was dead. And from that there followed, not a new law of succession, not a new method, but the application of the provisions of the act of settlement by which the Duke of York, being then heir to the throne by the death of the then king, succeeded as George VI. That is the position.
Then, further, the statute merely declares that it should be thus construed. That is

The Address-Mr. Bennett
all. That is, not having any former precedent, except in the case of James, in which parliament declared that he had abdicated-whether or not he had was a nice question, but at least they declared that he had-leaving that for the moment, parliament then said: We will construe the act of settlement, because the king has made himself dead, as though it were a demise of the crown.
The next section merely gives effect to the first section. The king is no longer a royal personage and no longer requires any consent by parliament to his marriage. That is all there is about that. And the last section deals with the question of himself and his descendants, because England at one time had some difficulties about pretenders, and in order to obviate any difficulty of that kind the statute makes it perfectly clear that that question should not arise.
There is also the question as to the method by which Canada made known its views upon the matter. The Statute of Westminster provides that no act passed by the parliament at Westminster shall have effect in this dominion without the request and assent of the dominion. That merely means the executive of this country in the absence of any provision to the contrary. So far as the government of the day is concerned, it staked its life upon the action which it took, and under our system of constitutional government, with the administration commanding as it does a majority in the House of Commons, the question becomes nothing but a matter of recording the will of that majority upon the records of this house. The question which arose in South Africa and Australia and New Zealand is entirely different. Section 4 does not apply to those dominions except under certain conditions to which attention need not now be directed, namely, by their acceptance of them. South Africa did accept them, I think, in 1934, and so far as Australia and New Zealand and Newfoundland are concerned, they no longer have any application. The statute itself is clear upon that point. Section 10, subsection 3, states that the dominions to which this section applies are the commonwealths of Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland, and the first part of the section declares -that none of the following sections, that is, sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, shall extend to a dominion to which this section applies as part of the law of that dominion unless adopted. The question whether parliament should antecedently express its opinion is one which I think cannot be successfully raised, having regard to the issue which had to be determined. When
the statute was framed in the form in which it is it was done for the purpose of meeting an emergency which might arise, just as an emergency arose in this case. If this parliament should take an opposite view to that taken by the executive it would of course mean the resignation of the government and an application to the parliament at Westminster to enact a statute which would repeal the provision to which effect had been given by an executive which did not command the support of a majority of the house. I think that is all I can usefully say on the matter, although there may be more that could be said.
The question that arises as to the international situation, which naturally engages the attention of every thoughtful man, is certainly one which you would expect to be dealt with immediately after the reference to the change in the succession to the throne. That the international situation is an unhappy one goes without saying. I saw the other day, from a source which is usually accurate, a statement that the moneys expended for armaments and munitions in 1936, together with the commitments made for that year, which will be afterwards expended, amount to the almost incredible figure of three thousand million pounds. I had no means of checking the accuracy of the statement, but it appeared in a responsible journal as an estimate coming from a usually responsible source. That in itself indicates how serious the situation is. Happily we are not menaced by it as many countries are. Those who have travelled in Europe realize the difficulties there are in crossing boundaries, in connection with the enforcement of customs and other laws at frontiers, in connection with passports and so on. Perhaps those who live in Europe little appreciate what it means to live on this continent; sometimes they express the view that it is impossible for them to understand the conditions under which we live as compared with their own.
I for one, however, do not despair because there has been a breakdown in the instrument that was forged by the wit and wisdom of men, relatively, so few years ago, to preserve the peace of the world and, if possible, to prevent another world war. The League of Nations has failed. No one doubts that. Its failure has filled the hearts of many with great sorrow, but the fact that an institution set up by human hands fails is no reason why the wit and wisdom of men should not upon its ruins build a successful league of nations to effect and impose, by their own act, collective security. A few weeks ago in Sydney,
The Address-Mr. Bennett

Australia, addressing an organization there, I said that from our failure in the past we should now proceed to success in the future, and that nothing is a greater incentive to success than failure, properly understood.
I wonder sometimes if we do take time to look back to 1919 and 1920. I have little doubt that the Dominion of Canada would not have been a member of the League of Nations, that Great Britain would not have been a member of the League of Nations, had it not been that the league was largely promoted by the United States of America. We ought to face that fact. It was the President of the United States who asked Colonel House to prepare the first draft of the league covenant, and those of you who have looked through the last Life of General Smuts will see, in the appendix, the part that he took in the modification of the original draft.
That covenant, dealing with the League of Nations, as it was ultimately incorporated in the Treaty of Versailles, was so incorporated at the instance of the United States of America, and it must not be forgotten that when this great western republic became a party to the League of Nations it was with the greatest joy and satisfaction that the old countries, England and France, and the newer republics on the American continent, as well as those countries in various parts of the world that were not republics, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, viewed this as the first great world effort to obtain collective security. And it must not be forgotten that the first assembly of the League of Nations was called and opened by the president of the United States of America.
When the United States senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles, and with it the covenant, of course you had a new condition, and the league itself had to face a situation such as no new organization, the machinery of which had just been set in motion, ever had to face before. If it has failed it has failed gloriously with respect to many matters, because in the interim, unsupported,, as I have said, by those who, more than anyone else, were responsible for giving it birth in the first instance, it managed to discharge such duties as it did discharge. Therefore I think there is no reason why on some reorganized plan the world might not still declare its determination that there should be peace amongst the democracies of Christendom, and we might still be able, by effecting collective security, to ensure the peaceful development of the nations of the world. I believe so. I have not yet become so great a pessimist as to believe that the league, which

for a period of sixteen years, handicapped as it was from its very inception, has been able to do what it has done, may not now be able under the conditions that obtain throughout the world to forge an instrument for collective security that will enable men to devote their time, energies and incomes to the peaceful development of their countries. And, Mr. Speaker, I do still believe in a league of nations for that end. I never was one of those who warmly applauded the League of Nations after the United States defeated the peace treaties and the league covenants. I confess at once that to me it was a matter of the gravest concern, and I felt that it would be extremely doubtful whether the league could hope to function successfully. But England and France held on, with most of the other nations of the world. Germany came and went; Japan left; some of the nations of South America left, but the league still endeavoured to function, within a very limited area.
I believe that the committee now dealing with the matter, on which committee Canada is represented, with the support of Canadians and other members of the British commonwealth of nations, believing as they do in national security brought about through collective effort and cooperation, may be able to set up some instrument so that men will be devising not methods and means of destruction but rather methods and means looking to the peaceful development of their respective countries.
I am one of those who. out of office, rejoice in the prosperity of our country. I should say to my hon. friends from Essex West and Gloucester that the prosperity of Canada, like that of other nations of the world, is a prosperity which began in 1934 and which continued during that year. It improved in 1935 and greatly improved in 1936, but relatively the improvement in 1935 over that of 1934 was not substantially different from the improvement in 1936 over that of 1935. The statistical references indicate that Canada's position is one of the foremost, though not by any means the first, and that we have kept pace with the other nations of the world in the improvement that is everywhere apparent. Our trade has expanded. To the extent to which we have made it easier for other countries to sell goods in Canada, imports from abroad thus have been stimulated by governmental activity. To the extent to which other countries have made it possible for our goods to find markets there, the action of other governments has contributed to the end in question. But it is idle to say that the action of any government is responsible

The Address-Mr. Bennett
for the conditions that prevail. I rejoice that they do prevail. They prevail in New Zealand ; they prevail in Australia; they prevail to an amazing extent in South Africa, far beyond the situation in this country. They extend to Great Britain, to a much greater extent than in Canada, largely because of the fabrication of munitions and armaments.
The fact that this is so and that there has been a general improvement in international trade as well as a general improvement in world conditions is a matter for satisfaction to me and those who sit on this side of the house as much as it is to those who sit on the other side, but I think they will find on analysis that the amount of improvement that can be made directly referable to any particular legislation is extremely limited. There will be ample opportunity on other occasions to discuss these matters in detail, so I will defer the discussion until then, but I think if my hon. friends will take the trouble to analyze the figures they will find my statement to be correct. I am not unmindful of the fact, for instance, that from 1921 until 1930, during the regime of the right hon. gentleman who now leads the government, this country enjoyed a prosperity that was ever increasing during those years, and yet during that period of time 934.000 people left Canada for the United States of America. There is the record. That in itself is some indication of the undesirability of endeavouring to generalize too greatly upon premises which I think are faulty.
The general improvement of conditions, for instance, would not be attributable to the trade agreement between Russia and Canada, since that trade agreement was made Russia has bought 5.000 bushels of wheat. The record is not compiled in so far as Germany is concerned, but the German treaty itself is a negation of all the rules that have prevailed with respect to international trade. We might as well be fair about it; it is an experiment. The experiment may succeed; I hope it does, but it is a barter experiment. It is an experiment by which it is declared-and I have heard the most eminent economists in public declare how unsound it is-that every dollar which is expended in buying German goods will be utilized in buying Canadian products, 35 per cent being used for the purpose of acquiring wheat. Now that is an ideal sort of view, but it involves the necessity on the part of Canadians first of all to buy a substantial quantity of goods from Germany. If they do not want them, they will not buy them. And if by buying them, Canadians displace their own goods, then you are put into the position referred to by the hon. member
for Gloucester, of injuring a number of your own people. The treaty with Germany is obviously an experiment, as one can see by reading the documents, and provision is made for its termination. That provision is of such a nature as indicates that the treaty may not work satisfactorily, and if it does not, then within as short a time as possible it can be terminated by cancellation.
There was a trade treaty with Germany before the late government, left office. There was one with Poland and there were treaties with other countries of the world. There was not one with the United States.
The statement that the hon. member for Essex West has made is one that will not bear analysis. Whisky for instance, constituted some S8.000.000 of the increase in exports. That is an extraordinary item. The large exports of newsprint that took place during the fall were attributable to the tremendous amount of printers' ink which was used on paper during a presidential campaign, and to the increased quantity of paper used in advertising consequent upon the distribution of moneys which increased the purchasing power of the people. The analysis of the matter might foe carried on with great particularity, but I do not conceive this to be the moment to do so. I can only say again that it is well for hon. members to recall that the present position did not arise from zero in the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite. All they have done is to pursue the course that their predecessors followed with respect to many great matters of policy.
The revenues of this country, for instance, have increased some 848,000,000, I think, for the nine months ended December last. I read that in the paper the other day. But the largest item is from sales tax, which was increased 33_\ per cent by this government last session, an increase of from six to eight per cent, and if that did not increase the revenue it woud be a sad reflection upon the intelligence of those who made that change. It was intended to create revenue, and it did. and this parliament is responsible for increasing the rate from six to eight per cent.
May I go a step further? You have an increased revenue from income tax amounting for the last nine months to something like $18,000,000. But on what income was it collected? Upon the income of 1935, not the income of 1936, and surely the hon. member for Essex West would not attribute the increased collection of income tax to what took place between October and December with respect to the incomes of the citizens of
The Address-Mr. Bennett

Canada. It is true that the calendar year and the fiscal year of many of our enterprises are not the same, but the fact is that the income tax collected, which is some $18,000,000 more than it was for the same period of the previous year, was collected on the income of individuals and corporations and companies prior to the year 1936, although in some instances there may be an overlapping into 1936 because the fiscal year and the calendar year are not the same.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was a higher rate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a substantially higher rate.


Charles Avery Dunning: On corporations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the taxation on individuals was not at a higher rate. There was an increased rate, as the hon. gentleman has said, on corporations, and therefore it might be expected that there would be an increased revenue. That, I think, is fairly clearly understood.
But when I come to another matter in the speech from the throne I find it a little difficult quite to appreciate the attitude of the government. Speaking of the wheat stored I have only a few questions to propound at the moment because am-ple opportunity *will be afforded later to deal with that matter. But I would ask:	What power has the
governor in council to change a statute unless it be given the power by the statute itself? The statute said that a fixed price should be provided for wheat in order that there should be two buyers, in order that it should 'be possible for the trade to function as such, and if the producers did not see fit to *sell to the trade they could sell to the wheat board. If they sold to the board they had two chances. They could get payment of the fixed price immediately, and then they could get a certificate that would enable them to participate in the future increase in price obtained for the crop. But I read the record ana I find that instead of the board simply fixing the price, which the board did, the governor in council imposed a condition for which it had no authority. What was the price fixed? Eighty-seven and one-half cents? No. They said:	There is no duty
upon the government to agree to any price. Of course, there was not, no duty to agree to a ' price, but to agree to some price there was a duty. Under the statute it is the duty of the crown to do so and so, and the crown is presumed to do that which under khe statute it .is empowered to do. Under 
the statute that we had there was a provision that the board should fix a price for grain with tihe approval of the governor in council. Section 8 (a) reads:
It shall be the duty of the board to fix a price to be paid to the producers for wheat delivered to the board as by this act provided, subject to the approval of the governor in council.
The board is further empowered by section 7:
(a) to receive and take delivery of wheat for marketing as offered by producers thereof.
And by paragraph (e) of the same section:
to pay to producers delivering wheat at the time of delivery or at any time thereafter as may be agreed upon such fixed price per bushel, according to grade or quality or place of delivery, as may be determined by the board with the approval of the governor in council: and to issue to such producers when such wheat is purchased certificates indicating the number of bushels purchased, the grade, quality and the price, which certificates shall entitle producers named therein to share in the equitable distribution of the surplus, if any, of the operations of the board during the crop year.
That is the law. Now what did tihe government do? The government took a very simple view. They simply said:	We will
provide that the board is not to enter the market until the price goes below 90 cents. Where did they get tihe authority for that?
The late government had to deal with the matter in 1935. The first price suggested by the then board was much higher than 87-J cents. The governor in council did not agree. Finally the price suggested at 87$ cents per bushel was the price approved by the governor in council. They proposed a much higher price, but the government of the day said: We cannot accept that price. The government of the day were bound to accept some price. They could not dodge their responsibilities by amending the law to say that the board would not go into the market until the price of wheat fell below 90 cents. The press statement made was as follows:
^ The effect of the decision which was reached Thursday at a meeting of the cabinet will be that the wheat board will not have any of this year's cro-p unless the price falls below'90 cents when it will step in and support the market by buying from the fanners all the wheat offered at 87| cents. In the meantime farmers wishing to sell, will do so on the open market.
The statute passed by this parliament was not repealed although an attempt was made when we were in committee to have it provided that the statute should die after a certain period, of time. We took the view then, as we are doing now, that as the statute

The Address-Mr. Bennett
was for the well-being of the western farmer and the whole class of wheat producers, it should only cease being in effect when repealed. It has not been repealed to this day. During the season just ended the farmer has had no opportunity to sell his wheat to the board unless the price dropped below 90 cents. That was not the purpose of the statute. The purpose was exactly the opposite; it was to afford the farmer an opportunity to sell. He was to be given a market to which he could go and take his chance upon the price rising. There were many farmers who believed that the market would rise and they would have liked to sell their crop to the board. They were denied that privilege unless the price of wheat dropped below 90 cents. If wheat went up they could not participate except by holding their wheat, whereas the statute provided that a second method should be provided in addition to the open market. The statute stated that the board should buy all the wheat offered at a fixed price and issue certificates which would enable the farmer to participate in a rise in the market.
Compare the price the board got for its wheat with the price of wheat to-day. This is not the time to go into this matter in detail, but I ask this question:	Would any
intelligent body of shareholders accept such a statement from their directors? Hon. members may ask: What were the conditions? Every man must have realized those conditions. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) must have known what were the conditions. We find that the world's net exports of wheat, as supplied by the International Institute of Agriculture at Rome and by our own bureau, amounted last year to only 514,283,000 bushels. The year before the total was 526,326,000 bushels odd; the year before, 542,699,000 bushels and the year before, 616,830,000 bushels. Last year I pointed out in this house that there was a partial failure of the crop in the Argentine. Let us look at the export figures for the Argentine. They are:
bushels
1928-	29	
221,627,0001929-	30	
150,599,0001930-	31	
124,107,0001931-	32	
140.293,0001932-	33	
132.044.0001933-	34	
146.719.0001934-	35	
181,202.0001935-	36	
69.419,000
Those figures must have been known to everyone interested. Notwithstanding these facts, the government of this country prevented the farmers from selling their crops
to the board unless the price dropped below 90 cents. This was done at a time when the exports from the Argentine had dropped to 69,000,000 bushels. Do you mean to tell me, sir, that any reasonable body of shareholders would excuse a board of directors for actions such as that?
Then I turn to another item, that with reference to the United States of America. What were they doing in that country? In
1928-	29, they sold 145,000,000 bushels; in
1929-	30, 138,000,000 bushels; in 1930-31, 109,000,000 bushels and in 1933-34, 25,000,000 bushels. They had no wheat to sell last year or the year before. Other countries were in about the same position so far as exports were concerned. Notwithstanding these facts the government of this country deprived the farmers of western Canada of the right to sell their wheat to the board. What right had they to do that? That is question number one.
Show me their power. They have repealed the statute by order in council, but what would have happened if we had done that? All the books on public finance and all the safeguards that have been achieved since the time of Caesar would have been referred to in order to show that we were wrecking the British constitution. There you have it. I leave it to the government to explain why the market that was provided by statute was not made available to the farmers of western Canada. This statute was to enable them to get a minimum price and thereafter to share in the rising market which everyone knew was coming. There was a limitation of the quantities available for export from the producing countries in the world and yet our farmers were deprived of that market by order in council. I should like to know why.
It is somewhat gratifying to see the methods which have been indulged in by the government during recent months. Does the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) remember that we pointed out to him that he might have to have money? He had made no provision for that. Does the Prime Minister remember his references to distinguished economists and financiers who pointed out that there should be no distribution of moneys except by appropriation of parliament? Does he remember how the vials of wrath were poured out upon the heads of those who sat upon the treasury benches of that day because they had provided that with the will of parliament they could take from the consolidated fund for relief purposes such moneys as might be necessary? How has it been done by the Minister of Labour? How has it been done by the Minister of
The Address-Mr. Bennett

Finance (Mr. Dunning)? I was not present last week, but I should like to know if there have been laid upon the table the orders in council which provided for the royal warrants that have been issued to deal with a situation which has arisen in this country. We told him that he would have to have similar authority, but no, perish the thought, the institutions of the country would be wrecked; there must be an appropriation! The government reappropriated all the moneys that had been provided for public works and buildings. The Minister of Labour came down and reamended his own statute in order to make it work. We still pointed out to him where he would end up. Now we have royal warrants for expenditures.
If they had stopped there it would not be so bad. but they did not. They have had recourse to very many other orders in council in order to achieve their ends. I name this too because it affects vitally a great principle. If the government of the day were sincere when they were in opposition during the long days and weeks they held up parliament and declared that this pernicious principle should not be embodied in a statute, why have they had recourse to the methods I have mentioned for the purpose of achieving the ends I have suggested? But it did not end there.
The speech from the throne states that they have made another trade agreement. In principle they have made one with Great Britain. If this story had been taken down on a dictagraph and transcribed it would make very nasty reading. The Prime Minister will perhaps recall that in the days long since passed he declared in this very city, when stating the platform of his party, that the British preferential tariff would be fifty per cent of the Dunning budget rates. The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) looks up and recalls when he led the remnant of a third party in western Canada and clamoured loud and long and vigorously for a fifty per cent British preference. Have they got it? Is that the principle accepted? It is not very sound parliamentary practice to refer to a matter in the speech from the throne as being settled in principle when hon. gentlemen opposite are not able to give us any information with respect to its finality. But I apprehend that that time will not be far distant, and then we shall have an opportunity of testing in the light of known facts the professions made by the hon. gentleman when they were in opposition. Oh what a change, my countrymen, there will be!

There is one matter, however, Mr. Speaker, that I feel I would be derelict in my duty if I did not refer to-the advantageous effects of the trade agreement with the United States. There never was any difference of opinion, provided the benefits were not overborne by the disadvantages. I wonder if hon. gentlemen opposite can realize how different this country is from other parts of the British dominions. Our geographical position has imposed upon us certain invisible influences that cannot be weighed in their value in relation to the national life of this country; the wireless operations, the close contact of newspapers and-I repeat what I said last session - the influence of magazines. We endeavoured for two reasons to lessen the distribution in this country of magazines from the United States. I shall not do more than merely refer to those reasons. One was for the purpose of being fair to the Canadian producer of manufactured products, and the other was that we should develop a national spirit. I am one of those who, unfortunately perhaps, believed that Canadians had a mission to develop a very distinctive civilization on the northern half of this continent. I believed that we were the interpreters of great conceptions of citizenship, of high regard for what one might call the elementary rules of justice and of obedience, of discipline and of loyalty, and that the opportunity offered to us was unique. I pointed out at the last session, as I have done in previous sessions, that the effect of the legislation which was passed by this parliament giving effect to the United States trade agreement was to increase the distribution of American magazines, of the type to which I referred, in Canada about 100.000 more than it was at their high circulation in 1930. That has happened in six months. The agreement came into force on January 1, and between then and now-it is not a year-the last figures, according to the National Bureau of Circulation, placed the distribution in this country in the vicinity of a million and three quarters of these magazines per month, per fortnight, or weekly, as they may be issued. What is the effect upon the national life of this country? Let hon. members ask themselves. In Canada we have only 11,000,000 people, endeavouring to create a distinctive personality among the peoples of the world.
I need not mention the unfairness of this distribution of American magazines to our industrial life, because it imposes at once upon the Canadian reader, when he looks at our price standards, the view that he is being unfairly treated by the people to whom he

The Address-Mr. Bennett
pays a higher price; and no one need be told, for everyone will understand who gives time and pause to think, that the very essence of mass production involves the cheapening of the products in the country where the mass production is carried on. That is the effect of the trade agreement with the United States.
I mentioned the British trade agreement. I have only one hope to express to the Minister of Finance and his Prime Minister; I hope that when he found the same prime minister, Mr. Baldwin, who attended' at Ottawa, and the same chancellor of the exchequer, in the person of Mr. Chamberlain, he assured them once more in dealing with them that they were the "same old Tory conspirators." "Tory conspiracy" is what the Prime Minister called the conference when we dealt, with the matter in 1932. I wonder if the same men have now ceased to be Tory conspirators. There seems to be some doubt as to what is meant by the words "Tory conspiracy." If you look up Hansard you will find that the Prime Minister of to-day denounced the Ottawa agreements as being the work of Tory conspirators. I merely remind him that the same gentlemen still hold office in the United Kingdom and I hope the Minister of Finance found his pathway easier by reminding them that they were Tory conspirators.
One word more, to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). It would be unfair to take up the time of this house now in a detailed discussion of matters that must be discussed very carefully as the days go by. One of the first questions I asked when I came 'back to this country was as to the number on relief, and I found it was approximately a million. I have at in the press, in a report made by a competent and thoroughly responsible official, that the number receiving relief is six to eight per cent more- outside the drought area than it was a year ago, and when the drought area registered its maximum it made the figures approximately twelve per cent more than last year.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is including the
drought area.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say, after including the drought area it will be twelve per cent, based on present figures, oveT last year. I am [DOT]only taking the figures from this report.
The public memory is notoriously khort, and Hansard has a habit of enduring. I ask the Minister of Labour to read in Hansard from 1930 to 1935 only the speeches of his own party, and then to tell this house- and the country what explanation he can give as to the number of those receiving relief being
a million. Of course we do not expect wonders to be worked in a single day, and the age of miracles, as some one has said, is past. But surely anyone reading these speeches had the right to expect, nay to demand, 'that there would be a grea*t falling off in this number.
0	how they used to flaunt these figures! What sweet morsels they were under their tongues! They used to rejoice that this number had not been reduced. Well, Mr. Speaker, we shall all await with much interest the Minister of Labour's explanation.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will give it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, I have no doubt at all about that. But even he, with his profoundly mathematical and philosophic mind, will have some difficulty, I think, in demonstrating that two and two do not still make four. The figures are not of my making. I wish they were not what they are. But, reading the literature upon the subject as created in this parliament by those who now occupy the treasury benches, and comparing it with this record, is it any wonder that some of the bon. gentlemen's colleagues laugh quietly to themselves and think of the past as something 'they would forget.


Mr. HANSON:: You must give them time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought hon. gentlemen would ask for time. But when it was suggested by the late government that improvement would be gradual, we were told that time was made for slaves and that the only thing which was required was a change of government when this relief problem would at once vanish into thin air and the unemployed would be as dew before the morning sun. Well, I shall listen with interest to the explanation which the hon. gentleman has promised. I hope it will not 'be visionary, and
1	hope it will not consist of eulogies of men who work for nothing and devise plans that involve vast expenditures.
Where is this taxpayer about whom we heard so much in the last five years? Where is this forgotten man, the taxpayer? I remember so clearly the profound concern of the then leader of the opposition, now Prime Minister, for the overburdened taxpayer of this country. I remember his hopes for that forgotten man the consumer. Where is the consumers' league?


An hon. MEMBER:: He is at the end
of the row.



The Address-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes. I remember
all thait, and now I shall listen indeed with gratitude and interest to the explanation of the Minister of Labour. I am sure it will do justice to his imagination if it is an explanation, but he must not do violence to facts.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, none of us does not feel a sense of great apprehension about the drought situation in western Canada. In August last I saw a farmer who told me that for five successive years he had had no crop. As to just what the effect upon our country of these succeeding droughts may be I shall not hazard an opinion, but I know that abroad there is apparently a conviction, at any rate there is a doubt as to whether that drought area, in parts, should be an agricultural country at all. That feeling is becoming very well marked in quarters where I wish it were not, and anything that can be done to bring about an amelioration of that condition will have the earnest support and assistance of those who sit to the left of Mr. Speaker.
I was interested in hearing the record of the government's giant efforts in the last year to solve the railway problem. I remember reading in a press notice that that supersuperman, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe), had been labouring incessantly, twenty-five hours out of every twenty-four, giving his undivided attention to every problem that affects the well-being of the state and that he had found a solution for many of these problems. Well, we anxiously await their disclosure to this interested house. I know this, that in the money centres of the world the railway problem is regarded as the one most serious in the life of this country, and it may be that our superman, working long over hours, has been able to find a solution. If so, he will have the gratitude of all well-thinking Canadians. But if he is going to bring about a solution by .reducing the capital structure to a point that does not represent the money which the Canadian people have put into the enterprise, or if he is going to try to make people believe that $47,000,000 pays the obligations, as he did in his speech the other day, then he will be woefully mistaken, and his solution of the problem will leave the country cold. I can tell him that with great certainty.
Off course, in the selection of these boards to which reference is made, no consideration was given to the political affiliation or views of those who were appointed. I have it on the strength of one of these articles that the Minister of Transport himself is hardly conscious of his political views, and so desirous is he of being a just and upright
(Mr. Bennett.]
judge in Israel that he finds it difficult from day to day to determine what his political views may be. Let us hope, however, that the appointments as made were made in a moment of absent-mindedness of that high mantle that had fallen upon his Shoulders, and at a moment when he had ceased to be that delightful non-partisan judge that his eulogists would have us believe that he was.
Of course, we had to have something with reference to the bank. What has been done in dealing with the bank I leave it to the government's own supporters to say. But if anything was ever futile in this world it was to increase the capital of the bank by $5,000,000 and try to make it earn 4J per cent when the going interest rate on the bonds, in which investments are made so largely, was much less. I shall have something to say about reserve banks. The Reserve Bank of Australia has contributed $25,000,000 to the revenues of that country.
There is only one word more. We shall await the measures and see what, they are, with respect to the questions of air service and the railway commission and its extended powers. I remind the government, however, that on more than one occasion efforts have been made to extend the powers of railway commissioners, and for some strange reason it has been found difficult to do so and to come within the provisions of the law. I looked in vain in the trans-Canada air service, for any allusion to those very laudable wishes -of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). I had expected to read that he had provided adequate aircraft at least to protect the neutrality of Canada but I find, looking through ith-e speech from the throne, that we are going to have a trans-Canada air service and are going to provide for that. There is, however, nothing for the protection of the neutrality of this country if there should be a war. Those hon. members who are familiar with the history of the world will remember that on one occasion, when the United States was a very young country, with a population scarcely that of Canada, France endeavoured to compel her to buy her neutrality; and those who remember those coins of the United States will recall the words, "Millions for defence, not one cent for tribute." That was the answer of a small and scattered population when an effort was made to induce them to buy the neutrality which they had declared. Sometimes I think, when I hear the observations of some of my friends, they little realize what the maintenance of neutrality means. We are not equipped to maintain neutrality, even that fine neutrality of mind of the Minister

of Transport; we cannot have even anything such as that. But we are to have a trans-Canada airway, and doubtless at the appropriate time the Minister of National Defence will be able to make a supplementary statement indicating the extent to which this may be available for the protection of neutrality.
The last measure referred to is one of the most dangerous that can possibly be considered
by this parliament. To introduce legislation that will compel people abroad who hold our securities payable in a certain manner to be satisfied with the tender of pieces of paper is a matter which calls for the most careful consideration. I am sure the Minister of Finance has no misunderstanding or misapprehension of the grave implications of such legislation, apart altogether from our capacity to enact it, when dealing with securities that are held outside the dominion. I can only await the legislation in that regard.
Mr. Speaker, during the last few months there has been increasing evidence of the attacks that are being made upon the democratic form of government. In a great many quarters democracy is being attacked as it never has been before. The contention is being urged that the condition that prevails in this house by which the government, with forty-six per cent of the votes cast at the election, should have so vast a number of supporters, is the negation of the sound principles of democratic government. I do not know whether that can be remedied by any means that we can use, but certainly m Australia compulsory voting has had a beneficial effect. I know the attacks on our democratic form of government are increasing. I know, if we persist in believing, with regard to the question of appointments, that a man has to be a defeated candidate to be eligible for office at any time, we shall have grave difficulty. I know there has never been a time since this dominion came into being in 1867 when there was greater reason for every hon. member of the house, and the government in particular, to realize that it is not a question of party as such that must be considered, but that if we are to maintain government of the people, by the people and for the people, what must be considered is the well-being of the people regardless of the effect it may have upon the political fortunes of those who for the moment are entrusted with power. I say that seriously. It is no good, after pandering to prejudices and
31111-3i
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
appealing to passion, to hope that in the end you will do other than destroy the very democracy that we are endeavouring to sustain. And the expenditure of public moneys on a large scale, a very large scale, putting into the hands of the people money to the extent of millions of dollars, can in the long run have but one effect. A ou have only to read the history of France to appreciate and understand that.
As far as we are concerned any measures which the government may submit to this house for parliamentary sanction and approval, which have for their end the improvement and strengthening of democracy and the removal of the conditions to which the hon. member for Gloucester referred in that very thoughtful summary of conditions which he gave us- although I could point out to him that the use of the word "dole" is not quite appropriate with respect to conditions as they now exist in England-anything which will
assist in the accomplishment of that end__
and I speak for those, few in number but representing nearly as many voters as the great numbers of the government yonder-we "ill gladly and proudly support. As Canadians we are anxious to do our best to preserve the integrity of our country and to maintain our democratic institutions.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased indeed that my first word this afternoon should be one of welcome to my right hon friend on his return to Canada and particularly to has place in this House of Commons from his journey around the world. I extend this welcome to him, if Your Honour will permit me so to do. on behalf of all hon. members in this house. We are glad to see that he has returned obviously much benefited in health, and equally obviously greatly benefited in spirits. I sincerely hope that the improvement which is so evident to-day in his outlook upon affairs generally will long continue. Personally I cannot imagine any more certain evidence of the country's progress in the past year than that my right hon. friend has been able to recognize it so completely in the short time since his return to Canada.
I wish also to thank my right hon. friend for the note of cooperation with which he began his remarks and with which he closed them. He said frequently when he was on this side of the house that the government needed the cooperation of the opposition on

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
great public measures, and I thank him for keeping that thought in mind and offering to support us to the extent of his power on measures which merit general approval.
The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) referred to the fact that the [DOT]coronation ceremonies, which come in the month of May, to be followed by an imperial conference, have contributed to the obligations of the administration, and will necessitate, if we are not to have a continuation of the present session in the summer or fall months, a degree of cooperative action on the part of all parties in the house. May I say that the government have in mind the desire of hon. members to conclude this session before the coronation ceremonies if possible, and we will endeavour to bring forward our measures, particularly those likely to be of most concern to hon. members, at as early a date in the session as possible. We will do everything we can to expedite the business of parliament, but I should like hon. members to understand that our desire to expedite the business of parliament must not be considered in any way as a willingness to give to the business of the country other than the fullest attention which necessity may require. If as I said we cannot get through with the work of the session in a satisfactory way by the end of April, parliament will adjourn, to meet later in the year after the coronation of King George VI and the imperial conference; not another session of parliament, but a continuation of the present session. I believe, however, that with the cooperation of all it should be possible to carry through the work of the present session satisfactorily and in time to enable us to prorogue before that historic event.
May I say to my right hon. friend that the government desire to extend to him an invitation to be a member of the delegation of this parliament which will attend the coronation ceremonies. I hope that the right hon. leader of the opposition may find it possible to accept this invitation and so honour parliament by becoming a member of the delegation which will represent Canada at His Majesty's coronation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend has spoken of the abdication of his former majesty King Edward VIII. He said that he felt that the matter was closed and should not be reopened. In those remarks my right hon. friend, I am happy to say, reechoed what I myself expressed in this house last week. However, I did give to parliament an

assurance that I would make a statement at an early opportunity with reference to the abdication, and perhaps it might avoid further references during the course of this debate and later in the session were I to take advantage of this occasion, which is an appropriate one, seeing that the address refers to the abdication, to make the statement I have in mind.
With respect to the abdication of the former king, there are two issues which it is well to keep separate and distinct. The first issue has to do with the events which led up to the king's decision to abdicate, including the question of such advice, if any, as may have been tendered to His Majesty. The other issue is the constitutional and legal propriety of the course followed by the government of Canada to give effect to the king's decision and with respect to the matter of the succession.
As to the first of these issues, may I say at once that Mr. Baldwin, Prime Minister of Great Britain, made a very full and very moving statement to the parliament at Westminster on December 10 with reference to the events, as known to himself more than to any other person, which occasioned the action taken by His former Majesty King Edward VIII. I hope it will not be necessary for me to do more than direct the attention of hon members of this house to the fact that no one in the British parliament, of any party in either house, questioned the absolute sincerity and integrity of Mr. Baldwin's utterances.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I, moreover, add that His former Majesty, on the first occasion that he had, as he 'himself said, of speaking on his own behalf without any constitutional restraint, stated in a broadcast which he made to the entire world, that he had always been treated with full consideration by the ministers of the crown and in particular by Mr. Baldwin, the prime minister, and that at no time had there been anything in the nature of a constitutional difference between him and them, or between him and parliament; that the decision he had made was entirely his and his alone. He emphasized that at no time had there been, any conflict between himself and his ministers.
I think the matter might well be left at that point. I confess I would leave it there immediately were it not for the fact that some remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) may have given rise to some misunderstanding in the public mind or may have created some

'lhe Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
suspicion. I think his remarks, in so far as they might have that effect, should be replied to at this time. lify hat I have further to say will be said largely with that object in view.
Let me make clear first of all that so far as the government of Canada is concerned

and I refer now to the statement of my hon. friend that there had been connivance between the government of Canada and the government of Great Britain, or between myself and Mr. Baldwin with regard to the king's abdication-the first communication received by myself or the government from Mr. Baldwin came after Mr. Baldwin had had three conferences with His former Majesty. Mr. Baldwin has told of one of these conferences which came about at his own instance, in which he spoke to His Majesty as a counsellor and friend. He then referred to three other conferences which he had with the former king, each of which was at the request of His Majesty. At the first of these conferences the king had intimated to Mr. Baldwin that he intended to marry Mrs. Simpson; that he realized that she could not be queen, and that he was "prepared to go." I believe that was the expression used. Mr. Baldwin stated that naturally he was greatly surprised at any such thought in His Majesty's mind and so expressed himself, and said he would require time to think the matter over.
The next interview came when the king himself again sent for Mr. Baldwin. At that interview the king raised a new question, which was as to whether in Mr. Baldwin's opinion the parliament at Westminster woidd enact a law which would permit him to marry the lady to whom he had referred, she however not to have the position of queen but to live with him at Buckingham Palace as his wife, to take no part in affairs of state, he on his part and she also agreeing that as far as any issue of the marriage was concerned, such issue should be barred from succession to the throne. Again Mr. Baldwin expressed surprise at the matter concerning which his view had been asked. He stated that he would need time to consider the question and pointed out to His Majesty that in considering the question further it would be necessary for him to put the matter formally before the whole cabinet and communicate with the governments of the several dominions since the governments of the dominions were concerned equally with the government of Great Britain in_ anything which might affect the crown. His Majesty recognized this to be so, and Mr. Baldwin left His Majesty after the interview with the understanding that it was His Majesty's wish that the dominions would be communicated with.
As I have said, it was after these interviews that the first communication came from Mr. Baldwin to myself, from Mr. Baldwin as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to myself as Prime Minister of Canada, with an intimation that a similar communication was being sent to the prime ministers of the different dominions of the British commonwealth. Mr. Baldwin asked in the communication he sent me whether I would inform him as to what I thought would be the opinion of the people of Canada with respect to the two matters to which I have referred, first the marriage of the king to Mrs. Simpson, she becoming queen, and, second, the marriage of the king to Mrs. Simpson, she not to become queen, but to be the king's wife as described. Mr. Baldwin said that he wished to have this information from the different dominions in order that their views might serve as a guide to him in giving further consideration to the matter.
I replied to Mr. Baldwin's communication, giving it as my view that the people of Canada would not approve of either arrangement.
Some hon. MEMBERS, hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Shortly after that communication had been sent, our government was formally advised'that His Majesty the king was considering abdication. We were told that His Majesty had asked as to the British government's view with regard to the question of a morganatic marriage, or rather I should say had asked the Prime Minister what he believed, having had an opportunity to consult his colleagues, would be the view of the British government and of the British parliament with respect to the enactment of a morganatic marriage act. Mr. Baldwin replied that his inquiries had gone far enough to show that neither the governments of the dominions nor the United Kingdom government would take the responsibility of introducing any such measure. The king stated that he was not surprised that it was so, and apparently no further reference was made to the matter.
The point I wish to make clear here-and I am stating these matters as they came in correspondence to me; all have been publicly stated in Mr. Baldwin's remarks to the British house-is this, that no advice was tendered to the sovereign except in relation to this one question which I have mentioned, nor was advice sought in any other particular. An intimation was received from the Prime Minister of Great Britain to the effect that possibly the different dominions might wish of their own accord to tender advice to His

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Majesty.	There had been reports in our
newspapers, dispatches from the old country -and they were alluded to by my hon. friend the other day-to the effect that Canada was initiating or insisting upon action in this matter. Just why some people in the old country find it necessary continually to seek to have it appear that Canada is the country that is pressing for certain things, I am unable to understand.
When I read these cables, I had very much in mind what happened some months ago when we were told by a section of the press of the old country that it was Canada's proposal that there should be sanctions imposed against Italy of a character that theretofore had not been imposed, that Canada was insisting in these matters. I thought it advisable very promptly to remove any misconception of that kind with respect to the existing situation, and accordingly I issued the following statement to the press on December 4. I believe hon. members will agree that throughout this entire matter I have preserved in so far as it was possible, holding the position I do, as discreet a silence as could be observed, and when I broke it I did so only to prevent erroneous impressions gaining ground which it might be impossible for us later on to overtake. The following is the statement I issued to the press:
There is one thing I should like to say about many of the cabled communications which have appeared in our press. It is quite wrong to allege that in the existing situation any proceeding or course of action in Great Britain has been at the instance of or upon the insistence of the dominions, and of Canada in particular, as distinguished from the United Kingdom. I can, of course, speak with knowledge and authority only in so far as Canada is concerned, but I believe what I am saying will be found to be equally true of all the self-governing dominions.
There is and has been on the part of the Prime Minister and government of the United Kingdom full recognition of the fact that the several dominions are vitally interested in all that pertains to the crown. As a consequence, there is, and has been, consultation between the several governments. The initiative has necessarily been with the British government. It has been taken, however, with due regard to the collective concern and responsibility of the several governments of the British commonwealth.
I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that in replying to Mr. Baldwin's first communication I did so entirely on my own. In that particular my attitude was similar to that of Mr. Baldwin himself in relation to 'his colleagues. He intimated to the House of Commons at Westminster that having regard to the character of the conversations held and the critical

situation involved he had thought it advisable to deal with the matter himself in the first instance before having it come into the arena of general discussion and into the light of publicity, the occasion for which he had hoped might never arise. However, when the matter once came before the British cabinet, and I was so advised by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, I immediately communicated to my colleagues the opinion that I had given to Mr. Baldwin. We considered at that moment if we should advise His Majesty on our own as was done by some of the other dominions. My colleagues shared in its entirety the view which I had expressed in my communication, to the Prime Minister of Great Britain and authorized me in communicating further with the Prime Minister to say that he might convey to His Majesty the view which I had .personally expressed as the view of the entire cabinet; that it expressed our united opinion of how the situation would be viewed by parliament and by the country.
The one question upon which we really had to express an opinion was whether or not we could as a government undertake the responsibility of introducing to this parliament a bill to make possible a morganatic marriage. We felt that no government in Canada would for one moment think of assuming that responsibility any more than in any of the other dominions of the British Empire or in the United Kingdom itself. Nor did we believe that if such :a measure were introduced it would get 'the support even of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth).
May I say that we took one further step. When it became publicly known that the issue had narrowed down to the one point to which I have referred, where His Majesty had himself to choose between two loyalties and decide which of the two he would choose, we as advisers to His Majesty on behalf of the Canadian people felt that we should send a communication to him which would let him know, without any question, what, in our opinion was the right thing for His Majesty to do. Accordingly, after conferences with my colleagues in the cabinet, on December 8, I called on His Excellency the Governor General, His Majesty's representative, and asked His Excellency if he would communicate to His Majesty an expression of opinion from the government of Canada in relation to the situation which His Majesty was considering. This opinion was communicated at once by His Excellency and was received by His Majesty before a final decision

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
was made. What I asked His Excellency to communicate as a direct message to the king from his Canadian ministers by myself as Prime minister was as follows:
My colleagues and I desire to have Your Majesty made aware of the deep sympathy we feel for you in the momentous decision which, at the present time, you are being called upon to make.
There is no doubt in our minds that a recognition by Your Majesty of what as king is owing by you to the throne and to Your Majesty's subjects in all parts of the British commonwealth should, regardless of whatever the personal sacrifice may be, be permitted to outweigh all other considerations.
A formal acknowledgment of that particular communication was not received from His former Majesty, but hon. members will recall that in His Majesty's communication to his several governments advising them of his decision to renounce the throne, he expressed his appreciation of the appeals which had been made to him to take a different decision. He emphasized as well that the decision was entirely his own.
The former king made one further statement, and it is one which I think we should all have in mind. He said he hoped he might have the understanding of his peoples and he asked his peoples to believe that the decision he had taken was that which he believed was best for the stability of the throne and empire and the happiness of his peoples. I believe that His Majesty in those words spoke sincerely, and that in making the decision he did he took it, as he has said, from the standpoint of what, as he knew the situation himself, he believed would be most in the interests of the throne and of his peoples. That, however, is an individual opinion, and each must form his own opinion. May I add that I hope none of us will be too quick to judge any man's actions, and least of all the actions of one who has carried the burden which the former King Edward bore for so many years.
I do not want this matter to pass in this parliament any more than Mr. Baldwin wished it to pass in the British parliament without saying that so far as Canada is concerned the decision taken by His Majesty is one which the people of Canada received with a feeling of the deepest sadness. We shall always remember the impression formed of His former Majesty when he visited this country as Prince of Wales. We shall always remember the way in which he shouldered the duties of kingship during the short period of his reign, and above all we shall never forget the gracious manner in which he accepted the invitation of the war veterans of Canada to
proceed to Europe to unveil the monument at Vimy in memory of those who had lost their lives in the Great war. It is of interest that this should have been the only official occasion in the reign of His former Majesty on which he visited the continent of Europe.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have said about all that needs to be said with respect to the circumstances which led up to the king's abdication and this country's part in relation thereto. I have given parliament what I have given to-day in order that this house, the other house, and the country should know of Canada's part in the matter. I cannot think of anything in the correspondence which I have kept back which would be at all pertinent. I have tried to give everything of significance. I believe the statement I have made will clear the minds of the public of this country of any doubt, if there should happen to be any, with respect to the wisdom of the part which this government took in relation to what preceded the actual abdication of the king.
In connection with this whole matter there was necessarily a great deal of correspondence, as correspondence took place, not only with Great Britain but with the governments of the other dominions of the British commonwealth. When it became apparent that there was a possibility, then a probability, and, finally, a certainty of the king's abdication, it became necessary for all governments to consider very carefully what their action would be with respect to the enactment of a measure or measures to give effect to the instrument of abdication and with respect to questions which might arise pertaining to the succession.
May I point out two considerations which it seems to me are necessary to be kept in mind at all times by all the governments of the British commonwealth when dealing with questions which may affect the commonwealth as a whole. On the one hand, there is the importance of laying emphasis upon national autonomy and, on the other, the equal importance of laying emphasis upon imperial unity. These two* must be regarded as inseparable if the British commonwealth is to hold together. There are times when it is necessary to emphasize strongly the position of our national autonomy; there are other times when it is equally desirable that the need of unity between all parts of the British Empire should be strongly stressed. If there ever was a time in British history when it was of importance that the unity of the British Empire should be demonstrated to all the other nations of the world, it was when a question affecting the crown itself was under consideration. Our government, in its every
40	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
action, kept before it the importance of preserving everything that was essential to national autonomy, but equal emphasis was placed upon a unity which was never felt more strongly than at this particular period.
What this incident has served to reveal is that because of our British parliamentary institutions there is a bond as between the different parts of the commonwealth, the strength of which, perhaps, the world has never previously known. As a result of that bond, as a result of the understanding which one part of the empire has of matters which are of concern to other parts, it has been possible for the United Kingdom and all the dominions to take the concerted action which has met with general approval in the parliaments of all.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I had been speaking on matters pertaining to the abdication of the former king. I pointed out that there were really two issues: one, the events which led up to the abdication, in connection with which it was important to consider what advice had been tendered to His former Majesty; the other issue being the propriety of the procedure from a legal and constitutional point of view adopted by this Canadian government at the time of the change of sovereigns. I had completed all that I wished to say on the first issue. I shall now have a word or two to say with regard to the second.
In considering the action of the government it is necessary for the house to understand just when it was that the government ' was advised of the final decision of the former king to abdicate. Perhaps lion, members will be interested in knowing that the first definite word we received came very late on the evening of Wednesday, December 9. At that time we were informed that on the following day His Majesty intended to execute an instrument of abdication renouncing the throne for himself and his successors and that legislation would immediately thereafter be introduced in the British house giving effect to the abdication and barring from succession to the throne any issue of King Edward. It was early on the morning of the day following, Thursday, December 10, that we received the actual word from Buckingham Palace that the king had executed an- instrument of abdication and had communicated his intention to renounce the throne for himself and his

descendants. That word was sent from Buckingham Palace to His Excellency the Governor General by cable. It was immediately communicated by His Excellency to his ministers. Subsequently that information was sent by mail also from His Majesty the king. Both the instrument of abdication and the communication were signed in His Majesty's own hand. Both of these documents were read to hon. members of the house on the day of the opening. Perhaps I should make it clear that His Majesty sent the original of the abdication and the original of his communication announcing his intention, not only to both houses of parliament at Westminster, but to each of the governments of the self-governing dominions. The documents which came to Canada are now in the safe custody of the privy council.
Immediately after receiving this authoritative information, the cabinet, which had been summoned to meet anticipating the receipt of both communications, considered an order in council which was submitted to His Excellency for approval and which set forth the reasons why the government thought it well to proceed in the manner it did, namely to request and to consent to the enactment by the British government of an act which came to be known as His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act, 1936.


Mr. CAHAN:: Would the right hon. gentleman allow a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not wish to interrupt, but the right hon. gentleman said that he would allow questions if doubt arose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, certainly.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Did this dominion by any other instrument or document request and consent to the enactment of the act dealing with the abdication? Was that request and consent conveyed through any other instrument or document than the order in council to which the right hon. gentleman refers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it was not. Naturally, in preparing for any possible emergency, every possibility was considered, and the British government were advised the day before that in the event of the king abdicating they might expect a communication along certain lines, lines which I am about to indicate. The only official communication which was sent is the one that I am about to read. I think it had better be placed in its entirety on Hansard because it sets forth all of the important stages and also the reasons which governed in the matter of the government's action.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Certified to be a true copy of a minute of the committee privy council approved by His Excellency the Governor General on 10th December, 1936.
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report dated 10th December, 1936, from the Right Honourable the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs submitted, with the concurrence of the Minister of Justice, as follows:
1. That His Majesty the king through His Majesty's representative in Canada has, this tenth day of December, 1936, informed His Majesty's government in Canada that he has this day duly executed an instrument of abdication, a copy of which is hereunto annexed;
2.	That His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom have communicated their intention to introduce immediately legislation in the parliament at Westminster in order to give effect to His Majesty's instrument of abdication and to provide for the succession to the throne, the said legislation to be based upon a draft bill, a copy of which is hereunto annexed;
3.	That the Statute of Westminster, 1931, provides in the second recital of the preamble as follows:
And whereas, it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this act, that, inasmuch as the crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British commonwealth of nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the lawtouching the succession to the throne or the royal style and titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the parliaments of all the dominions as of the parliament of the United Kingdom,
and in the fourth section as follows:
(4) No act of parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this act shall extend or be deemed to extend to a dominion as part of the law of that dominion unless it is expressly declared in that act that that dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.
4.	That in order to ensure that the requirements of the fourth section of the statute are satisfied, it is necessary to provide for the request and consent of Canada to the enactment of the proposed legislation; and, in order to insure compliance with the constitutional convention expressed in the second recital to the preamble hereinbefore set forth, it is necessary to make provision for securing the assent of the parliament of Canada thereto;
5.	That, by proclamation dated the thirtieth day of November, 1936, the parliament of Canada has been summoned to meet on the 14th day of January, 1937;
6.	That it is impossible so to expedite the assembling of the parliament of Canada as to enable appropriate parliamentary action to be taken prior to or contemporaneously with the enactment of the proposed legislation by the parliament at Westminster.
The committee, therefore, on the recommendation of the Right Honourable the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs, with the concurrence of the Minister of Justice, advise-
(a)	That the enactment of legislation by the parliament of Westminster, following upon the voluntary abdication of His Majesty the king, providing for the validation thereof, the consequential demise of the crown, the succession of the heir presumptive and revision of the laws relating to the succession to the throne, and declaring that Canada has requested and consented to such enactment, be hereby approved;
(b)	That the proposed legislation, in so far as it extends to Canada, shall conform as nearly as may be to the annexed draft bill;
(c)	That the legislation, enacted as aforesaid, shall be submitted to the parliament of Canada, immediately after the opening of the next session, so as to enable the parliament of Canada to take appropriate action pursuant to the provisions of the statute of Westminster;
(d)	That His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom shall be informed accordingly.
All of which is respectfully submitted for Your Excellency's approval.
E. J. Lemaire.
Clerk of the Privy Council.
There is attached to the order in council copy of the instrument of abdication and a copy of a bill to give effect to His Majesty's instrument of abdication and for purposes connected therewith, which was entitled, an act to be cited as His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act, 1936.
As I have said, that order in council was passed on the morning of December 10, and immediately communicated by cable to His Majesty's government in Great Britain. The cable was received before the bill to which it refers was introduced in the British house. As I have already mentioned. His Majesty's instrument of abdication was executed on the morning of the tenth, and the bill was introduced and received first reading in the British house later on in the day. It passed its second and third readings on the day following and also passed the House of Lords and was assented to on the afternoon of December 11, at which time King George VI immediately succeeded to the throne.
What I wish to point out immediately is this. Our government had. as I have said, no definite assurance that His Majesty King Edward VIII had finally and definitely decided to renounce the throne for himself and his successors until word came from Buckingham Palace itself in the manner I have indicated. Had the government called parliament together before receiving that definite word, it would have been equivalent to an assumption on the part of the government that the king was going to abdicate. It was, I believe, the wish of all parties at that time that His Majesty should not abdicate. I have given to the house this afternoon the advice -if hon. members wish so to term it-which the Canadian government tendered His
42	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Majesty while he was considering his final decision, it expressed the hope that His Majesty would see his way to take the course which was obviously the one which the peoples of the commonwealth hoped he would take. So that until the very end, one might say, or within a day at the most of the abdication, it was not possible for the government to be certain that King Edward VIII had reached an irrevocable decision.
Might I direct attention also to this fact, that had parliament been specially summoned several days would necessarily have elapsed before parliament could have met. Parliament had already been summoned for regular session by His Excellency; we knew that parliament would be meeting on the fourteenth day of this month. It would have taken at least six or eight days for members to gather together here after any summons had been sent out prior to the abdication of the king. Every hon. member of the house has the right to expect that he will receive sufficient notice and have sufficient time to be in his place in the house when important business is being transacted. I believe this house would have censured the government had we not afforded an opportunity sufficient for all hon. members to be in their seats if it had been thought essential to call parliament together for any purpose whatsoever. I wish to make quite clear that it was in every way impossible to have had parliament here in time to pass any legislation prior to the time at which King Edward abdicated,, or simultaneously, shall I say, with that of the British parliament-absolutely impossible.
I do submit, Mr. Speaker, that in matters of this kind the government must take the course which it believes will commend itself to members of parliament generally. I am sure that the hon. members of this house would not have welcomed any summons to be here within a limited number of days- any summons that had been sent out immediately prior to the abdication of the king- in order to consider what should be done with respect to the abdication and the accession of the new sovereign. In this matter the cabinet was governed by circumstances of time and space in reference to which all matters have to be considered, and in addition to that it was governed by the common sense of the situation. But may I point out that, quite apart from all that, as the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) said this afternoon, there was nothing that this parliament could have done to have

prevented the succession of King George VI to the throne once King Edward VIII had abdicated. The minute King Edward VIII abdicated there was a demise of the crown. And upon the demise of the crown the next in order of succession comes to the throne. The next in succession was the present King George VI.
A demise of the crown may take place in one of two ways, either by the death of the sovereign or by abdication. Heretofore in British history abdication has not been thought of except, as my right hon. friend mentioned this afternoon, in one case. Then it was an afterthought rather than a forethought, and it was not believed that anything of the kind would occur again. The demise of the crown occurred the moment King Edward abdicated-and there is nothing to prevent a king abdicating. No parliament can prevent a king abdicating; that is his right and his privilege, and when he abdicates there is a demise of the crown.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Must not the act of abdication be accepted by parliament?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; I am glad my hon. friend has asked that question.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The authorities I find seem to indicate it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg to differ with my hon. friend. My understanding is- and I have also looked up authorities-that there is nothing to prevent a king abdicating. If he desires to renounce the throne and abdicate there is nothing that parliament can do about it. Parliament may pass acts galore, but it cannot alter the fact that the king has left the throne, and another king has succeeded the moment he has abdicated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think my right hon.
friend will reconsider that in a moment, for this reason: His Majesty King Edward VIII assented to the bill that accepted the abdication. If the throne became vacant by the mere abdication he was no longer king. After he had executed the instrument he was no longer king, but he was king until he assented to the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is quite
true as regards what happened in this case, but if he had abdicated and. gone away and had not waited to assent to the bill it could not have been suggested that he was still king.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There would have been an
act declaring that he had abdicated.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but the
fact of abdication rests with the king himself.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The initiation of it, yes; but if he had left England, then parliament would have had to deal with the situation and pass an act in order to create a demise of the crown. There is no demise on the mere signing of abdication.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The authorities I have consulted on the matter all indicate that demise may take place in one of two ways, either by the death of the sovereign or by abdication.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, when accepted by parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is quite sufficient for me, and that is all I wish to convey to my hon. friend

that the abdication of the sovereign was what in effect created the demise of the crown. The fact that parliament subsequently agreed to the abdication is quite a secondary consideration.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Oh, no; it is equally essential as the signing of the abdication.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, assuming it is equally essential, it could not have altered the situation one whit so far as this parliament is concerned, unless my hon. friend is going to suggest that we might have held up the abdication for a week by waiting until the members were summoned. Perhaps that is the point he has in mind.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will make my point at
the proper time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This government sought to meet the wishes of King Edward in his communication, namely, that effect might be given to the abdication as quickly as possible and that his brother might succeed to the throne without delay, so that there might be as little disturbance as possible politically throughout the country. And that was the wish which the British government sought to carry out. My hon. friend may be contending that we might have waited for a week or two and not assented to the abdication until parliament could have been brought together here.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am suggesting no more
than I stated, that the act of signing the document of abdication did not effect an abdication until that was accepted by parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I will not contend further with my hon. friend on the point. It is a very minor one so far as the
issue that I am discussing now is concerned,
no matter which way it is decided. The real question at issue at the moment is whether the present government adopted a proper procedure in requesting and consenting to the act which was passed by the British parliament, rather than refusing to take that course and summoning our own parliament to deal with the matter by legislation. If we had adopted the latter course there would meanwhile have been uncertainty, confusion and doubt as to the legality of executive and judicial acts. We would have been inconveniencing every hon. member of this house; we would have been adopting what I think hon. members and the country generally would have regarded as an absurd course, losing altogether the spirit of the constitution and accepting some letter, straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. But more than that, I would like to know what hon. gentlemen opposite would have had to say about a government which found it necessary at that critical time in the history of the British commonwealth of nations to make Canada's apparent separation from the other members of the commonwealth so marked to all the world. That was the real alternative; that is what we would have been getting in the way of criticism to-day if we had waited for a week for Canada's parliament to assemble and act. Hon. gentlemen opposite would have been saying: When you had the Statute of Westminster before you, and when it contained a clause which gave you all the power needed to have a new sovereign become the King of Canada the moment he became King of the United Kingdom, and you did not take it, what possible explanation is there other than that you are seeking in some way separation from the rest of the empire? That is what we would have heard.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does the right hon. gentleman suggest that in view of the relations which exist between Canada and the United Kingdom there could be a King of Canada apart from the King of the United Kingdom? If so, I wish most emphatically to dissent from that suggestion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am saying what hon. members opposite would have said.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, you might leave them to say it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some afternoon we might have a pleasant debate on that one question. But I certainly do not want to raise it at the moment.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But the right hon. gentleman might make his argument without suggesting what other people would say, until they say it.
44	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The trouble is my hon. friend interrupts so often that I
almost forget the argument.
May I draw the attention of hon. members to the clause in the Statute of Westminster under which action was taken? I have already read it in the order in council, but I think hon. members ought to observe how clear and emphatic it is. After what the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett.) has already pointed out, it should hardly be necessary for me to repeat it. But it may serve the purpose of helping to remove doubt if I remind the house that he and I are agreed on the propriety of the course pursued under this section. I shall read to the house the clause as it appears in the act:
4. No act of the parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this act shall extend, o-r be deemed to extend, to a dominion as part of the law of that dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that act that that dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.
Hon. members will notice that the language used is, not that the government has consented, or parliament has consented, but that that dominion has requested and consented to the enactment thereof. I am reading from a collection of British dominion papers in The World's Classics edited with introduction and notes by Arthur Berriedale Keith, he being an outstanding authority on Constitutional matters. I read from this particular document because, opposite the word " dominion " there is an asterisk which directs attention to a footnote, and the note is as follows:
The necessity of parliamentary requests was negated by dominion representatives. See parliamentary debates 260, page 279.
The fact is that at the time this particular statute was being considered at Westminster it was moved in amendment that instead of the word "dominion" there should be substituted the word " parliament." But the mover of that amendment was told by the minister in charge of the bill that at the wish of the dominions themselves the word " parliament " should not be inserted, and that the word " dominion " should be left as it was, in order, as the right hon. leader of the opposition has pointed out this afternoon, that in the event of some emergency necessitating action by the government rather than parliament it would be possible for the government to act.
Now let me quote from the debate in the United Kingdom parliament, Parliamentary Debates, vol. 260, page 279:

(Parliament of the United Kingdom no-t to legislate for dominion except by consent.)
Sir J. Withers: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, after the second word " that," to insert the words " the parliament of."
If my amendment is accepted the clause wrill read:
" No act of parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a dominion as part of the law of that dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that act that the parliament of that dominion has requested and consented to the enactment thereof."
This amendment, to a certain extent, is a drafting amendment. The parliament of each dominion is always referred to as the authority for testing the opinion of that particular dominion, and, therefore, to make the clause read properly, the words I have suggested ought to be inserted.
Mr. J. H. Thomas: -
Mr. Thomas was secretary for the dominions at that time.
*-If I had only to consult my own personal wishes I should be quite willing to accept this amendment, but the clause was drafted in its present form at the request of the dominions themselves. The government were indifferent on this point, but the real answer is that as far as the government was concerned we did not care which method was adopted, but what is now proposed was put in at the request of the dominions.
Amendment negatived.
I think perhaps my right hon. friend may have been present at conferences where the matter was discussed, and among others may have given reasons why in his opinion it was better to allow the word "dominion" to stand rather than insert the word "government" or "parliament."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is correct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To meet possible emergencies. But may I draw the attention of tihe house to a further reason, which appears in the statute itself, for believing that it was not the intention by the use of the word "dominion" to imply parliament, but rather to leave it optional with the government. That reason appears from subsection 3, clause 9, which relates to Australia. It reads as follows:
In the application of this act to the Commonwealth of Australia the request and consent referred to in section 4 shall mean the request and consent of the parliament and government of the commonwealth.
Now if by "dominion" had been meant the parliament, the Australians would not have asked to have placed in the statute the section which I have just read, which says that notwithstanding what is said in section

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
4 with respect to any dominion, the request and consent of the parliament must be required, as well as that of the government of the commonwealth.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was done at the instance of Sir Jaimes Latham, now the chief justice, then the attorney general. We discussed it the other evening.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And Australia has never accepted section 4?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; Australia has not accepted section 4. I dhall not go into the action of the other dominions; if it is desired that can be discussed when we come to take up the bill to which a first reading has already been .given. But I think what I have said will make it perfectly clear that the government was acting entirely within the provisions of the statute when by order in council it communicated its request and consent, and secured the insertion of "the request and consent of'' Canada in the preamble of the abdication bill, thereby making the provisions of that act applicable also to our dominion when the statute was enacted.
That, I think concludes about all I need to say on the question of the propriety of the procedure. However, I should like to add 'that I think some word of appreciation should be expressed in this parliament of the service which was rendered to Canada at the time, and to all other parts of the British commonwealth of nations, as well as to the United Kingdom, by the Prime Minister at Westminster, the Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin. I do not think it is possible to speak in too high praise of the sympathetic and sagacious manner in which Mr. Baldwin dealt throughout with one of the most difficult situations with which any prime minister could possibly be faced, and this action, being of the character it was. has placed the entire commonwealth under deep obligation to him.
I should like also to say a word, of appreciation of the services which were rendered to our government at the time of this crisis, so called, by the dominion's office in London and by Sir Frances Floud, the high commissioner of the United Kingdom in Ottawa and the members of his staff. Most of the communications from the Prime Minister of Great Britain came to our government from the Dominion's office and nearly all communications from the governments of other self-governing dominions of tlhe commonwealth came through the dominion's office.
All readied us through the high commissioner for the United Kingdom resident in Ottawa. Throughout the entire period covered by the correspondence the high commissioner's staff was on duty night and day. I cannot imagine work being more promptly and efficiently performed in every detail than was the case with the work as carried out in this matter by the Dominions office in London and by the high commissioner and the members of his staff in Ottawa.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come back to other subjects mentioned in the address. May I immediately extend my very hearty congratulations, as 'the right lion, leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has already done, to the mover and the seconder of the address. This was not a maiden speech for the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. McLarty); we 'have heard him in this parliament before. Those of us who have had that privilege expected that we would receive from him this afternoon an address of high merit in the manner of its delivery, its matter, its composition and in other particulars.	In
that we have not been disappointed, but rather, may I say, greatly delighted. A day or two ago I mentioned to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Ve-niot) and to the house something of the loss we felt this house hiad suffered in the passing of his distinguished father. After having heard the horn, member for Gloucester this afternoon. I feel sure all will congratulate him on what he has brought to the 'house in the way of debating ability, and other talents.
In reviewing the speech from the throne this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. leader of the opposition, seeking to account for tiie economic recovery wh-i-ch is so noticeable even to him, undertook to say that he thought it was due in large part to the government pursuing the course of its predecessors. That was the most amazing statement I have ever heard, even from my right hon, friend. Pursuing the course of its predecessors? What was the course of its predecessors, for example, with respect to tariffs in the matter of trade? My right hon. friend went on the theory that the higher tariffs were raised the more trade would increase. He believed that if you had embargoes you would help along good will between nations and assist in the development of international trade; at least that is what I assume from has actions.
The present administration, when it came into office, instead of seeking to pursue the policies of my right hon. friend began to reverse them as rapidly as possible. When, on coming into office, we were confronted with a

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
cessation of trade with Japan because of some industrial or commercial war with the Japanese upon which my right hon. friend had entered, we very soon found a way to reach an agreement which did away with the cutting off of trade between Japan and Canada and brought about a rapid and extremely valuable increase of trade which has meant much to thousands of men who were unemployed in British Columbia, and which has aided employment in other parts of Canada as well. Then instead of pursuing my right hon. friend's policies and placing embargoes against other countries, we succeeded in having the embargo against Russia removed, thereby making clear our desire to further friendly relations with every other country in the world, Russia being the only country against which we had found this extreme form of discrimination.
What about pursuing my right hon. friend's course with respect to reciprocity? For three years in this country my right hon. friend told us that reciprocity with the United States was a good thing, that it ought to come about and that it would come about, but it never came about under any of his policies. It would not have come about yet if my right hon. friend had been returned to office. We, however, immediately took up the question of effecting a reciprocal trade agreement with the United States, and we brought into existence a trade which has been of great mutual benefit to both the United States and Canada. Just in passing may I say a word as to the effect to that agreement in one particular only, namely, the items in the United States tariff that were reduced under the United States-Canada agreement. In the first eleven months of 1935 the exports from Canada to the United States amounted to $32,698,966. Last year in the corresponding period they amounted to $53,086,653, or an increase of 62-3 per cent. That was only with respect to those commodities which entered the United States under a lower rate of duty, as a result of the agreement.
What about wheat? My right hon. friend's policy with respect to wheat was to hold wheat and not sell it. As a result this country was getting such a quantity of wheat in storage that the surplus was creating a problem of itself. This government entered upon a policy of selling wheat, and as a result of that policy a great burden of contractual obligation has been lifted off the shoulders of the nation and the farmers of western Canada have profited immensely in ways they previously had but little reason to expect.

During recess I took time to make a note or two on the difference between the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite and ourselves in respect of trade. We on this side of the house believe that recovery is bound up with the restoration of international trade. Our policies have been based upon this conviction and have sought to secure, on the basis of reciprocity, the reduction of tariffs and the removal of restrictions which have choked and encumbered our trade with the world. The trade agreement with the United States of America, the ending of the tariff war with Japan, the simultaneous lifting of the embargoes which had brought trade with the U.S.S.R. to a standstill and the negotiation of additional trade agreements, of which some will be ready for submission to this house very shortly, have, each in some degree, helped to assure a wider market for Canadian products. I should mention also the agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom, which has been concluded in principle and which will be shortly signed and presented to parliament at this session. We believe that this agreement also will serve further to increase the trade between Great Britain and Canada.
Not less important than the visible and conspicuous reductions in the rates of duty applicable to imported goods, which have been consolidated in trade agreements, has been the elimination of the arbitrary and often invisible interference of governmental agencies in the normal course of trade. We have cancelled scores of arbitrary valuations, limited the scope of the application of dumping duty to the protection of legitimate and substantial domestic interests, and set up machinery for the impartial, judicial review of departmental decisions in these matters. The steps that we have taken do more than establish the direction of our course and the character of our goal; they mark ground gained.
At this stage we cannot submit more than an interim report-work in progress and ahead of us is more important than the work yet accomplished. Nevertheless, in insisting on the vital necessity for Canada of attaining our final objectives we must not underestimate the record of positive achievement during the past fifteen months to which I have briefly referred. In that period. Canada can invite comparison with any other country in the world in the number and magnitude of tariff reductions. Our contribution to the collective responsibility of the nations for restoring freedom of world trade is being fully and honourably met. We are doing our part and, in

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
collaboration with the United Kingdom and the United States and other like-minded peoples, we hope that we can continue the efforts so auspiciously begun.
I have referred freely to the notes which I have because of the importance of the statement which I have just made in what I believe is its international bearings. At this time of all times in the history of the world some governments should lead in elimination of those restrictions which have been making for economic nationalism in the past, and, through economic nationalism, for war. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if to-day the countries of the world are threatened as they have been for many months past, and indeed for a year or two past, with grave international strife, it is due more to the tariff walls which have been put up as between different nations and the restrictions imposed upon trade as between different countries than to any other single cause. We who are members of the Liberal party of Canada, since we came into office, have done our utmost, having due regard for the position of the country, the needs of industry and other like considerations, by the lowering of tariffs and the removal of other restrictions to promote trade and to show to the nations of the world with no exception whatever our desire and our willingness to further international trade and, with it, international good will and international peace.
My right hon. friend has also referred this afternoon to the government's action with respect to the sale of wheat, and he has asked by what authority we took the step we did. May I say to him that before taking action in the matter we conferred with the chairman of the wheat board, and we also took counsel with the law officers of the crown, and the law officers of the crown assured us that in taking the step we eventually did we would be entirely within the law which governs in this matter. I am not going to enter into a legal argument with my right hon. friend at this moment, but I am giving him t.he facts with respect to the government's action as taken at the time it was.
The government carried out its statutory obligation, which was to approve or disapprove the recommendation of the board with respect to fixing a price. The duty of the board was to fix a price, and the government's to give such approval as it saw fit. It was quite within the province of the government to attach a provision if it so desired. The machinery of the act has been preserved and
is ready to function in the event of emergency conditions returning. The main purpose of the act, if I mistake not, was to help solve the existing wheat problem.
Now what are the facts, for after all the merit of any course of action is best judged by the results. During my right hon. friend's term of office it was found necessary to fix a minimum price of 87^ cents for wheat. Since the present administration took the action to which my right hon. friend now takes exception, wheat has never dropped below 94 cents, and it has gone up as high as 128 cen-ts. I think the farmers of this country will view the actions of the respective administrations by the prices which they have been able to get for their grain as being perhaps the most effective of all indices.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But they did not get it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend also took exception to governor general's warrants having been issued in connection with drought relief purposes, and asked how it was possible that this administration, which had taken such exception to steps of the kind in the past, could have itself entered upon a course of governor general's warrants. May I say to my right hon. friend that the course taken by the administration was taken in accordance with the statute which governs governor general's warrants and is in accordance with the course which, when I was sitting where he is sitting to-day, I urged upon him as the proper course to take as opposed to proceeding under blank cheque legislation. I told him repeatedly that as against payments by blank cheque authority, of which there was no proper control by parliament, this house would prefer, where an emergency existed, if appropriations were inadequate to have the government resort to governor general's warrants, notification to be given to parliament immediately after it assembled as to the use to which the warrants had been put. Let me read the section of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, which deals with the use of governor general's warrants. It is chapter 27 of the Revised Statutes, 1931, section 25 (1):
If, when parliament is not in session, any accident happens to any public work or building which requires an immediate outlay for the repair or renewal thereof, or any other occasion arises when any expenditure, not foreseen or provided for by parliament, is urgently and immediately required for the public good, then upon the report of the minister that there is no parliamentary provision, and of the minister having charge of the service in question that the necessity is urgent, the governor in council may order a special warrant to be prepared,
48	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
to be signed by the governor general for the issue of the amount estimated to be required, *which shall be placed by the minister to a special account, against which cheques may issue from time to time, in the usual form, as they are required.
If ever there was an occasion where the necessity was urgent, and where it had been impossible to foresee the emergency, it was the one alluded to by my right hon. friend. May I quote to him what I urged upon him repeatedly with respect to the use of governor general's warrants? I quote from the Hansard of 1933, March 3, page 2679. Speaking of the use of governor general's warrants to meet emergency relief purposes, I said:
In dealing with questions of great emergency especially where human life is at stake, this House of Commons of Canada has never taken exception to a ministry taking the one course which it can constitutionally take in cases where an appropriation has not been made or is inadequate, of asking for a governor general's warrant to meet a particularly emergent situation until parliament can be brought together. I made it very clear at the beginning of the special session in 1930, that, if the ministry found difficulty in estimating what would be required for the purpose of meeting some very critical situation in the matter of relief, and, if it should be necessary, before parliament could be brought together, that a certain expenditure should be made by governor general's warrants on account of the urgency of the human need involved, those of us who sit on this side of the house would take no exception to that particular course, provided that, in the * first instance, parliament had been given the control it should have.
I think, Mr. Speaker, I have effectively answered my right hon. friend as to the use of governor general's warrants in the case to which he has referred.
In the course of his remarks the leader of the opposition referred to the League of Nations, and with what my rigfht hon, friend said in that connection, as indeed with much else of what he said to-day, I an>
in entire accord. I agree with my right hon. friend when he says that Canada would not have entered the League of Nations had- she not believed that the league was likely to be universal in its membership, and in particular had she not believed that the United States would also be a member of the league.
I shall not at the moment attempt to discuss League of Nations' matters. I may say that at an early stage of the session opportunity will be afforded for the discussion of international affairs when we are taking up the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. However, I should like to reiterate in further part what the right hon. leader of the opposition 'hats said. Because there

has been a failure on the part of the league with respect to some matters for which it was formed, that is no reason why every effort should not be made by the different countries to remedy what defects there may be in the constitution of the league and to change the application of the covenant in such ways as may be necessary to bring about the universality of membership upon which the league was originally intended to be based and without which it is very doubtful if it can be made the success which the nations hoped it would be.
I do not know that there is anything further that need be said in reply bo my right hon. friend, except perhaps a word on the subject of relief. It is quite true that unfortunately the numbers on relief are not diminishing as rapidly as they should. In all countries it has been found that the numbers on relief lag considerably; that they do not show the improvement which it might be expected they would show due to a betterment of conditions as discoverable in increased employment or lessening of unemployment. I think in this country we may take considerable satisfaction out of the fact that the numbers of unemployed are considerably less than they have been and that the numbers employed are greater than for many years. This being so and with recovery taking the strides it is at the present time, it is reasonable to expect that the numbers on relief will rapidly diminish.
The numbers on relief have become what they are largely because of the length of time for which many people held out before taking relief. May I say to my right hon. friend that if at the beginning of his administration he had appointed a commission to take charge of the whole question of relief instead of seeking to have the matter taken care of by a single minister of the crown, with the assistance of his colleagues, I believe that the whole unemployment problem would be vastly different from what it is at the present time. May I say to him further that if under the guise of assistance to the unemployed he had not spent .money recklessly right and left, as he did, for all kinds of purposes we would not to-day have the problem of vast expenditures to deal with which we have. I might add that time is required to offset the ill-effects of wrong policies, and to give right policies a chance to disclose results.
The truth of the matter is that for some years past a great many people have been kept employed not in private enterprise, or in ways which relate themselves to the general business and industry of the country but by public money

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
spent by the government for all kinds of purposes whether profitable or not. When wasteful expenditures are no longer being made, naturally the number of those on relief who have profited by them come to be somewhat larger than they otherwise would be. We have, however, every reason to hope that under the direction of the national employment commission, which has been giving its expert study and guidance to this question, combined with the measures which have been introduced already and which will be introduced later on by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), this most serious problem with which the country has been faced for so many years will rapidly disappear.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to express to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) our great satisfaction at seeing him back in the house. I should like to express also our appreciation of the fine addresses of the mover (Mr. MeLarty) and the seconder (Mr. Veniot) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I should like to commend the composers of the speech from the throne. There are in it two things that appeal particularly to us. First, there is the provision for the payment of pensions to the blind. That is highly commendable and very much to the credit of the administration. Second, one passage in the speech reads:
A measure will also be submitted with respect to the discharge, in any coin or currency which is legal tender, of debt payments at present required to be made in gold or gold coin.
The leader of the opposition has pointed out a possible danger in that passage, but it seems to me that it is a step in t'he right direction. I feel encouraged because of it.
Without the desire to criticize in any way,
I should like to take a little time in discussing the question of unemployment and relief. This problem has been brought out clearly by all the speakers who have preceded me. It is a grave problem, but nobody seems to know just exactly what is the cause and nobody seems to be able to give a cure. It seems to me that instead of bandying recriminations back and forth across the floor of the house, we should all get together as a group of earnest and interested members of parliament to see if by pooling our wisdom knowledge and ideas we cannot arrive at a solution of this problem.
I repeat that I am not criticizing the government as I think they have done exceedingly well, all things being considered. Yet I believe it would prove interesting to hon.
members if some excerpts from a report which was made recently were brought to their attention. I have before me a pamphlet entitled The Relief Outlook in Canada, Winter 1936-37, issued by the Canadian Welfare Council on December 28, 1936. This report contains certain passages which certainly are not very comforting reading. For example, at the bottom of page four, I find these words:
As it is, quite apart from drought relief, the loads look as though they would stand (as at the first of December) at a figure representing six per cent to eight per cent increase over comparable 1935 totals.
I assume that this is an official statement of the relief situation in Canada. Again, on page five, we find these words:
With the business index in Canada showing an improvement of more than fifty per cent from 1933; and with employment up about thirty per cent, there can be only grave realization that we are not breaking the line of national relief totals when these show only about eighteen per cent to twenty per cent reduction over those at the corresponding period in the depth of the depression.
I believe that .there is a cause for this relief situation which has not been touched upon so far. There are plenty of people in this house, and plenty of people in this country, who are inclined to scoff at those who undertake to point out that there has been passing over the world during the last decade or so, probably during the last twenty-five years, a great change which has developed largely because of the coming in of the machine and a consequent actual decrease in the amount of wages and salaries and dividends which are going into the hands of the consumers. The consequence is that there actually is being produced among the people, though not among the rich men, of course, or among the bankers, an actual shortage of purchasing power, with the result that it is becoming increasingly difficult to put people to work at profitable labour. This condition is destined apparently to increase in its severity and to bring about more and more unsatisfactory conditions requiring more and more artificial treatment until some fundamental change is made in the way of dealing with social problems in the modem world. Knowing full well that there are plenty of people prepared to criticize, yet I humbly and earnestly submit for the consideration of this house that here is a problem which must be met and solved and which will not be solved by anything which has thus far been presented as a solution of the difficulty.

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
amount of money, and he said: " That money they are asking for is Canadian money. We Canadian taxpayers have paid that money and that province has no right to come and get it." It would be good for the intellectual development of that writer to take particular notice of the figures which I am about to give to the house. These figures I have taken from some findings which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) made when he was engaged in an investigation in eastern Canada. They are only estimates, but I believe that they are sufficiently accurate for our enlightenment. He finds that, in the incidence of the tariff in Canada, the increase in prices which the people of Manitoba were paying in the year ended March 31, 1931-increases as a result of the tariff-amounted to $29,185,740. The benefit to the producers of Manitoba as a result of those tariffs was only $19,910,971. The loss, then, to the people of Manitoba; in other words, the money which the people of Manitoba contributed to the dominion over and above the benefit they received was $9,274,769. Saskatchewan is faced with a still more serious problem. Her price increase owing to the tariff was $29,228,285 and the only benefit she derived was $3,275,850. The result is that Saskatchewan, in the year ended March 31, 1931, contributed to the dominion treasury, over and above what she obtained as a benefit from the tariff, $25,952,335. How many years that had been going on, and how many years since then a similar drain has existed, is a question which all hon. members must consider seriously. Alberta's price increase was $27,909,396. The benefit to her producers was $8,211,148. The result is that Alberta contributed to the funds of the dominion, over and above the benefit she gained, $19,698,248 in that year, and she has continued to contribute similar amounts since that time. When it can be shown that Alberta has received in return something comparable to that amount, then people will be in a position to talk against Alberta's request for the assistance she needs in a dire way at the present time.
Now let us come to the people of Quebec and Ontario. And before I quote the figures with respect to these two provinces I wish to assure hon. members that I have no desire whatsoever to say anything that would create ill-feeling between the east and the west. We admire and love the east; we are interested in the east and have no wish to cause disunion. But when injustice is borne by any section of the country and continues throughout a long period of years, and when the people who are profiting from that injustice are apparently unaware of its existence and in fact talk in such a way as to be altogether offensive, then

it is high time that those who are being offensive should be informed and should begin to hold their peace. The price increase, so far as Quebec is concerned, was $101,171,562. The benefit to Quebec producers was $132,867,447. In other words, where the three other provinces lost huge sums of money, the people of Quebec, as a result of the tariff, gained the sum of $31,685,885. Now Quebec really ought, under those circumstances, to be able to take care of its relief problems a little better.	[DOT]
Ontario during the same period had a price increase of $168,732,723, but she gained as profit from the tariff, $220,722,484. In other words the gain which Ontario had as a result of the tariff was $51,989,761. Now, when people in two provinces have been benefited to that extent, it thoroughly behooves them to be very careful what they say regarding their suffering neighbours out in the west who have not been by any means so fortunate. So much for the tariff increase.
(Now there is another injustice of which I believe a good many people are not aware.
I am going to speak for a minute or two directly for my own province, not mentioning the others. There is in the Dominion of Canada a freight rate structure that makes Alberta pay both going and coming. She is being discriminated against as is no other province in this dominion. | That ought to be taken into consideration. There are plenty of people who sneer about the Progressive government which the people of Alberta have put into power. I wager that if the people of some of these eastern provinces were suffering as much as Alberta is they would not be as calm as Alberta has been. The thing we want to do is to find what is the cause of all this, and to remove that cause as far as is humanly possible. Surely there is something that can be done. I read this from an editorial in a western paper, and not a Social Credit paper:
This province (Alberta) as a matter of fact is at the apex of the general freight rate struc ture of Canada.
I have not time to go into details, but they bear tremendously on the relief problem in those provinces. Someone is suffering for all that. And it does not matter how desirous they are of working or how careful they are in their living or how economical they are or how anxious to keep off relief, they are in the grip of circumstances which are an absolute disgrace to this dominion.
There are some other things which I wish to consider. I will not now spend any more time on the discrimination; I may at another

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
time say something further on that for the enlightenment of the house. I fancy the reason these things are tolerated is only that we do not know about them. I did not know about these things until I looked them up, and I cannot blame people who have never had them brought to their attention. It is our business to bring them to the attention of hon. members, and we do so in a spirit of good fellowship and straightforward honesty, asking that redress be given to us so that we may live. That is all. You see why I said a moment ago that the matter is exceedingly serious. ) It is positively appalling to the three prairie provinces to have anything said regarding a decrease in their relief appropriation. We are going to recover much more slowly than the other provinces, largely because of the terrible drain that is upon us. But to decrease the appropriation for relief for Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan in proportion to the decrease for Ontario and Quebec, judging from the figures I have brought forward, is to visit upon the three prairie provinces the most shameful discrimination. There should be a greater relief apportionment for those three provinces because of the additional burden that they have to carry. I submit that in all earnestness, and with a desire to cooperate, not in any spirit of criticism or complaining or fault-finding, because that is not the attitude which we in Alberta or we western people take. We come of sires who were pioneers, and pioneers do not come around seeking hand-outs. All we want is something like a decent chance to carry on, and we will carry on.
Now the question may be raised, and I fancy I hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) saying to himself: Yes, but where is the money coming from? Now, I have nothing but the deepest sympathy for any administration which is in power in this country. They face a trying task, one which requires the best judgment that the whole people of Canada can bring to bear upon the situation. There are more reasons than one why that is the case. It may be very difficult under the present structure to see how the money is to be found. I am going to make a suggestion which I know will be received with scorn in many places, but I am going to keep on making this suggestion over and over again, and I say to hon. members:	If I can quote to you great
authorities on. economics, men who should know what they are talking about, and can show that these men favour the ideas which
I bring before this house, then I submit that you would be unwise if you did not give close attention to these ideas.
I am going to suggest that the Dominion of Canada has the authority, according to the British North America Act, to create new money. There are many people who will at once say:	Oh, that will cause inflation.
Now it may be that it will not cause inflation. It is certain that the money can be got in that way, without either taxation or borrowing, and if it is possible so to get money and so to help us to solve our problems, then it is the bounden duty of every hon. member to give that proposal the most careful consideration. In closing my remarks I should like to read to the house a statement from a book by Professor Irving Fisher, professor of economics at Yale university. This book was published in 1935. Its title is "100% Money." Now, I would say that, the considered opinions of a man like that, are worthy of the attention of any man in this house. This man contends that state money is sound money. On page 175 of his book I read these words:
A 100 per cent system using papeT money or credit of the currency commission would be just as effective as a 100 per cent system using gold, as well as less troublesome and clumsy; for, as stated, convertibility into bearer money is the sort of convertibility which is wanted in our modern world-not convertibility into gold ornaments.
It is not at all difficult to see the stand that man has taken, and any man who wishes to consider this matter with great, care and earnestness and honesty will find it greatly to his advantage to read "100% Money" carefully. It shows that I am not altogether crazy when I submit that state money is a feasible suggestion, which ought, to be considered.
At page 188 I find this:
The currency commission should be independent like the supreme court so that the purchasing power of our dollar may be kept stable despite banking operations.
There are many people who say: Oh, we will not put the money into the hands of politicians. Fisher shows the way around. that objection. He says: Just as you have the administration of justice in this land in the bands of men who are independent of politics, so you can put your money affairs into the hands of a group of men who are independent of politics and are held responsible for the efficiency and honesty with which they administer the monetary concerns of the nation. I suggest, then, as a possible way out of the difficulty we have in the

77ie Address-Mr. Blackmore
matter of getting money, that we consider earnestly the question of issuing state money and defraying some of our expenses with that.	_
The matter must be handled with wisdom. Tor those people who say that such money will cause inflation let me use an illustration. When you are in a dry area the first and all important thing is to get water. Having plenty of water someone who does not know how to use it will pour too much water on the land, flood the land and kill the crops or wash them out. The skilled irrigator does not do that. He takes the water and uses it as it should be used, in a scientific manner. The reason we have such fear of inflation as soon as the government begins to deal with money is that we are afraid the government will not be wise in its use of this money when it gets it. Why should that be? If we can learn how to handle everything else scientifically, why can we not learn how to handle our money scientifically? There is no reason at all why inflation should result any more than water flowing down an irrigation ditch should cause a flood.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to take up any more of the time of the house to-night. I have outlined in a measure the seriousness of the relief situation, and I very much fear that we are not going to find a solution of this problem until we learn some way or another of financing consumption, of getting money and distributing it among those who are unable to get jobs. I hope we may be able to put all men at work; I rather fancy that if we manage things just right we may be able to do so, but certainly we are not likely to bring about that result by the means we are using at the present time. We may increase our trade as much as we like, but if many men cannot get jobs we are not helping them very much.
Having considered the seriousness of the relief question and having offered what we are ready to present as a solution, I commend this proposal to the serious consideration of this house.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the others who have spoken in complimenting the mover (Mr. McLarty) and the seconder (Mr. Veniot) of the address. I regret, however, that the seconder, in his maiden speech, took occasion to criticise-unfairly, I think- those unfortunate people who are unemployed and on relief. If the conditions which he alleges exist among them actually do exist, then let us face the fact squarely that after six or seven years of unemployment a man

who has reached the age of forty-five or fifty has become unfitted to work again. If the abuses to which the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) referred this afternoon do exist, then I am going to submit on behalf of those people that we must accept some responsibility for that condition. However, undoubtedly we shall have other opportunities to discuss the problem of unemployment, and we can go into this question at that time.
For a moment I should like to turn to the speech from the throne itself. I must say that I do not see in the legislative programme foreshadowed by the speech very much which offers hope to the Canadian people. I am glad, however, that the government is going to bring down for the consideration of this house suggestions in relation to the capital structure of the Canadian National Railways. Whatever the outcome, I think that discussion will serve a very good purpose. I am also glad to note that pensions for the blind at a lower age than seventy years are to be introduced. Of course I do not know at what age those pensions will commence, but for my part I should like to see them graduated at least according to physical disability, right from the earliest age until death. I believe that the blind child should be given more assistance bv the state than ordinarily can be given through our regular educational channels; indeed I think some consideration should be given to both the sustenance and the education of the blind child.
Much satisfaction has been expressed already, and I have no doubt more satisfaction will be expressed in the course of the next day or so, by speakers on the government side of the house in regard to the improvement in the economic situation in the Dominion of Canada. There are those, of course, who attribute this improvement to a change of government, when I believe deeper thought would show them that such is hardly the case. No doubt the trade agreement with the United States of America and commerical agreements with other nations have been steps in the right direction, since they make for greater freedom of exchange as between nations. Unfortunately, however, increases in Canada's commercial returns are symptomatic rather of international disease than of international health.
There are two main factors which have contributed to the so-called improved condition. First, there was the impetus given to war preparedness by increasing unfriendliness between the nations of the world and the terrible civil war in Spain. In the second place, as far as we in Canada are concerned,

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
there has been the influence of the short crops of cereals over wide areas of the earth, creating a demand for wheat, which became a commodity asset of tremendous importance in Canada's economic structure. Almost overnight, one might say, our accumulated carryover, of which we heard so much during the last session of parliament, became an asset of vital importance to the world instead of the depressing factor which a more or less crazy economic system made it in the years when it was being accumulated.
The tragedy of the situation at the present time is this, that neither the farmers who produced the wheat nor the Canadian people who carried it through the depths of the agricultural depression have received the maximum benefit to which they were properly entitled. For this, obscured though it be at the moment by rising prices, the selling policy of the present government is in no small measure responsible. Defence of that policy is being made throughout the country and is based upon the assertion that neither the government nor the wheat board could have foreseen the shortage created by the north American drought, and that it was essential to get rid of the accumulated surplus.
When parliament prorogued late in June it was becoming evident that drought was in the making. I motored back to western Canada, and when I passed through North Dakota I saw the crop burning almost hour by hour. When I got back into my own province and my own constituency, in those first days of July, I saw a crop with splendid promise withering visibly before my eyes; yet in that month of July, when it was perfectly evident that, owing to the condition which was developing throughout the whole of the north American wheat belt, wheat must go higher and become an asset of tremendous value, the Canadian Wheat Board sold a record amount of wheat. The amount sold during the month of July, according to the bureau of statistics, reached the enormous figure of 62,302,891 bushels. These sales, might I add, cannot be said to have been made to ultimate consumers. I believe-and my guess in this connection is just as good as that of anybody else

that a great deal of the wheat passed into the hands of various speculative interests, and while we are told that this removed the depressing carryover, it did not in reality remove that carryover .at all. All it did was to change the ownership of the wheat that was carried over; that was .all. Therefore, in view of the situation in North America and the world grain position, [DOT]the setting of the minimum price at 87J cents
a bushel on August 27, with the proviso that the board's operations in relation to the 1936 crop would not begin unless and until the price of wheat fell to 90 cents for No. 1 northern at Fort William, was a distinct disappointment to all our western producers, and I say that knowing that many of the farmers who supported the government which to-day occupies the seats of power in this dominion were just as much disappointed, if not more so, than those who voted against the government.
Subsequent events have shown that the organized farmers of Saskatchewan, in asking for a price of $1.15 a bushel, were not unreasonable. The government and the wheat board together, in my opinion, again deprived the western growers and the people of Canada from reaping the benefit both of the carryover and the world situation. This meant serious losses not only to the farmers but to all those who are dependent on the farmers-the country storekeeper, the doctor, the implement agent, the school teacher, all those whose livelihood depends upon the ability of the farmer to meet his obligations.
Let me remind this house-and I have said this before-that one of the difficulties in western Canada, and indeed perhaps in no small measure the cause of the fundamental economic situation there, is that the farmer, year in and year out, has never received the cost of production of this principal product, wheat. Our university in Saskatchewan states that the average cost over a period of years of producing a bushel of wheat on all types of land in the province is between $1.03 and $1.04 a bushel. If we bear that in mind, it can be readily understood why there was such universal disappointment when the price was set at 87^ cents. This, too, was done on August 27. Now this year we had an unusually early harvest, and a great deal of the crop had already been delivered to the elevators and was in the bins and sold by August 27. Yet, in spite of that, the wheat pools and the western growers endeavoured unsuccessfully to get the government to reconsider its decision.
When at that time the pools asked the government to set the minimum price at one dollar a bushel I do not think they were at all excessive in their requests. By the government's decision providing that delivery would not be taken by the board unless the price of wheat fell to 90 cents, the wheat board was practically eliminated so far as the 1936 crop went, and the western grower was placed very much at the mercy of those great speculative interests which we believe operate in all the

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
grain markets of the world. I submit that existing conditions, in a world of realities, a world of quotas and tariffs and subsidies, demand that we should give our growers protection for their principal commodity, and this is the opinion not only of people who are opposed to the government but of its supporters also.
On April 1 of last year, for example, the Saskatchewan legislature, which is overwhelmingly controlled by friends of hon. gentlemen opposite, adopted a resolution unanimously requesting the continuance of the wheat board and the setting of a minimum price based upon the cost of production. True, a great western paper which is also closely allied with hon. gentlemen opposite stated on August 31 last that no one so far as could be learned was prepared to explain successfully why the cost of production should be the basis of the government fixed price. But surely the serious plight of the western farmer is an ample and sensible explanation of that request. For years he has been disposing of his product at less than the cost of production. If his cost of production is one dollar a bushel and he sella his wheat for 60 cents a bushel, then he has a deficit of 40 cents a bushel, and that deficit must be made up somehow, somewhere, some time. If he has other resources, the deficit is made up from those resources. If he has no other resources, then the deficit is made up by a lower standard of living, by working excessively long hours or from the labour of his wife and family, or from his hired help; finally it is made up out of the equity that he has established in his land, his implements and other resources, and so eventually he passes out. In other words, the deficit represents the exploitation of the producing group by the balance of society. Of course, this sort of policy is a very short-sighted one because the farmer is a part of a great economic machine upon which the manufacturer, the storekeeper, the railroader, the implement company, the banks, the artisans and the labourers all finally depend. Unless all parts of this machine operate smoothly there is disequilibrium in society, a disequilibrium that must lead eventually to social upheaval and to revolution if it is not corrected. Surely that is an entirely sensible reason why at least the cost of production should be the basis of setting a minimum price not only for wheat but for other primary commodities.
If other reasons were needed, all one has to do is to turn to the price spreads investigation or to the recent probe into the textile industry, where the prices have been set, not

directly of course, but indirectly, by tariff protection, for which the farmer and the rest of society must pay. Remove this protection; take over and control these monopolies if you will, and then, perhaps, the costs of production on our farms will drop and standards of living will rise. As long as you compel the farmer to buy in a protected or monopolistic market, you must not be surprised if he in return makes modest demands for protected prices for his products.
To what extent western producers have been exploited by protective tariffs under successive governments, Liberal, Conservative and Union, was shown clearly by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) in the figures which have been referred to already and which he presented several years ago before the maritimes commission. May I just repeat some of these figures? He gave the effect of protection for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1931, as an exaction from the three prairie provinces of nearly $56,000,000. The figure for Manitoba was $9,274,000; for Saskatchewan, $25,952,000, and for Alberta, $19,658,000. These were the exactions due to protective tariffs. The cost of the stabilization activities of the late wheat board and the annual cost of relief in the drought areas are a mere bagatelle in comparison.
I would point out to my hon. friends from eastern industrial centres, both Liberal and Conservative, that an elementary sense of justice demands the granting to our farmers of an adequate price for their products. This is surely a sensible reason why -the costs of production should be the basis of fixed prices. Of course, I am not forgetful of the fact that all that has just been said could apply with equal force to other primary commodities. It is sometimes said that we from western Canada are constantly bringing before this house the grievances of the prairie provinces. We are quite aware that the conditions which prevail on the prairies can be duplicated in other parts of Canada. During the recess some of us were able to visit other parts of Canada and we know there is similar distress and there are similar problems among the fruit growers of British Columbia, the farmers and market gardeners of Ontario, the dairymen of Quebec, the fisher folk of the Gaspe peninsula and the maritime coasts, and the workers in industry everywhere. All classes of the community suffer from the same economic conditions which exist to-day in Canada.
We have tremendous distress in the west among our children and our teachers. Perhaps I may be pardoned if I speak for a

The Address- Mr. Coldwell
moment on behalf of these teachers. For twenty-four years I taught in western Canada. I was president of the Canadian Teachers' Federation and I was its secretary for several years. I feel that it is not only a privilege to bring the problems of these people before the house, but more or less an obligation. I am emboldened to do this because of the fact that the teachers of Saskatchewan not very long ago presented a memorial to the government. This memorandum stated quite correctly that the education of its future citizens should be a matter of profound concern to the state. It argued also, again I think correctly, that an enlightened citizenship is the best safeguard of democracy. This memorandum shows how in wide areas of Saskatchewan grasshoppers, drought, soil erosion, frost and depressed conditions generally have made it impossible for local school districts to maintain their educational services as they ought to be maintained.
But for the self-sacrifice of literally hundreds of teachers, schools would have been closed long ago. Their salaries have been reduced again and again. The average reduction in the salaries of rural school teachers in Saskatchewan amounts to sixty per cent. These teachers are receiving only forty per cent of their former schedule. In that province 4,853 teachers signed contracts last year for less than $500 per year. Of that number, 2,419 signed contracts for $400 or less per year. Only a portion of these pitifully small salaries were paid. At the end of 1935, the last record available, the arrears of salaries to the rural teachers of Saskatchewan amounted to over $1,000,000. There are cases of teachers receiving as little as $25 for a term's work. The average net wage in the drought area of Saskatchewan was $10 per month.
Canadian citizens were shocked at the revelations in connection with wages paid by, and working conditions in, certain industries as brought out by the mass buying probe. How much more would Canadian citizens be shocked to realize that persons engaged in a great pulblic service in Saskatchewan are suffering from conditions even worse than those found to exist in certain industries? We heard condemnation this afternoon of those who have allowed these conditions to exist in industry, and yet we have here a great public service where two-thirds of those engaged in it are living below a standard which would not be tolerated even in many of the depressed areas of the world. I have authenticated data showing that teachers have been unable to purchase clothes and that some have been living in cabooses or school basements. The case of a married man with a family was checked up and given to me; I have the name of this man. He has been receiving $20 per month; his groceries, rent and milk cost him $19.50 per month. Not many groceries could be purchased out of that amount. He has fifty cents per month with which to buy clothing and fuel and to pay for health services and so on. There are cases of teachers who are receiving less than $100 for a whole year. Is it any wonder that teachers have been forced to apply for relief while still actively engaged in their work?
This parliament cannot escape all responsibility. I am informed that the interest on the school lands fund, which forms a portion of the revenue of that province, was recently reduced from five per cent to four per cent, thereby reducing the amount available for education. The whole system of organizing and financing education in small semiautonomous and self-supporting units is inadequate and out of date. The time has come to realize that in the interests of democracy and of progress education must be recognized more largely as a matter of fundamental national concern. But apart entirely from these considerations I believe that tb/fc Canadian people would wish this parliament to take steps to ensure that the children in the drought-stricken area of the west shall receive an adequate education under such conditions as will guarantee health and opportunity. Let us remember that present conditions are not going to pass away overnight. One good crop at reasonably good prices will not meet the needs of education and of the agricultural industry to which I have referred. That is why I have been so insistent ever since I have been here that intelligent plans for the rehabilitation of agriculture should form a major task of this house.
Apart from drought problems, to which, I am glad to see, the government is giving some attention, the question of future production and future marketing loom large in the farmer's mind. I know there is a disposition to view with satisfaction the recent rise in wheat prices and there let the matter rest. But in that way future disaster lies. Apart from the fact that under the very best conditions, over a long period, the farmers, the local business men and the public bodies dependent upon both of them cannot liquidate their present debts, there is the question of permanent and remunerative markets to consider. What are the prospects, not in the immediate future, but in the course of the next five or ten years? Has this government any long range policy to place before this

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
parliament? That is a question which should be answered in the affirmative and the policy placed clearly before the house and the country. It is all very well to say that European peoples will compel their governments to lower their tariffs to a point where Canadian, Australian and Argentine farmers will be permitted to market their wheat at adequate prices. There is no real evidence that European governments are going to take steps which would further impoverish their peasant populations. Fear of agrarian uprising to supplement industrial discontent leading to revolution precludes such a possibility. True, during the present crop year certain European nations have imported more than for several years, but only to the extent to which threats of war and short crops impel them to do So. Nor must we forget that in their impoverished condition, aggravated as it has been by the need of raw material, they must restrict their foreign purchases to the extent of their exports.
Like other industrialized and over-capitalized nations, we want to export but to restrict our imports in the interest of a highly protected industrialism. Temporary relief we are enjoying, but it is temporary, and the higher prices in which we are rejoicing are liable to lead us into a new wheat crisis rather than out of a wheat crisis. Higher prices [DOT] will tempt unorganized individual farmers to sow more wheat because they fail to realize that in the exporting countries we have a potential grain producing plant far in excess of the world's present effective consumptive possibilities. The terrible drought of 1936, following as it did several years of other droughts of more or less intensity, obscures this defect in our agricultural position. Canada as a great producer of exportable grain must face the implications of increased productivity of European countries. Who has not noted that in Great Britain they are already considering ways and means of increasing their production of wheat during the coming year? Add to that increased European productivity a declining European birthrate and what is the outlook?
We are told sometimes, of course, that a rising standard of living will solve these problems. But we find this, that up to a certain level large quantities of wheat are consumed; when the standard of living rises above that level the consumption of wheat grows less. More meat is used; more vegetables, more salads, more fruits, more of foods other than basic cereals are used. A few years ago-very recently too-we were told that Japan was a great potential market for 
Canadian grain. Japan is now developing the plains of Manchukuo; and moreover, 'he coming of the soya bean has provided a new food for the eastern peoples. Even in our own country, this great wheat producing land, you can pick up advertisements of bread made with flour derived from the soya bean. Nor must we rely upon the progress of civilization in Asia. Over northern Asia stretches a great nation with vast plains and a highly mechanized agricultural industry; and if new demands come from Asia, Asia in a few years will be able to supply those demands.
Hence the position of Canadian agriculture is a question not wholly of markets, of what we would like, of what we would think, of wider and freer markets-much as I would like to see them in the immediate future- but of intelligent planning to meet the condition which is coming, I believe, after this brief period of higher prices, because the drought condition and consequent grain scarcity will not last forever; we may be quite sure of that.
I know that in saying some of these things I have been running counter to some opinions held by hon. gentlemen opposite. But while I wish to see intelligent, immediate, and quick progress, I do not want to see this country drift towards economic chaos and social upheaval. I want quick progress, but I believe in evolution rather than revolution, and another agricultural crisis, accompanied by the inevitable industrial crisis, would produce a chaotic condition from which we might emerge as some European countries emerged from their crises, with democratic institutions gone, and standards of life greatly lowered. Another crisis such as we have witnessed since 1929 would, I submit, shake our institutions to their foundations and perchance destroy our democracy, at least temporarily. It seems to me that now, when conditions are said to be on the upgrade, we should make preparations to meet the inevitable reaction. That is the opportunity lying before this present parliament of Canada. I wonder if we are going to seize it while there is yet time.
I close with the thought with which I began, that although it may be contended that there has lately been almost phenomenal improvement in certain Canadian industries-and if war comes, those industries may prosper still more-yet, after such a war, we shall suffer more intensely because of the increased production encouraged by war activity. On the other hand war may not come-and I hope that the nations of the world will get together and agree to keep peace and to

The Address-Mr. Fair
disarm-so that the putting into effect of a disarmament program would close many of the markets that we now have. For in relying on potential war industries and prices we are leaning on a broken reed; and as I see it this parliament should lay plans so that we may discover and remove the cause of unemployment, and deal intelligently with agriculture, in order that we may be in a position not only to rehabilitate our farmers in the drought and distressed areas, but to relieve them of their tremendous obligations and burdens of debt, and assist them generally in the days that are to come.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Complying with the suggestion made this afternoon to cut short this session and get through in time for coronation, I do not intend to take up very much of the time of the house on this occasion. I do, however, want bo make a few remarks and at a later date I shall return to the subjects which I am going to touch on at this time.
Since the opening of parliament I have read over the speech from the throne three or four or five times and have been unable so far to get very much out of it. I was glad to learn that trade agreements are being made, but I would suggest that before we export very much of our products the wants of the Canadian people should first be taken care of. That is one of the jobs that we are here to look after.
Following up some of the resolutions brought before parliament at the session a year ago, we find that the government intends to bring down legislation to pay pensions to the blind at an age under seventy years. I am very glad to see that this measure is to be brought in because I believe it is long overdue. However, we believe that it is better late than never and we hope that this legislation will be brought down in the very near future. I also read that there is a marked increase in trade and commerce, accompanied by a noticeable improvement in the general economic situation. I do not know what-particular basic industries this applies to, but I do not believe it applies to agriculture. Perhaps it refers to industries that have fattened at the expense of the agriculturists of the country. I notice also that there has been a pronounced increase in the volume of farm products exported, and that it is the intention of the government to continue the vigorous promotion of the sale of agricultural products at home and abroad. I am not at all surprised at this; I think it very clearly verifies the statement of the head of the wheat
board that that board's job was to get rid of wheat. We must all agree that the board succeeded in getting rid of the grain, but we must also agree that this was done at a terrible cost to the taxpayers of Canada, and particularly those who produced that grain.
Believing that the first duty of a government is to see to the prosperity and happiness of its people, I am now bound to take advantage of this first possible opportunity to condemn the action of the government in getting rid of our wheat board. This legislation was brought down in 1935. Resolutions from several organizations throughout the country have been presented to the government, petitions have been signed by thousands of growers in the west, many boards of trade and several other organizations to keep that marketing board in operation. But we find that the intelligence of the people of Canada has been slammed by this action of the government in disposing of that board. I do not agree that the price of 87i cents set by that board was sufficient, but that was better than nothing, because those who delivered, grain to the wheat board were given certificates by which they collected any profit that was gained at a later date. Now, in spite of these resolutions and petitions to which I have referred, the government has seen fit to drain these profits away from the producers and to throw them into the laps of the gamblers on the Winnipeg grain exchange. I do not think this is good business, and if the matter had been handled by a board of efficient men working in the interests of the producers, who are certainly entitled to have something to say about the sale -of their grain, and working also in the interests of Canada as a whole, I believe that instead of a deficit of something like $11,800,000 there would have been a large sum of money to distribute to the producers who delivered that wheat to the board. Instead of that we have perhaps thirty cents a bushel clear profit turned over to somebody who did not turn a hand in the production of that grain. In my opinion that is not good business, because I believe that the farmers and other people in the west have been sufficiently gypped in the past in connection with wheat. I am referring now to the settlement of the 1930 wheat pool payment. In that case we were gypped 4-2 cents a bushel on the average price of grain in 1930, and I believe that we were gypped as high as fifty per cent of the amount we received from these wheat pool payments, in the amount of interest we paid on debts which should have been paid with the money that was tied up in this wheat and held by both our governments. Five years
The Address-Mr. Fair

after we were entitled to our payment we got it, and, as I said before, at least fifty per cent of that amount was consumed in interest.
Figures have been put out by the dominion government showing that in 1932 the average cost of growing wheat was 95 cents a bushel. That 95 cents does not include approximately 19 cents for freight and handling charges, which would mean a gross payment of $1.14 at Fort William. That, I believe, is based upon an average of approximately sixteen bushels per acre. This year, instead of getting sixteen bushels per acre, there are thousands of farmers who did not get two bushels per acre, and in a good many cases we find that thousands of acres have been left without a binder being brought in. So when the government tells us that we are making profits on this year's grain and that our basic industry is improving, it is a statement that needs to be revised.
I listened last session to one member of the medical profession who sat to my right; this afternoon I listened to another who sat opposite. If his talk had not been so far from the truth I think I might have enjoyed it. I have to take very strong exception to the statement of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) in regard to those on relief and unemployed. The hon. member said this afternoon that if our governing bodies expect to pull out of this morass of unemployment, our only hope lies in getting people back to work-consciousness, compelling them to give some personal return for the assistance they receive, by cutting out this panhandling, this racketeering, this subsidizing of idleness, this sponging on the public treasury on which so many persons have existed dishonestly for the last five or six years. As a representative of the down and out people as well as a few of the other class I take very strong exception to those words "dishonestly for the last five or six years." If that had been directed somewhere else I might not have objected, but in connection with those poor down and out people on the relief roll I must stand up and have that statement withdrawn. If it is proven, then let us get busy and correct it. It is up to someone to remedy that condition. Ninety per cent of those on relief to whom I have talked would work and make a good job of it if only they were given something to do and some remuneration for that work.
We are told that the government is doing quite a lot by putting men on the farms. They are sending men out on the farms at $5 a month. I think it is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians to have in operation a system that will send anybody out at a wage

of $5 a month. If our present system is not capable of giving people a decent living then it is time to change that system, and if those in office cannot tell how to change it they should get out and let others in who will at least see that our people get enough to eat, enough to wear and a decent house to live in.


Mr. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is the desire of the house to take a vote this evening, and I do not intend to delay the vote. I should, however, like to make a few brief remarks relative to the speech from the throne, and I assure the house that if they will bear with me I shall try to be very brief.
Since the last session of this parliament many events of marked importance have taken place both in Canada and abroad. Those outside Canada have been the cause of much concern to us and have made us wonder whether another great conflict was not in course of preparation. In Europe the political atmosphere is clouded with uncertainty. Recent events in Spain, the verbal dual between Germany and Russia, the ever-increasing exigencies of dictatorship countries, have rendered the situation perplexing and embarrassing, and the consequences at the present time are very grave. The clash, should it come, seems likely to be one between classes, infinitely more serious than that between nations. In the international realm this country has moved with great caution. The attitude adopted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) at Geneva, should, I believe, commend itself to the vast majority of the citizens of this country. The action of the several cabinet ministers in seeking to open up trade channels with the great countries of Europe has received nation-wide recognition. The idea of getting away from economic isolation has done much not only in preparing the way for peace but also in preparing the way for recovery toward which we are rapidly progressing.
Internally Canada's position, while still a serious one, and while still faced with major issues, indicates that we are fast emerging from the depression. We cannot but breathe a sigh of relief in scanning the figures of our export trade. With reference to this it is only fair to say that in the relatively short time this government has been in office it has guided the destiny of the nation safely and well. That it may continue to do sc, and may pilot the ship of state safely into port, is the hope of all those who have at heart the interests of their country.
There has been marked recovery in agriculture. The cheese industry particularly has been active. Never since 1930 have cheese

The Address-Mr. Chewier
prices reached the level which they did in 1936, the average yearly price per pound for that year being approximately 13 cents; the exact figure was 12-76. The value of cheese exports for 1936 exceeded the figure for 1935 by over $4,000,000. It is remarkable to note that the greater part of this increase in exports went to the United Kingdom, and the remainder to the United States of America. It is also interesting to note that there was exported to the United States in 1935 only $77,289 worth of cheese, whereas in 1936 there went to that country one and a half million dollars worth. It is also important to note that the total production of cheese in Canada during the twelve months just ended increased by 17-8 per cent. This is only one branch of agriculture, and it is worthy of note that this has been achieved without the intervention of the bonus. The farmer, as hon. members know, has had very difficult times in the recent past and we should be generous to him, because in times of difficulty, in times of economic strain, it is toward the farmer that we look very often for assistance. Therefore, when recovery and its forces are in the offing we should be generous with him.
The expansion in our export trade has been striking, as has been pointed out by one of the speakers this afternoon. The total exports for last year amounted to over $928,000,000. which is an increase of 22-6 per cent over 1935. For the twelve months' period, when the figures are known, they will doubtless be well over the billion dollar mark. The total favourable trade balance for the eleven months amounted to over $346,000,000, and while this is not a record it has been exceeded on only two previous occasions. The trade treaty with the United States is responsible in no small measure for the substantial increase in our export trade.
The national housing policy recommended by the employment commission and adopted by the government has already done much in reducing the number of unemployed. We can look to the future with confidence.
The county of Stormont, which I have the honour of representing in this house, apart from being the most beautiful in this dominion, is typical of the country in which we live. It is partly industrial and partly agricultural. Ethnically it is not unlike many of the great constituencies of this country, because in Stormont there live side by side descendants of the two great civilizations, the English and the French, which have contributed so much toward the development of this country. And
what is more, these people live in perfect harmony. Of this there could be no greater proof than that the constituency, although in the majority English speaking, has seen fit to send to this house as its representative a citizen of French origin. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the English speaking element of my constituency would wish me at this juncture to address myself to the house in the French language.
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, I simply wish respectfully to salute in my mother tongue, which is also yours, the French-Canadian element- of my constituency. This element is composed mostly of workingmen and farmers, and in thinking of them I am reminded of the words of Longfellow in his immortal Evangeline:
Men whose lives glided on like rivers that water the woodland; darkened by shadows of earth but reflecting an image of Heaven.
Today the working masses are suffering; in nearly every country in the world they are the victims of individualism with its doctrine, its utilitarianism and its unrestricted competition which has degenerated in economic dictatorship, and the people are ready to believe that the only remedy to their evils lies in a complete overthrow of the social order. It is necessary to prove to those who suffer an-dj are embittered against society that the remedy does not reside in the destruction of the existing order, but in its reform, for otherwise it will be impossible effectively to defend society against the assault of revolutionary forces.
If, Mr. Speaker, the forces of recovery are in the ascendant in some phases of the nation's activities, there is one phase in which those forces seem to be entirely lacking. That is in the relationship between capital and labour. The underlying causes of the depression are numerous. There is one, however, which stands out among all the rest, and that is the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. There is another outstanding cause, if I may so say; that is, the abnormal relationship which presently obtains between capital and labour. There may be signs of recovery in the offing, but recovery in the true sense must benefit all classes of society, the poor as well as the rich, the feeble as well as the strong, the farmer and the wage earner as well as the high salaried director. In order to have stability in recovery there must be a more equitable distribution of wealth.
With the permission of the house, sir, as briefly as possible I should like to outline what I believe to be the true relationship which should exist between capital and labour and

The Address-Mr. Chewier
which should bring to the working classes of this country a fairer share of the comforts of life to which they are justly entitled. Capital is the money, plant and machinery of the manufacturer, called the capitalist or employer, while labour is the work done or services rendered by the employee for the employer. Both of these great agencies are essential factors in the community, and neither can do much without the other. Both together produce what society needs. Then there is another all important factor, sir, and that is the community itself. Among these three great factors there should exist the closest cooperation and harmony. To some extent, perhaps, there should be a degree of partnership, and the three should work together for the common good.
Unfortunately, however, such is not the case. When industries establish themselves in a community many advantages are held out to them. They are given fixed assessments over a period of years, cheap water power and very often transportation facilities. In return for these advantages industries agree to erect certain plant and machinery and to employ large numbers of men. On their part there is also an implied obligation to employ these men under fair working conditions and to pay them just and equitable wages. There is also an obligation to employ them in such a manner that their health will not be injuriously affected. Many industries, however, have little or no regard for implied obligations. Some of them pay much more attention to their machinery than they do to the men who operate it. The result is that in some communities, instead of having the harmony and cooperation which should exist between the forces of capital and labour, there is a cleavage, and we have two groups each opposing the other, to the great detriment of the community.
The relationship of capital and labour is brought about by means of the contract of labour. The contraot of labour is the leasing or hiring not of a material thing but of the services of an individual, that is, of a human being, and it is impossible to separate the individual from his work. The contract of labour embodies two obligations: first, that of paying for the services rendered according to their value and, second, that of making use of the object leased or hired according to its nature. The contract of labour might be likened to the leasehold of premises. In the leasehold of premises the tenant takes upon himself the obligation not only of paying rent but also of making use of the premises during the currency of the term in a fair and reasonable manner, and of giving up the premises

at the end of the term in the same condition as they were at the beginning, reasonable wear and tear excepted. So in the contract of labour the employer agrees not only to pay a fair and reasonable wage to the employee but abo not to abuse his services, so that when he has completed his work his health will not have been injuriously affected.
Unfortunately, sir, in many instances these obligations on the part of the industries are not respected. In numerous cases men and women are paid wages which are not only unfair and unjust but which are a disgrace to those who pay them. Furthermore, oftentimes men and women are made to work under conditions which are not only injurious to their health but, on account of the speed up and stretch out systems, tax their physical capacity to such an extent that their nervous system thereby becomes affected, and sooner or later they must give up their work and seek employment elsewhere. The reason for this unfair advantage being taken of the working classes is that in our day the manufacturer has become so powerful that he can dictate his terms and conditions to the labourer, who must accept them or very often do without work. Such a condition should not be allowed to exist, and in my humble opinion there should be state intervention.
I should like to go a step further and outline what I understand by a fair and reasonable wage. The general rule, sir, is that the employer should give the employee a wage or salary according to the value of his work, and in order to determine the value of a man's work it is necessary to consider its nature. Why does man work? Is it simply to chase away the blues, to form his character or to develop his muscular strength? To some extent, yes, but it is chiefly and mainly to earn a living. That is the reason man works; that is the object and end of man's work. Employer and employee may, if they so desire, bargain for a fixed wage, but over and above their bargain there stands the law of natural justice, more ancient and more sacred than all other laws, which stipulates that the wage paid by the employer to the employee should be a reasonable wage that will allow the employee to live respectably. This means that the wage should be sufficient to allow him to support and maintatin his family, pay his rent take an honest recreation from time to time and allow him to put something to one side for the day of sickness and difficulties. It is a known fact that wages in some industries are such that it is impossible for a man to maintain his family let alone pay rent and enjoy some of the ordinary comforts of life to which he is justly entitled.

The Address-Mr. Chevrier
During the depression, Mr. Speaker, many corporations pay and are still paying enormous salaries to their directors and hand out huge dividends to their shareholders, but they fail and are still failing to pay to their employees a just and equitable wage. I said a moment ago that I thought there should be state intervention, but I believe that first of all the problem is one which should be settled by the manufacturers because they are primarily responsible. It is they who have created the problem, and they should help to solve it. If they were to give to the solution of this problem but a fraction of the time they devote to their own affairs I believe they could solve it. Unfortunately, however, they seem to be concerned only in what will help them to advance their own interests, and when the state is asked to intervene, and says that it will intervene, the manufacturers object strenuously on the ground that there must be free and open competition, and on the further ground that wages must be fixed according to the law of supply and demand. They maintain the right to give the employee the wage which they can get him to accept. On the other hand they maintain the right to form huge monopolies, such as those of coal, gasoline, milk, meats, bread and other commodities, and when once these are established they sell to the consumer at the highest possible prices. They want the right to amass huge fortunes and still pay ridiculously low wages. If the employees threaten to organize, the manufacturers object, and yet they belong to the strongest price organizations of the world.
The time has come, to my mind, when there should be state intervention. There should be legislation governing the hours of work in each day and the days of work in each week. There should be minimum wage laws for men. There should be legislation governing the conditions under which men and women have to work. True, these are all matters outside the jurisdiction of this house unless, of course, the privy council should otherwise decree, but this house holds in its hand a powerful weapon with which it might strike, and that is the tariff. Many industries are in need of a protective tariff. There are some which could not carry on without it. I believe that every legitimate industry should be protected, but upon the distinct understanding that it will pass on to its employees in the way of better wages and better working conditions the benefits of this tariff so ardently sought.
At the turn of the century, Mr. Speaker, economic conditions in industry had a tendency in practically every nation to divide society into two groups; on the one hand,
a minority of rich people holding power and wealth in their hands and enjoying all the benefits which modem invention could offer; on the other hand, a vast majority of working people enduring great hardships and attempting to extricate themselves from this condition as best they could. By the minority this condition was accepted as the result of the economic laws and as a condition which had always existed to a certain degree. The majority, however, refused to submit themselves to this condition, which was intolerable, and many of them thought that the only solution lay in a complete downfall of the social order.
As I sat in this house during the last session, Mr. Speaker, I heard reechoed on many occasions in this chamber the words, "democracy is on trial." There is no greater truism than that statement. But sometimes I wonder what is being done to save democracy. It is being attacked on all sides. It has committed many errors. It has been guilty of many crimes, and it is badly in need of reform. Many theories have been advanced to supplant it, and among them are communism and fascism, but these are remedies worse than the evil. Both are incompatible with the traditions and institutions of this country, and if those theories were to prevail there can be no doubt that complete ohaos would follow in this country.
The solution, in my humble opinion, lies in reform and in a return to those two virtues of justice and charity, virtues as old as the day is long but which with the dawn of a new era see-m to have been relegated to the past. If those institutions which hold in their hands power and wealth were to abandon 'their ideas of individualism and egotism and to mete out more in the way of justice and more in the way of charity, I believe that equilibrium in society would soon be restored. I believe, too, that the forces of capital and labour would take in society the positions they were meant to take, that of cooperating one with the other, of a harmonious relationship, of working together for the common good of all.
There is one other class in society which, I believe, deserves the condemnation of this house, and that is the group of agitators who have been at work within recent months with the object of creating excitement among the working classes, and with the object of confusing the working people for their own subversive ends. To use the words of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) in his New Year's eve message to Canada, "I believe that an intelligent public opinion will sooner or later condemn these agitators."
Main Estimates

It must be a source of gratification to this government, Mr. Speaker, to know that the forces of recovery are again in the ascendant. But this time let us have recovery in the true sense of the word; let us have recovery which will benefit all classes of society, from the most humble citizen of the realm to the most powerful. In that way those forces which seek the downfall of the social order will soon disappear, and we in Canada will march on toward higher and better things.
Motion (Mr. McLarty) agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the address be engrossed and transmitted to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of the house as are of the honourable the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That this house will, on Tuesday next, resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['The notice of motion was that Mr. Dunning would on Tuesday next move to set up the committee of ways and means and that he would move the house into supply. It is all right, but I just direct attention to it.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That this house will, on Tuesday next, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Charles Avery Dunning: That the message of His Excellency the Governor General, together with the estimates presented this day, be referred to the committee of supply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think there would be some question as to whether we can refer estimates to a committee which does not exist. This committee will not exist until to-morrow, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) is going to set it up.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think the same question was raised a year ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But in a different form


Charles Avery Dunning: If my recollection serves me well, it was decided then that once the house had determined to set up the com-

mittee, it was in fact in effect and the estimates could be referred to it. Authorities were quoted on that occasion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The notice of motion was that Mr. Dunning would on Tuesday next move to set up the committee of ways and means and that he would move the house into supply. It is all right, but I just direct attention to it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Tuesday, January 19, 1937